-5
$\begingroup$

This question was recently posted. Within 8 minutes two users responded:

  • I found some resources for the OP and left a link, then edited the question to improve the grammar. I felt the question was easy to understand.
  • Someone else down voted and voted to close as unclear but left no helpful comment.

I'd like to ask:

  1. Which is more welcoming, my action or the other user's?
  2. Is the other user's choice of the silent, anonymous double-whammy, without any comment to the OP indicating the reasons or how to help more than just unwelcoming? Could that perhaps actually be discouraging to non-native English language users?

welcoming adj Behaving in a polite or friendly way to a guest or new arrival. ‘the cast and crew were very welcoming’, ‘a welcoming smile’

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Your response is obviously much more welcoming than anonymous down votes and close votes, so most sites on Stack Exchange try to encourage comments etc.

That said, SE's position on this is that anonymous votes will always be allowed. The benefits far outweigh the downsides. And downvotes without any comment can be taken to mean "this post is not useful" at the very least, as that is what the tooltip said.

So that isn't going to change.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I just stopped by to clean up my comments and add a clarification, but it looks like it's been done already. It occurs to me that "So it isn't going to change." applies to the "That said" part about how the SE site works, but not necessarily to the possibility that a community can develop amongst themselves a sense of best practice towards new users. The "it" isn't "the community." Sorry for reacting to something different than what it seems you meant. Making a small edit so as to be able to reverse my vote. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 19 at 4:10
4
$\begingroup$

This is the original revision of the post

Can it be rel to build a artificial magnetic

Can it be rel to build a artificial magnetic field around mars,my thought is using Current magnetic effect to make it,but I do not know how Numerical value it need?

The title was incomplete and thus misleading, the body didn't show any research effort, and the question was a bit disconnected: the downvote and the "unclear" vote were warranted.

You tried to salvage the question by completely rewriting the post, which is great, assuming you really understood the question (remember not to change the intent of OP's post while editing it, however wrong/misleading the post is).

But it's never someone else's job to do the need to fix OP's post (users are encouraged, but they are not obligatory).

So, answering your points:

  1. Which is more †welcoming, my action or the other user's?
  2. Is the other user's choice of the silent, anonymous double-whammy, without any comment to the OP indicating the reasons or how to help more than just unwelcoming? Could that perhaps actually be discouraging to non-native English language users?
  1. Your action seems more welcoming, but that doesn't mean the other user is unwelcoming.
  2. Downvoting and close-voting are for curation purpose and they are not personal. While it might be best if anyone should provide constructive comments, it's never mandatory (otherwise SE has enforced it since the beginning). Non-native English speakers (like me) are already in disadvantage because SE is an international site that enforces English as the main language, but that isn't really related to this case.
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reasoned thoughts. I think most active users remember most of the time that most downvoting and close-voting is not personal (there may be occasional exceptions and exceptional individuals) but for new users asking their first question it's pretty common to take some actions personally anyway, which is why I specified new user in my question. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 17 at 7:51
-3
$\begingroup$

No, it is only imho acceptable if the OP is clearly an unfixable crap poster.

The named question is a goodlooking, ontopic question and the voter clearly violated the new CoC.

The SE disallows only the unwelcoming communication. Unwelcoming votes are still allowed.

A possible reason of the voter was that he/she wants a site more close to the todays reality, i.e. he wants questions about the current gechnology and not from this far future. In this case, I think his position should be tolerable. Athough I disagree it on the reason, that popularizing space research & development is a key element of the today, to get once this far future.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you look at the original post I think that the voter's issue was more likely to have been with the quality of the writing in the post as much as anything else. Thinking that a down vote plus a vote to close then silently disappearing would help first-time posters improve is probably not realistic. I'm still thankful for the people who sometimes rewrote my earliest questions and showed me what the same question looked like in more SE-friendly format. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 17 at 2:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not really sure why you say the voter "clearly violated the new CoC". I can see that a silent downclosevote does not "[o]ffer support if you see someone struggling or otherwise in need of help", but neither does doing nothing to such a post. And the CoC cannot possibly be intended to require everyone who so much as glimpses any post to do their utmost to improve that post, with that requirement enforced by mod messages and suspensions. Not only is that absurdly demanding of volunteers, it's not even slightly enforceable. $\endgroup$ – Nathan Tuggy Feb 17 at 5:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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