There is no personal attack in my question. I am identifying two reals facts that show the eminent contributors' willingness to close questions without having taken the time to read the questions carefully and verify that it is really a duplicated question. And I can mention other facts.

This second question was proposed at the closing as being duplicated by another. However, this is not the case as shown by the 3 answers she received showing that this is a problem related to the standalone class.

It was proposed to close these two questions 1 hour after they were asked!

  • Isn't this speed in itself a problem?
  • Isn't this a consequence of the inherent speed of computers and networks?

This kind of problem could very well be avoided if the eminent contributors waited a few days before proposing a question to the closure.

Taking the time once solved many problems. The current speed is posing a new problems:

  • the problems are overflown
  • and their difficulty escapes our attention.

First issue:

Look at this question: Labeling points on a circle [duplicate] it was asked at 5:56 p. m. and is closed after one hour because of a duplicate question.

However, the OP explains that it cannot apply the answer codes: and for good reason, because the other question does not solve its problem at all.

A closer look at the question shows that this new contributor did not see the essential difference between the two questions: He uses the operation \node to draw the regular polygon where the operation \draw is used in the other question.

What is the point of closing questions after an hour simply because of the question without verifying that the solutions of the so-called duplicated question apply?

Second issue:

The same problem arose with this question: I want a figure to be positioned above a tikzpicture

It was asked at 4:57 am and a request for closure was asked in less than an hour. However, it was different because it was another problem due to the standalone class.

I replied, then I added the standalone tag and the closing request was removed.


My questions:

  1. Why are the eminent contributors so eager to close questions without having taken the time to read them carefully?
  2. Couldn't we leave a response time of a few days before closing a question, since its reopening is a real difficulty?
  3. Shouldn't we change the closing rules and leave a few days of latency before we can close a question?

Can you reopen these question?

I ask for this question (Labeling points on a circle [duplicate] ) to be reopened because it makes it possible to clarify Tikz's various concepts and operations.

Translated with

  • The network model is that closing is actually harder than re-opening, and that close-edit-reopen is the 'expected' pathway. In general, we've tended to slightly favour leaving open, but that can be tricky as questions vanish from the current list and thne get 'lost'. – Joseph Wright Dec 1 at 20:16
  • 3
    Do you really mean to say "because the other question does not solve its problem at all."? How does any question solve a problem? And "@marmot voted for thinking that the question was duplicated because a question looked like it." is absolutely not true! I wrote "I wouldn't want to close the question. I guess it requires just a more input from the OP what precisely he's struggling with.". If I was you, I would not abuse the meta site to accuse others of things they did not do! – marmot Dec 1 at 21:20
  • @marmot Stay calm, I use an automatic translator and sometimes I do not correct his mistakes. I certainly have a hard time expressing myself because I did not want to say that. The question given in relation to the PO and which is quoted as duplicated does not solve the problem. Your closing vote is not about this issue, but the second one I mentioned – AndréC Dec 1 at 21:27
  • 2
    I think @marmot's concern here is that they did not vote to close any of the questions you link to. – Joseph Wright Dec 1 at 21:33
  • 2
    Was it necessary to give some names right in the post? The whole post looks like a prosecution charge... – Christian Hupfer Dec 2 at 15:35
  • @ChristianHupfer CarlaTeX is described as eminent like the others. Is that an accusation? – AndréC Dec 2 at 15:53
  • Well, if you edit your post, wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that you made wrong accusations in an earlier version? – marmot Dec 2 at 16:14
  • @marmot I didn't accuse anyone, not you, not CarlaTeX or the others. I have described facts that occur frequently and disturb newcomers who see their questions closed for false reasons. Which is very unpleasant when that happens. As for you, I thought you said the opposite of what you said and I apologize again. – AndréC Dec 2 at 16:20
  • 1
    I have seen something similar on the english wikibooks earlier this year. A translator can be a good thing, it can also be a very bad thing by choosing to display some not so well chosen words. I suggest to just let the issue go for now. That means *All Of Us. – Johannes_B Dec 3 at 8:52
  • @marmot I never delete my comments, even and especially when I'm wrong. And this, for a simple and good reason: I teach my students to correct their own mistakes, so to see them, recognize them and then correct them themselves. The errors make the answers evolve and make it possible to understand its evolution, its history. To leave them visible is a voluntary act. If I am asked to delete my comments, I can delete them. Clearing comments is a bad thing because mistakes are as counter-examples as important as the examples – AndréC Dec 4 at 4:30

The network model is that closing has a higher barrier than reopening: it takes more votes to close a question than it does to reopen one, and any edits to a closed question put it in the reopen review queue. As such, the entire network model is to favour closure of unclear/possible duplicate questions. The idea there is that clarification will lead to reopening, and the number of duplicate answers/unanswered-but-open questions will be kept lower.

Leaving questions 'alone' (perhaps along with a comment) is fine, but it's hard to find such questions after any length of time unless one is very organised. At the same time, other than mods/gold badge holders, a single vote doesn't close a question. That means a consensus must have been reached. (The mod team are wary about closing and very happy to reopen as required.)

  • How many votes are required for the closing and reopening? – AndréC Dec 1 at 21:34
  • 1
    See five votes to close, three to re-open – Joseph Wright Dec 1 at 21:35
  • There are 4 votes to reopen the question and it is marked that it is mandatory to have 5, are you sure and certain that it is necessary to have 3? – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:33
  • 1
    @AndréC: See How do you reopen a closed question? – Werner Dec 3 at 16:16
  • @Werner i quote To reopen a closed question, five (5) people with at least 3000 reputation must agree that the question is suitable for the site and cast votes to reopen the question So reopening an issue is really more difficult than closing it, since those who voted for its closure are convinced that they have made the right decision and will not vote for its reopening, or even oppose it. – AndréC Dec 3 at 16:42
  • 3
    @AndréC: No, that's an assumption. I've voted to close before and then changed my mind after a conversation. The system is not broken... you've just been influenced by a single case that has taken longer than expected. This may have been exacerbated by a language barrier. – Werner Dec 3 at 16:48
  • @Werner It is indeed a hypothesis. The language barrier is a reality, that's why I generally prefer to avoid conversations in English, because I can not express my thought as finely as in French. – AndréC Dec 3 at 17:01

Disclaimer: This is a response to a series of personalized attacks. The attacks on me are gone after clarification by Joseph Wright that I did not vote to close any of the posts. This prompted me to re-edit this response.

My problems with your post

I have two main problems with your post:

  1. A personalized criticism of @CarLaTeX. I do not think that this is appropriate, and below I will explain why.
  2. An IMHO incorrect description of "facts".

Why do I disagree with your criticism of CarLaTeX? IMHO you just pull things out of context. Let us recall how the dialogue starts.

enter image description here

Things to be noted:

  1. As you can see, in a comment I suggested something to which the OP responded that it worked.
  2. My second comment was a response to @CarLaTeX's suggestion to write an answer. I did not want to write an answer because I thought there are already much better answers available.
  3. From the above, my conclusion was that the questions was solved. How else would one interpret "it worked"? Isn't our main concern to solve the problems of other users?
  4. CarLaTeX retracted her close vote.

So what precisely is your issue here? Is it legitimate to close a question because it has been solved in the comments? Yes, I think so. (Again, I did not close the question, but I do believe that anyone seeing the comment "it worked" by the OP has a very legitimate reason to close the question.)

The main point here is, similar to what Joseph is saying, that this is a democratic model. Even if a user closes a question by mistake (which did not even happen here), it is not the purpose of the meta site to launch personalized attacks. Rather, democracy just means that you can vote to reopen a question. As explained by Joseph, apart from the gold badge thingy (which I personally do not want to use) this site is very democratic. All voters have the same weight, and the reputation threshold to become a voter is not really huge.

BTW, how do you know that "However, it was different because it was another problem due to the standalone class." is true? After all, your answer did, at the time of writing, not get accepted. On the other hand, my comment got at least a reply that "it worked". (I am not saying that your answer is necessarily wrong, all I am saying is that there is no clear evidence that shows that it is the true answer. So there is a real chance that the OP is happy because their problem is solved and we have a huge unnecessary and emotional discussion here.)

As for the other issue, I disagree with what you write in the sentence that starts with "A closer look". (It might however be that you mean to say the correct thing.) I just want to urge you not to try to advertze your personal opinion as a fact.

And finally, yes, of course, there are are lots of miscommunications and language problems.

enter image description here

  • I have always had difficulties with foreign languages and have therefore misunderstood. The machine translator didn't help me in this case. These machines have difficulty with complex sentences. I'm sorry. And I'll correct my question. – AndréC Dec 1 at 21:40
  • This question is marked duplicate of this question: not of the one you quoted. It's a big problem. – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:03
  • You are not unaware that the vast majority of users always accept the answers of users of high reputation and they are reluctant to accept that of users of low reputation for fear of offending the most famous. – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:06
  • 1
    @AndréC What precisely is the "big" problem? You can always vote to reopen the question. This is how a democracy works. Some folks vote for something, and if successful, this something happens. And if then people think that this something is not a good idea, and can vote to repeal it. (And yes, high reputation users tend to get more votes, but this is a different topic.) – marmot Dec 1 at 22:08
  • The problem is in a place frequented mainly by mathematicians and computer scientists to see that the closing of the question is made for erroneous reasons. – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:10
  • 3
    @AndréC "errare humanum est" is 2000 years old, so what's the new point here? – marmot Dec 1 at 22:11
  • In the past, there were no computers and you couldn't close a question after an hour! – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:12
  • 1
    @AndréC Yes, sure, if you cannot ask questions online, you cannot close them online either. ;-) – marmot Dec 1 at 22:13
  • 2
    Taking the time once solved many problems. The current speed is posing a new problem: the problems are overflown and their difficulty escapes our attention. – AndréC Dec 1 at 22:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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