Hot answers tagged

6

A useful comparison might be drawn with stackoverflow. StackOverflow is about programming problems. People go there when they have questions about particular issues they're having with writing code, using particular libraries, understanding more unusual aspects VDEs and so on. If you go on there asking how you format headers in Microsoft Word, your ...


6

I'm sorely tempted to say the question is self-answering: I'm guessing that a ranted or rambling question can at least appear to be incoherent. In my mind, that's exactly how your question reads. The quote you provided does not seem to be particularly relevant so I don't really see how the question engages with a philosophical school of thought. As it ...


6

I really like to vote, especially after I thoroughly read an question or answer. Of course, this means that I will only vote when I have enough time to read thoroughly, and that I can only vote on answers for which I have at least some form of opinion, even if I lack real expertise. This naturally limits the amount of votes that I will give, and I think this ...


4

Thanks to Keelan doing the Data Explorer work for me I've been able to produce the graphs for the other aspect to this question that might be missed from the groupings selected. Below is a graph without selecting groups, it's just the three sites ahead of Philosophy.SE and the three behind it in terms of traffic. The graph shows the spread of votes as a ...


4

Let's leave aside the meta-ness of the simple tag. The other problem with it is that every question and every good answer to every question should be "simple" - it should not contain superfluous details. It should get to the point. It should use technical terms when necessary (and provide references to more obscure technical terms or references). The end ...


4

Firstly, these are mechanisms that are deeply embedded in the StackExchange platform, so there is no way for us to handle it differently just for one site. This leads us to Meta.StackExchange - and we can see that this idea has a long history there (you should read the comments to the answers, including follow-ups, as well). In short, this has been ...


4

Allow me to set the context for this answer by recanting my experience on this site. Please take care not to misconstrue my attitude to any particular user. My time here measures in mere weeks and most of my answers attracted critical comments from @FrankHubeny, one of which he down-voted (I suspect). I was in the process of replying to one such comment ...


3

We should all be ready to clarify our questions at all times. You can preempt clarification requests by writing it as clearly as you can and including links to resources that explain more. Compound nouns in particular should be given definitions or links because they very often have meanings that are not just the sum of their parts. But if you just call ...


3

Yes "revenge" voting is against the rules. Each vote should be made on the merits of the individual post in question. Unfortunately isolated cases cannot be distinguished from more legitimate voting. So action will generally only be taken when more than one post from a user is voted on at the one time. Stack exchange staff don't want to explain the exact ...


3

If the proposal is to change Philosophy.SE settings to be a bit more forgiving of automatic deletion of posts, then yes, I'd be all for that. Understandably, it makes sense to give new users a chance to update posts to something that fits with what we're trying to build here, and encourage new users in the process. If the proposal is for participants to ...


3

For just one point, the most likely situation is: You spent 1 point on down-voting a question or answer. The user or a mod deleted the item. You were reimbursed the 1 point. There could also be several changes rolled up into one: user "un-downvoted" one of your posts (+2), but you downvoted something (-1). Or other combinations. As far as I can tell, ...


2

The short answer is simply that the way you describe is not currently how the system is set up. A handful of people with a certain amount of standing (reputation), or elected moderators, are given the right to put questions on hold as a way to promote quality content. See also: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions


2

Two things: The question about the definition of "physical" is not, as far as I can tell, the undesirable kind of definition-question. We don't want philosophically irrelevant questions like "what is a philosopher", nor exceedingly narrow ones like "how is the exclusive disjunction defined". However, a question about a philosophical term with significant ...


2

Individual users can downvote for any reason --that's just how SE is set up. However, the reputation rules are designed to prevent vendetta downvoting. There is a personal cost to frequent downvoting, and downvotes only remove a fraction of the reputation gained by upvotes. In my opinion, responsible members of the community reserve downvotes for ...


2

Don't expect explanations for downvotes. Downvotes mean one of three things: That someone was emotionally triggered by something in your post That you post was incoherent, inconsistent, or otherwise indecipherable and unanswerable That you failed to give a proper foundation, so that people are confused by what you wrote In any case, the failure is yours ...


1

Because it simply does not answer the question as asked. The question asks for an explanation of the reasoning of Quine and the extent of consequences following out of it. Your answer states some things about logic as if they were angelic gospel and not up to debate - something which Quine points out as being nonsensical - and thereby allegedly rejects ...


1

I don't know about the exact context of the question, but if you've actually seen a user down voting based on personal opinion know that it is forbidden. Seeing as question should not present too much personal opinion, a voting based on opinion is obviously wrong. If you encounter such behavior, let the moderators know. Unfortunately the question didn't get ...


1

Although I voted to close that particular question, I agree with you about down voting. I have down voted 3 times since I’ve been here in the early weeks. Each time I also added a comment why I down voted to make sure it was not anonymous. However, I no longer down vote. Instead, I comment, flag or vote to close. What I do is probably not normal ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible