I have over the years had many questions on Math Overflow and Latex and some on Christianity, and there have been few problems. Why is it that now on History, Philosophy and English Language & Usage I encounter a troupe of sergeants or whatever that are resolved to down vote my perfectly reasonable question and have it removed?

I know that the topics in Philosophy and History and in English Language & Usage may at times be less exact than Mathematics and Latex, and I have been a University Professor of Philosophy almost thirty years!

It is particularly annoying when some of these bounty hunters enter into discussions where I am misrepresented or they have wrong ideas about the topic.

Are some of these people driven by political bias, or are there personality issues?

closed as primarily opinion-based by πάντα ῥεῖ, Ward, Columbia says Reinstate Monica, Mathieu Guindon, kiamlaluno Nov 5 at 18:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 8
    How are we supposed to know the personal motivation of every close-voter that has ever voted to close a post of yours? What kind of input do you want from the community here? This post may be likely to be closed (ironically) unless you can clarify your question in a way that enables us to actually answer. – Rubiksmoose Nov 5 at 17:31
  • 8
    Perhaps they're just attempting to maintain their site's standards? It's usually a good idea to learn more about the site you're interacting with before deciding you know better than long term members. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 17:33
  • 3
    The closure here looks pretty reasonable, even without comments. It...might be better now, but that's up to the long term users there to judge, not me. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 17:35
  • 13
    Worth mentioning that you gain nothing from close voting a question. If it had I could have retired by now ... Voters are not bounty hunting in that sense. – rene Nov 5 at 17:43
  • 1
    As so many commented, my question should have been upvoted. Wasn't it relevant, perhaps? – Sapiens Nov 5 at 17:49
  • 4
    Nobody said your question should have been upvoted. That's a major misreading of the comments. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 17:51
  • 1
    @fbueckert You misread if you think I said that someone said that my question should be upvoted! To put it in your manner of speaking, you put forward a major misreading of my statement. – Sapiens Nov 5 at 17:53
  • 3
    @fbueckert I think what he meant was "Since so many people commented on this meta question, I would have expected it to receive some upvotes." Which I think it has, but they're vastly outweighed by the downvotes. – F1Krazy Nov 5 at 18:00
  • 2
    @F1Krazy That's the clarification that's required. And the misunderstanding. Participation != support. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 18:02
  • 4
    I can’t speak to the norms on the other sites, but on EL&U you’ve only asked 4 questions, half of which have a positive score, and only one of which has a negative score (and only -1 at that). Unless you have several questions which have been negatively received and then deleted, I can’t say your reception on EL&U looks particularly chilly. A couple of your Qs were marked as dupes, but so far as I can tell they were dupes and the answers on the linked questions answer your question. – Dan Bron Nov 5 at 18:07
  • 3
    @fbueckert I needed to say this: It is interesting that the misreading you had of my statement "As so many commented, my question should have been upvoted." reminds me of misrepresentations that I encountered on the Philosophy, History and English&Usage sites. One should be very cautious before accusing others of weak thinking. – Sapiens Nov 5 at 18:12
  • 13
    Well, considering I asked you to clarify, and you're insisting none is needed...I kinda think it makes my point for me. It wouldn't surprise me if that's why you're getting a chilly reception on other sites. After re-reading your comment, I can see your meaning, but the fact that it takes multiple readings is a prime reason why it needs clarification. Do, or don't, but people misreading is going to happen; you can only help yourself by clarifying. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 18:15
  • 2
    shrug Well, reinforce the point for me, I guess. Your choice. I'm done. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 18:18
  • 18
    Listen, you seem to be approaching this with the wrong attitude. When someone asks for clarification, it usually means your communication could be improved by clarifying things. At the very least, approaching feedback from the perspective that your writing is perfect and never needs correction is not an attitude that is really helpful when you are asking for feedback on why your questions were closed. – Rubiksmoose Nov 5 at 18:29
  • 14
    Regarding your assertion that "no clarification was needed", the original comment was a complete nonsequiter, and absolutely required clarification. You said " As so many commented, my question should have been upvoted". This makes no sense to anybody with more than a passing knowledge of how these sites work. Comments have nothing to do with up votes, lots of comments in no way suggests there should be lots of upvotes. – meagar Nov 5 at 18:54

Since you're a Professor of Philosophy, might I suggest that Stack Exchange sites are bound by a philosophy of their own?

Stack Exchange is based on a simple premise: make questions and answers useful by identifying everything that's wrong with Internet forums and systematically removing those elements from questions and answers. This philosophy doesn't take sides; it doesn't single people out, and it is not punitive in nature. Some of its conclusions seem counter-intuitive at first glance, just as some philosophical ideas are counter-intuitive to others.

Within that basic philosophy, there is some wiggle room: some sites are more tolerant than others of ambiguity, for example. Every site has identified categories of questions that have been found to be unworkable, and are therefore categorically off-topic. Shopping recommendations questions on Stack Overflow, for example.

The upshot? Every site has to be approached on its own terms. The way you find out what those terms are is by reading the Help Center of each site, especially the On Topic and How to Ask articles. Then you lurk for awhile to see which kinds of questions are well-received, and which ones are not.

Alas, many people choose to learn this the hard way, by experimenting. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you accept the inevitable fallout.

Finally, site scope does sometimes change over time. That can be frustrating, but it is what it is. As sites mature, they get better at identifying categories of questions that are known to be problematic.

  • 1
    Does me accepting your answer prevent it from being closed? – Sapiens Nov 5 at 17:46
  • 1
    No. The close system works independently of answer acceptance. – Robert Harvey Nov 5 at 17:47
  • 4
    There is nothing you can do to immunize a question to closure permanently; at best, bountying after two days can extend it. – fbueckert Nov 5 at 17:47
  • 1
    OK Never mind :) – Sapiens Nov 5 at 17:48

I had this in a comment, but I'm not keen on having this question magically disappear before you get the value out of this.

Here's how you fail to endear others to your cause or issue: unnecessary and unjustifiable labeling of others. To suggest that these people are "resolved" to downvote your question or that they may be motivated by bias of any flavor doesn't fly here.

You have a legitimate concern about people downvoting your questions; stick to that. You would be better served on the specific Meta sites that your question(s) are being downvoted on since those users would be in position to provide in-context guidance on what you can do to improve.

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