1
$\begingroup$

It is my understanding this is supposed to be a Question and Answer site, but a user who seems to want it to be a forum, so as they can't say "hey guys, look what I found" they persist in writing contrived questions to expose nuggets of information.

That they say "I try to write these carefully" is a clue that this behaviour is deliberate:

This question while apparently being asked about the star trackers, with a strangely$^1$ tacked on question about an equipment bay is actually asking about what isn't there. The answer to the direct question asked (They're star trackers, and they're not pointing in the same direction) isn't acceptable.

Instead this user is fishing for a discussion on the Fine Guidance Sensors - one of which has been removed from the bay in the photograph accompanying the question - which are a bit like a star tracker, but use the Hubble's primary optics. Interestingly, while two are needed for the high accuracy pointing, the third can be used as a science instrument.

This question while ostensibly asking about why you don't see your arm while taking a selfie, (while including a selfie of the arm in the question) appears to be fishing for information about other cameras on the platform, or the stitching of the images.

This question seems to have been created to discuss a youtube video, but was originally worded in terms of disbelieving vidicon signals were recorded to tape in space in the early 60s - the user later denied this was the intent, but had previously rolled-back my good-faith edit to his question on the grounds that showing the location of the recorders used for video undermined the question. (and this user is not averse to adding many pictures to his questions, I assume to make them visually interesting, because they're often barely relevant) Of course, the answer to that question is "they weren't" because while the signal from a vidicon tube was recorded on tape, it was nothing like what we call a video recording now (or even compared to contemporary video recorders)


1: because an experienced user knows it's just meant to be one question per question)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It would be nice if you two stopped quarreling. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Mar 22 at 23:32
2
$\begingroup$

You two are both active members of the site who operate with good intentions. Your philosophies and personalities may frequently clash, but it would be helpful if you gave each other the benefit of the doubt. Step back if you feel it's getting out of hand. Flag for mod attention.

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Working on the basis that Titles should give a reasonable expectation for what the question is about. It seems appropriate to either

  • downvote if "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful"
  • answer the question as apparently asked, (where I think the answer is blindingly obvious, I leave an answer as a comment$^1$, in the hope it either satisfies the user, or encourages them to refine their question in such a way that the intent of the question is more obvious.

Unfortunately this user reacts badly to this approach. I try to deflect their "anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude with "you do stack exchange your way, I'll do stack exchange my way" responses, but I do react to their needling at times.

On other sites I'd just block this user, but SE have, I think rightly, decided against this.


1: I suppose I should frame such comments in terms of "could you improve you questions so it doesn't seem to be trivially answered by 'blah'"

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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