1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand what qualifies as a research level question in the domain of . My recent question was about the usefulness of a certain direction of investigation as opposed to another. I am asking it simply because I am currently working on something that is directly linked to the subject of the question. I would assume that this community is the ideal community to ask this question given the scope is explicitly research level problems. So, what am I misinterpreting or misunderstanding the scope of the site and particularly the tag?

Also, if the question is indeed off-topic, then it would be great if a mod seeing this post could migrate it to the CS site.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure it was closed because it isn't research-level and not because it isn't a question about theoretical computer science? In my opinion it is also a rather vague question that will have completely different answers for each specific case, so I am not sure what kind of answer you would expect (or why you would expect a better answer at CS.SE, or this to be on-topic there). $\endgroup$
    – Artem Kaznatcheev Mod
    Feb 26 '15 at 2:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please refer to the help center for information about the scope. Your question is not mathematically clear. I think the question may be edited into a suitable question, but I don't see exactly how. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Feb 26 '15 at 7:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In TCS we often take efficient parallel algorithm to mean something like NC while efficient sequential as P (and with that any efficient parallel algorithm is automatically a efficient sequential algorithm and but efficient parallel algorithms can be exponentially faster to the best of our knowledge). For more information see the book "Limits of Parallel Computation". If you mean something well-defined but different edit your question to explain what you mean clearly with mathematical rigor. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Feb 26 '15 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ Also drop any side-information which is not relevant for the statement of the question, just add a small paragraph at the end explaining why you are interested. See also meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/300 and meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/2662. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Feb 26 '15 at 7:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ArtemKaznatcheev It would have certainly made things clearer if someone had actually commented on the question to explain why it had been closed if the close reason was not an accurate reason. $\endgroup$
    – asheeshr
    Feb 28 '15 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ My main intention was to get some general information on either direction of research vis-a-vis showing/documenting results, and impact. As I am working independently of any mentor on this, I mainly wanted to get some guidance. I feel CS.SE might be a better option, as my question will not have much mathematical rigor at this point @ArtemKaznatcheev $\endgroup$
    – asheeshr
    Feb 28 '15 at 5:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsheeshR, 1. People shouldn't have to leave a comment to explain what is already explained in the help center. We expect you to read the explanations in the help center before asking. 2. The close reason is accurate, and it already does explain why the question was closed and give a pointer to where you can learn more. As it says, "Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information about the scope, [...]". You chose to focus on the "research-level" part; maybe you overlooked the "theoretical computer science" part. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Mar 3 '15 at 1:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, it's perfectly fine to ask here on Meta for additional clarification or feedback about why the question was closed -- that's entirely welcome -- I just wanted to explain why I don't think you have a basis to suggest that others were wrong or that the close reason was inaccurate. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Mar 3 '15 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ @D.W. The entire purpose of this question was to understand the close reason, as it was clear that I misunderstood the reasoning behind it. That is certainly an error on my part, and I apologize for unnecessarily wasting anybody else's time here. However, if I am trying to better understand the reasoning since I didn't get it in the first place, so that in the future I may be able to participate productively, a comment explaining the closing would have been helpful and this matter would have ended there. .... $\endgroup$
    – asheeshr
    Mar 4 '15 at 2:26
  • $\begingroup$ ... Based on my experience across multiple Stack Exchange communities, I have found this to be a reasonable expectation. I try my best to hold myself up to this same standard on sites where I am active unless I am met with aggression or trolling. This was all that I was trying to point out in my previous comment. Thanks for the help. $\endgroup$
    – asheeshr
    Mar 4 '15 at 2:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do appreciate the feedback. I sympathize with your specific situation, but I can't agree with your general suggestion (that we should always proactively leave a custom comment why a question was closed even when the close reason and help center already explains the reason why) -- it would create extra work for others with little apparent benefit. Remember, we're all volunteers here, and I don't see why others should be expected to put in extra time to write a custom reason, when the official close reason already does describe why the question was closed. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Mar 4 '15 at 2:53
  • $\begingroup$ hi dude, it is unpredictable what gets upvoted or downvoted on se in general because (well kept secret here, elephant in the room) its inherently highly based on human subjectivity. it would help if you linked to your question. its generally not very useful to get wrapped up in a single question. there are many cases of very similar questions getting very dissimilar votes. its a numbers game. each question asked helps steer the next question asked. note that there are many high rep users who rarely ask questions.... $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Mar 5 '15 at 16:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .