\n
![\"share](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/1KQgt.png\")
\nencouraging me to share a link to the question to get a badge. It may be that the question has been hit a lot in recent times, but just sharing a link to it shouldn't be worth a gold badge.
It was in excess of 900 when Chiphacker was still Chiphacker; now it's only 808.
\n", "Title": "What happened to my Chiphacker reputation?", "Tags": "|discussion|reputation|", "Answer": "As part of the migration to SE 2.0 reputation was recalculated to match the rest of our sites. See: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/03/important-reputation-rule-changes/ for details.
\n\nYou can also view the new point system here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/faq
\n" }, { "Id": "7", "CreationDate": "2010-09-29T19:32:11.987", "Body": "Is it a good idea to tag questions with [robotics] or [electronics]?
\n\nOr should only the [robotics] tag be used, and all other questions assumed to be electronics?
\n\nOr should we adopt a system like on meta, where at least one tag MUST be specified.
\n\nThoughts?
\n", "Title": "Should [robotics] and [electronics] tags be used?", "Tags": "|discussion|tagging|", "Answer": "I don't see a point to an electronics tag, when every question on the site is (at least indirectly) related to electronics.
\n" }, { "Id": "21", "CreationDate": "2010-09-29T20:51:36.707", "Body": "I'd like to get tips about electronics projects with the theme of Christmas. Is this question on or off topic?
\n", "Title": "Are questions about ideas for projects on or off topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'm not sure how that could be considered off-topic. It's part of \"robotics, electronics, physical computing, and even those working with an Arduino\", no?
\n" }, { "Id": "29", "CreationDate": "2010-09-30T03:11:33.507", "Body": "I think several people had SE1.0 chiphacker accounts and SE2.0 accounts. Will they be merged? What if they were not merged?
\n\nMy chiphacker account and SE2.0 account used the same openid, but they did not automatically merge.
\n\nOn SE1.0, I think an admin of some sort just merged them by hand. How does this work in SE2.0?
\n", "Title": "Will old user accounts be merged with SE 2.0 accounts?", "Tags": "|support|user-accounts|", "Answer": "Short answer: Yes, they will require a merge, and yes, they are being merged.
\n\nLong answer: For a brief interval, I had also had two accounts: my old Chiphacker mod/user account, as well as an Area51 account, so I merged the two. There weren't any other dupes that I noticed at the time, because the duplicate account isn't created until you log in with the 2.0 account (We might be dealing with this for some time), and I did this within a few minutes after the site opened. Ideally, this would become an automated thing (if it's not already).
\n\nYes, it can and will be done. However, mod resources are stretched right now. On both SE 1.0 and SE 2.0, moderators and administrators can merge accounts. On Chiphacker, everyone with over 2.5k rep was a moderator, along with a few other notable contributors, plus the admins littlebirdceo and mad_z, so things happened pretty fast.
\n\nNow, reputation gets you the privileges described here, the highest of which is a subset of the privileges afforded to a moderator. The privileges afforded to a user with 2,000 rep described in the link consist of everything listed there, the right to see (and undelete) deleted posts, as well as access to these moderation tools (lists of ___):
\n\nEverything else has to be taken care of by someone from Stack Overflow Internet Services, inc. At the present time, that includes Jarrod Dixon, Jeff Atwood, Jin, David Fullerton, Geoff Dalgas, and Robert Cartaino (Denoted by a \u2666 by their username). In the future, we can elect moderators from our own ranks.
\n" }, { "Id": "37", "CreationDate": "2010-10-01T14:27:54.180", "Body": "I was reading this question: From zero to \u201calmost pro\u201d: Newbie trying to learn. Good, quick resources and this image popped up:
\n
\nencouraging me to share a link to the question to get a badge. It may be that the question has been hit a lot in recent times, but just sharing a link to it shouldn't be worth a gold badge.
Also, I feel that badges should be little rewards along the way, not things you work for (i.e., make edits because they should be made, not to earn an editor badge.)
\n\nCan someone explain the purpose of this popup?
\n\nDisclaimer: Feel free to navigate to the parent site and find the question (it's likely to be on the first page) if my link above will unfairly grant me a badge. That's exactly the opposite of my motivation for asking this question.
\n", "Title": "Publicist badge advertising?", "Tags": "|discussion|badges|", "Answer": "Just to clarify the badge requirements, to obtain publicist that unique URL must be visited by 1000 unique IPs in 5 days (not simply share a link to a question that was already \n'hot').
If you can get 1000 people to view the site legitimately, you deserve a big gold star.
\n" }, { "Id": "39", "CreationDate": "2010-10-01T17:39:31.063", "Body": "Please merge my old Electronics.StackExchange account with my account here.
\n", "Title": "Account merge request", "Tags": "|bug|support|status-bydesign|user-accounts|", "Answer": "Er.. what?
\n\nCan you provide links to your other account? Or questions and answers provided under it? I only see one \"Lance Roberts\" at
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/1395
\n\nedit: per https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/1256/4310#4310
\n\nThe original electronics.stackexchange.com was not Chiphacker, it was another site on electronics that didn't have very many questions so we didn't migrate it.
\n" }, { "Id": "68", "CreationDate": "2010-10-06T14:44:45.583", "Body": "What questions belong on the meta site?
\n\nBased off of everything that is documented on the website these are the types of questions that belong on the meta site:
\n\n(From the banner on the top of the main site)
\n\n(From the Meta FAQ)
\n\nBased off of that, it is very clear that a question like the one I asked a few days ago does not belong on the meta site.
\n\nIf the community thinks a question like that should be on a meta site, the documentation should match this.
\n", "Title": "What belongs here versus the main site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "As both you and Robert stated, questions about the site itself belong here on meta. This is documented. You asked:
\n\n\nWhat is your level of electronics knowledge?
\nI've seen several\nvariations of the type of people in\nthis community: [List snipped] So\nwhat category do you fall into?\nHow do you think your skill set is\nbenefiting this community. Do\nyou fall into a different category?
\n
[emphasis added]
\nAnswers to this question are completely irrelevant to someone who is not a member of the site, who would be looking for information about electronics. The community is a part of the site, and information about the community does not count as information about the topic of the site. If you had asked "What level of electronics knowledge is necessary for job/project/task X, please support with personal experience", then that question would be useful in the future for someone about to embark on job/project/task X.
\nI think that this question may be useful at the moment, as we progress through the beta stage and try to resolve issues concerning the level of professionalism and expertise on the site. However, it belongs on Meta, because it is about the site.
\n" }, { "Id": "94", "CreationDate": "2010-10-20T13:39:42.677", "Body": "I'm trying to figure out which StackExchange is best for me to ask detailed questions about 220 volt wiring from the fusebox to my IBM Server.
\n\nThe Electronics StackExchange appears to be the best choice at first glance, but perhaps I should ask on the Home Improvement StackExchange instead?
\n\nFor an even more meta request, is meta.electronics.stackexchange.com even the right place to ask where I should be asking the question itself? :-)
\n", "Title": "Is Electronics and Robotics the best StackExchange for asking about building wiring to power my 220 volt IBM Server?", "Tags": "|discussion|meta|", "Answer": "I think if you are interested in the hobbyist approach to creating a power supply for your computer, that fits perfectly. If you want to know how to wire your house from an electricians perspective, this is a home improvement task, and a different stack exchange is probably a better fit.
\n\nYes, this is a good place to ask if the question fits.
\n" }, { "Id": "96", "CreationDate": "2010-10-21T18:56:51.440", "Body": "Did all of the badges get reset? Does this happen yearly or is a function of the switchover from Chiphacker? Honestly, I don't care about the badges themselves, just wondering if it's a bug or if I should not flip out this time next year as well.
\n\nSeriously, I don't care about the badges.
\n\n\"Badges? Badges??? We don't need no STEEEKIN badges!\"
\n\n(sorry, had to be done)
\n", "Title": "Did the badges get reset?", "Tags": "|discussion|badges|", "Answer": "In meta your badges are a separate entity. I received all of my badges on the parent site.
\n\nAre you missing yours? I looked on your account and you seem to have badges from answers you gave on the chiphacker site.
\n" }, { "Id": "103", "CreationDate": "2010-10-22T14:17:38.843", "Body": "The subsite's logo is ER, which I know as Emergency Room, is that joke on purpose?
\n", "Title": "ER: Emergency Room", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I've seen E&R used as an abbreviation in several places by several people. I think it
\n\nI'm not trying to say that the image needs an ampersand to avoid issues of mistaken identity. I hope that any legitimate emergency room logo wouldn't be so sketchy...
\n" }, { "Id": "111", "CreationDate": "2010-10-25T02:56:37.693", "Body": "According to the Attribution Required description, when referencing SE material, we must:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack\n Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User\n in some way. It doesn\u2019t have to be\n obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is\n fine.
\n- Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g.,\n https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)
\n- Show the author names for every question and answer
\n- Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the\n source site (e.g.,\n https://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username)
\n
However, this is problematic the way I read it because some links have obnoxiously long URLS:
\nCan I shorten links to just the question/answer/user numbers?
\n...which can be replaced with the much shorter URL:
\nCan I shorten links to just the question/answer/user numbers?
It is my understanding that the former link will continue to work if the name of the question is changed though I have not verified this. The latter will certainly work.
Is this behavior allowed? It's quite helpful (sometimes absolutely necessary) on character-limited fields like comments and tweets.
\n\nI'm not confident on the meaning of \"direct\". However, please don't interpret this as a request for lawyer-speak on that otherwise well-written and clear attribution page.
\n", "Title": "Can I shorten links to just the question/answer/user numbers?", "Tags": "|discussion|hyperlinks|", "Answer": "To answer it anyway: as long as your link ends up at the right question, it's fine.
\n\nFeel free to use url-shortener's to link to questions on things like Twitter, where your chars are valuable!
\n" }, { "Id": "117", "CreationDate": "2010-10-25T23:51:36.697", "Body": "There is a question on the main page that I do not think fits our site, but no one has voted to close.
\n\nWhat is everyone's opinion on this?
\n", "Title": "Does this question seem to fit?", "Tags": "|discussion|community-decision|", "Answer": "I recently posted a (question) relating to electronics software and had it closed as off-topic. I think that is taking an overly-narrow view of what constitutes an electronics (or electrical engineering.)
\n\nIf this site is supposed to be purely academic and theoretical, then I would agree that tools are off-topic. If, however, it is intended to cover the actual practice of electrical engineering then the selection, installation, and use of electronics-related software is highly relevant. If the question is about software that is specific to EE, or about using more general software in an EE-specific way, why wouldn't the question belong on an EE-oriented site?
\n" }, { "Id": "120", "CreationDate": "2010-10-26T11:36:57.433", "Body": "Is there an alternative for displaying an avatar other than Gravatar-
\n\nI don't really want to sign up to the Gravatar hosting service, would it be possible to add an option so users could just use an existing image URL?
\n\nI have an avatar hosted on another service, it would be more convenient to just cut and paste it, IMO users might be more inclined to have an avatar if they didn't have to sign up to another image hosting service - what's everyones opinion on this?
\n\ncheers.
\n", "Title": "Is there an alternative to Gravatar?", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-completed|", "Answer": "There is no longer any requirement for gravatar!
\n" }, { "Id": "123", "CreationDate": "2010-10-26T23:49:21.873", "Body": "What's the process for moderator elections?
\n\nDo they all follow this pattern?
\n\nWho can initiate elections? And how?
\n", "Title": "How will moderator elections work?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Nominations for \u2666 Moderators starts at about 30 days after the site graduates from beta. That gives sufficient time for users who do not participate in the beta to use the site before nominations and elections.
\n\nThe elections will work much in the same way as the blog post you linked. But we are in the process of putting together a fair and impartial nomination process that does not favor folks to post first to a meta thread.
\n" }, { "Id": "126", "CreationDate": "2010-10-27T15:34:11.607", "Body": "In the last few days we have had a few questions related to DSP.
\n\nHow to compare two audio files?
\n\nand
\n\nWhich freeware analysis software most closely resembles the functionality of Matlab DSP toolbox
\n\nThe first question I linked to has been suggested to be better in stack overflow by endolith. While the second question was defended to stay on our site by both Joby Taffey and reemrevnivek here: Does this question seem to fit?
\n\nI have looked at the Stack Overflow tag for DSP and was actually rather unhappy. There are 157 questions tagged with the DSP tag, but most of them have gotten very little attention, especially for how active Stack Overflow is. I think this may be a case that the Stack Overflow experts are mostly Computer Science guys where as the experts on our site tend to be more in the Electrical Engineering field. In my experience EEs are much better suited to answer a DSP question then Computer Science guys.
\n\nSo, where do you think we should draw the line here? DSP does tend to be much more programming oriented, which is what Stack Overflow is intended for however, our community seems to be better suited to answer the questions.
\n", "Title": "Does DSP fall into our realm or Stack overflows realm?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I believe that digital signal processing and digital signal processors are relevant topics here.
\n\nProcessors, because they are hardware devices and electronics hardware is relevant.
\n\nProcessing, because digital signal processor programming quite often involves having machine-language-level programming skills, which is quite often in the realm of the embedded designer (and, of course, embedded design is a relevant topic here.)
\n\nAlso, as previously stated, the mathematics behind digital signal processing are generally taught in EE course streams more so than comp sci AFAIK.
\n" }, { "Id": "149", "CreationDate": "2010-11-09T20:15:42.620", "Body": "I have noticed that we have many more questions being asked about consumer electronics that do not fall into the scope of this site. I think some of this confusion comes from \"Electronics\" in our name. Might there be a better name for this site?
\n\nI am not sure, just throwing this out there to see what others think.
\n", "Title": "Possible Name Change?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'd like to pitch a name idea here; I couldn't find a Q&A thread where that's being done.
\n\nElectronics and Robotics: Engineering and Design
\n" }, { "Id": "170", "CreationDate": "2010-11-23T23:23:16.533", "Body": "What do we feel about questions for novices?
\n\n\n\n\n\"What is Ohm's law?\"
\n \n\"Explain the difference between AC and\n DC\"
\n
Would we be replicating the Wikipedia page?
\n\nWould multiple overlapping answers be a good or bad thing?
\n\nWould beginner questions be doing someone's homework for them?
\n\nI would be in favour of these questions - so long as they were Community Wiki, with a cultivated answer leading to more detailed questions.
\n", "Title": "Google and the lowest common denominator", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If the question can be totally answered with a link to Wikipedia/by cut-and-pasting part of the article, it should be closed as it is too broad.
\n\nIf the question is diving into any specifics, sure, ask away.
\n" }, { "Id": "173", "CreationDate": "2010-11-30T13:31:58.607", "Body": "I'd like to transfer my questions from Stackoverflow to E&R. I made some questions there that fit better here. How is the best way to do this?
\n", "Title": "Transfer question from SO to E&R", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Sadly for you Stack Overflow only has migration paths for graduated sites.
\n\nOn top of that, I fear that the overlap with Stack Overflow isn't large enough to justify a migration path.
\n\nSo, it's better to just ask the question here again. Duplication doesn't have to be a bad thing, especially when the communities are so different.
\n" }, { "Id": "180", "CreationDate": "2010-12-10T01:10:53.507", "Body": "I see E&R is using both pic and microchip as tags. microchip is too ambiguous to be effective. Many users may tag their question with it, seeing many matches, if they are using any old IC, or \"microchip\", in their design, not realizing that it is a company name. Also, any question using a PIC will have both tags.
\n\nOn the other hand Microchip makes much more than PICs, and deleting this tag may not be seen as fair since both atmel and avr tags are being used.
\n\nCould we limit ourselves to tagging questions related to a well-known product line with only a tag related to that product line, not the company; and get rid of the the tag 'microchip'? This would allow, for example, questions related to Atmel's ARM offerings to be tagged with both atmel and arm; but would not allow questions related to the AVR32 line to be tagged with atmel.
\n", "Title": "meta-tag debate: Microchip (and PIC), Atmel (and AVR)", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "examples:
\n\nQ5: What contrast voltage worked for you using Atmel's maxTouch products?
\n\nArgument:
\n\nThe following tags (specifically their synonym associations are backwards) seem awkward:
\n\nShould be all fixed.
\n\nThere are synonyms in the correct direction now. let me know if there are more you have problems with.
\n" }, { "Id": "190", "CreationDate": "2010-12-16T20:11:13.193", "Body": "I am wondering about the reason given for closing the question: Where would a robotic engineer work?. It was closed as \"too localized\".
\n\n\n\n\n\"This question would only be relevant\n to a small geographic area, a specific\n moment in time, or an extraordinarily\n narrow situation that is not generally\n applicable to the worldwide audience\n of the internet.\"
\n
I was one of those who answered this question. I work for an international supplier of industrial robots. I do not consider a robotics career to be limited in time or geography. I interact with robot users and colleagues from around the world.
\n\nI am not necessarily arguing to reopen the question. I just want to understand the reason for closing it.
\n", "Title": "Closed Question: Where would a robotic engineer work?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "So \"about a job title\" is too specific, but \"identify this logo\" is not?... How hypocritical. The question was perfectly fine IMO.
\n" }, { "Id": "192", "CreationDate": "2010-12-17T17:17:06.483", "Body": "Want (La)TeX. 'nuff said.
\n\ne.g. Ugly single-line equations
\n\nThe problem is still here, two months later. I could add some more examples which I've read and written in the meantime, but it seems blatantly obvious that a site for engineers should have better markup for equations than plan text. In fact, it's so obvious that I'm altering the tags on this question to mark it as a bug. The feature exists, it's just not activated, and it's a bug that this site doesn't have [La]TeX.
\n\nTest: $\\TeX$
\n", "Title": "TeX should be supported on E&R, like on Math.SE, et. al.", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|tex|", "Answer": "$$R1 \\parallel R2 = \\frac{R_{1}R_{2}}{R_{1}+R_{2}}$$
\n\n$$P = IV = I^{2}R = \\frac{V^{2}}{R}$$
\n" }, { "Id": "193", "CreationDate": "2010-12-17T18:36:14.403", "Body": "We have had a number of questions come in that were clearly consumer electronics, but now we have a few coming in that are boundary questions.
\n\nThere are a few specific instances we have just had both about batteriesand batteries. One was closed, which I reopened because 2 of the 5 votes were for duplicate, please forgive me if you thought I was trying to overrule you, I am trying to make sure we get this consistent as a community.
\n\nCurrently I think they received some close votes because they were asked in such quick succession by the OP. Lets have a talk, Do these cross the boundary? Should we smash questions that are right on the boundary, or should we keep them open and hope it brings in a few engineers that need help also>
\n", "Title": "What line do we draw for consumer electronics?", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "When a question is borderline, I think what you need to consider is
\n\nSee:
\nhttp://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/the-pee-wee-herman-rule/
\n\nI can't grep reliable guidelines by which to narrow design options.
\n
Is the verb "grep" too geeky for E&R?
\n", "Title": "Is the verb \"grep\" too geeky for E&R?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "No.
\n" }, { "Id": "316", "CreationDate": "2010-12-28T12:54:44.087", "Body": "The StackExchange community is different from other forums, communities, or wikis. It is a great stew of democracy, community editing, self moderation, and wonderfully simple standard formatting. New users won't get it right away, which can lead to awkward confrontations. Communicating and supporting one's question in a way that fosters quality answers is a skill earned through practice and awareness -- hopefully I can help with the latter (the former eludes me yet).
\n\nHELP: How would i sample an audio tract at nyquist frequency using c and a micro-controller?How to sample audio at Nyquist frequency with MSP430F5438?question: it needs to attract readers to the point to where they want to answer your question. This implies legibility, conciseness, and structure, all of which take effort.
\n\nlegibility: modern browsers come with automatic spell checkers, so use them. Nobody really cares all that much about grammar, but they will notice the effort expunged in well written pieces.
conciseness: Large blocks of text are like eating dry toast, so keep it short; again, cull filler words -- not to the extent as in titles, but wherever it doesn't change the meaning of a sentence.
structure: this is all about using this forum's limited style palette to make your question (and answers) easier to understand. On the right side of your browser window you should see the \"How to Format\" window, giving a link to the available markdown and allowable HTML.
Whitespace is important -- it gives the reader space to breathe! For example, I intentionally put spaces between these sub-bullets, as there is too much text in each to sandwich them together and expect the reader not to shy away.
Oh, and here's a badge: tyblu http://kevinx.net/labs/php/badge.php?txt=Read%20Through%20One%20Of%20tyblu%27s%20Megalong%20Questions . Put it on the fridge.
\n", "Title": "Asking Questions And Getting Answers", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "On new sites, it is critical that you are visiting this URL every day:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review
\n\nYou want to be vetting all the new users that come in to the site, helping the ones that seem salvageable, and gently (if implicitly) shoo-ing away the less clueful / useful ones.
\n\nThis means reviewing all new content by new users -- if it's awesome, vote it up and let them know! If it needs a bit of editing to be in tip-top shape, do so! If the user needs a bit of constructive comment feedback, well, share it!
\n\nBear in mind the Pee-Wee Herman rule:
\n\nhttp://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/the-pee-wee-herman-rule/
\n" }, { "Id": "330", "CreationDate": "2011-01-03T19:23:50.570", "Body": "Resolved
\n\n\nAll solar should be solar-cell, which is less vague.
\n\nMaybe make photovoltaic-cell or pv-cell point to it too, though that will probably never be a problem.
\n", "Title": "Tag Cleanup: rename [solar] to [solar-cell]", "Tags": "|support|tags|", "Answer": "This is all taken care of.
\n\nSolar now redirects to solar-cell. If this does not work out well we can fix it in the future.
\n" }, { "Id": "334", "CreationDate": "2011-01-06T11:19:07.613", "Body": "Should computer and computers be merged? Which one should be used? computers is used the most.
\n", "Title": "Merging Computers/Computer Tags", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "I was about to ask a question if we should even have the computer tag at all.
\n\nComputers is a very broad term.
\n\nAlso 3 of the 14 questions that have been tagged with it have been closed.
\n\nEDIT:
\n\nI don't mean to start a discussion here about if the question should be opened or closed. I am focusing more on if the tag is good or not.
\n\nI think @reemrevnivek hit the nail on the head in a comment:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "341", "CreationDate": "2011-01-07T21:49:03.357", "Body": "The single [computers] tag is probably\n not the right thing for this question,\n and makes it look off-topic. Any\n device which is plugged into AC power\n and has a power rating like an AC\n motor, light, or heater/air\n conditioner would have a very similar\n question. A PC just has the issues of\n the switching power supply and varying\n load requirements to differentiate it.\n I'd add the [power], [power-supply],\n and [power-meter] tags to the question\n (but only if we want to reopen it).
\n
I'm an active member of stackoverflow.com and I was looking to see if the stackexchange suite of sites had an automotive one. This was the closest I could find. Is it appropriate to ask automotive questions on this site? It's not really a electronic automotive question...
\n", "Title": "Automotive questions appropriate for this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "There was a site called \"Automotive Electronics Development\" a couple months ago. However, it was closed down in Pruning Season as being too niche in comparison to E&R.
\n\nI know this because I was a follower (one of ~30). Now, it's only existence is a few comments in the Google cache that can be found by searching for \"Automotive Electronics Development\" site:area51.stackexchange.com.
\n\nAsk your Automotive Electronics Development questions here!
\n\nIf your source for automotive electronics is the Advance Auto down the road, however, you're probably better off asking a mechanic for now and following the Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair proposal for later.
\n" }, { "Id": "355", "CreationDate": "2011-01-15T11:13:16.213", "Body": "Hi all, I\u00b4m usually use other manufacturer forums to search specific information with their manufacturer tools. For instance, now I\u00b4m using System Generator that is Xilinx ise design program that works through simulink (Matlab). Af first glance I wouldn\u00b4t use this site to ask questions related with SG because Xilinx provides his own forum about this program, so I use the one Xilinx provide.\nI did a easy question in that forum and I don\u00b4t get any answer so I was thinking about to ask the question in this forum (Even I know the best forum for SG questions should be the Xilinx Forum)\nI think may be, it could be interesting practice if this questions are related with other questions asked from this forum. My question could be related with other questions of this forum because it\u00b4s related with a implementation issue and this kinds of questions deal with essentials issues in the wide electronics world.
\n\nI could do it?
\n", "Title": "It\u00b4s a correct practice to put links to questions from other forums?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|legal|", "Answer": "If it's about electronics or DSP, it fits on Electronics & Robotics. Write the entire question down instead of linking to a question in other forum, but I don't see an issue with additionally linking to show you have looked.
\n" }, { "Id": "362", "CreationDate": "2011-01-20T00:20:02.283", "Body": "I'm looking for some documentation on the moderation tools. I am aware of the tools page, and I can see the various 'edit' and 'synonyms' links when I explore the site.
\n\nHowever, I really don't want to just poke around and break something. I've seen a number of times where a user with new tag edits will start bumping all kinds of old questions to the front page for little grammar fixes, and I don't want to force a mod to go back into the database and undo something I screwed up. Where can I read up on when and how to use these abilities?
\n\nI feel like I'm learning how to use a terminal all over again. I'm staring at a blinking prompt, wondering what to type. man [letters] produces interesting things for some values of [letters], and those are all reasonably well documented, but that doesn't mean I know how to use the computer. To learn the terminal, it's easy enough to set up a VM and poke around until something good or bad happens, but E&R isn't a VM. It's a live system that affects a lot of people.
Well, we are trying to make the tools self documenting. Which tools in particular did you need guidance on, what do you think those pages should say on them to help you?
\n" }, { "Id": "365", "CreationDate": "2011-01-22T17:24:42.320", "Body": "Hi all, I am not still have enough privileges to create new tags in this not meta site. Is there any way to suggest new tags to anyone who have enough privileges?\nThe new tags I suggest are: floating point arithmetic or floating point operations.\nThank you so much.
\n", "Title": "How can I suggest new tags?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tagging|", "Answer": "You can flag a question for moderator attention if you think it requires a new tag and you lack the rep to create a new tag -- simply click the \"flag\" link.
\n" }, { "Id": "372", "CreationDate": "2011-01-24T03:26:22.200", "Body": "Another set of hilarious tags: voltage, current, and power Almost everything that isn't software could use all of those tags.
\n\nThoughts on removing/retagging questions with P/I/V as they appear?
\n\nTheir physical counterparts capacitor, resistor, inductor, or other circuit elements are also very prone to abuse, but questions are generally focused on them in some manner.
\n", "Title": "Tags: Voltage, current, and power (oh my)", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Just edited this post with this note:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "383", "CreationDate": "2011-01-29T19:05:02.877", "Body": "\nPhasing out the tags [voltage] and [current]: https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/372/2118\n
Something was breaking in this question. A code-formatted block follows a numbered list, and the code isn't <pre>-formatted. I'm guessing that it has to do with the many < and > symbols involved. Workaround is to put a dummy tag between the list and code block.
A ***CORDIC division*** is implemented using ***CORDIC multiplication***, rearranging as follows:\n\n c = a/b\n a - c*b = 0\n\nFor the multiplication `z = x*y`:\n\n> <sup>[[source]][2]</sup> ***z*** is composed of shifted versions of ***y***. The unknown value for ***z***, may be found by driving ***x*** to zero 1 bit at a time. If the *i<sup><sup> </sup>th</sup>* bit of ***x*** is nonzero, ***y**<sup><sup> </sup>i</sup>* is right shifted by *i* bits and added to the current value of ***z***. The *i<sup><sup> </sup>th</sup>* bit is then removed from ***x*** by subtracting *2<sup>-i</sup>* from ***x***. If ***x*** is negative, the *i<sup><sup> </sup>th</sup>* bit in the twos complement format would be removed by adding *2<sup>-i</sup>*. In either case, when ***x*** has been driven to zero all bits have been examined and ***z*** contains the signed product of ***x*** and ***y*** correct to *B* bits.\n\n>This algorithm is similar to the standard shift and add multiplication algorithm except for two important features:\n\n> 1. Arithmetic right shifts are used instead of left shifts, allowing signed numbers to be used.\n> 2. Computing the product to *B* bits with the CORDIC algorithm is equivalent to rounding the result of the standard algorithm to the most significant *B* bits.\n\n\n> divide_4q(x,y){\n> for (i=1; i=<B; i++){\n> if (x > 0)\n> if (y > 0)\n> x = x - y*2^(-i);\n> z = z + 2^(-i);\n> else\n> x = x + y*2^(-i);\n> z = z - 2^(-i);\n> else \n> if (y > 0)\n> x = x + y*2^(-i);\n> z = z - 2^(-i);\n> else\n> x = x - y*2^(-i);\n> z = z + 2^(-i);\n> }\n> return(z)\n> }\n\n\n\nA CORDIC division is implemented\n using CORDIC multiplication,\n rearranging as follows:
\n\n\n \nc = a/b\na - c*b = 0\nFor the multiplication
\n \nz = x*y:\n\n[source] z is composed of shifted versions of\n y. The unknown value for z, may be found by driving x to zero 1 bit at a time. If the i th bit\n of x is nonzero,\n y i is right shifted by i bits and added to\n the current value of z. The\n i th bit is then removed from x by\n subtracting 2-i from\n x. If x is negative, the i th bit in the twos complement format would be\n removed by adding 2-i. In\n either case, when x has been\n driven to zero all bits have been\n examined and z contains the\n signed product of x and y\n correct to B bits.
\n \nThis algorithm is similar to the standard shift and add multiplication\n algorithm except for two important\n features:
\n \n\n
\n- Arithmetic right shifts are used instead of left shifts, allowing\n signed numbers to be used.
\n- \n
Computing the product to B bits with the CORDIC algorithm is\n equivalent to rounding the result of\n the standard algorithm to the most\n significant B bits.
\n \ndivide_4q(x,y){\n for (i=1; i= 0)\n if (y > 0)\n x = x - y*2^(-i);\n z = z + 2^(-i);\n else\n x = x + y*2^(-i);\n z = z - 2^(-i);\n else
\n if (y > 0)\n x = x + y*2^(-i);\n z = z - 2^(-i);\n else\n x = x - y*2^(-i);\n z = z + 2^(-i);\n }\n return(z)\n }
(with <tyblus-unbreak-tag> between numbered list and code block)
\n\n", "Title": "Code formatting following numbered list breaks", "Tags": "|support|formatting|", "Answer": "A CORDIC division is implemented\n using CORDIC multiplication,\n rearranging as follows:
\n\n\n \nc = a/b\na - c*b = 0\nFor the multiplication
\n \nz = x*y:\n\n \n \n \n[source] z is composed of shifted versions of\n y. The unknown value for z, may be found by driving x to zero 1 bit at a time. If the i th bit\n of x is nonzero,\n y i is right shifted by i bits and added to\n the current value of z. The\n i th bit is then removed from x by\n subtracting 2-i from\n x. If x is negative, the i th bit in the twos complement format would be\n removed by adding 2-i. In\n either case, when x has been\n driven to zero all bits have been\n examined and z contains the\n signed product of x and y\n correct to B bits.
\n \nThis algorithm is similar to the standard shift and add multiplication\n algorithm except for two important\n features:
\n \n\n
\n- Arithmetic right shifts are used instead of left shifts, allowing\n signed numbers to be used.
\n- Computing the product to B bits with the CORDIC algorithm is\n equivalent to rounding the result of\n the standard algorithm to the most\n significant B bits.
\n\n\n\ndivide_4q(x,y){\n for (i=1; i=<B; i++){\n if (x > 0)\n if (y > 0)\n x = x - y*2^(-i);\n z = z + 2^(-i);\n else\n x = x + y*2^(-i);\n z = z - 2^(-i);\n else \n if (y > 0)\n x = x + y*2^(-i);\n z = z - 2^(-i);\n else\n x = x - y*2^(-i);\n z = z + 2^(-i);\n }\n return(z)\n}\n
Please see
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/editing-help
\n\nYou must indent code 8 spaces if you want it to be code formatted as part of the list.
If you need code formatting immediately following a list (but not as a part of the list) then you need to either insert a paragraph between or a no-op HTML tag like a HTML comment
Does anyone create a tag for the xilinx program called 'System Generator'?\nThank you so much!
\n", "Title": "Asking for a System Generator tag.", "Tags": "|feature-request|tags|asking-questions|", "Answer": "If we ever get a ton of Xilinx questions that would be a good tag, but until then it's going to be overly narrow.
\n" }, { "Id": "390", "CreationDate": "2011-02-04T07:59:20.043", "Body": "Today I found the oragne button.
\n![\"suggested](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/y1IuU.png\")
Unfortunately, when I click on it, I get sent to https://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits\nwhich gives me Page Not Found error. \nWhat's going on?
\n", "Title": "Suggested edits pending approval leads to nowhere.", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "Sorry, this should be fixed now.
\n" }, { "Id": "392", "CreationDate": "2011-02-05T08:55:20.623", "Body": "When typing in question:
\n\nI came across term \"half bandgap voltage reference\". I expect it is somehow related to \">bandgap circuit. Do you know what it is, know its schematic or principle of operation?
\n\nThe link is not displayed correctly in the browser (while it is correctly displayed in the preview).
\n\nI am using FF 3.6.13
\n", "Title": "Inserting link bug", "Tags": "|support|hyperlinks|", "Answer": "I assume this is in reference to your question What half-bandgap voltage reference is?
\n\nThe first revision was:
\n\nI came across term \"half bandgap voltage reference\". I expect it is somehow\nrelated to [bandgap circuit]\n(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandgap_voltage_reference>). Do you know what it \nis, know its schematic or principle of operation?\nWhich should work less that trailing > in the URL which would be the inline version of Markdown linking. The live preview may have ignored it while the server's parser got confused and gave up. (The preview and actual results are often very different. <sarcasm?>As best as I can tell, the devs don't care and this will never be fixed as it's been like that for since I've been using SO/SE.</sarcasm?>)
Apparently you ultimately used a standard HTML <a> tag, which does work along with a very limited set.
If you use the link tool in a post, which almost always works, it uses the reference Markdown link style, doing something like:
\n\nLorum ipsum [first revision][1] dolor\n\n...Sic quod veritas...\n\n [1]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/revisions/01af3c32-8a39-44f8-88dc-\nfc832ccf3561/view-source\nI want just the text to show up as a link, no URL. I've tried the basic HTML
\n\n<a href=\"www.bing.com\">Check out this new website I found</a>\nbut it doesn't work.
\n", "Title": "How can I use a URL in a comment?", "Tags": "|support|comments|markdown|", "Answer": "Like this:
\n\n[Link text](http://www.example.com)\nThe same syntax also works in questions. See this meta.SO feature request for the original request.
\n\nAlso, you can always click the 'help' link at the bottom-right of the comment box to bring up this text:
\n\n\nComments use mini-Markdown formatting: [link](http://example.com)\n _italic_ **bold** `code`. The post author will automatically be \nnotified of your comment. To notify a previous commenter, mention \ntheir user name: @peter or @PeterSmith will both work.\n\n\n
See also this question for known bugs.
\n" }, { "Id": "399", "CreationDate": "2011-02-07T21:33:36.337", "Body": "Is it acceptable to post a question (with the community wiki option) along the lines of:
\n\n\n\n\nPlease review this circuit design for\n doing blah and let me know how it can\n be improved / is anything wrong with\n it from a common design perspective:
\n \n--Insert Diagram Here--
\n
This type of question seems to be electronics equivalent of coderview.stackexchange.com
\n", "Title": "Circuit review acceptable?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I would think yes, it is acceptable, but not very interesting, and may not get much effort put into responses. A question should be definitively answerable (and the CW option used sparingly, not just to mask bad questions). It would be better to ask multiple questions, each with a different goal though they may all use the same circuit diagram (or sections of the same one).
\n\nMaybe look at how this question panned out: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/8453/2118
\n\nIt has a more specific goal than general circuit check, but was still quite general and received little attention.
\n" }, { "Id": "405", "CreationDate": "2011-02-10T14:18:47.967", "Body": "I logged in this morning to find that I'd received the privilege of protecting questions, which requires about half the reputation that I currently have, and, upon logging into Meta, that I'd earned the \"Citizen Patrol\" badge for my first flagged post: an operation which I'd done some time ago, and haven't done recently.
\n\n![\"Protect](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/MTfUT.png\")
![\"Citizen](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/alJIs.png\")
Are these new? Did something get reset? Is it a bug?
\n", "Title": "Random privileges and badges popping up", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|badges|", "Answer": "These are new privileged and changed badges, so this is by design.
\n" }, { "Id": "412", "CreationDate": "2011-02-17T04:26:20.403", "Body": "standard is general, and apt to be misused. Something related to standards organizations would be helpful, though. Examples: IEEE, ISO.
\n\nWhat could cover them all? Do you think this would be useful?
\n\nExample: standards-organization.
\n\nExample of use: Standard nomenclature for component types
\n", "Title": "in search of: official standards organization tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Does it even make sense to group multiple organizations into one tag? I'd rather tag IEEE-related questions ieee, SAE: sae, and so on.
\n\nIf you're looking for standards in general, then I'd just go with just standards.
\n" }, { "Id": "415", "CreationDate": "2011-02-18T15:36:30.520", "Body": "There's an older question that had an answer accepted long ago, but the project in discussion is very similar to one I am currently working on. Is it okay to ask for additional information regarding the project that the question was about? The poster of the question probably had to overcome the particular problem I am having, but it is not discussed in the question they ask.
\n\nFor example:
\n\nOriginal Question: How do you use a PMOS to kill power to an SD card from a PIC microcontroller?
\n\n\n\n
My Question: How did you prevent current from leaking through the SD card's signal lines?
\n", "Title": "Is it okay to ask a question as an 'answer' to a question?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "No, you should ask it as a separate question. In your new question, you can reference the previous post but please do not ask a question in a question.
\n\nOn Stack Exchange, questions are very specific and each answer is a self-contained response to that question. If you start adding followup questions (i.e. question > answer > question > answer), that becomes a discussion and that is not what we do here.
\n" }, { "Id": "428", "CreationDate": "2011-03-07T14:57:48.293", "Body": "Is it OK to ask questions that are really just requests to brainstorm with the community?
\n\nI'm referring to this question, which just came to the top of the main page. It caught my attention because it mentioned brainstorming explicitly, even in the title. However, this type of question has been very popular. Perhaps others are not as explicit, but they're often characterized by:
\n\nThere are other examples (not by me) here, here, and here.
\n\nMy take on the issue is that while a real brainstorming session can be full of bad ideas and people speaking what's on their mind, that's acceptable - Anything goes in a brainstorming session. It's kinda fun that way! However, for the same reason, I'm not sure such discussion belongs here. Also, real-life sessions usually are performed by people with a vested interest in the outcome. We're here to increase the amount of information available for electronics and robotics development, not to help people get ideas for projects.
\n\nThis is already addressed in the FAQ.
\n\n\n\n\nYou should only ask practical,\n answerable questions based on actual\n problems that you face. Chatty,\n open-ended questions diminish the\n usefulness of our site and push other\n questions off the front page.
\n
The list of bad subjective questions includes:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: \u201cWhat if ______ happened?\u201d
\n
It also includes:
\n\n\n\n", "Title": "Brainstorming in the form of a question", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "If your motivation for asking the\n question is \u201cI would like to\n participate in a discussion about\n ______\u201d, then you should not be asking here.
\n
Hi.
\n\nThis is the OP of the question that triggered this one.
\n\nI don't understand this attitude at all :
\n\n1) there are many questions where you have a problem but don't yet know the solution. I need something that does X but I don't know if the solution is to buy an existing product (that I haven't yet heard about) or construct a fairly well known solution. Or perhaps no one has ever solved the problem before but if a couple of people throw out some further questions and suggestions that will generate some new approaches.
\n\nI don't want to preclude any of these possibilities by asking too narrow a question ie. ask \"is there a product which does X\" and lose the build suggestions (or vice versa).
\n\n2) I'm new on this site. But I've been on StackOverflow for nearly three years and I've not seen general discussion questions damage the value of that site. Quite the opposite, if there's a danger to the StackExchange sites it's from fragmenting into too many narrow specialisms (half the time now I don't know which programming / sys-admin / unix related forum I should be asking a question on, with the result that I spend less time hanging around and answering questions on any of them).
\n\n3) I don't see that \"brainstorm potential ways to do X\" actually does match any of the five disallowed question types mentioned in the FAQ:
\n\n* every answer is equally valid: \u201cWhat\u2019s your favorite ______?\u201d\n* your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: \u201cI use ______ for ______, what do you use?\u201d\n* there is no actual problem to be solved: \u201cI\u2019m curious if other people feel like I do.\u201d\n* we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: \u201cWhat if ______ happened?\u201d\n* it is a rant disguised as a question: \u201c______ sucks, am I right?\u201d\nWhich one does it allegedly match?
\n" }, { "Id": "440", "CreationDate": "2011-03-09T15:02:44.997", "Body": "The current LaTeX escapes of $ ... $ need to be changed.
Several questions/answers have two dollar signs in the text somewhere. E&R has a number of questions with prices, and we usually use USD, represented by the $ character, as the monetary unit. This has lead to a number of broken questions and comments with the new LaTeX syntax.
Here are some examples of questions, answers, and comments:
\n\nI just compiled this list by searching for the word \"Costs\" with the Stackexchange search box. There are almost certainly more.
\n\nMathJax can be configured to use other characters, like $$...$$, \\[...\\] and/or \\(...\\) as delimiters. In fact, the documentation goes so far as to recommend against using single dollar signs for delimiters: https://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html
\n\n\nNote in particular that the
\n$...$in-line delimiters are not used by default. That is because dollar signs appear too often in non-mathematical settings, which could cause some text to be treated as mathematics unexpectedly. For example, with single-dollar delimiters, \u201d... the cost is$2.50 for the first one, and$2.00 for each additional one ...\u201d would cause the phrase \u201c2.50 for the first one, and\u201d to be treated as mathematics since it falls between dollar signs.
I understand that single dollar signs may be a good choice for some other stack exchange sites, where pricing is rarely if ever discussed. However, on E&R, the use of $ ... $ is a bug.
OK, we made it so that the only inline math delimiter supported here is \\$ from the default of $
(if you are wondering why we don't like the other \"defaults\" from MathJax such as \\( and \\[ try typing them yourself in the answer box below to see why. Hint: Markdown.)
So now
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
This is $20 and that is $30This is $20 and that is $30
\n
should be unaffected while
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
This is \\$20 and that is \\$30This is \\$20 and that is \\$30
\n
should trigger inline math notation as before.
\n" }, { "Id": "441", "CreationDate": "2011-03-09T15:19:21.887", "Body": "As seen in the recent sandbox question, TeX markdown isn't enabled on Meta.
\n\nIt should be. It's needed for the sandbox, and we're likely to have questions on how to do something in TeX, TeX bug reports, TeX feature requests, and, after the feature is more familiar, questions which assume that TeX is enabled on Meta and try to use it.
\n\nI don't want to have to go over to Math.SE and try stuff on their meta (they have it enabled). I don't think they'd like that much... :)
\n\nTest: \\$\\LaTeX\\$
\n", "Title": "TeX markdown needed on Meta", "Tags": "|bug|feature-request|status-completed|meta|tex|", "Answer": "We have enabled MathJax on this meta.
\n" }, { "Id": "460", "CreationDate": "2011-03-18T03:42:16.363", "Body": "What's this about? The question on the main site (that links to Test the new LaTeX markdown in this Sandbox question!) gives an error $\\LaTeX$ ("Misplaced \\"), but when meta links it, it works fine.
\nThe error'ing TeX has a source of \\\\LaTeX, but the functional ones are just \\LaTeX.
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QIcTv.png\")
This was a small decoding issue when consuming data from the API (yes, we use the public API internally for things like this). It is fixed, but we cache that data for about an hour. It should work after that.
\n" }, { "Id": "475", "CreationDate": "2011-03-20T16:15:39.330", "Body": "Recently, one of my questions got closed by the moderator Kortuk. This is the question
\n\nIn summary, it's basically \"where can I buy a certain kind of LED?\" Kortuk closed this as \"shopping advice does not belong here\".
\n\nSo here I am appealing to the meta community. Notably because many other questions like this are open with votes. So am I wrong and those questions should also be closed? Or is there some kind of difference between my question and the ones that are open?
\n\nTo be fair, I don't think my question was subjective. It had multiple answers or \"ways to do something\" but it was not really just \"the only good answer is what I prefer\". Basically, how does this question hurt the Electronics.SE community?
\n\nAlso, I wasn't asking a question in the usual form of a shopping question \"which IR LED is the best\". Instead, my question was very specific, and should continue to be useful years from now, unless companies in the answers go out of business.
\n", "Title": "Questions about where to buy something is offtopic?", "Tags": "|support|specific-question|closed-questions|shopping|", "Answer": "Looking at the number of up votes endolith's comments have got on this question, it seems to me that 50% of people think that shopping questions are on topic, and 50% think they're off topic.
\n\nSo, as a compromise, why don't we agree to tag all non-localised shopping questions with a shopping tag, and anybody who thinks such questions should be off topic can add shopping to their Ignored Tags list.
\n" }, { "Id": "484", "CreationDate": "2011-03-22T03:11:08.117", "Body": "I am not sure if this is an artifact of the new design or something that has been around, but I just loaded a page with an image that didn't load:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/maUUW.png\")
Good call, we'll fix that; this is a standard image across the network.
\n\n![\"\"](\"http://sstatic.net/stackoverflow/img/life-instructions.png\")
I have noticed since the change(E&R to ED) that closing questions does not have the right statement that reflects the changes form E&R to electronics design.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\nQuestions on Electronics and Robotics are expected to generally relate to Electronics and Robotics, within the scope defined in the faq.
\n
Is the closing statement supposed to reflect the changes?
\n", "Title": "Closed question statment at the bottom of question is incorrect", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "OK I fixed the close reason on main, and the title on meta. Thanks for the heads up.
\n" }, { "Id": "525", "CreationDate": "2011-03-31T21:16:20.680", "Body": "I just got a new badge, so I checked out the Badges page, and started looking at which badges I and other users have earned.
\n\nNo one has earned the 'beta' badge: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/badges/16/beta
\n\nThe requirements are:
\n\n\n\n\nActively participated in the private beta.
\n
I know that a lot of people, myself included, participated in this part of the site. Why does no one have the badge?
\n", "Title": "Why does no one have the 'beta' badge?", "Tags": "|support|status-completed|badges|beta|", "Answer": "Beta badges have been awarded - thanks for the catch.
\n" }, { "Id": "529", "CreationDate": "2011-04-08T14:19:54.520", "Body": "I am not sure if this is really a bug or not, but right after asking a question it shows up immediately on the home page (http://electronics.stackexchange.com/), but takes about a minute before it shows up on the questions tab (http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions).
\n\nEvery time it happens to me my first thought is that maybe I didn't hit the button to ask the question.
\n\nIs this intentional?
\n", "Title": "Asking a question it doesn't show up right away under 'Questions'.", "Tags": "|support|asking-questions|", "Answer": "This is normal, due to caching on the server.
\n" }, { "Id": "535", "CreationDate": "2011-04-13T23:32:17.003", "Body": "Lots of people think it's better to have a single cable that carries both power and 2-way data to a device, rather than one cable for power and a second, separate cable for data.\nDo we already have a tag for that -- perhaps \"powerline\"?\nShould we make up a new tag -- perhaps \"bias-tee\" or \"power+data\" or \"cable-reduction\" or something else?
\n\nHow should we tag questions related to that single-cable ideal?\nI'm tempted to tag them all with the \"powerline\" tag,\nbut\nthe phrase \"powerline communication\" often refers to the very specific idea of running data through the same 2 wires in the walls of a house used for mains power ( https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/line-power ).
\n\nI want a more general tag I can apply to systems where 2 wires carry combined data+power, where the power is supplied as DC power, or at least the power is much lower voltage than mains power.\nSystems such as model trains ( DC power line communications ), laser modulation (\nI need to design a Bias-T circuit for a diode laser - help choosing component values\n), coax cables that simultaneously carry power up to a pre-amp on the roof and TV signals from the pre-amp down to the TV \n(mentioned in Injecting a communication signal over DC power supply lines ), etc.\nPerhaps a tag \"bias-tee\" would be adequate for those kinds of systems.
\n\nHowever, even \"bias-tee\" refers to the specific configuration of an inductor and a capacitor to combine and separate the power and data.\nI suppose we could stretch it a bit and also apply it to things like analog telephone circuits that substitute a gyrator for the inductor.
\n\nI want an even more general tag I can use on questions about systems that may use techniques other than bias-tee to run power and data through the same cable -- such as the center-tapped transformer, used in some kinds of power-over-ethernet; or bundling 2 power conductors well-insulated from the 2 or more data conductors in the same cable, used in other kinds of power-over-ethernet.
\n\nThat more general tag would be useful on questions such as \"\nSafe Powering Methods - Working with Children \" --\nwhere the original poster just wants to send power and data through the same cable, and is willing to consider all of the above ways of doing that.
\n\nHow should we tag questions that deal with power and data through the same cable?
\n", "Title": "How should we tag questions that deal with power and data through the same cable?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "While Powerline-communication should deal with the high voltage/mains stuff (as there is IEEE 1901 Broadband over Powerline (BPL) and PLC/PLCC, pretty much the standardized name for Powerline Communications), the low voltage stuff could be Parasitic Power, like in 1-wire applications. Phantom Power could work too.
\n" }, { "Id": "541", "CreationDate": "2011-04-14T15:56:30.970", "Body": "\n\n\n\n\nPossible Duplicate:
\n
\n Contrast of hyperlinks
We've already had this question and it seems that the problem was solved, but I've noticed that that solution does not include comments.
\n\nIn my opinion, links in comments should be changed to look like links in questions or answers.
\n\nUPDATE:
\n\nIt seemed to be fixed, from this:\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/XeuOO.jpg\")
But then I saw this:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMSi4.jpg\")
So in one place the comments are fixed and in another they aren't.
\n", "Title": "Link contrast in comments on main site needs to be fixed!", "Tags": "|feature-request|hyperlinks|", "Answer": "I have changed the visited color to be lighter. this change will be in the next deployment.
\n" }, { "Id": "544", "CreationDate": "2011-04-27T17:26:09.880", "Body": "Awhile back the reputation used to be displayed by a line graph, not its a bar graph does the old reputation graph exist? Or has it been superseded?
\n", "Title": "What happened to the old reputation graph?", "Tags": "|discussion|reputation|", "Answer": "Every user has a Network Profile. They've put the graph there.
\n\nTo see your graph, in your user page click on Network Profile. Then click the reputation tab
\n\nEdit
\n\nSee the official annouce: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/04/stack-exchange-network-profiles/
\n" }, { "Id": "553", "CreationDate": "2011-05-03T16:20:34.897", "Body": "A discussion came up in chat (the transcript begins here) that started about this question.
\n\nSome think it is on-topic, some think it is off-topic, some thing it is in the gray area. I think there are good arguments for all of them.
\n\nSo what do you think? Is it on-topic, off-topic, questionable, too broad, too narrow, just right? And in a boarder sense how do we deal with questions like this have differing views on how good of a question it is for the site?
\n", "Title": "What should we do with questions that are fuzzy as to if they are within our scope?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "This question is only peripheral to our scope. This example of a peripheral question happens to be about configuring an IDE, but you might find an analogy at the other end of the spectrum in physics questions - Knowing about, for example, what doping does to silicon isn't a core issue when designing electronics, but some users are probably curious, and others will know a little about it and could answer the question. However, we're not about semiconductor chemistry or quantum physics, we're about electronics design.
\n\nIn this case, the asker needs to know about two problems:
\n\nI'd welcome having those two questions on the site. However, we don't need a question for every permutation of host platform, target platform, and IDE. If our answers cover these two questions, and perhaps walks through the process for a specific grouping (which might be for AVR in XCode on a Mac), then I feel that we've diverted enough attention from electronics design for this problem area.
\n\nIn general, if:
\n\n... then I'd consider your question to be only partially within our scope. If it fails the last bullet point, read the related question and all of it's answers, and don't post your question if it's only a permutation of the other peripheral question. Since it's only partially within our scope, less attention should be devoted to it.
\n\nIn contrast, a core issue, such as those listed in the FAQ:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- a specific electronics design problem
\n- the theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n- a communication scheme
\n- the writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications
\n
probably has at least one or more whole tag groupings devoted to it, and could have hundreds of questions and answers, and more would be welcome.
\n\nThe goal, as always, is to make Electronics Design the best place on the web to get expert answers about designing electronics. For this to happen, we need to focus our attention on our core topics, and minimize investments in areas that don't contribute as much to this goal.
\n\nWhen asking questions, if your question is only tangentially related to electronics design, avoid posting it (or ask on Meta or in Chat before posting it) if a similar question has already been asked and answered.
\nWhen voting and closing, encourage good questions that are in our core areas by up-voting, improving, and answering even if they're similar (but not duplicating) questions that have already been asked. Discourage questions that are in peripheral areas by down-voting and/or closing if a similar (but not duplicating) question has already been asked.
New users probably knowing nothing about Chiphacker and the intent of this question is becoming a reference for them.
\n\nSo, what is the history of the site Chiphacker?
\n", "Title": "What is Chiphacker?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Chiphacker was a Q&A site running the old Stack Exchange platform which was created and administered by Marcus and Maddy of littlebirdelectronics.com as an auxiliary support line for their Sparkfun-like, Sydney-based online electronics shop. It featured the much-loved Electropus (excellent image below found on the twitter account).
\n\n![\"Electropus\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/cOMD1.png\")
While Chiphacker had a fairly vibrant and healthy community (unlike its sister site/competitor Electronics Exchange), it wasn't as successful as it could be, and other SE 1.0 sites were struggling. Stack Exchange Inc. opted to phase out SE 1.0 sites, and started Area51.
\n\n![\"Area51](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/rQYdu.png\")
The Electronics and Robotics proposal on Area51 was created to replace Chiphacker:
\n\n\n\n\nThis would be the SE 2.0 version of Chiphacker \u2013 Jared Harley Jun 3 [of 2010] at 2:55
\n
At one time, there were three Electronics Stackexchange sites! This question and this question are informative with respect to the migration. In the end, Chiphacker's content (both users and questions/answers) were migrated to the new site, while Electronics Exchange content was dropped.
\n\nThe original name of the Area51 site was \"Electronics and Robotics.\" After some discussion about creating a robotics-only site, discussion about allowing robotics on the site (for example, here and here), it was decided to remove Robotics from the title and scope.
\n\nThis resulted in the name \"Electronics\", which was used during the beta period. However, this caused great stress about the potential for a flood of consumer electronics questions, and we launched as \"Electronics Design\".
\n\nUnfortunately, this caused us to run afoul of someone's trademark. Therefore, we were renamed to \"Electronics Engineering\", which is our current name. Of course, there are other names that have been proposed...The history isn't over yet!
\n" }, { "Id": "587", "CreationDate": "2011-05-19T09:59:46.070", "Body": "It's quite usual to have general questions on batteries, for example:
\n\n\n\n\nIs it true that all else being equal huge rechargeable batteries like ones used in power tools and electric cars have better lifetime compared to tiny batteries like ones used in cell phones?
\n
Are such questions okay on the site?
\n", "Title": "Are general electric battery questions okay here?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Well, this gets messy. The site support questions related to electronic design(even though our name has changed again). However, if the question is from a consumer electronics perspective it will not fair well. This often becomes quickly apparent as when you as a question like:
\n\n\n\n\nIs it true that all else being equal\n huge rechargeable batteries like ones\n used in power tools and electric cars\n have better lifetime compared to tiny\n batteries like ones used in cell\n phones?
\n
The first think I can tell you is that it depends on battery chemistry, which does not necessarily correlate with size, but with task, demands and budget. This is actually a very very broad question that does not have a great answer. This I would closed as \"Not a real question\" as the
\n\n\n\n\nIt's difficult to tell what is being\n asked here. This question is\n ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly\n broad, or rhetorical and cannot be\n reasonably answered in its current\n form.
\n
Question is a bit broad. We could also run into subjectivity as their are different ideas of size and there could quickly be arguments.
\n\nIf someone asks a concise question about batteries it will stay open 99 times out of 100. The major thing to focus on would be technical problems.
\n\nWe have had questions such as:
\n\nHow do I connect two identical batteries to increase the consumer lifetime?
\n\nAre coin cells a suitable replacement for AA batteries?
\n\nSmall batteries for use in cold but not freezing environments.
\n" }, { "Id": "603", "CreationDate": "2011-05-23T23:14:04.327", "Body": "I've asked a bunch of questions on physics.stackexchange.com that I feel fall more under physics than electronics, but I'm not getting very satisfying answers. Should I just have asked them here?
\n", "Title": "Should I ask physics of electricity questions here?", "Tags": "|discussion|electronics|website|", "Answer": "According to the FAQ, this is the right place to ask questions about:
\n\n\n\n\nthe theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n
Some of the questions you've asked on physics (such as the Radiation of LC Circuits question) would definitely be on topic here.
\n\nOn the other hand, the Physics site has an active [tag:electricity] Q&A, and your questions seem to be well-received, so I think you need not feel any qualms about asking there, either.
\n\nIf you conclude that that these questions are on-topic for both sites, then two questions logically follow:
\n\nWhen should you ask a question in this area on EE, when should you ask it on Physics, and when should you ask it on both?
\nThere is a whole tag on MSO dedicated to this topic: [tag:cross-posting]. The general consensus is that it's OK to ask the question on multiple sites, but (1) don't ask the same question word-for-word, (2) be aware of the differences in the communities, and (3) give a question some time on a single site before cross-posting everywhere.
\nYou should also consider where you'll get the best answer to your question. If the EE community upvotes your question and answers it quickly, there's little reason to take it to physics, and we won't force you to do so.
\nHowever, you may want to get the a certain angle (or multiple angles) in answers to a question. I won't bore you with the engineer-programmer-mathematician jokes that you've probably already heard, but we all approach a problem differently. You need to consider these perspectives when asking your question. It's unlikely that the same phraseology will be ideal on multiple sites.
Should EE continue to consider these questions as on-topic?
\nThis is a whole new topic in itself. You may want to open another Meta question about this. However, I'll discuss it's relation to this question briefly:
\nThere are a host of SE sites which cover overlapping topics. Examples include this set of questions on EE and Physics, and logical sets on Unix and Ubuntu, Webmasters/Webapps, Programmers and Stackoverflow, Mathematics and Computer Science, among others..
The Area 51 proposal Electronics & Electrical Engineering (nine months old) was recently flagged as a duplicate of this site.
\n\nWhile I've looked at your FAQ, I don't know the field well enough to be comfortable making the call on my own\u2014which brings me here.
\n\nCan y'all review that proposal, and give your opinion here as to whether their on-topic questions would all be welcome on this site?
\n", "Title": "Does the Area 51 proposal \"Electronics & Electrical Engineering\" duplicate this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "Yes, it is a duplicate for two reasons:
\n\nWe're called Electrical Engineering, but there has been significant support for a proposal to call our site Electronics Engineering or Electronics and Electrical Engineering. The commentary on the proposal supports that discussion.
\n\nWe are derived from Chiphacker, which was started by a company which produced products for electronics hobbyists. At the time of migration, there were about 1,000 questions and many users which were hobbyist oriented. Sure, some users were engineers, and some questions and answers were at an expert level, but the majority was beginner stuff. It was pretty much the opposite of the situation advocated by this MSO proposal, and they never had to answer the \"Primary Role/Interest\" query which Cartaino implemented. I'd love to see the result if this survey was put to even a subset of our current users. Additionally, we get a huge flood of software people from Stack Overflow who are curious beginners (see, for example, the Netduino questions...), and the few experts we have are quickly drowned out. There's nothing wrong with hobbyists or SO users except they don't ask expert questions.
\n\nWe've struggled for a while with the issue of non-expert questions (here, here, in the design discussions, also other comment threads/chat discussions), but we've not been united enough to implement the policies that would make this site an expert-level place, even though some members have a bent in that direction. (Relevant blog post and codinghorror post)
\n\nSome sites (Math, Theoretical CS, and Physics come to mind) segment themselves as being designed for experts, professionals, and academics only. If this site continues, it would need to segregate itself as a site for professionals and this site would have to accept a hobbyist bent. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that. The community will have to decide.
\n" }, { "Id": "620", "CreationDate": "2011-06-10T19:30:38.173", "Body": "when typesetting numbers and units, my preferred way is to have a space between them for better readability. For instance, one would typeset
\n\n24 V
\n\ninstead of
\n\n24V
\n\nIt is actually not only my preferred way of writing because it just reads easier, it is also the way recommended by standards like the US NIST or German DIN.
\n\nMy only problem is that a line break between the number and the value would cremate all the good things about the whole thing. I've searched some, and found that the nobr html command is actually dirty style (and not supported by SE anyway). Also, when just wanting to write something simple like 24 V, using the LaTeX markdown \\$\\text{ 5 V}\\$ seems a bit too much.
\n\nThus, my question: What is the best way of using a blank character and preventing a line break at the same time?
\n", "Title": "Preventing line breaks before physical units", "Tags": "|support|formatting|", "Answer": "Forgettaboutit. So the units ends up on the next line after the value just like other words do, big deal. Why must the value and its units not be allowed to flow when it's fine for other words that belong together to flow? It's OK to break \"five feet\" or \"six volts\" but not \"6 V\"? That makes no sense. Once you've decided that there should be a space between the value and its units, I think you have given up the right to insist they be on the same line.
\n\nOf course this only applies to text that is obviously flowed. Tables and other things with fixed formatting is a differnt story, but I don't think that is what is being asked about here anyway.
\n" }, { "Id": "626", "CreationDate": "2011-06-20T17:59:06.047", "Body": "I'm shocked :-)
\nWhile an upvote for an answer usually is awarded with 10 points, for one answer I only got +2. Why is that?
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/y965l.png\")
You hit the daily reputation cap - in every 24-hour period, the system will allow you to gain at most 200 reputation points from up-votes. For various obscure accounting reasons, you were 2 points shy of 200 when that vote was cast, hence it gave you +2 instead of the normal +10. You also got +0 for several up-votes following that...
\n\nIf you check your reputation page, you'll see a break-out of all these votes (you can also check your rep audit page for a more detailed run-down of how your reputation is calculated and capped).
\n" }, { "Id": "636", "CreationDate": "2011-06-24T14:52:30.347", "Body": "I am not sure if this is a bug, me not knowing where to look, or a feature request.
\n\nI know I can see all of my flags and see how many are valid versus invalid, but I have not been able to find any way to determine which are which.
\n\nIt would sure be nice from a learning perspective to know what was considered invalid.
\n", "Title": "Seeing what flags are marked as invalid.", "Tags": "|bug|feature-request|status-completed|", "Answer": "You can now see if a flag was invalid or not (though not which moderator dealt with the flag). We'll continue improving the interface on that screen to clean things up a bit this week.
\n" }, { "Id": "639", "CreationDate": "2011-06-26T09:23:05.137", "Body": "I'm used to be able to see my own deleted answers, and it makes sense: this way I can undelete them if I want. But I also can see others' deleted answers. Is this on purpose?
\n", "Title": "Deleted answer visible", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "This is correct; the ability to view (and act on) deleted questions and answers is a privilege earned at 10k reputation:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools
\n" }, { "Id": "641", "CreationDate": "2011-06-26T14:23:10.810", "Body": "Let's say I'm answering a question and want to include a small schematic image in-line with the answer.
\n\nFirst, the documentation for the post editor markup language is well hidden. When I actually had this problem, I looked all around the window and found no \"edit help\" link or anything like it. I found something like it later when editing one of my posts, but that seems to be hit or miss. For example, right now after scrolling down the browser window there is a box \"Similar Questions\" where the other time there was a box with links to editing help. Right now I see no way to access editing help from this page.
\n\nAnyway, apparently \"!\", followed by desription in brackets, followed by a link in parenthesis makes the content of the linked image appear in line. However, that is still linking to the image in the temp directory on my server. I'm not going to keep it there for more than a few days. How do I get the forum server to make a copy and then tell me the link to that copy so that the embedded image remains in the post after I delete the temporary copy on my server?
\n\nAlso, where is this documented? I'd like to RTFM, but all I've found is https://electronics.stackexchange.com/editing-help, which doesn't say anything about copying references to the forum server.
\n", "Title": "How to get embedded images saved on server?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This is a test.
![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/J3rwQ.jpg\")
I got this image uploaded to imgur by using the ctrl-g method Kevin mentioned. Thanks Kevin, it seems to work. One minor wrinkle though. When I hit ctrl-g I got this little window that had a text line in it that said something like \"pathname on your computer\". However, I couldn't type there, no characters showed up. I had to click BROWSE, then enter the pathname in the window that popped from that. Not a big deal, but it doesn't make sense that the first text line is there if it can't be used.
\n\nIt's interesting to note that the HTML CENTER tag apparently doesn't work here. I enclosed the image reference in CENTER tags, but it sill shows up left aligned, at least in the preview window. Again, not a big deal.
\n\nThis is centered text.
\n\nNope, that doesn't work either. Oh well.
\n" }, { "Id": "645", "CreationDate": "2011-06-27T07:44:01.607", "Body": "Recently a new user's account had to be deleted after he spammed the site three times in a few minutes. Do we have measures to avoid that he creates a new account and repeats this? Like for instance a blacklist of sites you can't link to in questions or answer?
\n\nedit
\nI just realized that blacklisting the complete site may give problems with sites like http://www.tinyurl.com.
Jeff's answer covers the tools the engines give us fairly well. Here's how to use them:
\n\nJust flag the posts as spam, and downvote.
\n\nIf enough users flag as spam ('enough' == 5 for now), a temporary block happens automatically. There were 7 flags across the three answers and user account itself when I logged in a couple hours after it happened. When a mod logs in, of course, we can take immediate and permanent action.
\n\nIn this case, I don't think we need to bother blacklisting. This was the first time I've ever seen spam for this particular site. If a new account is created to spam the same site, we'll put it on a blacklist.
\n" }, { "Id": "651", "CreationDate": "2011-06-29T11:27:26.777", "Body": "I agree that comments often are just chat, but at times they offer valuable additions to an answer. Yet they don't seem to be included in text search indexing. Why not?
\n", "Title": "Why aren't comments included in indexing?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If it is a great part of the answer it should be edited into the answer. This site is not like a forum, sometimes comments can be productive, but they should not answer the question, it should be in the answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "654", "CreationDate": "2011-07-01T12:06:44.320", "Body": "Apparently user names don't have to be unique, see the comments to this answer. Was this a good idea? In the comments I mentioned it's only clear which Mark is which because one is the OP and hence has his name formatted differently. In other situations it may be harder to tell them apart.
\nShouldn't we for future registrations stick to unique user names?
This issue has been brought up in various forms a decent amount on meta.StackOverflow and probably wont change by a question here. See the meta post \"Why does Stack Overflow allow duplicate display names?\"
\n\nBasically it looks like they want it to be \"Real Life\" and also to not favor users who have been around longer. At least that is what the answers to that post say and they were never rebutted.
\n" }, { "Id": "657", "CreationDate": "2011-07-01T13:18:56.560", "Body": "In this question I was trying to write this comment:
\n\n\n\n\n@RichardFreedman @MattJenkins @vicatcu\n please check my edit to the question\n and see if I have understood\n correctly. Thanks!
\n
No matter how many times I tried to edit or repost it always removes \"@RichardFreedman\". Why is it doing this? Does it have something to do with him being the OP?
\n", "Title": "@Names disappearing in Comments, Why?", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "@lerting the post owner in a comment is not necessary. If comments are only between you and the post-owner, and nobody else is commenting, then an @lert to the post owner at the beginning of a comment will be removed.
\n\nYou can only notify one person in a comment. So in your example, you'd be notifying the post owner, except that the post owner is always notified of a comment on one of their posts without being named in it. Matt and vicatcu would not receive a notification. By removing the post owner from the beginning of a comment, we're freeing up a notification slot to Matt. Note that vicatcu still will not be notified.
\n" }, { "Id": "661", "CreationDate": "2011-07-02T05:56:25.250", "Body": "In answers, when people refer to other users they put a \"@\" before the username, like \"@someuser said this and that\". What's the function of the \"@\"? Is it to make clear to the reader that it's a username? Or for a script so that it can convert it to a link to the user's profile (future enhancement)? In that case, what about duplicate names?
\n\nDo I have to use the \"@\"? If so, do I have to concatenate names with spaces in them: @FedericoRusso?
\n", "Title": "What is this \"@\" before usernames?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This Meta Post explains how the @lerting works in detail.
\n" }, { "Id": "675", "CreationDate": "2011-07-07T20:51:54.247", "Body": "Maybe this is a dumb question, but I keep accidentally posting answers or comments by hitting the Enter key to insert a paragraph break. I'm finding myself writing text in an external editor and pasting to prevent this problem. Is there a description of the text editor behavior somewhere so I can learn how it works? I'm using Firefox 5.0 if it matters.
\n", "Title": "\"Enter\" key behavior", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This problem has been reported before, for example here on meta.stackoverflow. Please don't respond like this; instead, if it really bothers you, then add this script to your browser.
\nComments are designed to be more like a chat session: The Enter key submits the comment. If you've never used a chat client, this may take some getting used to, but now you know.
\nThere is no way to insert a permanent line break (temporary ones entered with Shift-enter are stripped before submission), so the use of the Enter key for this purpose isn't usually a problem. All multi-line fields on the site automatically word-wrap, so you don't need to terminate your lines yourself to 80 characters.
\nIf you make a mistake, you can edit your comment up to three times. Hover over it to get the edit button shown below:
\n![\"picture](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/qvVNy.png\")
Jeff explained the behavior on SO here:
\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "686", "CreationDate": "2011-07-11T19:14:26.203", "Body": "You can now edit your own comments after you post them, within a 5 minute window.
\nHow do you know a comment has been edited? A little pencil icon will appear next to it. The mouseover title tooltip explains what this pencil icon means, and also provides a count of how many times the comment was edited in that 5 minute window.
\nModerators can edit any comments at any time. This action is logged and visible in that moderator's user history to other moderators.
\n
There's a question on the front page:
\n\n\nI'm looking for any neat tricks/hacks you have come across in your careers.
\nI can think of two offhand:
\n\n
\n- \n
A digital multimeter in continuity test mode can be used to check an LED.
\n- \n
An LED can act as both a source of light and a detector of light. With proper amplification circuitry an LED can be used as a photodiode.
\n
which I believe doesn't belong. However, it has three upvotes, three answers, a lot of activity, and users are clamoring for community wiki status.
\nI think it's obvious that the question violates the Don't Ask section of the FAQ and fits the "bad subjective" category as laid out in the blog post on subjective questions. See also the recent Is there a place for opinion on the electronics.stackexchange? question.
\nNormally, I'd close this as "Not Constructive":
\n\n\nThis question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.
\n
but I'm hesitant because there's so much community support.
\nThe above guidelines are neither written in stone nor able to be derived from basic principles, but they're constant across all SE sites and seem to work pretty well.
\nI have two questions:
\nFirst off, I don't care for these sorts of questions. They don't fit the Q&A model at all well, and if not handled carefully can balloon into an unreadable mess of everyone's Favorite Things.
\nThat said, there is precedent for them. But it is not, as JGord suggests, questions like this. Have a look at the accepted, top-voted answer there: even if you don't understand what it means - heck especially if you don't understand what it means - there's little mistaking the uselessness of it to someone looking to learn more about the topic.
\nThe closest questions on Stack Overflow are probably the hidden features questions:
\n\n\nWhat are the lesser-known but useful features of the Python programming language?
\n\n
\n- Try to limit answers to Python core.
\n- One feature per answer.
\n- Give an example and short description of the feature, not just a link to documentation.
\n- Label the feature using a title as the first line.
\n
These are among the most popular questions on the site, and house a wealth of uncommon knowledge on their respected topics. A reader of intermediate skill could do worse than spend a few hours reading through these answers...
\nThey're also almost always a mess. Answers describing stuff everyone knows about, answers that don't answer the question at all, answers fail to be detailed enough to be useful... If you're gonna recommend reading something like this to someone, it pretty much has to come with the caveat, "But look, feel free to stop reading once you get past page two..." - folks with stuff to do don't have time to wade through that much cruft. And moderators rarely relish the task of stepping in to clean it up.
\nSo... useful, but dangerous! It's wise to have some guidelines to follow... Questions attempting to fit this model would do well to,
\nAvoid broad questions when multiple specific questions will do
\nThis is the most important. If you end up collecting answers to a whole bunch of specific questions that folks will actually end up searching for, you're shooting yourself in your collective feet by smashing them all together under one banner. FAQs are always entising to the experienced, because they save time explaining things to the kids for the umpteenth time... But this whole site should be a FAQ! If the question title looks suspiciously like a description of the site itself, then advise the author to simply ask a bunch of questions instead of trying to get the site to write a book for him.
\nUse Community Wiki
\nCW is rarely necessary or even useful these days, when everyone can suggest an edit pretty much anything. But for questions intended to collect large numbers of comprehensive answers that should be familiar to most expert readers, it's worth using simply to encourage contributors to improve existing answers over posting new ones. Better to upvote and edit an existing answer than force two similar ones to compete. Note that a moderator will have to enable this on the question, providing an excellent opportunity to vet the topic and ensure the rest of the guidelines are followed.
\nOne suggestion per answer
\nWith CW in place, voting becomes nothing more than a means to ensure the most useful tips float to the top. This falls apart if writers start throwing multiple tips together (note that writing a comprehensive answer is normally a very good thing indeed - but as I said, these questions don't really fit the normal Q&A model).
\nEncourage lengthy explanations of why, backed up by experiences and external references
\nOne of the worst fates that can befall such questions are the proliferation of empty opinions. Experienced readers will tend to have some strongly-held opinions on any given topic, and love to up-vote them... even when the rationale that drives them isn't necessarily obvious to less experienced readers. Discouraging these in favor of answers that explain why is probably the single biggest motivation behind The Six Subjective Guidelines. Referencing these in the question itself isn't a terrible idea...
\nI realize this is a fairly negative answer. I've seen too many instances where these questions have been asked and devolved into noise to be overly positive, I'm afraid. But you should be - take heart that you have a community willing to share its "tricks of the trade" with less experienced users! Make the most of the opportunity, and you'll all benefit...
\n" }, { "Id": "688", "CreationDate": "2011-07-11T22:49:32.720", "Body": "We have a question on physics.SE that is off topic there. It deals with electrical wiring, which from what I've heard is not necessarily considered electrical engineering, but I wanted to check whether such things fall under the scope of this site. If the question would be appropriate here I'd like to migrate it.
\n", "Title": "Would this wiring question be appropriate on EE.SE?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "This sounds more like home improvements to me TBH.
\n" }, { "Id": "703", "CreationDate": "2011-07-13T15:53:34.757", "Body": "I keep finding myself forgetting to open links in a new tab and losing track of where the question I was reading is at.
\n\nI don't see any cases that someone would be reading a question and not want a link in the question to open in a new window or tab. So would it be possible to just make this the default?
\n\nEdit
\n\nSince it looks like the answer is just going to be no I am going to add on some additional comments that I would like some clarification on.
\n\nSome of the prior reasoning for not wanting this feature have been:
\n\n\n\n\nI expect my programs to leave me in control. Please stop trying to\n mess that up
\n
and
\n\n\n\n\nThe website should not open new windows. As already mentioned, you can\n do it yourself when you want.
\n
And many more along the same lines. This is great and all, but if this is the true reasoning, why does chat open links in a new tab?
\n\nIt would make me feel much better if I could at least get a consistent reasoning.
\n", "Title": "Would it be possible to have links in a question open in a new tab?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "I wouldn't want this to change. I like to keep various windows in specific places on the screen, and it's annoying when I click on a link and a new browswer pops up in some random location. Please, let's not have this site be like too many other obnoxios sites and pollute my screen with extra windows.
\n" }, { "Id": "711", "CreationDate": "2011-07-15T08:00:51.263", "Body": "Today I saw a 10 kilovolt cable being dug under ground and I have detailed questions.
\n\nFor example, I saw the cable mark and googled it and found that the cable features a copper wires shielding - I'd like to know what's the reason to have copper wires shielding in a 10 KV power cable.
\n\nAlso I saw that the cable was only one wire, so it takes three such cables running together to have a 3-phase power line - three cables will not be extremely parallel, they will follow slightly different paths and so will have slightly different lengths and slightly different resistance. I'd like to know is these cables having slightly different resistance have any impact on power transmission.
\n\nAre such questions okay on this site?
\n", "Title": "Are question about power transmission okay?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "I wouldn't have given it special thought but since you're asking: I don't think it belongs here. It's about electricity, like home wiring, not about electronics, and especially not about electronic design. This isn't useful for any DIY-er, nor for a professional electronic designer. Maybe you should have mentioned a transistor in the question :-)
\n" }, { "Id": "733", "CreationDate": "2011-07-18T19:28:32.243", "Body": "Under the tags tab there are tags such as switches that shows up but is a synonym of switch. Are we supposed to be seeing both there? It seems to make it a little difficult to navigate tags.
\n", "Title": "Are we supposed to be seeing tags that have been merged/synonym with other tags?", "Tags": "|support|tags|", "Answer": "I started this as a comment to Jeff's answer, but it became a bit long.. :-)
\n\nProbably just me, but I don't understand the need for the synonyms. If somebody starts typing sw\u012d she'll see switch and switches as suggestions. And instead of just having one clear tag for it, some people will choose switch and others switches. Can't we (automagically) edit the least preferred to the preferred one, so that we keep the number of tags under control? At least a warning about a deprecated tag would be nice.
\nI'm also thinking about the other question on tags where the example of D-class and class-D is given. Ideally it should be impossible to create one of them.
I am not sure if this is the right forum for my question, but I am unclear what the FAQ means by
\n\n\n\n\nit is not about
\n \n...\n consumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart\n phones, except when designing these products or hacking their\n electronics for other uses...
\n
Here is my problem:
\n\nI opened up a hair drier because I wanted to remove the heating element, and I have some specific questions about which wires are doing what and how I can re-connect the right ones after removing the heating element.
\n\nI am not sure if this qualifies as 'hacking'.
\n\nIs such a question appropriate here?
\n", "Title": "is it appropriate to ask about how to 'hack' a hair drier by removing the heating coil here?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "I find it bizarre that a serious question that involves mains power, resistive heating (and the removing thereof) and driving a fan is considered as not suited to this forum.
\n" }, { "Id": "743", "CreationDate": "2011-07-24T17:55:42.407", "Body": "I just accepted an answer to a question, but I couldn't tell that the check mark had changed.
\n\nLooking at them side-by-side, it is easier to tell the difference, e.g.:
\n\nUnselected
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/IyfzR.png\")
Selected
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ngXxJ.png\")
But I could not tell that it was changing when I was toggling it. I thought that I might be imagining things until I saw that I had gained +2 for selecting an answer.
\n\nI have never had such doubt when using other SE sites. It might be helpful to other new users so I think that it is worth considering this change.
\n", "Title": "Should it be easier to tell that the 'accept answer' button has been toggled?", "Tags": "|feature-request|design|", "Answer": "Yes, that could be better. My suggestion for an accepted answer: fill the circle with the olive green, and make the checkmark in it white.
\n" }, { "Id": "749", "CreationDate": "2011-07-25T14:15:03.023", "Body": "I have seen the use of tl:dr; a fair amount around here. Since the literal meaning of it is \"Too Long; Didn't Read\" I feel like it goes against the general attitude that we want on this community.
If the post really was too long, then why not post a comment saying the question is hard to follow because of how long it is and ask for it to be shortened and to the point.
\n\nI know tl:dr; has also been used to say \"What I am about to post is long\" but even in that case I don't think we should be fostering the use of short hand that the general public wouldn't know.
I am just one person though and would like to know what others think of it.
\n", "Title": "Thoughts on the use of tl:dr;", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I understand TL:DR; as a synonym for \"summary\", and, if it's interpreted that way, it's probably OK.
I understand your sentiments, but don't think we need to ban TL:DR;. I have never used it the way a literal reading would suggest, and I'm not sure it's ever actually used that way.
In fact, I'm more likely to read a long piece of prose if there's a TL:DR; at the top explaining what I should expect to find. It helps my comprehension by allowing my brain to focus on the content instead of always trying to figure out the main point.
In any case, it's good to provide the information contained in a TL:DR;, whether it's called an abstract, big picture, conclusion, executive summary, introduction, outline, overview, summary, synopsis, table of contents, or TL:DR;. If you think it's unprofessional or used in a literal sense, it's the first thing in that list that I'd be inclined to discourage.
If you feel compelled to edit a post to change TL:DR; to Summary (or something to that effect), please make sure to check the rest of the post - Posts long enough to require abbreviation are likely to need more than one edit.
The text which appears after closing a question reads:
\n\n\nclosed as off topic by User1, User2, Mod\u2666 Date at time
\nQuestions on Electrical Engineering - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to electronics, within the scope defined in the faq.
\n
The FAQ, I think, is good, but this text is bad. When closing a consumer electronics question, the "generally relate to electronics" clause doesn't make sense.
\nCould we change this to "generally relate to electronics design"?
\n", "Title": "Should the off topic close text be changed?", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-completed|closed-questions|", "Answer": "I have updated the description and it will show up after our next deploy.
\n" }, { "Id": "758", "CreationDate": "2011-07-29T15:57:24.010", "Body": "On this question the accepted answer isn't always ranked first; sometimes it's preceded by another answer with same number of upvotes. It doesn't always happen, just like for other answers with the same number of upvotes their order changes randomly.
\nI haven't seen this behavior before.
That's because the answer is from the question owner.
\n\nSelf-accepts do not dock to the top of the question, but rather follow the normal answer logic. Since this has 2 upvotes currently, that means it'll sort randomly among the other answers with 2 upvotes on the question.
\n" }, { "Id": "770", "CreationDate": "2011-08-08T10:27:15.123", "Body": "Why are we so strict with closing questions, can't we just leave them open? It seems like it would be a lot better if we worked with the person asking the question to improve it. On PICList people can either just ignore the question or help to improve it, why don't we just take this policy instead of closing questions?
\n\nNote: I am not asking this question for myself, rather I am playing the devils advocate in order to create some discussion that we can reference in the future. The question was spurred on by comments in this question: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/17909/how-can-i-use-a-transistor-with-two-circuits
\n", "Title": "Why are we so strict with closing questions, can't we just keep them open?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Olin's mention of \"the self-evident logic of how to ask a question\" suggests that, while he may have great experience in Electrical Engineering, he has little to no experience asking questions on a forum. (I assume one is due to the other)
\n\nI do have a lot of experience asking questions on many forums, and I have seen all kinds of answers to all kinds of questions. The one thing I have learned is that there is no correct way to ask a question, and it can be hard to predict the sort of response you'll get. I have asked quick one-liners, and been rewarded with great answers, bad answers, answers to different questions, arguments, and suspensions. I have also asked in-depth questions, which carefully lay out what I know, what I assume, what I don't know, and what the question is, and been rewarded with the great answers, bad answers, answers to different questions, arguments, and suspensions.
\n\nIsaac Newton, no Mr. Thickie himself is claimed to have said: \"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.\"
\n\nLet's try to re-word Olin's quote:
\n\n\"The self-evident logic of how 45 people will each read the question in a different way, from a different perspective, and react emotionally to it.\"
\n\nWe can see that the words \"self-evident logic\" have no place here.
\n\nTo see why it is pointless to punish questioners who apparently don't follow the \"self-evident logic\", let's look at something else with self-evident logic, software. There is really no good excuse for writing an incorrect algorithm. The logic is quite evident, yet I'm sure all of us has written a laughably incorrect algorithm and wondered for ages why it doesn't work.
\n\nNow, imagine that whenever this happens, some self-important busybody who has never written any software comes along, scolds you, and deletes your code. This is essentially what happens when someone closes a question.
\n\nIn my humble opinion, closing a question should be a last resort, and should only happen when we're sure all other avenues have failed. If I could make one change to the Stackexchange sites, it would be this:
\n\nBefore a question is closed, there should be a purgatory period where the community helps the questioner improve the question. Currently this period is not explicitly implemented, instead there's a period where the community shouts at the questioner and tries to make them feel bad about their failure.
\n\nA couple of ways this could be implemented are:
\n\nThe question would be labelled as [needs improving], and the questioner should have a few days in which to make the changes before it's finally closed.
\n\nDon't think \"bad question - close it\", think \"unfinished question - fix it\".
\n" }, { "Id": "776", "CreationDate": "2011-08-10T19:21:35.537", "Body": "Sometimes, there's a question that almost answers one that you have. Perhaps the title is similar, or the other question specifically excludes a point that you're interested in.
\n\nFor an example case, this old question, about PNP transistors, has an answer about their operation accepted without comment. It doesn't mention the physics behind the behavior, but Federico wants to know this information.
\n\nWhat should be done here? There are a few options:
\n\nMy opinion is currently quite firmly fixed on option 1, but I'd be interested to hear arguments from all sides.
\n", "Title": "Expanding a question's scope vs. Starting a new question", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "I think this is really a judgment call; options 1 or 2 are both valid depending on the circumstances.
\n\nIf you strongly feel option 1 is the best fit, go for that.
\n" }, { "Id": "778", "CreationDate": "2011-08-10T20:48:07.897", "Body": "It's common knowledge that we have an image uploader (see the original request, the community FAQ, and the blog post). When someone uploads an image to another location and links to it, it's often edited to use the image uploader, and when an externally hosted image goes down, we parrot something like the following excerpt from that FAQ entry:
\n\n\n\n\nWhenever possible, use the Stack Exchange provided hosting as described below. This uses an imgur.com Pro account, which ensures images are never lost. Images on free Imgur accounts, and on many other free image hosters, will expire if not requested every now and then! Your post is useful for future visitors too, right?
\n
There was initial resistance, but the utility for sites like ui.stackexchange.com and photography.stackexchange.com is undeniable. The image uploader caught on and now no one protests.
\n\nElectronics.stackexchange.com has few links to external images anymore, but we have a huge number of links to PDFs. Datasheets, appnotes, and whitepapers are crucial to many answers. Currently, we link to the manufacturer's page, to compilation sites like datasheetcatalog.com, and sometimes to PDFs hosted on distributor websites.
\n\nWhere should we keep these PDFs? Options include:
\n\nAll PDF links should point to (pick one):
\n\nbecause they have:
\n\nStack Exchange (or a service they could subscribe to) should host the PDFs. Storage is cheap, and they stand to loose a lot of value when these links start to rot.
I prefer 2: the original publisher. They're inherently the most up-to-date, and component manufacturers have more reasons not to let their links rot than some uninvolved third party like http://www.alldatasheet.com.
\nIf I notice one I change a link to a copy on a personal page to the manufacturer's.
I don't agree that manufacturers change their website structure often. It's not my experience anyway, and it would be bad PR-wise: customers want consistency from their suppliers. And if the original link isn't valid anymore you're often automagically redirected to the new page.
\n" }, { "Id": "783", "CreationDate": "2011-08-15T17:15:44.733", "Body": "I was answering a question with 0 answers at the time, and while still in the middle of typing my answer, I got a notification that someone else had also answered the question. I clicked on the notification at the top to refresh the page, and found the other person was providing essentially the same answer I was coming up with, so I abandoned my effort and navigated away from the page.
\n\nNow, every time I go back to that question, my partially-typed answer still shows up in the edit box. Clearing out all the text, and navigating away has no effect.
\n", "Title": "Can't get rid of partially entered answer", "Tags": "|support|answers|", "Answer": "This is the little-known Save Draft feature:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- We save drafts automatically for all new answers and new\n questions once every 45 seconds.
\n
This means that you can replace the text of your answer with a single space, hang around for 45 seconds, and your draft will be replaced with this space. There are better solutions, though, keep reading.
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- \n
Ctrl-s will allow you to save a draft whenever you want (though\n it will disallow this happening too aggressively.
The Ctrl-s save feature was removed, so we got this Userscript instead. It implements a 'clear' function which replaces the text of your answer (or question) with a single space and then saves this draft. This solution is the closest you'll come to your feature request.
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- Drafts are not supported on self-answer.
\n- Drafts are not supported (yet) on edits.
\n- You only get one draft for an answer and one for a question.\n (If you start a new post, old draft is blown away.)
\n
This is the best solution! Write an awesome new answer, possibly to a different question. As long as you take at least 45 seconds to compose it, your old draft will be deleted and we'll have a new answer.
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- Drafts will vanish and go away after a week.
\n
This means you didn't wait long enough.
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "793", "CreationDate": "2011-08-27T09:16:54.093", "Body": "\n
\n- Drafts work for the anonymous user as well.
\n
On my profile page it shows a number after \"flag weight\". I understand it's related to the number of flagged questions/answers, but what exactly does the number signify?
\n", "Title": "What's \"flag weight\"?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "It represents how useful your close/reopen/moderator etc flaggings have been.
\n\nEvery time you flag something and the action you flagged it for gets taken your flag weight increases. If the flag is 'declined' then your flag weight decreases.
\n\nPeople with larger flag weights get their flags higher up the lists on the moderator pages so they are more likely to be acted on faster.
\n\nThere is a formula somewhere that defines how much your flag weight increases with each correct flagging. After a flag weight of 500 you start getting less and less weight per flag.
\n\nThe official FAQ entry is here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80170/what-is-flag-weight
\n" }, { "Id": "796", "CreationDate": "2011-08-29T13:32:30.053", "Body": "Today I noticed a question disappearing from the \"active\" list, though it didn't appear to be deleted; at least I still could access it with the question number in the URL, and it got another vote after it disappeared as well. Can anybody explain what happened here?
\n\nThe question in question :-) is this one. I wanted to monitor it because of its downvotes and wanted to see if it got closed.
\n", "Title": "Question disappearing from \"active\"", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Usually, the 'active' list is used to mean https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active, the list found by clicking the Questions button/IC and the \"active\" tab. I believe you're referring to the front page 'active' tab, located at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/?tab=active. They are completely different lists.
\n\nThe question appears on the \"active\" list, but not the front page. This is consistent with the behavior described here:
\n\n\n\n\nAlso, the front page does not display negatively voted questions, provided that it has refreshed by the time that the question is negative. See voyager's comment on this post. A question that was just recently downvoted might still be on the front page, but by the next time the front page refreshes it should be gone.
\n
This post received quite a few downvotes, so it should have disappeared from the front page.
\n" }, { "Id": "798", "CreationDate": "2011-08-30T18:07:50.680", "Body": "I noticed that my daily rep counter got stuck at 190 instead of the usual 200 cap.
\n\n![\"rep](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EO66h.png\")
I still get upvotes, but no rep.
\nI tagged it as a bug, but maybe there's another explanation.
You had an answer which was deleted, but it got an upvote. As such, the system still expects that you have +10 from it, but it isn't reflected properly on your displayed reputation or your profile page.
\n\nBy going to https://electronics.stackexchange.com/reputation, you can view an accurate audit of your reputation on the site. This is accurate by excluding the reputation from deleted posts and votes, which otherwise are not reflected in your denormalized display value. You can set your reputation to this correct value by hitting the \"recalculate\" button located at the bottom of that page. This should also serve to correct today's reputation totals to give you the proper +200, but I recommend waiting until the end of the day so as to ensure all changes for the day (up and down) have settled.
I (and presumably other users) have been discouraged by the answers given on EE that don't really answer the question but dispute the method/solution to the problem. For example, in this question the OP clearly already has a communications system developed and wants help making it robust, however, in this highly up-voted answer the question seems to be avoided and the answer is \"you don't have enough knowledge/practice to do what you're doing so don't try\". Granted this might be true and another solution might be more practical. The practical trouble is this: no real answer can be accepted since the original question is not answered. Someone who might have the expertise & need, who visits our site later on will glean no valuable information from this question only an answer with a lot of up-votes saying \"don't try it rookie\". I've had this problem with my own questions, for example here and here. Even in situations in which it is acknowledged that the proposed solution is most likely not the best solution, but other constraints apply, answers seem to consistently dispute and try to re-engineer the approach rather than aid the solution. I notice this more on the EE site over any other SE sites. Can anything be done to help avoid this? Is this a problem at all?
\n", "Title": "What is the policy towards answers such as \"don't try what you're doing\"", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I think this is the difference between answering the asker's question, and provide a general solution which is useful for everybody. \"Don't try it\" may be useful for the asker, but not a general solution. General solutions can get upvotes, the solution to the asker's problem can get an accept.
\n" }, { "Id": "812", "CreationDate": "2011-09-10T12:13:28.047", "Body": "Sometimes the Top Questions page shows certain questions highlighted, like the accelerometer question in the screenshot below.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/od6Xl.png\")
What does the highlighting mean?
\n\nedit
\nFrom Oli's comment it appears that the highlighting isn't clear on every screen. To clarify: the second of the three questions is on a bit darker background than the other two.
Kevin's on the right track - just not completely there. The highlighting is indeed the one that is used for favorite tags. However, you probably don't have any favorite tags.
\n\nWhat happened is called \"frequented tags\". If a user has zero favorite and ignored tags, then the system will just quietly watch your habits and infer a pseudo-favorite based on what tags you've been frequently visiting. They will be temporarily highlighted in the same fashion as favorite tags.
\n\nThe method of disabling it is to have some manner of favorite or ignored tag. It doesn't have to be a real tag, though. If you want to, there's also a Meta request to allow opting out of this that you may support.
\n" }, { "Id": "817", "CreationDate": "2011-09-14T17:31:45.733", "Body": "It said the following. It is really from StackExchange? I have been on this site for some time and don't think I have ever seen such a message.
\n\n\n\n\nPlease verify your Electrical Engineering Email address
\n \nTo make sure that you receive emails, we need to confirm your email\n address. All it takes is a single click.
\n
Here are the first few headers. Since 10.x.y.z isn't a public IP address, I can't be sure about anything from that. The SPF warning is concerning.
\n\nReceived: by 10.204.141.81 with SMTP id l17cs33255bku;\n Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:32:39 -0700 (PDT)\nReceived: by 10.204.156.16 with SMTP id u16mr77874bkw.54.1316021558381;\n Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)\nDomainKey-Status: good\nReceived-SPF: softfail (google.com: best guess record for domain of transitioning do-not-reply@stackexchange.com does not designate 64.34.119.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.34.119.36;\nReceived: by 10.205.80.68 with POP3 id zt4mf813920bkb.21;\n Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)\nWe are sending out a one time verification email when you sign up to receive new answers on a questions that you ask. This is to confirm that there is a real human at the other end of these emails we send.
\n" }, { "Id": "835", "CreationDate": "2011-09-30T16:25:07.920", "Body": "This question uses an ASCII diagram and has the verilog tag.
\n\nTo avoid syntax highlighting, I used the <!-- language: lang-none --> directive. Per the SO FAQ,
\n\n\nTo specify that you don't want any syntax highlighting for a code block, use
\n
\n<!-- language: lang-none -->
this should cause the highlighting to dissapear.
\n\nIt did, in the preview:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n
Note: this is a dummy edit a little more than 5 minutes after the initial edit, which also displayed the bug
\n\nBut it didn't take when I saved the edits:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n
Why is this?
\n", "Title": "lang-none specifier only works in preview", "Tags": "|bug|status-norepro|syntax-highlighting|", "Answer": "I have absolutely no idea what was broken here. It works now, so something has changed, but I don't know what. I even compiled and ran the code as it was back when you encountered this issue; still no luck.
\n\nI'll tag this status-norepro, not because I'm saying you were imagining this (you obviously weren't), but because I really can't reproduce it. If you see this again, please let me know.
\n" }, { "Id": "843", "CreationDate": "2011-10-04T21:22:59.117", "Body": "We've been telling people to put images using the included tool which hosts them on imgur and that they're supposed to be hosted there and safe from removal by the host.
\n\nI've seen that it isn't so, but I didn't at the time I didn't save links to particular questions and answers. Now I found this question of mine which, at least for me, has a missing picture and the direct link times out.
\n\nI've got the impression that the images uploaded to imgur should be saved for considerable time in order to be useful for some time after the question has been made. So what I want to know is how long that time is?
\n", "Title": "For how long is imgur supposed to store images used on this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Images uploaded through the image uploader in the editor are uploaded into Stack Exchange's imgur account. Images on this account should never* disappear. Should anything happen, there are a couple processes we've got going on that would allow us to correct for something serious happening.
\n\nThe image loads fine for me on your question. Network blip perhaps?
\n\n*For as long as imgur exists, of course.
\n" }, { "Id": "865", "CreationDate": "2011-10-26T12:25:40.620", "Body": "I understand about the 200 cap on reputation gained per day by upvotes of answers. It was my understanding that the reputation gained from answers being accepted were exempt from this limit, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this in action before.
\n\nHowever, what happened yesterday confuses me and is inconsistant with the logic as I understand it. Here is a screen shot of the relevant reputation summary:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX7qD.gif\")
Shouldn't the reputation have been 215 instead of 205? Am I confused or is this a bug?
\n", "Title": "Bug in 200 points/day limit logic?", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "So what happened was that on October 25th (normally I won't expose this but since it's positive and it helps explain quite a bit, I will) the question owner upvoted your answer.
\n\nA day later when they accepted it they removed their upvote (by accident I imagine since...) then immediately re-upvoted it. This means the +10 that was part of the rep cap on October 25th moved to October 26th. The way the system works (currently) is it doesn't do an exhaustive back-search and recalc on the way when a vote deletion (the un-upvote) happens to see if you still should have hit the rep cap with other votes.
\n\nTo fix this up you need to trigger a rep recalc which you can do yourself at the bottom here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/reputation (note though, this usually results in a rep lost due to migrated/deleted questions that the votes are now gone for - but it will update your rep to the correct totals. and fix the rep cap history)
\n" }, { "Id": "866", "CreationDate": "2011-10-27T21:55:36.250", "Body": "As many of you know, I've been working on a project with fellow electronics.stackexchange user Majenko. Much of the project is born out of conversations on this site. The electronics.stackexchange has played a pivotal role in shaping the design of this project.
\n\nI shared some of the early thoughts and designs on the project through the EE chat - thanks to everyone for commenting on our work so far, it's been immensely helpful.
\n\nIn short, the project is an open source programmable synthesizer. It's called the Ronin 802.
\n\nThe website is now online and the project has just gone live today.
\n\nI posted this on the front page:
\n\n\n\n\nSo far we have produced five different versions of the Ronin 802, and\n we are now in the final stages of the design process. Over the next\n two weeks we will be scrutinizing the hardware and taking suggestions\n from the electrical engineering community for possible improvements.\n At the end of this two week period we will be ordering a final\n production prototype. Once we are happy with this prototype, the first\n batch of boards will be manufactured and will be available to buy\n before Christmas.
\n
I'd like to ask the members of this community to have a look at the project and see if there's anything they might like to add to it.
\n\nI'm not sure if this is the best place to ask for help, let me know if there's somewhere more appropriate.
\n\nIf you want more info on this project, please visit the website: http://roninsynth.com
\n\nThanks :)
\n", "Title": "Can I ask this here?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "Well, sure, Meta is a fine place to ask a question about promoting projects. Here are a few ways of promoting this, in increasing order of applicability to your situation:
\nIf you want to run a commercial ad, send an email to ads@stackexchange.com or call the numbers listed on the contact page.
\nAlso consider sponsoring a tag. This gives the tag an icon as well as placing your ads on relevant pages like /tagged and the tag page. See the Android tag for an example, we don't have any of these on Electrical Engineering right now.
\nIf you want to answer questions about audio generation while referencing your shield, or ask questions about problems you're trying to work through as you design it, then go right ahead! Just make sure you're asking or answering the question rather than just promoting, and disclose your affiliation with the product. If you want to mention it in Chat, same policy applies.
\nHowever, asking the question,
\n\n\nI just built the Ronin 802, do you want to preorder it, volunteer as beta testers, offer suggestions, or contribute code/design improvements?
\n
would not be appropriate. That's not a question. It's not a problem you face. It's not useful to our Q&A.
\nHere's a better option for you:
\nThe officially sanctioned way to do this is through community ads. See: Open Source Advertising - Sidebar - 2H 2011 for the current promotion; there will be another starting in January.
\nFrom that post:
\n\n\nHere is your chance to create a Free Vote-Based Advertisement for an Open Source Project. Create a graphical ad for an open source programming project and post it as an answer to this question (in the right format), and it will feed live remnant ads on Stack Overflow.
\nIt must be an advertisement soliciting the participation and contribution of programmers writing actual source code. This is not intended as a general purpose ad for consumer products which just happen to be open source. It's for finding programmers who will help contribute code or other programmery things (documentation, code review, bug fixes, etc.).
\n
Assuming that you mean "contribute code or design improvements" by see if there's anything they might like to add to it. (which seems likely, based on my reading of your Contribute page), you should qualify for this program! While the visitors to this Meta question will be quality people who are well-qualified to contribute, that program will put your request for help in front of about 10,000 times more eyeballs.
\nI do note that your firmware design files are in a zip file. That's not exactly contribution friendly. The site for the product is great, but I suggest that you host the project on Github, Bitbucket, Google Code, Source Forge, or another open-source hosting engine.
\nSee also the blog post and introductory MSO question for more information on community ads.
\n" }, { "Id": "888", "CreationDate": "2011-11-18T13:16:24.300", "Body": "When you are typing a new comment or editing an existing comment, if you @lert 2 people you get the warning saying you can only @lert 1 person. This is of course by design.
\n\nHowever, if you remove the @lert of the second person within 5 seconds and then hit the button to submit the comment you receive an error saying you can only comment once every 5 seconds.
\n\nI believe the code that establishes having submitted a comment should come after the code that checks to see if you are @lerting 2 people. That way once the @lert is fixed you wont get the 5 second error message.
\n", "Title": "Can only comment once every 5 seconds error appears even when a comment wasn't posted", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|comments|", "Answer": "This edge condition was recently fixed, so it should work now.
\n" }, { "Id": "890", "CreationDate": "2011-11-24T14:41:41.393", "Body": "There are quite a few tags that need cleenup, better descriptions and wikis. My question is, should tags be descriptive of what they represent or rather convey some sort of instruction to the user.
\n\nExamples:
\n\nmosfet provides a clear explanation of what an mosfet is.
\n\nusb \"USB=Universal Serial Bus. Specify which chip you are using, if applicable, in your question.\"
\n\nNotwithstanding that the usb tag is poor by any standards, should it be an instruction or an explanation? Another example: transistor
\n\nI quote Kortuk:
\n\n\n\n\nthe wiki is to make it clear to the community what it means.
\n
EDIT:
\n\nI found this post by Jeff Atwood: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/improved-tagging/
\n\nAnswers this in part, but I still think that some tags are overly instructive and need some more flesh.
\n", "Title": "Should tags, specifically excerpts, be descriptive or instructive?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|tags|", "Answer": "\n\n\nshould tags be descriptive of what they represent or rather convey some sort of instruction to the user.
\n
Definitely the latter, meaning the tag wiki should spend most of its time explaining how to use the tag properly.
\n\nIt can do both, but the priority particularly in the excerpt is \"when should I use, and not use, this tag?\"
\n\nAs you noted http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/improved-tagging/ is the proper guidance, we tried to make the tag wiki editing sidebar have an abbreviated form of this advice.
\n" }, { "Id": "931", "CreationDate": "2012-01-19T14:08:41.950", "Body": "I tried to search for this in the FAQ and in other questions, but my doubt remains.
\n\nOpening this question, but happens quite frequently, I've seen that sometimes are posted comments containing what is effectively an answer to the question, even if brief (and sometimes not even that).
\n\nSo i wonder if there is a policy for choosing between the two options, or what is the reason to choose to comment instead of answering.
\n", "Title": "How to choose between answer or comment?", "Tags": "|support|comments|answers|", "Answer": "I think answers should be well-researched and authoritative. If the answer is a brief one-liner or just a pointer to a website or really needs more input to confirm, I'll leave it as a comment.
\n" }, { "Id": "947", "CreationDate": "2012-01-25T09:00:33.257", "Body": "I am new to Ateml (AVR) - new to embedded programming. I just looked at http://forum.atmel.com/ and they seem to have only two forums: \"Touch Technology\" and \"CryptoMemory\".
\n\nMaybe I missed something, but I have a shed-load of questions and none of them fit into either of those two categories.
\n\nWhere's the best place to ask and get answers? Here? http://stackoverflow.com ? Somewhere else?
\n\nThanks in advance
\n", "Title": "Where's the best place to ask questions about Atmel AVR software (with FreeRTOS)?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "This is a very good place to ask questions in relation to this. I am not sure why every suggests you go to a different site, but we have been slowly growing in all of our subject areas and firmware has always been a goal.
\n" }, { "Id": "963", "CreationDate": "2012-02-01T13:30:40.667", "Body": "I've noted that really often, questions require the use of schematics, and answers too.
\n\nSince I've seen some online editors, why don't we also embed one, to encourage the use of proper schematics?
\n", "Title": "Embedding a schematic editor", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-completed|editing|circuitlab|schematic|", "Answer": "Thanks to the great work of the people at CircuitLab (special thanks to Yuan Wei, the developer who worked with me on this), this is now live.
\n\nFor users with at least 11 reputation, everybody, there is a new button in the editor's toolbar:
![\"screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/UbKXS.png\")
This button will launch the CircuitLab schematics editor / simulator. Clicking “Save and Insert” in the schematics editor closes it again and inserts the circuit's image into the post editor.
\n\nWhen editing an existing post that already contains a schematic, you can also click “edit the above schematic” which appears below the circuit image in the post editor's preview. This will open the corresponding circuit in the editor for further refinement.
\n\nIf you're interested in some technical details and design decisions regarding the editor integration, you can read my announcement post on meta.ux (starting from “This was a somewhat…”). This was about the Balsamiq mockup editor, which was the first external editor that we integrated with a Stack Exchange site. The CircuitLab editor's integration is very similar; from a user's perspective it's almost identical.
\n\nCircuitLab officially only supports Firefox and Chrome. It seems to however work just fine in the other browsers that we support on Stack Exchange (IE9+, Safari, Opera). Nonetheless, when you launch the editor in a browser other than Firefox or Chrome, we'll warn you that the browser isn't officially supported by the editor (but we won't refuse to launch it – as I said, it generally works fine).
\n\nFor detailed information about the CircuitLab editor, have a look at their documentation.
\n" }, { "Id": "966", "CreationDate": "2012-02-03T22:30:26.983", "Body": "Have you read the first presentation of this site, in the About page??
\n\nIt says:
\n\n\n\n\nThis is a free, community driven Q&A for electronic hardware hacking enthusiasts.
\n
Isn't what many people here try to avoid???
\n", "Title": "The real scope of this site", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "No, I hadn't read it. Thanks for pointing that out.
\n\nWe try to keep our scope amicable to both experts in electrical and electronics engineering and to enthusiasts. The experts would probably like to avoid seeing 100 versions of \"My electronic gadget X broke, here's some fuzzy pictures of a burned spot on the PCB, how do I fix it?\" and \"I'm a software guy, how do I get my Arduino to blink an LED?\". The enthusiasts would like to ask the above questions, and they'd like to get responses to more difficult questions from the experts. The experts might even, once in a while, like to ask and answer rigorous reverse engineering problems.
\n\nAt present, our problem is that the enthusiasts outnumber the experts 10 to 1, and don't seem to be interested in making room for the experts. If we allow that to happen, the site will become a Yahoo! Answers clone, with questionable advice being proffered by people who don't really know what they're doing, and upvoted by others who don't know what's going on. That would be a tragedy.
\n\nThe text in the /about page was provided by Stack Exchange (or Littlebird Electronics, way back in the day?). Community mods don't have the ability to edit this.
\n\nWe do, however, have the ability to edit the FAQ. Its first sentence (used to) read similarly to the /about page:
\n\n\n\n\nThis site is for electronics hardware hacking enthusiasts...
\n
I've changed this to read:
\n\n\n\n\nThis site is for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts.
\n
I suggest that the /about page be modified similarly. I submit
\n\n\n\n\nThis is a free, community driven Q&A for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts.
\n
as the new text.
\n" }, { "Id": "982", "CreationDate": "2012-02-12T02:07:15.137", "Body": "Could we have a FAQ or wiki on how to best embed a schematic?
\n\nThe discussion on this question: How Arduino Power supply works shows that the process can be confusing, particularity to newcomers.
\n\nHaving good, readable schematics to accompany questions seems like such a big benefit that it would be in everyone's benefit to explain to people how to do it in the best way.
\n\nEDIT: Based upon Kellenjb's comment, I would like to broaden my question. I was not really asking if a schematic should be in color or B&W, rather I am asking for general guidance on a simple and easy way for a newcomer to create a simple schematic and attach it to a question.
\n\nMy thought is any schematic is better than trying to describe a circuit in just words, and further I think (I could be wrong) that many newcomers don't really know how to create and attach one with their question.
\n", "Title": "FAQ or wiki on how to best embed a schematic", "Tags": "|support|schematic|", "Answer": "I don't think the discussion on the question you linked is really a great example. I don't see any reason why a schematic can't have color on it unless it causes it to actually be unreadable, which I have never seen.
\n\nI am not sure there is even a problem so it is hard for me to support an FAQ discussing something that isn't an issue. If people really think there needs to be something, I would rather it be more broad talking about how to post good images, not just schematics.
\n\nAfter your edit, here is a wiki that has already been made to talk about how to make schematics. As far as attaching it to a question, there is already a question here that explains how to do so. It seems to be very rare that someone doesn't know how to upload an image once they get the rep to be able to do so.
\n" }, { "Id": "989", "CreationDate": "2012-02-17T15:58:19.110", "Body": "This bug report was brought on by this question: Help identifying a motor and how to control it with an Arduino. Here is its timeline. The summary is that a new user attempted to post a question with some images.
\n\nThis, of course, is not allowed due to previous problems with the posting of...er...unsavory content by new users. The New User Restrictions state that new users cannot:
\n\nThis all makes sense. In an attempt to work around this problem, the user uploaded some images to the web and posted two hyperlinks to allow viewers to open those images. This is a very normal response for a new user.
\n\nUnfortunately, the user neglected to use the \"shift\" key throughout the entirety of the post. This is also a very normal response. I attempted to correct the illegible question and unprofessional post by inserting the images in Revision 2 and posting a comment requesting that proper capitalization be used.
\n\nLess than an hour later, the user responded by editing the post and making the desired corrections. Fantastic, right? We've now got images inserted by a 10k mod (so those should be fine) and some changes to the text of the question by the OP. Everything is working as desired - until this showed up:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/aoWtb.png\")
The new user didn't post an image. They didn't touch the lines in which the image uploading code was posted. New users should be allowed to respond to feedback on their post by editing the question, even if additional hyperlinks or images have been inserted by other users.
\n\nThe check for whether or not the new user has violated the new user restriction should exclude text added by users who are past the new user restrictions.
\n", "Title": "New users can't edit posts and leave images edited in by privileged users", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|new-users|", "Answer": "The next build will allow new users to edit their own posts in this case.
\n\nEssentially, we disable the image/anchor restrictions for new users once the post already contains the requisite content.
\n" }, { "Id": "1012", "CreationDate": "2012-03-01T00:50:53.907", "Body": "Allowing users to add a \"voice recording \" that explains their problem ?
\n\nIn my humble opinion it will be great thing if it happens .
\n", "Title": "Allowing users to add a \"voice recording \" that explains their problem?", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "8 - It encourages sloppy communication. I can just imagine \"Um, this resistor thing, like, um, is connected to the third leg of the transistor, um, ...\". No thanks. Forcing people to sit down and write up the relevant parts of the problem using words, diagrams, and pictures is a good thing. We get enough muddled questions as it is, let's not invite a whole new level of messiness.
\n\n9 - It's hard enough to follow the written word of some people who don't know english well. Having to understand words thru a thick accent will make it even harder.
\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "1024", "CreationDate": "2012-03-10T05:15:12.847", "Body": "
Referring specifically to question Transmission line for UHF TV antenna
\n\nI don't see any problem with the question, but apparently there is possibly some disagreement. I took it as a which part is better for the job kind of question, similar to \"which is better for high speed logic chips, TTL or CMOS\" or \"are vacuum tubes or transistors better at surviving EMP\".
\n\nAm I looking at the question in the proper way or am I missing something? Further is there any reason why such questions shouldn't be asked on the forum?
\n", "Title": "What's the issue (if any) asking about what part is better for the job?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I like the question. The OP is clearly approaching the problem from an engineering point of view, and wants to know not only how but why a solution will work. Referencing the ARRL Handbook, baluns, ribbon cable, and the difference between \"balanced\" and \"unbalanced\" lines isn't something the common consumer will do. This question addresses a common problem in radio transmission.
\n\nQuestions that garner quality on-topic answers should stay on this site (and get upvotes!). Questions that don't warrant a quality answer aren't any use to most people, and this includes overly simplistic questions. Where is the line between quality and crap answers? I'll let you know, by voting ;) ...
\n" }, { "Id": "1037", "CreationDate": "2012-03-19T12:18:05.910", "Body": "For the last few days (not sure of exactly how many) I have been unable to review any suggested edits. Currently the little bubble is showing me that there are 4, but when I click on this button it tries to go to https://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits but then gives me the error:
\n\n\n\n\n504 Gateway Time-out
\n \nThe server didn't respond in time.
\n
This is happening at home, at work, and on my phone.
\n\nOn my phone I get a slightly different error message, something about my browser not responding in time. I suspect it is supposed to be the same 504 error though.
\n", "Title": "Can not get to suggested edits review page", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "This happened cause this post: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/28255/1833 crashed our diff engine.
\n\nIt crashed our Markdown engine cause we hit some sort of internal edge case, the body of the post has some irregular html, this is causing the Markdown engine to totally collapse.
\n\nApologies, I rejected the edit, can the community (somebody with full edit rights) edit that post so it is valid markdown (kill all the tags).
\n\nWe are also looking at fixing the underlying Markdown engine.
\n" }, { "Id": "1056", "CreationDate": "2012-04-01T08:11:18.440", "Body": "When browsing the EE SE I notice a paperclip unicorn come up and ask me whether I want some help with searching through the posts.
\n\nAhg, and now it just popped up and said \"It looks like you're asking about me. That's nice. - Go on asking - Don't bother me again\"!!
\n\nIs this a virus that I've contracted or is this an April Fool's joke on your site? If it's the former, I would urge you to delete it immediately. If it's the latter, I hope it's not something too serious.
\n\nI'm using Google Chrome 17.0.963.83 m.
\n", "Title": "Am I the only one seeing a paperclip unicorn?", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "It's an April Fool's joke. See How can I get the April Fool's joke to appear? on the main meta (there's a picture of it in the answer)
\n" }, { "Id": "1061", "CreationDate": "2012-04-08T01:36:20.573", "Body": "Kortuk commented:
\n\n\n\n\nCommunication theory has always been considered acceptable here. This\n is definitely a boundary question, but I think one that is still on\n topic. If you would like to continue discussion of it @JonnyBoats ask\n on meta. Right now as a moderator I am not going to take action as I\n support this as on topic, at its heart all communication theory is\n applied statistics. \u2013 Kortuk\u2666 8 hours ago
\n
I response to my comment that stats.stacmexchange \"may be a better place for this question.\"
\n\nI had not flagged or voted to close the question, simply posted the comment. It was not trying to imply that the question was off topic; merely that it might get a good answer on the other site.
\n\nMy primary reason for posting here on meta is to ask when it is appropriate to suggest another stack site? In particular now that there are so many sites it seems that there is often an overlap so that a question could be on topic for more than one site.
\n", "Title": "REF: Communications engineering, call arrival rate, poisson", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "We may have miss-communicated some. You can suggest all day long, I have no issue with it, even promote it, but your comment received upvotes and I had received flags. I wanted to post my view and suggest that if you felt the question was strongly off topic to suggest it on meta.
\n\nPlease, do take the time to guide members in ways they can improve the answers they receive. I was stating that I would not take mod action to move the question so that others would hopefully not continue flagging their question.
\n" }, { "Id": "1070", "CreationDate": "2012-04-12T11:02:40.520", "Body": "I had a look at the unanswered question, but I noticed half of them seem to have an answer after all, some even two. Why are they listed there?
\n", "Title": "unanswered questions", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Once you open the unanswered questions list, you have to click on \"no answers\" tab to see questions which don't have any answers.
\n" }, { "Id": "1072", "CreationDate": "2012-04-12T15:45:48.673", "Body": "I asked a question, to which I only received somewhat negative comments which questioned my reasoning (and seemingly my sanity for even asking such a question).
\n\nI felt it was still a valid question, as it definitely relates to electronics, so I offered a bounty. The bounty expired several days ago and there are still no answers. My bounty has been subtracted from my rep but has not been returned.
\n\nI can't seem to find any information about this particular case in the FAQ.
\n\nWill I ever get my bounty back?
\n", "Title": "Where did my bounty go?", "Tags": "|support|bounty|", "Answer": "Take a closer look at the FAQ.
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "1078", "CreationDate": "2012-04-15T22:41:39.303", "Body": "In any case, you will always give up the amount of reputation\n specified in the bounty, so if you start a bounty, be sure to follow\n up and award your bounty to the best answer!
\n
I am curious what does the entry \"user was removed\" mean in your reputation summary for the day? Here is what I see:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/6lDPy.jpg\")
See the second line down. Does that mean a whole user account that voted +1 on one of my answers was deleted? Nothing on that line is clickable though, so how can one find out what really happened. If someone got bumped off the site, nosy people like me want to know the jucy details of what they did.
\n", "Title": "What causes \"user was removed\" message?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "If a user account is deleted, that users' up and down votes are removed per https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/126471. This has always been the case, but it's only recently been reported as 'user was removed'.
\n\nThis can occur when, as suggested by Federico, a spam user is destroyed.
\n\nIt's also possible for users to request self-deletion by flagging one of their posts or emailing the team. That's what happened here. The SE team honored the deletion request, the user was deleted, and the user's votes were removed.
\n" }, { "Id": "1109", "CreationDate": "2012-05-07T12:33:31.443", "Body": "I got a strange entry in today's rep list called \"Serial upvoting reversed\". I don't remember a question with that name and was curious to see what it was about, but the really strange thing is that unlike the other entries this one is not clickable. I guess I got a 150 bounty a while back and someone changed their mind who should get it? I know there's been a bunch of discussions about serial ports, although I don't remember a bounty like that specifically. Of course now I'm curious about what I wrote and what the better answer is. How can I see that questions, or is there something else entirely going on? Please explain.
\n\nHere is what I see:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QKssZ.jpg\")
Nope, this isn't about a post on serial communications. As clabacchio noted, this is about reversing votes posted by a single user to another. This is considered fraudulent voting, and has been removed. The votes were on posts which you'd previously received reputation for. Rather than deleting those entries in the log, the effect of the votes were reversed by this entry. The votes were deleted from your posts, but I don't know which posts were affected. A similar thing would happen if someone were to decide that they don't like you and downvote all of your posts.
\n\nThe problem here is that a vote total ought to be a measure of the quality of each question and answer individually based on their content as well as in concert with the author's total reputation. Your accumulated rep is an indicator of your trustworthiness, but each post you make must be able to stand on its own: We won't let you rest on your laurels!
\n\nWhat happened here was that someone opened your profile, opened 15 of your answers, and upvoted all of them without voting on any other posts. Take a look at your log from yesterday:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/HOUM1.png\")
Those votes are all from the same user.
\n\nIn some cases, this is evidence of rep-farming: Creating multiple accounts and upvoting yourself. However, I've done some analysis using a combination of common sense about your character and behavior together with some fancy-shmancy tools that analyze your activity on the site and concluded that you're not doing that. Not a difficult conclusion, of course, but it needed to be investigated.
\n\nHere's a snippet from one of the tools I used showing what happened:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/P8nC9.png\")
Each chord segment in this circle is a user. The chord lengths reflect the site rep of each user. You're the large blue chord at the bottom. I've clicked on the purple user at the upper left which is the serial upvoter. This causes the user chord to radiate arcs of upvotes. The purple arc from this user to you at the left is to scale with the widths of the other arcs terminating at other users: Of the votes that this user has made, 85% have been to you. That's not an analysis of posts based on merit, that's a fan club. It distorts the distribution of votes and doesn't help anyone.
\n\nI've sent a gentle, instructive email to the user referencing this post, so it should stop. However, this could happen again from someone else.
\n" }, { "Id": "1112", "CreationDate": "2012-05-07T16:54:36.943", "Body": "I tried to write the following equation on the main site using MathJax:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/F21Uz.png\")
The vertical bar and \\$a_2=0\\$ indicate that this equation should be evaluated at the point where the related parameter \\$a_2\\$ is zero. It's described further in the original post. This notation is also used in other mathematical contexts.
\n\nThe traditional LaTeX notation for this symbol is \\right|_{a_2=0}, but experimentation shows that \\right| is not supported.
I've made do in this case by using |_{a_2=0} which produces the following result:
\\$s_{11} = {\\frac{b_1}{a_1}} |_{a_2=0}\\$
\n\nIt's legible, but the vertical bar is the wrong height. It should match the height of the fraction, but it's just a normal character and does not stretch. I do note that other characters like ( do stretch with \\left( and \\right):
\\$\\left(\\frac{b_1}{a_1}\\right)\\$
\n\nso perhaps I'm just screwing something up. The MathJax documentation says that \\right is supported, so I think this should work. What am I doing wrong?
Test sizes:
\n\n$$ \\big| \\Big| \\bigg| \\Bigg| $$\n$$ \\big| \\Big| \\bigg| \\Bigg| $$
\n\nFor some reason, they are not aligned as I was expecting
\n\n$$\r\n= \\bigl| =\r\n\\\\\r\n= \\bigm| =\r\n\\\\\r\n= \\bigr| =\r\n$$\n$$\r\n= \\bigl| =\r\n\\\\\r\n= \\bigm| =\r\n\\\\\r\n= \\bigr| =\r\n$$
\n" }, { "Id": "1128", "CreationDate": "2012-05-13T23:53:32.980", "Body": "If you look on the Users page you see a number next to the profile picture. What does this number mean as it doesn't look related to their reputation?
\n", "Title": "What do the numbers mean on the users page?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "The default sort on /users is by reputation, and the default time frame is the current month. The following screenshot shows the monthly rep gains by each of the associated users:
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qsOD.png\")
Additionally, the tags shown are the tags for which the user has earned the most rep in the time frame.
\n\nSelect a time frame of 'all' to view the ordinary rep statistics.
\n" }, { "Id": "1132", "CreationDate": "2012-05-15T08:45:37.490", "Body": "This answer of mine was turned in a CW. I'm not sure I'm happy with that. Everybody can edit answers, but as far as I understand it a CW is an invitation for edits. I don't want everybody to mess with my answer. If someone wants to contribute, why doesn't she write her own answer? Answers will be more varied, and can answer per answer be judged for their value, so that the author knows when it needs editing.
\n\nNow I understand CW won't go away, but shouldn't I at least be consulted before changing my answer to a CW, especially since it's the only answer on the page to which it happened. (It's a different situation if all the page, question + all answers, is made CW.
\n\nShouldn't I have been asked first?
\n", "Title": "Community Wiki (CW) worries", "Tags": "|discussion|community-wiki|", "Answer": "As Olin said,
\n\n\n\n\nMaybe a solution is to not bump a question for small edits
\n
Probably the same mechanism has been suggested in meta.SO, but I post it as an answer so we can see better how much agreement it gets. Maybe we can change it!
\n" }, { "Id": "1150", "CreationDate": "2012-05-25T16:35:37.803", "Body": "There was a few (I last remembered at least 5) comments on the question I posted, suddenly disappeared and only left with mine. At least 2 user posted the comments. I seriously doubt they deleted all of it.
\n", "Title": "Disappeared comments", "Tags": "|support|comments|", "Answer": "Moderators regularly clear off-topic/not contrustive/rude/out dated comments.
\n\nYour comments were probably left because they related to adding further detail to the question, ideally those comments are edited into the question as further detail and they are then deleted also. Lets focus on keeping the house tidy. Someone visiting the site will have better results with a clean question and answers, comments are great to get the best answers possible and occasionally there are a few of discussion that are worth keeping but they should be generally included in the related post.
\n" }, { "Id": "1184", "CreationDate": "2012-06-03T08:35:22.780", "Body": "Regarding this question: \nHow to build a 2N6027 PUT? which was to rewarded with a +500 bounty.
\n\nFrom Kortuk's profile page I understand the bounty was rewarded to me:\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/230/kortuk?tab=bounties
\n\nBut I am under the impression that I never actually received that bounty. What is the reasoning behind not rewarding the bounty? Did I miss anything or am I misreading the information? Please help me understand the mechanics behind bounties being rewarded or not.
\n", "Title": "Why was this bounty not rewarded?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "That page shows a name that looks like the person whom garnered the bounty but it is actually whom last answered/edited the question.
\n\nYou were the last to post an answer, it shows you there.
\n" }, { "Id": "1190", "CreationDate": "2012-06-04T12:01:25.967", "Body": "The day before yesterday I had 2010 rep, I got +5 yesterday, so now I'm at 2013. Makes sense, right? (I don't see anything about downvotes on my rep page.)
\n", "Title": "New arithmetic in counting reputation?", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "Your rep not being high enough to see deleted questions seems to make it so that you cannot see the affects from a deleted question. Here is a heavily cropped picture of your rep changes, I did my best to hide secret moderator buttons and such.
\n\n![\"Image](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/yaUgj.png\")
My mouse is highlighting the time of the removal event as a time stamp to give the picture more reference then yesterday and 2 days ago.
\n\nSorry for the confusion, just another reason to work for 10k rep!
\n" }, { "Id": "1192", "CreationDate": "2012-06-04T19:30:17.967", "Body": "I saw a notification in the inbox, informing me about 2 new answers on my question. I went to check them, but I can't see them.
\n\nThe quote about the answer is \"I experimented with looking at your web site in my cellphone and the format doesnt seem to be cor...\", which might not be even related to my question. Possibly the notification was just a glitch in the software?
\n\nI could not find \"tech support\" for the site itself anywhere, so I'm posting this here.
\n", "Title": "I got notification on two new answers, I can't see them", "Tags": "|support|bug|", "Answer": "It was a spam poster trying to get his link on as many questions as possible. It was not a real answer of any sort, they were deleted and you are not yet high enough rep to see deleted content.
\n\nSorry for the confusion.
\n" }, { "Id": "1209", "CreationDate": "2012-06-08T09:48:48.750", "Body": "A recent question had an answer which couldn't quite convince me. But when I wanted to have a look at it again the question seemed to have disappeared completely. In my activity log no trace of the comment I posted, and in answerer's activity log no sign of his answer.
\n\nI thought questions could only be deleted when they don't have answers yet?
\n", "Title": "Can questions which have answers disappear without a trace?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "I think this was the question you're referring to, based on the fact that it was asked two hours before and answered one hour before your question here. It was self-deleted. The last question to be deleted before this one was two days ago.
\n\nThey can't disappear without a trace, no, but they're harder to find than just scrolling through /questions. Mods can find them with the deleted:1 search option, and can view deleted answers in user profiles, but they don't show up in the ordinary listing.
I've 'signed' several of my questions (across the SE platform) like so:
\n\nThanks for any help or insights, I appreciate it!\nor something akin that, sometimes along with my name. My reasoning behind this is that someone is taking a fairly significant chunk of time to help me out, and I want to let them know I really do appreciate it (this feeling is compounded by the fact that I'm relatively inexperienced, so it's not often I can give back by answering questions). However, more often than not, someone edits this out. Not that I really have any problem with it, I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind it is.
\n", "Title": "Why is 'signing' your question generally frowned upon?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|signature|", "Answer": "Signatures are not allowed, think of the useless noise added by every user adding an extra one line signature. Your signature is your little name and link in the corner.
\n\nIf you want to thank someone upvote great answers and accept the one that solves the issue. This is the built in site reward.
\n" }, { "Id": "1256", "CreationDate": "2012-06-22T16:58:18.483", "Body": "I just approved a suggested edit by someone with over 5700 rep. According to this page you only need 2000 rep to edit. So why was approval needed here?
\n", "Title": "required rep for editing questions and answers", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "\n\n\nTag wikis have much higher requirements to edit than other posts, to edit tag wikis without going through the suggestion stage you need the Trusted User privilege (requiring 20000 rep).
\nOtherwise, all edits move to the suggestion queue, where a few users with the Approve Tag Wiki Edits privilege can work together to edit a wiki.
\n
This is because when you edit a single post it bumps to the front page and receives review, on tag wikis once they are approved they do not see review unless someone stumbles upon it. Instead we have a review process built in unless you hit 20k rep.
\n" }, { "Id": "1259", "CreationDate": "2012-06-23T02:06:56.783", "Body": "What should we do with aluminum? There is currently a tag wiki edit proposed to read
\n\n\n\n\nAluminum is one type of capacitors. This tag can also be for\n cases/boxes, if the question is electronics related.
\n
I don't think a tag should have two distinct meanings. Do we seperate it into two tags, or just give it one meaning?
\n", "Title": "What to do with the Aluminum Tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "I think we should eliminate the aluminum tag. We have more descriptive or more accurate tags for both uses. For example, aluminum capacitors could be filed under electrolytic-capacitors and aluminum cases/boxes should just be under enclosures or cases.
\n" }, { "Id": "1304", "CreationDate": "2012-07-10T18:09:42.953", "Body": "Most of the ones on the new tag page only have 1 question. Should we remove\nlinker\nstack\nue, probably a typo\nconstants
\n\nI already removed log on the one question that used it using the existing datalogger tag. Also removed nokia one.
\n", "Title": "Remove some tags", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "The system automatically removes that that only have one use after a time period, a month to my recollection. No need to worry about it, it is automatic!
\n" }, { "Id": "1318", "CreationDate": "2012-07-14T19:52:56.003", "Body": "Sorry if this is the wrong place to have this discussion, but I don't quite know where I should put this. I posted an answer to a question yesterday Minimum operating temperature - Outer Space? and I noticed when someone else added an answer which I responded to saying I felt it was not answering the question asked.
\n\nI don't feel that the expanded response is on topic, and the user is now posting comments which contain misinformation on my answer or that address comments posted to his answer. I feel like posting responses which address his comments are only going to exacerbate the problem. What is the appropriate response to \"this is on topic but incorrect!\" repeatedly?
\n\nThanks for any help.
\n\nEDIT: It seems like the outright false comment has been removed, but the question has remains: should I flag comments which are wrong (but on topic) when clearly it's an escalation of an argument I don't think is appropriate for the thread?
\n", "Title": "Where should we discuss user issues?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Flagging is the thing to do. If the flagged comment for instance contains some bad language a mod may edit that out of the comment. If the comment as a whole is inappropriate it may be deleted, as apparently happened here. I know about ever more escalating heated discussions thirty comments long completely deleted.
\n\nThat's one thing. A misbehaving user can also be sanctioned. If there are too many complaints his account may be suspended for a day, a week, a month or a year, IIRC.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/5FEyK.png\")
So flag, and moderators will do the necessary to keep our site nice.
\n" }, { "Id": "1332", "CreationDate": "2012-07-19T23:21:29.570", "Body": "Recently, I've noticed a bunch of shopping questions with good answers in which no one complained (about them being shopping questions).
\n\nMost recently, I've seen:
\n\n\n\nI've seen more but don't remember the exact titles off the top of my head. Has opinion changed regarding shopping questions? Or are those questions different?
\n", "Title": "Has our opinion on shopping questions changed?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Stance on the subject has not changed to my knowledge, diamond moderators act from the same basic set of ground rules as they did before.
\n\nThe community maturing and requiring higher quality posts of its members will really increase the level of shopping question that works. The primary metric for judging the suitability of such questions is described in the blog post \"Good Subjective, Bad Subjective\". Many of the metrics are based on the answers given, as they are often the clearest way to tell if the question is too subjective to be useful. It is still borderline to me but close enough to not be worth the action of a diamond.
\n\nThe first did not show thorough research, the metric by which you are supposed to vote on questions, but did have the needed information to possibly allow users to teach instead of just giving basic links to companies or google. This type of question often spawns from a user not knowing how to effectively search for components, not necessarily a lack of effort on their part. Often showing how to use a tool to look into these parts is helpful to them and users in the future.
\n\nThe second question has a clear technical situation where they need help on how to pick a mosfet. There is an excellent chance for a great answer here really teaching a user how to go about picking a mosfet and looking at its characteristics to see if it can handle the job. Honestly, the point at which this question started getting great answers heavily correlates with the example that one of our top users has set. Ideally you give what I call a stevenvh answer on this site, you have answers that explains step by step what you need and how to tell if your device does it. Stevenvh is not the only user whom does it but his concise communications skills and willingness to attempt a task instead of giving just a part number has been a significant contributor to our site being able to open the flood gates a bit more to these questions.
\n\nFlag if something seems like it does not fit or there is an issue. If you think the question is poor and you can, vote to close. Actions on the site are designed to be easily reversible, if a question is closed for a reason, it can be edited and reopened. Moderators often only act if an issue is clear to them. We occasionally err but to my knowledge always correct such situation. Our site allows anyone to post without verification, instead using the community to close crap afterwards. At this point it must be brought to quality guidelines then we will reopen. It allows a shorter delay to good questions showing up and allows us to mitigate the presence of crap on the site.
\n" }, { "Id": "1335", "CreationDate": "2012-07-20T13:34:01.190", "Body": "After seeing few consumer electronics questions here today, I thought that it may be a good idea to change the link in the footer of SE pages to something which describes the site better.
\n\nI think (and I may be wrong) that some users just read \"electronics\" and assume consumer electronics without reading too much about the site itself. If that is the case, then changing text to something like \"electrical engineering\" or other suitable name which focuses on the engineering part may decrease the amount of off-topic questions.
\n\nAn established example for a long phrase would be game development. The \"development\" phrase immediately makes it different from our gaming site.
\n\n![\"footer\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fIdl.png\")
The next build will update the footer to read \"Electrical Engineering\"
\n" }, { "Id": "1340", "CreationDate": "2012-07-22T10:27:58.700", "Body": "There are currently 141 unused tags on EE, not counting untagged. There are irrelevant tags like australia, or mysterious ones like pe (poly-ethylene?).
\n\nThese tags will pop up as suggestions as you start typing part of the word. I think we could discourage their use by deleting them altogether. You would still be able to add them, but then it's a deliberate choice. Now the fact that they appear as suggestion indicates that it's OK to use them, while in many/most cases it isn't, think australia.
\n\nSo I propose to delete them.
\n\nedit
\nI may be misinterpreting. Other tags show the number of questions between brackets, like \"(5 x)\" next to them, and these don't. Quick survey says there are indeed some unique appearances, others seem to be there as synonyms. I'm not idiotic enough to check them all. As I understand it the synonyms will be automagically converted, so it's possible that the other ones are indeed used, albeit only once.
These are either single use tags that will die on their own or no use tags the system has not swept out yet. These will clear out on their own.
\n" }, { "Id": "1396", "CreationDate": "2012-08-02T06:14:08.087", "Body": "I was working on tags (between answers) and when I wanted to suggest a tag synonym I got this message:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/7EMP2.png\")
What does it mean?
\n", "Title": "What does this message mean?", "Tags": "|support|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "On Stack Overflow, there are tags for code libraries and software development platforms. For instance, there's a jquery tag. In many cases, it is redundant to list tag synonyms for each release of a library update, so the developers put in place validation to prevent people from creating synonyms like jquery1.6 and jquery1.7.
\n\nSince this site runs on the same engine, the system thinks you're creating a version-specific tag, and only diamond moderators can create version specific tag synonyms. In short, you're not doing anything wrong, you're just getting caught up in some of the system safeguards.
\n" }, { "Id": "1398", "CreationDate": "2012-08-02T14:05:13.280", "Body": "Syntax highlighting! Mike asked this question on SO, and the code looks like this:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/0c9GH.png\")
Then he moved the question to EE, which is sensible, because we're so much smarter than them on SO, but here his code looks like this:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ycb9J.png\")
What happened to the syntax highlighting?
\n", "Title": "What does SO have that we don't? Syntax highlighting", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Most of our source code questions don't specify a programming language in the tags. I'm not sure if we want every question that has code in it to be tagged with a language, but there is a simple workaround - you can add a header to force a language.
\n\nFor reference, see the syntax highlighting for code segment of the advanced editing help guide. The only language that we use that isn't supported is Verilog.
\n" }, { "Id": "1405", "CreationDate": "2012-08-10T16:26:12.393", "Body": "I would like to inquire about the closure of this question which Kortuk, singlehandedly, executed.
\n\nI find the closure description \"closed as not constructive\" less than helpful, and I would have appreciated a comment from Kortuk.
\n\nAlso, why isn't the \"five close votes rule\" applied here, where the question isn't obvious spam, nonsense, obscene, etc. ?
\n\nFinally, I would like to point out that the Computer Science StackExchange has a similar question that was not deemed inappropriate (and was greatly appreciated).
\n", "Title": "Closed question inquiry", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "List questions are generally not constructive questions for our site. They can be incomplete, out-of-date, and there can be a lot of noise. They are questions with \"no right answer\", so they are a bad fit for our site where the goal is to find one right answer. See the FAQ for more guidance on questions that are not good fits here.
\n\nThis is a generic StackExchange policy, but it is open to discussion in Meta. If you (or anyone) thinks that we should change this policy, then we need to have a public discussion and come to a consensus. Your example from CStheory is permitted on that site because they feel those questions are necessary for their site to function.
\n\nThe \"5 Vote Rule\" is a method of involving the community in moderation duties, such as closing questions. On borderline questions, a mod might defer their binding vote until more users vote, but this is up to their discretion. Also, keep in mind that while only one moderator's name shows up, that doesn't mean that other moderators can't agree with the action as well, or that there was no other community input. Would you feel better if five mods closed your question? Personally, if I think that a question fits one of the close reasons, I will close it.
\n\nThe other part of your question is subjective (in my opinion) so I'm not planning on voting to re-open.
\n" }, { "Id": "1416", "CreationDate": "2012-08-29T11:28:49.143", "Body": "5 days ago, as an experiment, I clicked on the link that appeared on a comment thread (the one that says \"let us continue this discussion in chat\").
\n\nThe system created a chat room for the thread, and copied comments there. Wonderful.
\n\nBut now the room is useless (I said it was an experiment), so: how can I close/delete/remove/whatever that room? It \"disappears\" by itself when not used for enough days, or a manual action is required?
\n", "Title": "How to \"close\" a chat room", "Tags": "|support|chat|", "Answer": "This will happen automatically in one of two ways, depending on the previous activity in the room.
\n\nManual freezing and deletion is limited to moderators. If you feel strongly that a room should disappear immediately, just find a moderator to do it, but usually you can just wait and the inactive room will disappear eventually.
\n" }, { "Id": "1443", "CreationDate": "2012-10-10T09:59:51.897", "Body": "The answer at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/42266/1951 looks like this to me:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/tvtpX.png\")
Normal font rendering at the top, but the MathJax stuff below it is pretty bad. Is it possible to fix this somehow?
\n", "Title": "Can anything be done about this awful font rendering?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This is dependent on the browser you are using, so no, nothing can be done by the Stack Exchange team (short of not using MathJax).
\n\nOne thing you can do is try switching the renderer that MathJax uses. To do this, right click on the MathJax table/text/formula/etc., roll over Math Settings, and then Math Renderer:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/0qrv1.png\")
I think by default HTML-CSS is used (although in the picture I above I switched to SVG). MathML is only supported by certain browsers, but the one I was using didn't have it so I couldn't post a comparison with it enabled.
\n" }, { "Id": "1451", "CreationDate": "2012-10-11T20:37:48.483", "Body": "This question:
\n\nWhy do many electronics operate on 5 AND 3.3 Volts?
\n\n(Worded \"Why do many electronics operate on 5 AND 3,3 Volts?\" in case it gets edited.)
\n\nRecently reminded me of the frustration of working with electronics on an international scope. Some countries use period/full-stop for the decimal mark, others use the comma.
\n\nI read up a little on this at Wikipedia:
\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark
\n\n\"International\" languages like Ido and Esperanto favor use of the comma for the decimal mark. I was surprised by this, because I find the comma more distracting in numbers when reading with text.
\n\nIn any case, my question/proposal is thus:
\n\nDoes StackExchange (specifically EE) have any preference or standardization when it comes to the decimal mark? Which is ultimately more common? (Obviously I would be biased if I said the period/full-stop seems to be more common, as I am in the US.)
\n\nShould SE/EE standardize on one or another, so as to not mix formats?
\n", "Title": "SE network or standardized decimal mark?", "Tags": "|discussion|formatting|", "Answer": "As more and more engineers function in global roles, a little reminder now and then that not everybody across the world writes numbers the same way is a good thing. Best to see it here and now than in a failure mode analysis!
\n" }, { "Id": "2495", "CreationDate": "2012-11-15T05:03:11.030", "Body": "Last year around Christmas time arQAde had an awesome promotion in which they awarded hats for gravatars for completing basic tasks around the site. If you don't remember it, here is a link the promo from last year (and another!).
\n\n![\"hats\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QOZfx.jpg\")
This year, SE is planning to run it for everyone because we all love hats, right? right?
\n\nBut to get this awesome hat promotion we have to opt in. That means acting on this meta post, whether that's voting it up, answering in the affirmative, positive comments and/or just directing positive energy this direction.
\n\nI think this is a good chance at a bit of harmless fun, that could potentially help keep site traffic up through the northern hemisphere winter (when traffic usually dies down a bit for us).
\n\nHOWEVER: this promotion is optional for sites, and/or individual users. If the users of this site do not want this in general feel free to voice that opinion. We can opt out of the promotion. Individual users will be able to opt out as well (they will be provided with an \"I hate Hats\" link to opt out).
\n\nAgain, please let us know what you think as this is your site not ours.
\n\n(Majority of content blatantly stolen from freiheit's copy of waxeagle's post on meta.christianity.)
\n", "Title": "Do you like hats?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Hats are cute, I guess, but to me they seem to be largely functionally redundant with badges.
\n\nMy big complaint is that the additional client-side scripting used to implement them is really slowing down my browser. I had to turn them off.
\n" }, { "Id": "2502", "CreationDate": "2012-11-23T22:22:42.400", "Body": "I noticed that I have the deputy badge, which is 80 helpful flags, yet in my profile it says I've only made 77. So where have I got the extra flags from?
\n", "Title": "How have I got a badge with only part of the requirements?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Comment flags are counted as well, and you have 2 comment flags. I show you having 78 helpful flags, and 2 comment flags.
\n" }, { "Id": "2504", "CreationDate": "2012-11-24T15:19:18.253", "Body": "I have obtained an answer to my question which is in the comment. How can I mark it as the answer.\nPlease visit
\n\n\n\nWoutervanOoijen has given the correct answer to my question and I want to mark my question as answered but there is no Check(tick) option on the comments.
\n", "Title": "How can I mark a comment as the right answer?", "Tags": "|support|comments|unanswered-questions|", "Answer": "You can't accept a comment as an answer. But you can suggest the author to change it in an answer, and then accept it.
\n" }, { "Id": "2506", "CreationDate": "2012-11-24T20:51:11.667", "Body": "Reading this question got me to thinking... why do we so readily downvote these types of questions? It's apparent that the user doesn't even really have knowledge of whether or not these modules exist... and he's looking to potentially head in a small scale production run.
\n\nTo me, these are some of the things related to shopping that we, as a community, are more than qualified to answer. Something that would otherwise be extremely hard to find on your own. Things like volume pricing for custom modules, etc... that's hard to find information. We have people here who design devices that get mass produced... these guys have sometimes intimate knowledge in purchasing, etc.
\n\nCan we re-quantify the true meaning of a \"shopping\" question and maybe show a little more love, and spread a little more knowledge, to dudes like this?
\n", "Title": "Can we ease up with the negative association to \"shopping\" questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "This should be changed in the FAQ section, under What kind of questions can I ask here, in the NOT to ask part, it says \"a shopping or buying recommendation.\"
\n\nBecause there are plenty of EE questions about components that are valid and it seems like they get down-voted fast, I think it should be reworded to something like, \"no vague/effortless shopping questions.\" Over time this will help reduce inappropriate down votes.
\n" }, { "Id": "2513", "CreationDate": "2012-12-05T06:55:26.573", "Body": "I think PCB review questions like \"Here's my PCB, can anyone tell me if my [layout/vias/placement/whatever] is good?\" are not a good fit for the site.
\n\nThat said, are there any sites that do PCB review/consulting work inexpensively or for hobbyists?
\n\nIf not, just as StackOverflow has CodeReview, I wonder if anything related to schematic/PCB review would be a worthwhile endeavor, or just a colossal waste of time. Thoughts?
\n", "Title": "PCB review questions: acceptable? Separate SE site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The PCB shouldn't be auto-routed (at least, not excessively) to be eligible for the review here. May be, we should add it to this unofficial policy.
\n\nHere's a thread, which is an unsuccessful test case. Unfortunately, the O.P. there have fully auto-routed his very-first layout. In addition, the schematic wasn't posted. Reviewing that doesn't make a lot of sense. We don't even know what the auto-router settings were.
\n" }, { "Id": "2523", "CreationDate": "2012-12-16T05:35:24.967", "Body": "Having gone through meta for such question, and finding one regarding circuit design review, I completely understand that view that \"circuit designs\" dumped on community for crowd-sourcing review comments is bad and frowned upon.
\n\nHowever, was wondering if there is some acceptable way, which amounts to asking for help design circuit, that is definitely beyond one's league in terms of understanding / appreciating in detail ?
\n\nFor example, I am (a noob, especially when it comes to UHF RF electronics) trying to create a solution that tries to locate 434MHz RF beacon signal, in an area the size of a small farm. Now I have \"found\" an almost ready-to-use circuit schematic that can convert RF signal strength dB value (scaled DC output). However it has a relatively wide operating frequency range, which covers GSM (900MHz, 1800MHz), 3G (2100MHz) and WLAN (2400MHz) as well, where there is significant chatter, which is why I need a band-pass filter to help me detect signal strength in 434MHz range. Having searched with terms like \"434MHz band pass filter\", I have come across this calculator. For the input values, I am using value of RL=53 Ohm, Freq=434 MHz, but not sure what to use for loaded-Q ? From this wikipedia article on band-pass filters, I think the loaded-Q might be the Q-factor(!), and what I believe I need is a narrow-band filter, so with high-Q. However, I am having difficulty calculating loaded-Q. Found this definition:
\n\n\n\n\nLoaded Q (Working Q): A term that defines the percentage of the 3db\n bandwidth of a Bandpass Filter. Q=Center Frequency (Fc) in Hertz/ 3dB\n Bandwidth in Hertz
\n
Now, I believe that Fc in my case is 433.92x10^6 Hz (right?), but not clear on what \"3dB Bandwidth in Hertz\" means.
\n\nHowever, I've read other posts which talk about the difficulties of working with any circuit at such high frequencies (s.a. in the UHF range), due to parasitic effects, and if I understood it correctly, then the extensive use of ground-plane, i.e. definitely must work with at least 2-sided PCB, and nothing that can be done on a breadboard.
\n\nWhile I cannot claim to have done everything possible to answer the question myself, but I trust that I've put some reasonable effort in going as far as my current level of knowledge would allow. I understand that one expected answer is, this is clearly beyond your league, and you shouldn't even attempt such a thing. Fair enough, but could I insist ? Maybe in a different forum, or say over chat ?
\n", "Title": "Noob asking for circuit design help - any right way?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|design|", "Answer": "This is an interesting case, as the examples of the specific questions might actually lead to rabbit holing the wrong answer. Eg. if you're trying to find a beacon at that frequency in that sort of area you'd probably do better with a doppler direction finder. I think only the over arching question about methods would elicit that response, rather than getting stuck in a series of questions about designing a signal strength meter.
\n" }, { "Id": "2527", "CreationDate": "2012-12-20T00:34:12.963", "Body": "This question just showed up:
\n\nDoes Wifi signal strength affect link speed?
\n\nIt's one of those borderline questions that at first glance make you want to vote to close. Then I thought, well, maybe it should be migrated to SuperUser (it's about Windows' interaction with wireless networking)...
\n\nBut maybe it's more about general RF and antenna orientation, which might be better migrated to Physics. But I don't think Physics is quite as appropriate for radio spectrum questions when it clearly involves some sort of electronic circuit.
\n\nAt the end of the day, I feel it's more about a consumer electronics application, not necessarily an EE challenge or problem.
\n\nShould it be addressed at all, or closed as off topic?
\n", "Title": "Radio/antenna questions; bordering on off-topic", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I myself saw it as more RF/MAC layer oriented, not windows configuration, so it's an engineering question.
\n" }, { "Id": "2544", "CreationDate": "2013-01-07T09:40:12.560", "Body": "In my answer here I have tried to get P = I^2 * R to show the 2 in super script, several different ways, like P = I^{2} * R as mentioned here.
\n\nHow is it done?
\n", "Title": "I can't seem to get superscript to show up, like I squared should be I^2", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "<sub> and <sup> tags would do the job too
I2Rload is produced by I<sup>2</sup>R<sub>load</sub>
In EE all we need to draw some waveforms to ask or answer questions.
\n\nIs this could be done with TeX? Or what are the software's you people are using?
\n\nCould we have add some tools to draw waveforms in here?
\n", "Title": "Drawing Waveforms", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "This indeed is possible with LaTeX using the tikz-timing package. It isn't included in the markdown editing though. But this might be possible..? It would be really useful, the tikz-timing is used by every professional organization to draw logic diagrams in datasheets, application notes, etc...
Do I need to try to pay attention to comments like thanks with a sentence or something afterward.
\n\nSorry for a stupid-ish question, but I'm very new with regards to social media sites.
\n", "Title": "Does leaving thanks type comments get automatically/mod deleted at some point or should I be deleting them myself after?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If you are wanting to thank someone just up vote. Comments such as, \"Thanks for the help.\" are just noise. If it is helpful, up vote. If it solves your problem, accept. If you need further information or have input to give them about the situation please post a comment explaining.
\n\nAlthough I am sure someone will say that saying thanks is appreciated, that is a duplicate of up voting with less lasting value. It is the same as signing a signature, don't do it because the site puts a little signature on your post for you.
\n" }, { "Id": "2557", "CreationDate": "2013-01-11T15:01:10.510", "Body": "I realized it's a breadboard, and the ICs are not across the channel in the middle. It's been bothering me since.
\n", "Title": "Does it bother anyone else that the site banner shorts pairs of IC pins together?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Even though it is short circuited, it looks nice. The display just needs a blue tint for a VFD look.
\n" }, { "Id": "2573", "CreationDate": "2013-01-15T23:44:11.293", "Body": "When I bring up the dialog to close a question, at the bottom it says \"24 votes remaining to close\". Obviously this doesn't refer to the number of votes required to close the question since only five are needed.
\n\nIs this the number of votes I have available to close questions? If so, how or when does the number get reset?
\n\nI looked in the FAQ for both the site and here on meta, and couldn't find anything about this.
\n", "Title": "What does \"24 votes remaining to close\" mean?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It is the number of votes to close you have remaining. It is similar to the maximum Q&A votes and flags in that it resets every 24 hours. Right now, with our site size and volume, you would only exhaust those close votes if you went through a full review queue... it shouldn't be an issue.
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/faq#close
\n" }, { "Id": "2587", "CreationDate": "2013-01-20T12:43:15.130", "Body": "There seems to be a pic18f2550 tag. Why is that? It isn't really used. Shouldn't it be merged with the pic tag, before we have a tag for every PIC?
\n", "Title": "PIC18F2550 tag merging with PIC?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "A tag for a single chip is usually too granular for the tag system. A lot of tags get created because the threshold for adding one is fairly low, but that doesn't mean they need to stick around. I went ahead and removed the tag from the only question that used it, and the tag will eventually be automatically cleaned up. This particular tag is definitely too granular since there are four chips in the family that are very closely related - a tag on only one would exclude the other three. (18F4550, 18F4455, 18F2455, 18F2550)
\n\nYou already can search for specific parts (try searching for 18f2550 on the main site - it still works without any questions being tagged). The tags for a question shouldn't be the place where you get important information regarding the question (e.g. what chip they are using) - that should already be in the question.
\n" }, { "Id": "2592", "CreationDate": "2013-01-22T17:40:55.920", "Body": "I'm looking at for example the second comment on Who receives the value returned by main()?. The commenter simply says the same as Dave in the answer, with the only addition that C wasn't meant for OS-less microcontrollers - but that is of no importance to the answer and also follows logically from the answer.
\n\nWhat should we do with these comments? Flagging and removing is rude(?), but on the other hand, I don't see they're a useful addition.
\n", "Title": "What should we do with comments that just rephrase the post?", "Tags": "|discussion|comments|", "Answer": "Most of the time it's not a big enough deal to do anything about. This case is as good a example as any. Yeah, the comment is mostly pointless, but it's not rude, offensive, or really badly written to the point I'd go out of my way to get rid of it.
\n\nLet's keep this in perspective. Dave's well written, complete, and straight forward answer still stands, and anyone looking at this Q+A later will read that first. So it's a little more disk space, screen space, and noise at the bottom, but that's about it.
\n\nI've seen far worse comments. Sometimes people seem to chime in only because someone else wrote the answer they would have before they got there. That might be what happened here. Sometimes, someone is having a bad day and just wants to be contrary. That exchange actually started with the first comment saying the post was \"staggeringly wrong\", which was later edited to \"I disagree\". When you get a bunch of rep, your posts seem to attract wannabes that look for any excuse to find something wrong so that they can look smart. The technical vigalance is good, but the resulting comment chain is often messy noise.
\n\nSo on a scale of 0-10, I'd say this one ranks about ½.
\n\nHere is another example of a completely pointless comment. We really don't care what this guy \"read somewhere\", and otherwise seems to be just \"Looky me world!\" without any relevant information. However, it's not worth doing anything about. I could reply with \"... and your point is?\" but that would be adding more noise.
\n" }, { "Id": "2595", "CreationDate": "2013-01-23T16:19:42.863", "Body": "I asked How do I design a triac rms power limiter?. Dave Tweed answered, in a comment, something that solved my problem. What now? Should I reform the question to make the answer a direct answer to the question. Should I ask Dave to repost his thoughts as an answer, so that I can accept it?
\n", "Title": "I asked the wrong question and got the right answer. What now?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Keep in mind that the primary interface to StackExchange questions is Google. Given that you've accepted Dave Tweed's answer, if I were to Google search for the original question you asked and the result was not helpful to me, there is a problem. Rephrase the question such that the accepted answer answers the question of someone finding the question via Google.
\n" }, { "Id": "2599", "CreationDate": "2013-01-23T18:36:56.627", "Body": "Some MathML / MathJax sites have support for strikethrough enabled:
\n\n MathJax.Hub.Register.StartupHook(\"TeX Jax Ready\",function () {\n var TEX = MathJax.InputJax.TeX;\n var MML = MathJax.ElementJax.mml;\n TEX.Definitions.macros.cancel = [\"myCancel\",MML.NOTATION.UPDIAGONALSTRIKE];\n TEX.Definitions.macros.bcancel = [\"myCancel\",MML.NOTATION.DOWNDIAGONALSTRIKE];\n TEX.Parse.Augment({\n myCancel: function (name,notation) {\n var mml = this.ParseArg(name);\n this.Push(MML.menclose(mml).With({notation:notation}));\n }\n });\n });\nThis code enables the use of \\cancel and \\bcancel respectively. These macros don't seem to work on our site:
\n\n\\$ \\cancel{(2 + 2)} \\$
\n\nSince some of our answers deal with derivations, having the ability to do a strikethrough may help with translating written derivations into electronic format.
\n\nThere is a \\not function, but it strikes through only a single character (not an expression).
\n\nThoughts / comments?
\n", "Title": "MathML support for strikethrough", "Tags": "|feature-request|mathjax|", "Answer": "You no longer need to add \\cancel anc \\bcancel yourself, as they are now part of the cancel extension that was made available as part of MathJax v2.0. If you are running your own site, you can include this in your TeX extensions:
MathJax.Hub.Config({\n TeX: {extensions: [\"cancel.js\"]}\n});\nOtherwise, if you are using an SE site with MathJax that doesn't load this for you, use
\n\n\\require{cancel}\nwithin your mathematics and that will load it for you. E.g.
\n\n$$\\require{cancel} \\cancel{2-2}$$\ngives
\n\n$$\\require{cancel} \\cancel{2-2}.$$
\n" }, { "Id": "2605", "CreationDate": "2013-01-26T06:48:22.450", "Body": "I've noticed recently that Phil Frost has posted a few questions and immediately answered no doubt as a form of tutorial, an example is How can suddenly stopping a spinning motor cause my supply voltage to shoot up with the back-EMF can't exceed the supply voltage?
\n\nI think they are excellent, but I guess strictly interpreted based on the FAQ statements such as \"You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face\" maybe they aren't real questions considering he already knew the answer? Please note that I am not in any way saying they shouldn't be allowed, but maybe the FAQ or elsewhere should clarify it a bit.
\n\nThe reason I ask is that a few times in the past I've had problems I've been considering asking, but after further research have solved myself at which point I don't consider them a question but the solution I found may be interesting to the general community. So I'm wondering the guidelines for when it is or isn't OK to post them in that format?
\n", "Title": "Self-answering questions as a form of tutorial", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You should definitely ask and answer your own questions. This is explicitly encouraged.
\n" }, { "Id": "2612", "CreationDate": "2013-01-29T07:10:38.013", "Body": "Let's say I have a PIC and an EEPROM memory IC. I store sensitive data in the EEPROM. If I want to encrypt the data, should I post it on EE or on Cryptography as a request for a fast and low memory cost encryption?
\n", "Title": "Are data encryption ideas for PICs on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "I say EE is the place! Since the hardest (or at least the most complex part) of encrypting/decrypting a PIC's memory is in the implementation/access (as compared to encrypting some data in an asp.net environment.)
\n\nPlus, this site doesn't get enough cool questions! :-) and I'm not a member of cryptography...
\n" }, { "Id": "2614", "CreationDate": "2013-01-30T04:57:14.277", "Body": "I want to learn real-time programming. I asked this and it's near getting closed:
\n\nWhat features distinguishes real-time from other types of os?
\n\nShould I not at all have asked this question or could it have been in scope at some other Q&A site?
\n\nWhy all the close votes? Becuase its mostly software I'm asking about?
\n\nBut I got real good answers though, that's why I asked on EE.
\n\nThank you
\n", "Title": "Was my real-time programmering question off-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|", "Answer": "The initial revision of your question had one reference to \"Linux\" and zero references to any sort of hardware. Even though you knew you were wondering about real-time scheduling for an FPGA project, that wasn't obvious to the people reading the question. Once you added that information, you got seven upvotes (more than most questions) because it was obvious how this question related to electrical engineering.
\n" }, { "Id": "2622", "CreationDate": "2013-02-02T08:04:02.597", "Body": "I asked C coding design - function pointers? on which EJP commented it's off-topic and/because it belongs on SO. Kortuk says no:
\n\n\n\n\n@EJP I disagree. Just because there is an overlap does not mean it has to be on one site or the other. It is asking questions related to the design and programming of low level embedded systems, that seems on topic either place.
\n
Now the same thing happens at this answer: Absolute address of a function in Microchip XC16
\n\nWho's right, EJP or Kortuk?
\n", "Title": "Are pure C questions on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "I think it's important to note that C for EE can be for x86, but is many times embedded. So there is a larger emphasis on optimization, memory conservation, low level access, etc with which many of the C experts on SO are not familiar.
\n" }, { "Id": "2623", "CreationDate": "2013-02-02T16:23:14.137", "Body": "The Arduino site proposal would interest a lot of the users of this site, so is it alright to promote it through the relevant tag wiki(s) ?
\n", "Title": "Is it alright to promote a site proposal through the relevant Tag wikis?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "We heavily support arduino on site, previously this has resulted in the arduino site being closed as a duplicate.
\n\nI see no issue in the more detailed tag wiki linking to a proposed site, but I would not guarantee you are getting a site either.
\n" }, { "Id": "2630", "CreationDate": "2013-02-04T13:46:32.920", "Body": "Here is a question which I asked earlier today, had got a reasonably good answer and was waiting until at least 24 hours as I usually do, to give time for any other comments/feedback, when I suddenly see a series of 2 down-votes, within a short span of time. No comment left behind. Clearly, the downvote wouldn't serve the purpose i.e. neither does it improve the question, nor the asker's way of position questions for future.
\n\nIt makes me think of only 2 possible reasons for such downvotes:
\n\nI didn't downvote that question, and I don't see a obvious reason to downvote it. You left some junk \"NB>\" characters in there, but that relatively small editing oversight doesn't rise to the level of deserving a downvote in my opinion. I upvoted it to compensate for one of the downvotes.
\n\nTo answer your question, there is no real incentive to downvote other than the desire to keep the site clean. We get a lot of sloppily worded questions with baby talk instead of real English words, and I downvote those regularly, for example. You don't gain or loose any rep by voting on questions. I guess there is a very weak incentive in that votes on questions count towards your total votes cast, and I think there is a badge or two when you get to certain levels. However, badges don't mean much here and I doubt anyone is going around randomly voting to gain a badge.
\n\nSometimes downvotes happen for mysterious reasons. I still think this site would be better off if all votes were public, but those that run this site disagree. I don't have a problem with someone politely asking why they were downvoted, and I have done that myself (usually don't get any answer), but calling the downvoters children without knowing their reasons is just as wrong. That in itself can be deserving of a downvote in my opinion.
\n" }, { "Id": "2633", "CreationDate": "2013-02-05T01:32:32.003", "Body": "The title kind of stands for itself. I mean, you can make some pretty advanced things with redstone in Minecraft. When it comes to complicated stuff like making computers with redstone, would questions related to that be appropriate for EE?
\n", "Title": "Are questions about redstone creations in Minecraft appropriate for EE?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "This is a good example of needing to make sure everyone understands your terms. The only \"Redstone\" I know is a rocket [PGM-11], and I've never heard of \"Minecraft\". Simply expecting people to know what those are is going to sound arrogant and get your question downvoted and closed fast.
\n\nThe solution (if this is appropriate to this forum at all) is to make sure you define your context. Actually that's always the case, just that you can assume some domain-specific context here. For example, you don't need to define what a resistor or capacitor is here. If your question relies on people understanding whatever Redstone and Minecraft are, you'd better give a short introduction. And no, just a link won't do it. I'm not going to follow a link for what I think should be basic mandatory information in your question. If you give a quick introduction so we know basically what it's about, then you can follow with a link to details.
\n\nYou want the thought process of someone who doesn't know these things to be \"Oh, that's what he's talking about. I don't know anything about this so I'll just go on to the next question\", as apposed to \"What a arrogant prick! He thinks his obscure problem domain is so important that I'm supposed to know all about it or research it on my own? Not gonna happen. Downvoting and voting to close as off topic or not a question.\".
\n\nThe more off center of electrical engineering you get, the more you have to make sure you define whatever jargon you use. Of course if you need to do a lot of defining, then it's a good clue the whole question may be off topic.
\n" }, { "Id": "2635", "CreationDate": "2013-02-05T06:25:17.067", "Body": "In a comment, I wrote:
\n\n\n\n\nAbsolutely 0ms isn't possible with any circuit.
\n
Here, in a question, you can see a slight difference between the zero and the o: 0o. But in a comment you can't: 0-10 second on-time with a potentiometer
\n\nCan we please have a font that shows the difference between o and 0 in both questions/answers and comments? It's very important for our users, I believe.
\n\nI've read this old answer on meta that states the same. You can see there that this can be workarounded with either \\$\\LaTeX\\$ or code digits, but I'd say that's overkill for simple things like \"0ms\".
Very few fonts give an unambiguous distinction between 'o', 'O', and '0'. The only one that I've seen is basically a monospaced font, the same one seen in the edit window and in c0de blocks.
I believe that this is a communication issue and not so much a font issue. We have been dealing with how to clearly and accurately convey engineering terms and quantities for a long time, and there are a few guidelines to ensure that people correctly interpret what was written. These have been reasonably standardized by the primary organization for EE's, the IEEE. This style guide gives guidelines for clear and unambiguous writing so that you can be understood regardless of the font choice.
\n\nTo pull out and summarize a few relevant points from section 13.2:
\n\nWe got a little discussion at this post: Amplifier Vpp calculation. The Photon says yes/no questions aren't good for SE and I agree. They aren't right? (1st question)
\n\nIf you agree, where is it in the FAQ? I can't find it. (2nd question)
\n\nIf it isn't there, should it be added? (3rd question)
\n", "Title": "Yes / no questions", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "Yes.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GeSHI.png\")
It appears to be that the FAQ tag on meta is used for the questions that are most frequently asked on the meta site. What if I want to post something about the FAQ page on the main site, like Yes / no questions? Is that possible? If it isn't, can it be added?
\n\nSo can there be a new tag main-faq or about-the-faq?
I think that certain tags should be created as mentioned in the question. The tags could be :
\n\nmain-faq or site-faq : Questions about the main FAQ
meta-faq : Questions about faq
faq : The actual faq questions on Meta
These are similar to tags used on MSO
\n" }, { "Id": "2645", "CreationDate": "2013-02-06T02:01:08.090", "Body": "I have the following question:
\n\n\nThe rechargeable battery info: 1900 mAH\n\nA device that have input of 3V DC and output of 5 V / 500mA\n\nIf two rechargeable battery is insert into the device, \nI can expect that it can provide me ( 1900 mAH / 500 mA of 3.8 hours ) of output.\n\nSo, if the device only provide me 1 hour of output, \ncan I say that the circuit is faulty \n(suggestive that the device provide 1900 mA of output)?\n\n\n\n
So, should the above question be posted in Electrical Engineering or other place in Stackexchange?
\n", "Title": "Is question on battery discharge can be asked in here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Battery life calculations are definitely part of electrical engineering, so your question is clearly on topic.
\n\nHowever, this particular question needs work. Clean up the English, use real sentences, and keep in mind we don't have the same context about your project that you do. Your second line isn't a sentence and is particularly confusing. I might downvote this if you post it as is. It's not clear how the battery you mention relates to the \"device\". You haven't even said what voltage the battery is.
\n\nThis could be closed as not a real question in its current form.
\n" }, { "Id": "2648", "CreationDate": "2013-02-07T14:10:49.533", "Body": "I reviewed ADI_iCoupler answer on Digital Isolation comparison. I consider this answer to be helpful, but it doesn't answer the question. I marked it as not an answer, but don't know whether that was the right thing to do. Apart from this example, what should you do as a reviewer with helpful answers that aren't really answers?
\n\n![\"Post](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/FP6YJ.png\")
We each have different opinions and thresholds for what we think is appropriate or not. That's in part why there is a voting system for the more drastic actions. In that sense, as long as you do what you believe to be correct, judgement calls can't technically be \"wrong\".
\n\nThat said, I disagree with your judgement in this particular case. While the answer doesn't strictly speaking answer the question, and therefore you can make a argument for it being \"not an answer\", I wouldn't have flagged it as such. I personally don't have a problem with answers that don't directly address the question as long as they provide some relevant information. OPs often don't ask what they really want to know, and often don't know that they don't know something important. I personally consider answers that provide such information as being relevant, useful to the OP and the site, and not deserving of being removed.
\n\nThere is more discussion of this issue here.
\n" }, { "Id": "2654", "CreationDate": "2013-02-08T18:19:40.370", "Body": "It's clear that answers in the wrong language have to be flagged. But should they get flagged as not an answer, very low quality, spam, not welcome or other?
\n\nI marked this one as other with the note \"Wrong language\".
\n", "Title": "Wrong language flag", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "I would suggest not an answer, I dont have a strong preference and your flag will be marked as valid regardless which you pick.
\n" }, { "Id": "2656", "CreationDate": "2013-02-10T03:20:08.670", "Body": "The Arduino site proposal is moving forward at a good rate. As a part of the scope of the Arduino site will cover questions that currently fall in the scope of EE, what will be the benefits (and problems) in having a separate Arduino site ?
\nThis post discusses this issue in some detail, and I mostly agree with the views given there.
\n![\"XKCD](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8aZ5.png\")
The analogy to Arduino and Electrical Engineering should be clear.
\n\nThis question asked by an Arduino user got me thinking about a different concern. The OP there is making a very good effort to break out of the Arduino abstractions and move to the right on this chart, to electrical engineering.
\n\nThe difficulty, it seems, is that there's a clear incremental path to move left on this scale, but to move to the right is more difficult. Sure, there's a huge body of knowledge that a physicist possesses that a mathematician does not, but an experienced mathematician wanting to move to the left will start at basic physics, while a physicist trying to move to the right will start at advanced mathematics.
\n\nThe analogy breaks down here, because you'd expect every physicist understands that their field is built upon mathematics, and they'd know well enough that they have to jump all the way back to basic mathematics and work to the left to bridge the gap. However, I've had some Arduino users tell me they know some electronics, as if knowing to use an Arduino is like basic electrical engineering. But it's not: knowing the fundamentals of a field is not the same as knowing the applications of a field. Consequently, it seems to take a bit of tough love to get people wanting to move from Arduino to electrical engineering to realize they lack the fundamental understanding necessary to implement a circuit that doesn't come ready-made on a shield, and that they need to back off and focus on the fundamentals.
\n\nIt would seem to me that having a separate site for Arduino would benefit both communities by making that movement more clear.
\n\nI'd be interested to know if this concept of jumping backwards being harder resonates with anyone else. I learned assembly first and Python last, which isn't how most people do it, but I tried going in the other direction of abstraction and found it really hard. Am I just an odd learner?
\n" }, { "Id": "2658", "CreationDate": "2013-02-10T21:33:09.603", "Body": "I asked a question about salvaging parts from used/junk equipment, and it was negatively received.
\n\nMany hobbyists cannot afford to buy new parts (such as pneumatic actuators, solenoids and stepper motors) so they often salvage them from equipment. I know I've desoldered plenty of relays and capacitors for re-use.
\n\nI realize all most many some shopping questions are off-topic, but is advice on how to acquire parts from used equipment similarly off-topic?
Edit:
\n\nQuantified the comment about shopping questions a bit better. :)
\n", "Title": "Salvage questions. On topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I would like to see more salvage questions but some sort of guideline needs to be set up. After reading this thread I posted a topic about salvaging LCDs and it was closed within a day. They cited it as \"too localized\" which was quite puzzling considering that I never mentioned where I am and devices which parts can be salvaged from can easily be shipped all over the world from sites like eBay. The short description of what \"too localized\" mean was equally unhelpful and the included link to the FAQ only repeated this verbatim without any further elaboration so it was worthless as well. At the moment I'm puzzled as to what would constitute a valid salvage question.
\n" }, { "Id": "2669", "CreationDate": "2013-02-12T14:37:32.770", "Body": "Sometimes (on meta as well as on main) I want to link to an answer. It is possible to get a link to a comment: by clicking on the timestamp you get a link with on the end something like #comment109723_57751. Do we have something similar with answers?
Yes, click the share button below the answer/question for a link.
\n\n![\"Image](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/NY9gx.png\")
It includes your userid in the link so that it can track and give badges for how many you refer to the question/answer. It is the last number, you can remove it manually if you like.
\n" }, { "Id": "2671", "CreationDate": "2013-02-12T14:44:31.097", "Body": "New users can't post images. On websites like StackOverflow this isn't really necessary, and thus a good way to prevent new users from spamming unwanted images. However, on EE.SE, we often need a schematic, a pinout diagram, an image of a pcb or circuit. Isn't it a good idea to remove the 10 reputation restriction for images? Or perhaps a limit on the amount of images for new users?
\n\nRelated: https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2632/17592
\n", "Title": "Images for new users", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-completed|", "Answer": "In response to this Meta Stack Overflow request we have implemented a change that will sort of allow low rep users to post images.
\n\nIf a user with <= 15 rep tries to post a screenshot, they are presented with a message in the image uploader:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
If they are on a site where image embedding is blocked for new users, we also implemented a change that if a user has less than the new user privilege and they add an image, we will now include a link to the image and a message.:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Instead of embedding the image, the post will now have a link. Previously these users would get an error message when they attempted to post.
\n" }, { "Id": "2675", "CreationDate": "2013-02-15T10:15:30.103", "Body": "A few days ago, we got yellow messages like \"please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved\". When you clicked on such a message, it disappeared. With the new style (red), this isn't possible anymore. Some messages, like \"You may only submit a comment vote every 5 seconds.\" have a cross on the right to dismiss it.
\n\nI got used to dismissing by clicking and found it way easier than the cross we now have. Is there a good reason for removing the click-to-dismiss feature? If not, can that feature please return? Otherwise: Why haven't all the messages a cross? Can they all have one if there is no good reason?
\n", "Title": "Dismissing messages", "Tags": "|feature-request|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "These notification messages should now disappear on their own without any clicking required at all.
\n" }, { "Id": "2678", "CreationDate": "2013-02-16T02:23:55.897", "Body": "Tag comparitor needs to be fixed. Somehow whoever created misspelled the word.
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/comparitor
\n\nHow to fix or report such fixing requests?
\n", "Title": "How to fix or report such fixing requests?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Well, This one is fairly simple. I went ahead and took care of it, but it's something practically everyone can do.
\n\nSomeone misspelled the tag (not clicking on the suggested existing comparator tag). So edit the tags on the one question that has that tag, and change it from comparitor to comparator. The system will automatically purge tags with zero questions in due time. If it's something more serious than 2-3 tags, then that would be a good time to bring it to Meta or notify a moderator.
\n" }, { "Id": "2680", "CreationDate": "2013-02-16T12:03:58.480", "Body": "I recently up-voted an answer but upon further reflection while not a really bad answer it didn't address a few aspects of the question. When I pressed down-vote it went from +1 to -1 instead of going back to zero.
\n\nI didn't think the answer deserved -1 so up-voted again to +1 but wondered if there is a way to just undo a vote so it would have gone back to zero in the above case? Not sure if I've missed something or if anyone else thinks it may be worthwhile feauture?
\n", "Title": "Cancelling an answer up-vote", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "You can just re-click the upvote mark to undo your vote. However, after a certain time (how long, I do not know) your vote is \"locked\": you cannot undo it (or change it into a downvote) until the answer is edited.
\n" }, { "Id": "2682", "CreationDate": "2013-02-16T13:39:53.920", "Body": "As you can see on my reputation history, on January 8, I got 266 reputation. I believe I should get the mortarboard badge for that, but I don't have it.
\n\nAm I misunderstanding something?
\n", "Title": "Why haven't I the mortarboard badge?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Quoting the Stack Overflow FAQ for badges :
\n\n\n\n\nEarned at least 200 reputation in a single day. All reputation\n activities, including up and down votes, accepted answers, bounties,\n and suggested edits count towards this badge except for association\n bonuses, which do not count.
\n
Which is mentioned in this answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "2688", "CreationDate": "2013-02-17T07:09:12.457", "Body": "Basically, The feature that when you flag a post, it also posts a comment to said post detailing why you flagged it, has recently been added to the SE software.
\n\nThis caught me a bit by surprise, as it changes the existing behaviour of the SE site, and I wound up having people respond to comments that I wasn't aware I posted.
\n\nI think it would be nice if there was some information somewhere in the flagging dialog that flagging the post will auto-add this comment.
\n\nFor that matter, can we get an explanation of what specific actions trigger this macro in the first place? Is it for every possible post flag, or only some of them?
\n", "Title": "Let the user know that flagging a Question/Answer will cause you to automatically add a comment", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "\n\nThe \"recommend deletion\" dialog is pretty clear about the fact that it will leave a comment on your behalf should you ask it to do so for you.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9KCM.png\")
Today, the not-arduino tag was added to a bunch of questions. Apparently it is for questions which do not want an Arduino solution.
\n\nIs it really necessary? If someone doesn't want to answer arduino questions, they can just ignore the arduino tag (the 'ignore' functionality makes the posts disappear).
\n\nBesides, it seems to me like not-arduino is a meta-tag:
\n\n\n\n\nThe reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author\u2019s skill level, or the author\u2019s motivation for asking it, or generally what \u201ckind\u201d of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).
\n \nMeta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don\u2019t say anything by themselves \u2013 you can\u2019t tell what the question is about unless they\u2019re paired with some other tag (or several of them).
\n
It seems like a dependent tag to me. It is also pretty similar to \"author's skill level\", in the sense that it is filtering out answers based on what the author will and won't accept; whereas other people/visitors may (after all, we write answers for visitors to read, not just to help the OP).
\n", "Title": "Is [not-arduino] necessary? Is it a meta tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|", "Answer": "I don't think it's necessary, because it is a meta tag. Using the points made in the link the OP posted:
\n\n\n\n\nIf the tag can\u2019t work as the only tag on a question, it\u2019s probably a meta-tag. Every tag you use should be able to work, more or less, as the only tag on a question.
\n
It wouldn't work as an only tag, since it would be describing what the question is not, an infinite possibility of things.
\n\n\n\n\nIf the tag commonly means different things to different people, it\u2019s probably a meta-tag.
\n
How is the poster to determine if the tag is to be used?
\n\nWhich one is right?
\n\nThese two tests confirm that not-arduino is in fact a meta tag, and the article mentions that meta-tags are explicitly discouraged.
\n\nAdditional points:
\n\nThe arduino tag (or lack therof) should be adequate enough.If the question does not require the use of an arduino, the poster could just not include the tag.
The tag sets an example for the creation of other \"not-tags\".
The search function should include the ability to specifically exclude tags (if it does not do so already), so that a searcher may exclude the arduino tag from any post results if they are specifically looking for non-arduino posts.
I earlier asked Dismissing messages, on which Anna Lear answered and I commented on that answer. I assume that I don't get a reply because status-completed is included, that's why I ask this new question.
\n\nAnna Lear:
\n\n\n\n\nThese notification messages should now disappear on their own without any clicking required at all.
\n
However, here is a list of messages that still have crosses to close them:
\n\nCan this be fixed? As Olin Lathrop points out this is very annoying behaviour.
\n", "Title": "Messages still have crosses", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "As Jeremy said in the comments, these error messages still have Xs to dismiss; but they also can be closed by clicking them (as before), and now fade away after a set period of time.
\n\nThink some of the colors may still be being tweaked though.
\n" }, { "Id": "2698", "CreationDate": "2013-02-21T15:10:17.167", "Body": "PeterJ isn't an established user:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMdYn.png\")
But on the review page he suddenly is:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/KqPw1.png\")
Why is that?
\n\nAlso: on the review page we see images of the latest reviewers. Established users don't have shadow right there:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/q0AhZ.png\")
To clarify, that isn't the Expanded Hover Card that Established Users get, it's much more in line with the basic card that everyone has. The avatar list for each review queue is to show who is actively reviewing, so only the avatar is shown by default.
\n\nThe Expanded Hover Card is only available for question and answer posts. You'll notice that you still can't see an Expanded Hover Card on Non-Established Users question and answer posts.
\n" }, { "Id": "2710", "CreationDate": "2013-02-27T18:06:04.480", "Body": "At first: many thanks for embedding CircuitLab! It's cool, easy to use, et cetera, et cetera. Major improvement of the site.
\n\nHere's a little feature request: can we have an electrolytic capacitor as well? Most of the time, I distinguish electrolytic and ceramic capacitors in my circuits - this increases readability. However, the CircuitLab tool doesn't have an electrolytic capacitor.
\n\nI hope this is on topic here, but perhaps I should ask CircuitLab directly? Their main editor doesn't have an electrolytic capacitor either.
\n", "Title": "Can we have an electrolytic capacitor in the schematic editor?", "Tags": "|support|circuitlab|schematic|", "Answer": "When you place a cap, right click, \"edit parameters\" and choose polarized. It's there already.
\n" }, { "Id": "2716", "CreationDate": "2013-02-28T13:01:40.913", "Body": "If it's up to me, the CircuitLab schematics can be somewhat smaller. See this example: What is the purpose of R2 in this discrete voltage regulator circuit?.
\n\nI tried earlier to make a small circuit on this question but didn't, because it would be way too large.
\n\nCan the schematics be scaled to a smaller size when it isn't a large circuit? The main site has this feature as explained on the CircuitLab forum.
\n", "Title": "Smaller CircuitLab schematics", "Tags": "|feature-request|circuitlab|", "Answer": "There is a nice little feature with Imgur that it actually stores 3 image sizes
\n\nTake the example posted. \nSure its big (and this is why I use inkscape) but it does the job.
\n\n\n\n![\"schematic\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/020Wv.png\")
However... Imgur permits resizing\nTo original image is: https://i.stack.imgur.com/020Wv.png inserting a sizing letter (https://i.stack.imgur.com/020Wvm.png) accesses different sizes. The downside is you would need to remove the letter to edit the cct.
\n\nhttps://api.imgur.com/models/image
\n\n\n\n![\"schematic\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/020Wvm.png\")
Recently, the CircuitLab tool was added. This tool is privileged so that only people with 11 reputation can post images.
\n\nI understand the idea of privileges:
\n\n\n\n\nBecause we allow participation from anonymous internet users, we must take some precautions to ensure that the rare malicious or spammy anonymous user doesn't ruin the experience for everyone else.
\n
But I don't see why the CircuitLab tool should be privileged. I'd say it's very hard to create spam with it. Can anyone explain this to me?
\n\n(And no, I do not think it's hard for a new user to get 11 reputation, but I don't see why there has to be a limit.)
\n", "Title": "Why is the CircuitLab tool privileged?", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-completed|schematic|circuitlab|privileges|", "Answer": "As mentioned in a comment, we had a similar question on ux.se about the Balsamiq editor, and there were three reasons to decline it:
\nNow, on electronics.se two of those three are not an issue. As for 1., I got this email from the great people at CircuitLab:
\n\n\nI also saw this discussion on Electronics Meta: Why is the CircuitLab tool privileged?
\nWe're fine with relaxing the reputation limit for posting a schematic if that's what you and your colleagues at Stack Exchange and the community at Electronics SE ultimately decide. Compared to Balsamiq, CircuitLab is already a free tool, so we have no problem with it on that front.
\n
As for 2., due to implementation differences between the Balsamiq integration and the CircuitLab integration, we can actually be sure whether an image really is an image of a schematic.
\nThis leaves only 3., and we have decided to give it a try regardless.
\nThe schematics editor is now open for everyone, and CircuitLab schematics created through the integrated editor (and only those) are exempt from the "new users cannot post images" restriction. We'll be keeping an eye on it, and if it starts to cause issues, we may undo this change. But we're optimistic that it won't.
\n" }, { "Id": "2725", "CreationDate": "2013-03-04T12:42:27.487", "Body": "I notice that the add-image component dialogue has changed since I last asked a question. I now cannot upload an image using my Mac in either Chrome or Safari, using either an image from my computer or from the web. Is anyone else having this problem?
\n\nHere is the post in question . . .
\n\nWhy are the pads different for THT / SMT components in Eagle?
\n", "Title": "I'm having trouble adding images to a question using a Mac", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "This isn't you or your mac; sorry, we broke something. Fixed already and deploying ASAP (as in: the next few minutes).
\n\nSee also: Adding a picture from the web doesn't work on Google Chrome
\n" }, { "Id": "2731", "CreationDate": "2013-03-09T11:55:03.250", "Body": "I noticed this:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/yCMg6.png\")
As you can see, some users have a dotted border around their profile picture. I recently changed my profile picture, but Renan didn't, as far as I know. This really isn't something on the picture, I checked, it's in the stylesheet of the website (see below).
\n\nI can't find a logic in who has the border and who hasn't. It's the same all the time though.
\n\nUsers with a dotted border have a somewhat malformed profile page: the user's info starts below the image. Have a look at my profile for example.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/pFuqX.png\")
This has been fixed. The dotted borders still appear though.
\n\nMore users: I rakshith, Nick Rosencrantz, Jeremy Tunnell, angelatlarge, Tom L., Brian Drummond (after he changed his avatar, I believe)
\n\nThis is EE-specific. I can't find any picture on WordPress Answers or TeX with the dotted border.
\n\nI took a look at the HTML, and found that the users with dotted border are in a <div> with class gravatar-wrapper-32. The other users are in a <div> with no class at all. The CSS (border: 1px dotted rgb(195, 181, 156);) is linked to the class gravatar-wrapper-32.
A temporary solution is to add a UserScript to your browser, like this:
\n\n\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LqY9v.png\")
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2236z.png\")
// ==UserScript==\n// @name Remove dotted border on EE.SE\n// @namespace http://*electronics.stackexchange.com/*\n// @version 1.0\n// @include http://*electronics.stackexchange.com/*\n// ==/UserScript==\n\n// .gravatar-wrapper-32 is for small pictures like under a question / answer\n// .gravatar-wrapper-48 is for somewhat bigger pictures like on the users list\n// .gravatar-wrapper-128 is for the profile picture\n$('.gravatar-wrapper-32, .gravatar-wrapper-48, .gravatar-wrapper-128').css({\n border: '0'\n});\nYesterday I saw a proposed edit by \"gutto\" to a question asked by \"guto\". I rejected the edit with a note saying he should use the same account to edit as he did to write the question. He wouldn't need anyone's approval to edit his own question anyway. Also, having the same user speak from different accounts causes confusion.
\n\nI thought multiple accounts where against the rules, or at least discouraged, and I know mods can merge accounts (I learned this when a particular user that is now in the penalty box for a long time kept creating \"sock puppett\" accounts, and I heard mods talk about \"merging\" them to his real account. See fourth comment down by Kortuk.). This guy managed to get his edit thru with the second account anyway, so I flagged it for moderator attention figuring a merge was in order and perhaps a warning to the guy to not create multiple accounts in the future. However, my flag was declined with the cryptic note \"Ask in meta about it for more feedback, but it can actually be very hard to recover an account if they loose it. The process is not obvious and I can no longer just merge for them. Do not reject edits\".
\n\nNow I'm really confused. That note raises more questions than it answers. Something changed recently so that mods can't merge accounts as before? What can they do? When is it appropriate? What really is the policy on multiple accounts? Isn't having the same user, particularly in the same question, using multiple accounts a bad thing? What is meant by recovering a account if someone looses it? What do you mean \"loose\" it anyway? Note that the edit with the second account was only about 9 hours after the question, so the original couldn't have been considered inactive or something. What is meant by flat out \"Do not reject edits\"? Isn't that what the edit queue is for? If we're never supposed to reject one, what's the point of having us review edits?
\n", "Title": "When can mods merge accounts?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "We lost this right because if we merge accounts, incorrect, we can give someone private information about the other. This is a privacy violation, so merge now must go through a more standard channel. You must use the Merge Function under Help. Take a read through the procedure, it is not very quick, especially for those using browser cookies.
\n\nWe can still do other things, in relation to the link where I talk about dealing with Tony we just destroy all the accounts, instead of merging it back to his account, so you wont be able to tell who was a random user and who was Tony in 6 months, but his content is still deleted.
\n\nYou can have as many accounts as you want, I have had an SE employee suggest I get a couple others and use the site from them occasionally so that I know how it looks and feels to others. For a long time I thought that everyone could go back and edit comments indefinitely... Many issues like that arise.
\n\nA user can have multiple accounts, what you were seeing was probably symptomatic of someone having an account based on a browser cookie and loosing the ability to access that account and having to make a new one.
\n\nWe have an issue if your sock puppets are voting for you and you are voting for them, then it is vote fraud. We also have an issue if you are creating multiple accounts to get around an existing question ban or suspension.
\n\nif it is from the same user trying to update their question (I hit the character limit with 0 characters left at the end of that sentence). Of anyone, that use has the most rights to edit their question. For all you know they have contacted SE via email for a merge and are waiting for it, but they don't want to leave a crap question on the site and are trying to improve it.
\n\nYou can reject edits for the normal reasons, but seeing that a user has more then one account is not one of them, previously when I would see this appear I would just fix it, but that is no longer an option, so cut the user some slack.
\n\nThere is no damage done by this, it might look a bit odd, but who cares, most people pay no attention to edits. We just want the best quality answer we can have.
\n" }, { "Id": "2745", "CreationDate": "2013-03-12T16:38:21.070", "Body": "This post from 3 years ago seems to show that https://electronics.stackexchange.com/ was originally named Electronics Exchange. Now it is Electrical Engineering. I was wondering why this change was made. I know I didn't give it a proper look when I was looking for a decent electronics site (I assumed it was pure electrical engineering, not electrical and electronic).
\n\nWas there a reason why it was renamed? I feel like the current name isn't necessarily all-inclusive of the content (nor would Electronics Exchange). Has there been a discussion somewhere (I have searched and can't find it) which led to the renaming or suggested other names?
\n\nEDIT: I just saw this on the community bulletin and thought it was a perfect case of what I am describing.
\n", "Title": "Renaming Electrical Engineering", "Tags": "|discussion|electronics|", "Answer": "Electrical engineering covers much more than electronics. Is the intention of this site to deal with electronics only, or all electrical engineering fields, including such things as:
\n\nThere doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion on non-electronics electrical engineering topics.
\n" }, { "Id": "2752", "CreationDate": "2013-03-12T23:29:06.397", "Body": "Here is another question I just posed, but really what I wanted to drive at was possible suggested name changes to the site. I know a lot of people love the site the way it is so this is just a discussion so I'd like to ask everyone to be constructive here. There's no bad ideas in a brainstorm :)
\n\nNote that this thread is not a duplicate as it was formed when the site was named something else (however you may want to quickly go through it because there is still relevance there).
\n\nMy primary motivation here is that while 'Electrical Engineering' is all-encompassing in the US, it doesn't mean the same thing in the rest of the world (there is a distinct difference between electronic and electrical outside the States). What I would like to hear suggestions for is a site name that is specific enough to represent the content well but broad enough to capture everything about the site.
\n\nSo does anyone have any ideas?
\n", "Title": "Should there be a name change to the site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'm from outside the States and had no idea the two weren't the same thing. And even when I would have known the difference, I would've come to this SE site to ask questions about electronics.
\n\nFrom an SEO (Search Engine Optimalisation) point of view, I'd say this name is really good. We have \"Electrical Engineering\" as a name, but \"electronics\" in the URL. That makes this site score high in search engines, both on queries with \"electrical\" and on queries with \"electronics\".
\n\nName changes aren't nice
\n\nNot only because 'we're used to electrical engineering', but also because of the search engines. They'll have to get used to the new name, crawl all pages again, et cetera, et cetera. You really don't want to have two different names wandering around the net. In the end, the search engines will get used to the new name though, so this is merely a temporary problem.
\n\nWe should ward for descriptions in titles. For example, \"This is my homepage about blah\", isn't a good title, it's a description. The title should've been either \"My homepage\" (though it doesn't say a lot) or \"Blah\".
\n\nEE's description on our FAQ (and stackexchange.com/sites as well) says:
\n\n\n\n\nQ&A for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiast (...) which include electronics, physical computing, and those working with microcontrollers, Arduinos and embedded systems.
\n
That's a very good description and I think anyone can agree with that. We should ward to put the description of the site in the title. We do not want a title like \"Electrical and electronics engineering, and a bit about electromagnetic forces and communication schemes as well\".
\n\nAnd apart from the title and the description, the logo (and the overall site design) is a good way to profile your website. Our logo is more electronics than electrical engineering:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/j8jEF.png\")
... and thereby shows everyone that electronics is included in the scope of this site. Also the overall site design, with chips, LEDs and a breadboard, is more of electronics than of electrical engineering.
\n\nAs stated in Possible Name Change?, the word \"Electronics\" is associated with consumer electronics. This question shows there was a problem with the word \"Electronics\", and even now, I think we have too much questions about consumer electronics. We really don't want more, do we?
\n\nI don't think we should have a name change.
\n\nI will be reading this question and its answers with great interest to see with what you come up.
\n" }, { "Id": "2754", "CreationDate": "2013-03-13T08:28:45.210", "Body": "Questions asking about how HDL constructs relate/imply hardware or vice versa, I think belong on Electronics.
\n\nQuestion about testbenches, compiler errors feel like programming questions to me, and StackOverflow already does a good job of answering them, Verilog Qs on StackOverflow.
\n\nExample questions I think could be migrated :
\n\nI would like some guidelines on this topic as I see a number of posts which I think would get better answers on StackOverflow, but do not want to unnecessarily/incorrectly flag them.
\n\nUpdate\nBased on the The Photons feedback I understand that downvotes on meta are against the idea, not the question. From the down votes against migrating questions implies the community welcomes HDL based questions.
\n", "Title": "Where do HDL (Verilog) questions belong?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "They are a boundary that is on topic on both sites, as such I feel we should allow users to choose where they ask and keep the questions there.
\n" }, { "Id": "2757", "CreationDate": "2013-03-14T16:17:52.017", "Body": "\n\nGenerally, this link from the WordPress SE says that answers just linking to a solution are wrong per the faq#deletion:
\n\n\n\n\nAnswers that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are \u2026 barely more than a link to an external site
\n
Those answers should be made a comment if useful or removed if not, so says Rarst \u2666.
\n\nI agree with him for there, but am not quite sure if this is / should be the same here. What about links to Wikipedia, App Notes, datasheets, and other texts or documents that are widely used, maintained by big organizations and generally considered to be accessible in the future as well?
\n\nFor example, look at pjc50's answer on Save energy with PIC project. I consider this answer to be useful, though it's nothing more than a \"yes\" and a link to where the \"yes\" is explained. Also see this question which is basically screaming for app notes, which are given in this answer.
\n\nThere's a vague line between \"barely more than a link to an external site\" and \"very useful, official documentation\".
\n\nThis meta-question is intended to give support on how to treat answers like the two linked above.
\n\nRelated: the problem of answers with links
\n", "Title": "Policy on answers only containing a link", "Tags": "|support|hyperlinks|answers|", "Answer": "This is a meta.SE policy. Links break. We have been around 4 years. I get flags for link only broken answers all the time.
\n\nYour answer should answer the question and only use links for further reading/reference for material.
\n" }, { "Id": "2763", "CreationDate": "2013-03-15T16:30:00.340", "Body": "I don't use this site all that much, which is evidenced by the fact I asked a question which should have been posted to Electrical Engineering Meta on Meta Stackoverflow.
\nThe question now has 7 votes and I have accepted a well-thought out answer. In my Meta Stackoverflow user profile summary it shows the question has three upvotes 3 (and my account shows +15 in rep for these 3 votes) and in my Electrical Engineering Meta user profile it shows the correct score of 7 on the question (and obviously there is no affect on my reputation). You can probably guess that the question was moved when it had 3 upvotes.
\nThe issue is that the question does not show as being marked as correct in either account. And since I, like probably quite a few people on these sites, have a wee bit of OCD in me this drives me nuts.
\nI hope the description makes the issue clear.
\nEDIT: This is a screen shot from my Meta Stackoverflow account:
\n![\"SO](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/G9wjv.png\")
You can see the question shows neither the correct score nor as being marked as correct. I'd like it if it either didn't show up in my questions list there, or else reflected the correct state of the question. Either way works.
\nI also just noticed that the question now shows up correctly in my EE Meta.
\n", "Title": "Migrated questions don't show as being marked correct", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "It was migrated, the post there will no longer update for changes here. You will not earn rep for it here and at some point they will clean how and remove it from Meta.SO and you will lose it showing on your account.
\n" }, { "Id": "2764", "CreationDate": "2013-03-15T16:43:41.260", "Body": "I am not disagreeing with the current set up; I am just curious what the motivation was to design the site this way.
\n\nStackOverflow and Meta StackOverflow have separate reputation scores (you earn different scores on the two different sites) but here at Electrical Engineering Meta your reputation is linked to your account on Electrical Engineering.
\n\nWhy the difference? Was there a particular reason for one going one way and the other one a different way?
\n", "Title": "Why is there no reputation earned on this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You have to be careful what advice or procedures you pull from Stack Overflow. Some of their stuff is legacy and some of it is purely geared towards (relatively) large communities. The meta organization for meta.SO is the way it is (both site and system meta) because it will be painful to change it.
\n\nMeta is for site business. It's for people to speak their mind, identify issues with the community, and to gauge public opinion. People do this because they have an issue, or are motivated to improve the site.If there is a reward for stating \"popular\" opinion, and a penalty for saying something unpopular, then meta devolves into a popularity contest.
\n\nYou get points for being an expert on the site, not for being an expert about the site.
\n" }, { "Id": "2768", "CreationDate": "2013-03-17T03:17:30.927", "Body": "I could have avoided asking a duplicated question had I been able to use extended regular expressions.
\n\nDuplicated question is What is the origin of the "r" in resistance measurements?
\n\nHad I been able to search for answers using an expression akin to:
\n\n\\b[0-9]+R[0-9]+\\b\nthen I might have seen the other answer and not added the duplicate question.
\n\nIs there a way to do that within the Stack Exchange?
\n", "Title": "How do I search any of the Stack Exchange sites using regular expressions?", "Tags": "|feature-request|search|", "Answer": "Yes and no.
\n\nYou can use Stack Exchange Data Explorer to run arbitrary SQL queries (read-only, of course) against any site in the network.
\n\nHowever, Stack Exchange uses Microsoft SQL Server which doesn't support regular expressions. The closest you'll get is some very limited pattern matching (LIKE syntax). Even the simple regular expression you suggest can't be expressed with the limited syntax, though.
Stack Exchange does offer a few APIs that you might be able to use to do this: http://api.stackexchange.com/. I haven't looked at the API at all, so I'm not sure if it has the same limitation as the Data Explorer (or what is possible with it).
\n\nYou could always query a larger, unfiltered data set from the API(s) and filter it with regular expressions on the client side (i.e. your own application).
\n\nI agree with Keelan that you should ask this at SO Meta. Data Explorer is cared for by SQL ninjas, so I'm sure they can provide a definite answer/maybe even offer to implement the feature :)
\n" }, { "Id": "2788", "CreationDate": "2013-03-24T15:07:22.773", "Body": "The syntax highlighting of hex files is bad, as shown in What PIC processor was this HEX-file meant for?:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ggl2.png\")
Can something be done about that?
\n", "Title": "Hex file formatting", "Tags": "|bug|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "Depending on the tags you use, different code syntax highlighting will be used. You selected the assembly tag, which has a code syntax style default. It's not exactly assembly because there isn't a code format for that available.
\n\nI wouldn't expect a \"proper\" syntax highlighting for your code as that is more of a file format (Intel Hex) rather than a code language (C, ASM, Python, etc...). The syntax highlighting is done using Google Prettify (see editing help for more info).
\n" }, { "Id": "2800", "CreationDate": "2013-03-26T16:35:01.273", "Body": "On SO, when you flag a question as off topic, you can choose several options to migrate the question to:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/fs8KP.png\")
We don't have that, except for meta:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/i6qZl.png\")
I see some questions that I'd like to see migrated instead of just closed. For example, this one: What can I do as a student to be a better candidate for a hardware design job?
\n\nSo, can we have more migration options? What should these options include? For now, I'm thinking of SuperUser, StackOverflow and DIY. What are your thoughts?
\n", "Title": "More migration options", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|status-completed|migration|flagging|", "Answer": "I don't know if it's changed or I just have some issue, but I NEVER see anything but the meta group for a migration option, and the meta group is usually not a good option when I think of migrating.
\n\nI would suggest a migrate options list that is sensitive to the reputation of the person suggesting the migration ON THE SITE THEY SUGGEST MIGRATING TO. I have certainly seen high-ranked moderators on site A who know nothing of the culture on site B send lousy migrations. Someone, even someone with a rep of 101 on site A, who is a 3K, 5K or 10K rep on site B is going to know that \"this question belongs on site B\", and should be able to suggest that, easily and sensibly. That should cut WAY down on rejections, and ALSO cut way down on questions that are closed because there is no sensible way to suggest migrating them where they need to go.
\n\n\"You can submit a custom flag\" Well, no, you can't, FROM THE MIGRATION page. You SHOULD be able to make a suggestion on the migration page, but you can't, actually. You have to take 3 steps back and wonder how much you're wasting your time by making a generic \"other\" flag to suggest a specific thing (migration) for which there is already a (mostly broken, IMHO) work path.
\n\nThe current number of migrations completely fails to capture the questions that are simply closed without even a migration attempt, when there might have been a good place for them to be answered.
\n" }, { "Id": "2805", "CreationDate": "2013-03-27T14:02:37.433", "Body": "I flagged this answer as \"Not an answer\" because it's a link-only answer, and this is our policy on that and the FAQ states:
\n\n\n\n\nAnswers that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are \u2026 barely more than a link to an external site
\n
My flag was
\n\n\n\n\ndeclined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer
\n
Why? I didn't mean to indicate a technical inaccuracy.
\n", "Title": "Why was my flag declined?", "Tags": "|support|specific-question|flagging|", "Answer": "I declined the flag, for the reason stated in the feedback itself.
\n\nAlthough it was little more than a link, that was indeed an answer, it was coherent with the topic of the question and - through the link - it was providing with good content.
\n\nIf you don't like it, you have other ways to act before thinking to flag it:
\n\nEdit it, adding the content that you think might complete it (in this case, a summary of what the video explains). This is a very valuable contribution that you give to the answerer and the site in general, and it also gains you some rep.
Comment to the answer, saying that it should be something more than just the link, and asking to add the content, as descripted in 1.
Downvote: if the answerer doesn't act over your feedback, or if you think that it may misguide the readers, or if you think it's low quality in general - that's your way of informing the community and the user itself of your opinion.
NB: I didn't mean to reject your contribute, which is always welcom and often useful, just pointing out that flags should be used when you don't have other ways to fix.
\n" }, { "Id": "2809", "CreationDate": "2013-03-27T16:29:31.923", "Body": "What's the difference between declined and disputed flags?
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GVaKr.png\")
Diamond moderators decline flags.
\n\nAny user using the review queue can dispute your flag.
\n" }, { "Id": "2811", "CreationDate": "2013-03-27T23:52:32.130", "Body": "I just checked in and notice within the last couple of hours or so that 76(!) post have suddenly appeared in the review queue for first posts. WTF? I looked at the dates on just a few, and they weren't all recent. Obviously I'm missing something about how the system works or is supposed to work. If anyone knows what's going on and how old posts can suddenly show up in the first posts queue, please explain.
\n", "Title": "76 first posts in review queue?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This is the result of a recent bug fix. Apparently there was a bug that prevented some posts from appearing in the queue. Since the bug was fixed, those posts that should have been in the queue now are.
\n" }, { "Id": "2826", "CreationDate": "2013-04-02T21:18:21.220", "Body": "I apologize if thise has been discussed before, but I didn't see anything. There has been a rash of new user acounts answering questions, and an equal (rush) to protect them
\n\nAnd so on. As of this writing all these users can be seen on the main page next to the questions they posted answers to, but now the questions are protected, and the new accounts are suspended. The answers seemed remotely plausible (i.e. not entirely gibberish) though the questions were out of my area of expertise for sure.
\n\nOn the pull switches question the new user account posted
\n\n\n\n\nWhatever you choose, the contacts must be gold plated to prevent corrosion.
\n
On one hand, this answer could make sense: gold protects from corrosion. On the other hand, in this case the OP specifically said that corrosion is not a factor.
\n\nWhat is going on?
\n", "Title": "Many new user accounts+answers+suspensions and protected questions", "Tags": "|discussion|moderation|answers|new-users|", "Answer": "Just as some additional non-moderator insight while also being respectful of his identity I have seen quite a lot of the troll's 'work'. I assume it's because I'm in a UTC+11 time zone I'm often around at 'odd' times compared to many other users. An example earlier today were three answers posted from a new account that to quote you:
\n\n\n\n\nseemed remotely plausible (i.e. not entirely gibberish)
\n
In fact one was potentially pretty useful, even though not grammatically great. When reviewing the first posts while I had 'suspicions' it was the same person as I'd been advised by Kortuk in chat I treated that individual post on it's merit and it was OK. The following two answers he posted while not great didn't warrant any sort of flag.
\n\nThat was followed by a suggested edit on a question from the same account that included something along the lines of \"OP is as much as an idiot as (moderator name)\". Then there was a similar sequence from another new account shortly after that followed a similar pattern with the final 'answer' including the OP should stop smoking whatever they are on or similar.
\n\nI haven't been around long enough to know what the original suspension was about, but considering he does seem to have insight into some topics it's a shame he doesn't concentrate his efforts on constructive contributions instead of endless creation of sockpuppet accounts for trolling.
\n" }, { "Id": "2828", "CreationDate": "2013-04-03T11:24:40.310", "Body": "In reviewing a suggested edit I made some further improvements and then realised moments later I'd made an incorrect assumption that the OP was using a pair of microcontrollers, considering it was a CAN bus it could have involved more than two devices so I removed my reference to a pair. It is edit three on the following revision list:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/posts/64220/revisions
\n\nApart from my misspelling of 'possiblly' in the edit summary it looks a bit odd now because my first edit has been rolled into the second but using the second edit summary where I'd just removed a \"pair of\" microcontrollers. No big deal but I wondered for future reference how long you get to re-edit a post without it appearing as a distinct edit?
\n", "Title": "Time limit before edits commit to revision history", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "It's a 5 minute limit. This has been discussed many times on Meta.StackOverflow if you want to know more about it.
\n\nI believe one of the staff said that if they logged every single edit as a separate revision it would add a huge load on their database, as most people reread their posts and edit typos immediately after posting.
\n" }, { "Id": "2840", "CreationDate": "2013-04-06T08:08:56.780", "Body": "I encounter a delay in the review of flags when it's morning here in the Netherlands, let's say 6:00 UTC. That made me wonder what the timezones of the moderators are.
\n\nOther sites use this information when electing new moderators, so I thought I could give it a meta question.
\n\nOf course, this data is little useful when not compared to the activity of the whole site, so I'd like to see activity stats of the whole site as well.
\n", "Title": "When are the moderators / is the site active?", "Tags": "|support|election|moderators|", "Answer": "I took the locations of the profile pages1:
\n\n\n\n\n1: I hope I don't mess with privacy, that was (and is and will be) never the intention. I thought I could list the information as it was freely available on the moderators tab of the users list.
\n
To give some graphical impression, I made this. I estimated one usually is online from ~8:00 am to ~8:00 pm local time. But as that assumption probably isn't right at all, the image is only a \"shadow of reality\":
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/tmrsQ.png\")
I made a query for this. For the last month, the site seems to be the most active from 14:00 to 20:00. I think this is UTC, but I'm not sure.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/54DPM.png\")
The last 10 months give a smoother view:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/l4hMv.png\")
Earlier today I flagged an answer as \"not an answer\" and it's since been moved to a comment along with my original comment under the answer. The question I'm discussing is:
\n\nHow do I exchange LCD display with 7-segment LED's?
\n\nIn case anything changes in the comments area the 'answer' was:
\n\n\n\n\nduring 1996 l have found on an electronics\n magazine(probably'electronics for you' or elektor,i don't rember) on a\n project of an electronic\"lcd clock\"based on a wrist watch. where the\n signals for lcd display were amplified by using some pairs of SL100and\n SK-100 to drive 3&1/2 LED display connected in matix arrangement. I am\n still searching for the project.
\n
During the first post review process I made the following comment and flagged it:
\n\n\n\n\nWelcome to the EE.SE! Until you locate the project and can provide\n further information though you shouldn't really post this as an\n answer. Once you have enough reputation it would be suitable as a\n comment but for the moment it would be better to hold-off until you've\n found the solution that answers the question.
\n
Now I'm wondering if I delete my comment if the user will still receive any feedback if they haven't happened to be on the site since? I thought I'd leave the comment for the moment in case it means they won't get feedback but at the same time it may confuse the OP that it's somehow directed at them.
\n", "Title": "Comments when \"not an answer\" is processed", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "That was our fault. When we convert an answer to a comment we get a nice little check box to migrate all comments to that answer also, as sometimes the OP will get in a back and forth discussion there. When the answer was converted to comment your comment was migrated also.
\n\nAll fixed now. Your comment is still on the users answer that was deleted and it will notify them there.
\n" }, { "Id": "2861", "CreationDate": "2013-04-16T14:13:29.747", "Body": "I was first going to ask this on Meta, but that was not possible because it required me to do \"finish signup\" which doesn't work for me. I always have this thing at the top of the screen next to my name that says \"finish signup\". ![\"Finish](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yvke9.png\")
So, I click on it, and see what happens. I get to this screen, and I enter a password.
\n\n![\"Entering](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/abYbJ.jpg\")
After I do that, it redirects me back to the electrical engineering home and it still says \"finish signup\". What is wrong with this, and Why can't I sign up, I think I have enough reputation. I wish to be able to vote, so this is why I want to finish signup.
\n", "Title": "Why doesn't finish signup work?", "Tags": "|bug|website|openid|", "Answer": "I am curious as to who pays the bills to keep the lights on around here? Is the site supported purely by advertisements? Does stackexchange itself own the site?
\n", "Title": "Who pays the bills?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Stack Exchange works primarily from VC funding. It raised 12 million USD in March' 11. This is what keeps the sites up.
\n\nThe earnings from sources mentioned in Jeff's answer make up a portion of the earnings but alone, are not enough to keep the servers running and employees paid*.
\n\nAlso, note that the company has expanded significantly since 2011 whereas ads have not increased in number. Stack Exchange is focusing mainly on expanding Careers and increasing earnings from it.
\n\n*I will add a source for this when I find it. I think it was mentioned in one of the podcasts.
\n" }, { "Id": "2884", "CreationDate": "2013-04-22T18:59:32.503", "Body": "Last night, while the mods were getting some much-needed rest, a new user started posting advertizements for a blog. The community moderation worked, with many of the posts were marked as SPAM. However, a new user is free (as far as I know) to continue posting spam.
\n\nI would like to propose that new users who had, let's say three posts marked as SPAM by the community (i.e. 5 SPAM flags) are automatically suspended pending moderator review and/or their posts are not published until they pass review (as jippie suggests). The moderator review of suspension/required review status might be useful if we are worried about some number of users colluding in chat to gang up on an unsuspecting new user. Note that I am not proposing to ban the source IP: rather just suspend the user account. Yes, the spammer can create a new account and continue defacing the site, however, this is a bit of an extra hoop the spammer has to jump through at no cost to the community, under the present proposal.
\n\nBTW, a similar question has been discussed in the post How do we avoid spam recidivism? here, however, both the problem and the solution proposed are somewhat different.
\n", "Title": "Proposed change: automatic suspension/review of users who spam", "Tags": "|feature-request|new-users|spamming|", "Answer": "There are already methods in place for Qbans/Abans.
\n\nThey dont release the methods, as it would allow gaming, but a user who receives downvote/deleted questions/spam flags will be blocked from posting further until they modify their posts to have some of the previous actions reversed.
\n\nHaving a pre-review step does not make sense to me, if they are spamming, lets just block them all together from posting.
\n" }, { "Id": "2887", "CreationDate": "2013-04-25T02:03:12.837", "Body": "Lets say someone works hard and asks on-topic questions to gain a high reputation, then when they achieve that, they troll around the whole site. Can they lose reputation because of this?
\n", "Title": "Can people lose reputation?", "Tags": "|discussion|reputation|", "Answer": "The answer is \"Yes\". The negative rep from downvotes goes straight into your rep.
\n\nNonetheless, given that a downvote is -2 whereas an upvote is +10 (answer) /+5 (question) /+15 (accept) it takes much longer to loose all that rep than to gain it. Almost certainly you'll just be banned before you get down to 1. For an example, see this question.
\n\nOne note: on [ee.meta] there is no reputation separate from [ee.se]. The same is not true of [so.meta], which has its own rep, being kind of the ubermeta for all stackexchange sites.
\n" }, { "Id": "2904", "CreationDate": "2013-05-03T20:28:48.513", "Body": "I noticed in the last few hours that my reputation has stopped incrementing when I get new up-votes: -
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ALgyq.jpg\")
Has something gone wrong or has the well dried up?
\n", "Title": "reputation stopped incrementing", "Tags": "|discussion|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "\n\n\n\n\n... You can earn a maximum of 200 reputation per day. Please note that\n votes for posts marked \u201ccommunity wiki\u201d do not generate any\n reputation, while accepted answers and bounty awards are not subject\n to the daily reputation limit.
\n
This means that (assuming you don't have any questions upvoted) you can receive 20 answer upvotes in a day before the reputation cap kicks in for that day. Other sources of reputation, such as an answer being accepted, or receiving a bounty, do not count towards your 200 reputation limit.
\n\nBelow is a picture of your reputation for April 5th, when you received 230 reputation. You can see each row labeled upvote adds up to a total of 200 reputation, which is exactly the reputation cap. You didn't \"lose\" any reputation due to having more than 20 upvotes. You also had two answers accepted as \"correct\". These are shown as \"+15\" and are outlined in green. The \"accept\" reward does not count towards your 200 reputation limit, nor does reaching the 200 reputation limit prevent you from receiving that 30 reputation.
\n\n![\"April](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/y3ASU.png\")
On May 3rd, you received reputation only from upvotes (no \"accepts\"). You can see that the first 200 reputation was counted, and the other upvotes are acknowledged but not counted. You can still gain reputation, but it can only be from answers accepting, or bounties, not upvotes.
\n\n![\"May](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/upki0.png\")
I have a question about static electricity problem with notebook. I think it more electronic than general physics question. Should I ask it here or somewhere else?
\n", "Title": "Is a question about static electricity on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It depends.
If it's a consumer-type question, then SuperUser would be a better place for it, probably.
If it's a design-type question, then it could work here on EE.SE.
What's the question?
\n" }, { "Id": "2915", "CreationDate": "2013-05-12T12:08:30.263", "Body": "I'm unsure if the EE stack exchange or stack overflow is the best place to ask about help with setting up a specific feature in eclipse IDE. Its programming (debugging) but I'm using features that most programmers won't use, as its for interfacing electronics so I doubt stack overflow will be helpful as it likely won't be seen by those who know what I'm talking about. Where would be recommended to post this question? (oh and I assume this is the sort of thing to ask on meta)
\n", "Title": "Eclipse setup for electronics", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If it's a question related to debugging an embedded / microcontroller system I would say it's on topic here and go for it. Of course keep it well defined and scoped as you would on any SE site but otherwise I can't see a problem.
\n" }, { "Id": "2921", "CreationDate": "2013-05-15T08:17:09.543", "Body": "Earlier today I noticed that this question appeared in the reopen queue:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/68791/stm32-potentiometer-connected-to-adc
\n\nI selected leave closed because while code has been added it's incomplete so the question is still unclear. In a duplicate question (now deleted) someone suggested editing the original question and voting to reopen it, but the OP seemed confused on how to do that and that was hours after it had appeared in the reopen queue, so it made me wonder:
\n\nDoes an edit by the original author to a closed question cause it to appear automatically on the reopen review queue?
Do low rep users get the reopen button on their own questions?
Of course it may have been a 3K user voting to reopen that made it appear, or maybe the OP did it and expected some sort of instant result.
\n", "Title": "How does the reopen queue work for new users?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "There are two things that trigger putting a question in the reopen queue (as far as I know):
\n\nAgain, the philosophy is that closed questions are \"on hold\" versus \"banished to heck\" If someone has made an effort to improve a closed question, then we need to reevaluate the question because they are trying to fix their question. If their efforts are insufficient, then clearly explain what they need. If the question needs some minor copy editing to be a good question, then chip in and help!
\n\nNobody has voted to reopen the question you linked - it was added to the reopen queue because the author added his source code. If someone had voted to reopen, you would see reopen(1), just like how the number of close votes is visible. New users do not have a button to reopen their question, but they do have ways to \"appeal\" and have their question reopened by the community.
One problem I always face on this site is that people overestimate the level of sophistication in the question. It is hard for a beginner to find the words to imply the simplicity or noobness of the question. A 'beginner-question' tag may be useful, or perhaps this isn't really the site for beginners (c.f. stackoverflow would be a hard place to learn to program, perhaps).
\n", "Title": "Is this site for beginners?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "There are a few things I'd like to point out.
\n\nSome people think [closed] is definitive. It isn't. When a question is closed as not a real question, for example, this purely means
\n\n\nIt's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.
\n
And:
\n\n\n\n\nFor help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.
\n
To keep the site clean, we have to close questions that lack information and such. Otherwise you'd only get crappy answers anyway.
\n\nA similar reasoning goes for closing as not constructive.
\n\nSometimes an answerer can't estimate the level of the OP, which might result in either a too sophisticated answer or an answer that treats the OP as a child. Both are bad: the first isn't useful to the OP, the second irritates.
\n\nAs I will point out below, you should say in the body of your question that you are a beginner, if so. If you could make this somewhat more specific, do so. For example: \"I have never programmed a microcontroller before\" or \"this is the first time I work with an op-amp\". This hopefully helps the answerers to adapt their answer to your understanding.
\n\nOf course, sometimes it goes wrong. That's what happened in my answer here. In the comments:
\n\n\n\n\nThis is all very sad. Every other time a layman explanation is needed the answer will contain a gazillion of graphs with trigonometric functions. I strongly believe it shouldn't be this way. \u2013 sharptooth Apr 5 at 8:12
\n \n@sharptooth you're right. I think skyler is able to understand this, but I've added some layman explanation at the top of the answer. \u2013 Camil Staps Apr 5 at 8:47
\n
So if an answer is over your head... or you think a less sophisticated answer is needed... shout! Ask for another explanation. The problem solves itself.
\n\nThis was requested earlier here. Whilst the first answer is outdated (then there was such a tag), the second isn't:
\n\n\n\n\nTags should give an indication about the question's topic(s), nothing else. That's the reason the homework tag is deprecated too, for instance. If you want to indicate that you're a beginner in order to get answers at your level of knowledge, say so in the question.
\n
Generally, you can keep a rule of thumb for creating tags:
\n\nI'm wondering whether questions related to PCB CAD software (such as EAGLE) are on-topic. Questions could relate to best practices, BOM generation, proper CAM export, etc.
\n", "Title": "Are (electronic) CAD software related questions on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Yes. According to our faq help center:
\n\nWe feel the best Electronics Design questions have a schematic, links to pertinent datasheets or some source code in them, but if your question generally covers \u2026
\n\n
\n- a specific electronics design problem
\n- the theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n- a communication scheme
\n- the writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications
\n
Yours is a specific electronics design problem.
\n" }, { "Id": "2963", "CreationDate": "2013-06-21T10:02:06.113", "Body": "Recently i asked this question at physics.se , and as per their comments over there i would like to migrate my question from there to here, whats the process evolved here, i would like to hear it from electronics.se for my question ,i posted an meta question over there too, and what were the procedures to migrate my question over here?
\n", "Title": "i would like to migrate my question from physics.se to here", "Tags": "|support|migration|", "Answer": "I did get a message from a Physics moderator to review your question for migration. I've decided to not migrate the question because it's borderline off-topic/not-constructive, and the skeptics answer has a pretty good treatment of the subject.
\n" }, { "Id": "2967", "CreationDate": "2013-06-24T20:52:09.550", "Body": "The description for this says it is: \"First rollback\"; however I have no idea what this means. Could someone explain?
\n", "Title": "What is the \"Cleanup\" badge?", "Tags": "|support|badges|", "Answer": "This is a bit less prevalent now that edits are peer reviewed. However, if someone edited a post in such a way that was not productive, you could \"rollback\" the revision to the last good version.
\n\nClick on the \"edited on ****\" link on an edited post, and all previous revisions will show a set of links: source edit rollback link. The rollback simply discards all revisions after the version that you are rolling back to.
The last time I remember using it was for undoing some excessive retagging of a question.
\n" }, { "Id": "2969", "CreationDate": "2013-06-25T20:12:29.687", "Body": "I expect everyone has noticed by now the rapid increase of badly written questions over the last several months. We seem to be getting higher traffic, but that seems to be due to a flood of crappy questions that then need to be closed. I haven't actually counted, this is just a feeling, but I strongly suspect it is true. Either way, it's the perception that actually matters in the end, and my perception that this site is rapidly declining is definitely there.
\n\nWhat should we do about this decline in quality? Is there anything we can do, or is the slide into drivel inevitable and those of use looking for more learned discussion need to find someplace else (until that gets overrun by the zombies and the cycle repeats)?
\n\nWe do seem to continue to get some good questions. My impression (again, not actually measured) is that those are coming at about the rate they did before, but are getting drowned out in the drivel that is making the whole site look amatuerish and less and less a rewarding place to hang out. I seem to be spending proportionately more time writing comments explaining why a question is being closed and closing and downvoting questions than writing decent answers to interesting questions.
\n\nHere is my own take: This site has hit the maturity phase. That means most of the experts that are going to find this place have. It used to be a place of high quality discussion and high quality answers. Now in the maturity phase, the unwashed masses have noticed that good answers are to be had. Unfortunately, they don't bother to read the FAQ or spend a little time on the site before blurting out their question. To them this site is merely a resource to take from. So what if my question gets closed? I haven't lost more than a minute typing some barely-readable gibberish. I've got nothing to loose. This isn't \"my\" site, so what do I care?\". Meanwhile those that would have spent the time writing better answers have to waste it closing questions and picking thru the pile of noise to find the few good questions we still get.
\n\nEventually those that are here for quality discussions will get dissolusioned and leave. This has already happened to some extent. Look at the list of users with 10k or more rep and see which ones are no longer active. Some of that happened earlier so they just moved on before the downhill slide, but don't underestimate the damaging effect of the high drivel level.
\n\nIf this slide into the swamp can be fixed, it will need a very concerted effort to in effect say \"no, this is crap, go away\" to those that post crap. We are too gentle now in closing and downvoting bad questions. It needs to feel more like a kick in the butt so that those that don't bother spending time on their questions clearly get the message that they are not welcome here. Just as important, others will see that crappy posts aren't tolerated. I don't know what the mechanism should be exactly. That's what this topic is about. Ideas?
\n", "Title": "How can we recover quality here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I am still, for the most part, a newbie when it comes to electronics. I've been tinkering for about 20 years, but never been serious enough to really know my stuff. That's why I'm here, to ask questions, and help people who are less experienced than I am.
\n\nI highly value experts such as Olin, who is obviously frustrated at times. The signal to noise ratio on the site is definitely more noisy than it was when I joined almost 3 years ago.
\n\nSometimes I find questions which are basically crap, but I can't help posting a comment or answer in attempt to provide the OP a response that might evoke a positive change.
\n\nHere are some examples of \"crap\" questions (in my opinion) that I answered anyway:
\n\nI generally try to be optimistic, hoping the OP will be inspired with a little help, and try to improve. Why? Because, for example, here's a question that I thought was a total bomber (from the title), but turned out to be a rather better question than I thought:
\n\n\n\nUltimately, every SE site seems to have a certain number of visitors that for whatever reason think they can get free handouts, without an inkling of research, effort, clear thought, or total lack of communication skills. The famous StackOverflow \"Can I has the codez?\" questions have always been the bane of seasoned programmers there. Here on EE, we have our own version in the form of \"Give me schematic plz!\"
\n\nIt sucks to only have a few \"good\" questions out of every page of 20 or so, but I think we just need to do the best we can to use moderation tools to disappear or improve them.
\n\nUnfortunately, if the noise ratio continues to climb, despite moderation's best efforts, I cringe at the thought of true experts leaving. Not only would it mean lots of us lose the privilege of having questions answered by professionals, but that the SE model isn't working well enough.
\n" }, { "Id": "2980", "CreationDate": "2013-06-27T09:06:58.567", "Body": "When I reviewed this, there was one vote for \"unclear what you're asking\" and one vote for \"off topic because ... Questions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site is intended specifically for questions on electronics design.\"
\n\nHowever, the banner on top said:
\n\n\n\n\nShould this question be closed as unclear what you're asking?
\n
Before the close reasons change, that would've been:
\n\n\n\n\nShould this question be closed as unclear what you're asking or off topic?
\n
Is this by-design or a bug?
\n", "Title": "Not all close reasons that have been voted on appear in the banner", "Tags": "|support|bug|closing|", "Answer": "Indeed, this would be an important fix.
\n\nAs covered in the system-wide blog, the recent revision to the closing mechanism was intended to result in messages which could meaningful educate users as to what specifically was wrong, and wherever possible, what improvement could rescue the question.
\n\nUnfortunately, habits die hard, and a lot of close votes are being cast where the claimed reason is more convenient for the closer, than educationally descriptive for the closee. Having all the voted choices shown on the question would increase the chance that at least one accurately and usefully informative message is displayed, even if accompanied by the noise of convenience votes.
\n" }, { "Id": "2988", "CreationDate": "2013-07-01T21:43:00.197", "Body": "I've noticed that sometimes, when editing a schematic (but not adding a new schematic) to a question, that some of the text above the schematic will be eaten. It's not just me, either. See my latest revision at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/posts/61699/revisions
\n\nI can reproduce this problem by:
\n\nAfter these steps, some of the text that was before the schematic gets eaten, and the comment markers around the schematic are improperly nested. See the revision just before my fixes for an example.
\n\nI'm using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:22.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/22.0.
\n\nWhat's causing this? Can it be fixed?
\n", "Title": "Why is the schematic editor damaging questions when editing schematics?", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|schematic|", "Answer": "This is fixed in the next build.
\n\nPart of the editor logic is implemented as a PageDown plugin, and that part didn't take into account the possibility that another plugin may be modifying the Markdown source as well, and thus the content inside the text editor may be different from the Markdown that was passed to the plugin.
\n\nThe other plugin in this case was the code that separates LaTeX content from the rest of the text, which is why the problem only appeared if the post contained TeX content before the schematic. It also only happened when editing an already-present schematic, not when adding a new one. This combination of events is so rare that it took until now for this to be noticed.
\n\nThanks for the bug report!
\n" }, { "Id": "2993", "CreationDate": "2013-07-04T23:13:19.327", "Body": "I'd like an option to close or delete a question that I asked by this motivation:
\n\n\"The matter was resolved by other means than following the answers. \"
\n\nOr similar rationale. Since sometimes the answers are good and there can be 2 answers to a question and the problem in the question was resolved not by doing what the answers suggest but by some other activity that solved the problem.
\n\nOr is what should be done in these cases, is answering your own question?
\n", "Title": "Option to close a question", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Post an answer that details what you did to solve the problem, and accept it. It's no different than if someone posted your steps as an answer, and then the answer is there for someone with a similar question later.
\n" }, { "Id": "3003", "CreationDate": "2013-07-11T10:41:39.480", "Body": "For people who just started learning circuit theory (electrical & computer engineer newbies), or are experts outside the field (like mechanical, chemical engineers etc..) it's hard to know exactly what to ask.
\n\nTake this thread for example trying to do this monitor heads.\nAside the fact he's looking for an opinion which he shouldn't have, It's a project-design question...And aside the fact he's too lazy to convey in words rather than video link his goal.
\n\nIn another case, say someone else wants to build and design led fixtures, should we answer with information and show a block diagram like this TI's Block Diagram of Lighting embedded system
\n\nHe might not know what a microcontroller and an embedded system is, then what kind is most suitable for this project. You could recommend him rasperry pi (which has hdmi output) + webcam
\n\nThere is more than one way to skin a cat, but pointing in a direction rather than expecting a newbie to ask the right question might be more helpful
\n\nAny thoughts on this?
\n", "Title": "Should \"how to design a project\" questions always be put on hold as \"too broad\"?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "A question asking about a specific resistor value is no different from one asking about a particular approach to a project, if it demonstrates research and effort. I think that's all anyone here really expects. All technical levels are welcome, and any project level is welcome (macro or micro). The problem with questions like the monitor heads is that it comes across as:
\n\n\n\n\n\"I just saw this really cool thing on YouTube and I want to build one. How do I do it?\"
\n
There's no demonstrated effort, no demonstrated research, just somebody looking for free advice. It's reasonable that any well formed answer would go over their head and be wasted. Someone wording a question like that would read such an answer, and think:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Oh, I have to do stuff? Like, buy tools and learn how to use them? Nevermind!\"
\n
Further, we have no idea what the person asking is capable of. Without specifying a stumbling point, we haven't a clue what to suggest. Is the person an RF genius, but unfamiliar with video encoding? Perhaps his or her electronics knowledge is sound, but has never soldered a single pin... How are we to know?
\n\nQuestions about projects (no matter how silly the project) are perfectly welcome. They just need to be formed in such a way that shows the person asking cares enough about the project (and the assistance of experts) to show it:
\n\n\n\n\n\"I found this Widget on Youtube and would really like to build one. I've studied phase-coupled waveforms and borrowed an oscilloscope, and now I'm trying to realign the flux capacitor. It seems to always get stuck at 1.21 GW, despite my careful analysis of the load coils...\"
\n
I'm being humorous but the point is that the question shows effort. A project scope question is even okay, so long as the OP makes it clear what help they need:
\n\n\n\n\n\"For this monitor-heads project, I've been looking at LCD monitors to use for the displays, but I can't find one that seems to be the right size or is light enough. I'm worried also about heat. Is there a suitably lightweight display that could be used as part of a mask like this?\"
\n
That's better! Now we know they've actually been reading up on displays and trying to figure out where to go next. It also focuses more on a specific problem, the selection of a display technology. Or this:
\n\n\n\n\n\"I've selected the Samsung SMD-1000 (shoulder-mounted display) for my \"monitor-head\" project, but I'm having trouble getting the video signal to be clean. With a long cable going to the performer wearing it, the video is choppy and has lines and static. I'm using a 50 meter composite video cable made from Cat5 cable with soldered RCA jacks on each end. How can I improve the video quality?\"
\n
These examples are what we're looking for. I doubt it would receive as many (if any) negative votes if the question was worded more like these trivial examples.
\n" }, { "Id": "3005", "CreationDate": "2013-07-11T14:06:50.370", "Body": "in the link (https://stackapps.com/questions/36/stackmobile-com-view-stackexchange-sites-on-your-smartphone) provided in one of answers of the question :Is there a mobile app for viewing stack exchange? , I if found out that there is a stackexchange app for android, but there was none for ios.\nIs there any stackexchange app for the ios anyway?
\n", "Title": "ios app for stackexchange", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "found the answer to my question here:https://stackapps.com/questions/2115/fullstack-ipad-app\nIt was found in the main Meta site
\n" }, { "Id": "3015", "CreationDate": "2013-07-16T11:10:20.220", "Body": "Wouldn't it be better if there was no option to delete a question that cannot be deleted? Why is there a link there to delete when it cannot be used?
\n", "Title": "Why is there a delete option for answered questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "One advantage to showing the delete button regardless is that it gives you more detailed feedback on the reason you can't delete it. For example a while back I posted an answer and the first half solved the OPs question, so he accepted it but the second half contained something false / misleading as pointed out in a comment.
\n\nUnfortunately it was when I was heading off to bed and the next morning a better answer had been posted so I thought I might as well delete mine and got something like \"an accepted answer may not be deleted\". That was clearer than the delete button not being present and I knew to edit the incorrect part of my answer rather than delete it.
\n\nAlso as Olin pointed out in a comment for Meta posts it's best to mention a particular question or answer you have in mind if you're after a specific reason on why it can't be deleted.
\n" }, { "Id": "3021", "CreationDate": "2013-07-22T01:38:28.837", "Body": "I noticed this question was locked by W5VO over a content dispute. But I'm not really sure what the dispute is about. Can someone shed some light on the lock?
\n", "Title": "Content dispute on \"How to draw a circuit diagram to check a 4 bits number is odd or even\"", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "In terms of mod tools, this is an example of only having a hammer to deal with a situation. Specifically, the user in question wanted to delete their question. The system won't allow you to delete your own question once you have answers, so they edited the question to remove all content. These changes were then rolled-back. This went back-and-forth a few times, and so I locked the page to keep the question intact.
\n\nAlso, \"locked\" does not mean \"closed\". I don't intend to close this question for the very reasons you mention.
\n" }, { "Id": "3029", "CreationDate": "2013-07-30T15:10:58.383", "Body": "See the post \"Passive circuit to rectify pulse signal\".
\n\nThis question clearly had some problems, and I both downvoted and voted to close it. The downvote was for general sloppiness, pre-supposing a answer, and leaving out stuff that should have been obvious that it would be relevant or useful. The close vote was because it was difficult to tell what was being asked.
\n\nHowever, after some comments, the OP added more information to the question and a reasonable answer was possible. 4 votes to close and 3 downvotes had accumulated until the question finally got to a answerable state. I have no problem with that since it was a mess originally. I you don't like the downvotes or the chance your question will be closed before you fix it, write a better question in the first place.
\n\nI started to write a answer, but then a banner popped up that the question had been deleted. I thought maybe the OP got frustrated, but is was deleted by community. That's the part I don't understand. First, I don't see the reason for deletion, considering by that time the question had been salvaged. Second, how can community delete a question so quickly that hadn't even been closed and had only 3 downvotes? If a mod did it, then isn't the mod's name shown? What is the mechanism by which community can delete such a question?
\n", "Title": "Why/how was this post deleted?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Well, It looks like you downvoted his question, harrassed him, and then he deleted his account. Since you downvoted his question so much, the question was automatically deleted when he deleted his account.
\n" }, { "Id": "3034", "CreationDate": "2013-08-03T16:45:12.807", "Body": "This question should be removed in my opinion: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/77868/how-to-remove-a-vedum-halo-bathroom-light
\n\nThe question if it does get deleted so everybody can see it, not just high rep users:
\n\nHow to remove a Vedum Halo bathroom light [on hold]
\n\n\n\n\nWe have a wall mounted Vedum Halo bathroom light with 4 spots.
\n \nWe would like to take it down and replace it. There is a small top\n plate that I can remove and disconnect the power wires.
\n \nBut I cannot see how the light is fixed to the wall. There are no\n visible screws.
\n \nAnyone know how to get it down?
\n
It's about how to get a bathroom light from the ceiling, nothing to do with electronics at all. That user having almost 2K rep on SO.SE I hoped that they would figure it out themselves, but I also decided to flag the post. However, there wasn't a flag that applied at all.
\n\nSo the obvious route to flag: It doesn't belong here, or it is a duplicate > Off-topic because... > ???
\n\nThe options:
\n\n\n\n\nQuestions seeking recommendations for specific products or places to\n purchase them are off-topic as they are rarely useful to others and\n quickly obsolete. Instead, describe your situation and the specific\n problem you're trying to solve.
\n
Not really a shopping question so not this one.
\n\n\nQuestions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site\n is intended specifically for questions on electronics design.
\n
Not really either, but it would work. However, I think that it should be on DIY.SE, not EE.SE. So I proceed down the list.
\n\n\nQuestions on appliance repair are off-topic unless they involve\n specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of\n the underlying design of the device being repaired. See: Is asking on\n how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?
\n
Not really an appliance, but if it was considered an appliance, it would fall under this category.
\n\n\nThis question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network
\n
You can only choose Meta.EE.SE or Super User. Both won't work.
So the best choices: appliance repair or use, not design. It is not really either. If I could say that it belongs on DIY.SE, then I would, but there isn't an option. What should I have done?
\n\n(It is closed/on hold now, but I'm asking what I should have flagged it for.)
\n", "Title": "How should I flag this question?", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "I'd simply close vote it as OT vis a vis appliance repair (the reason why it's OT), and flag for attention for migration to DIY, maybe adding a comment that that's what I did.
\n" }, { "Id": "3047", "CreationDate": "2013-08-14T20:43:30.590", "Body": "There's a HAM radio proposal going on. Licensed HAMs tend to be qualified and enlightened people. We need them HAMs here on EE.SE . If HAM questions require some special policy, let's define it.
\n\nP.S.
\nThe question \"Where are the HAMs?\" have been asked previously.
\nKeelan had chimed in about this too here.
Ham or not to ham is the wrong way to ask, IMO - clearly the answers so far reflect that. I think the content of a ham's message should be judged on the merits of the contents of his or her post - just like any other poster's would be.
\n\nRF questions are clearly on topic - consider you can't design anything with a processor running over, what is it now, 100MHz, without FCC considerations (in the US, of course).
\n\nOn the other hand, if a ham posts about cool radio designs he saw at the XYZ ham fest, that'd be a good candidate for off-topic flagging.
\n\nNot a ham, was a ham, not a ham, might be again
\n" }, { "Id": "3048", "CreationDate": "2013-08-19T04:28:56.680", "Body": "I put in a question where I try to learn FPGA and I got downvoted for no reasoned mentioned. Could you help me improve the question since it is not a bogus question and not a bad question since it is about upgrading from SOPC to QSys in Quartus II.
\n\nHow to upgrade a Quartus II project from SOPC to QSys?
\n", "Title": "How can I improve this question?", "Tags": "|discussion|specific-question|", "Answer": "One immediate thing that comes to mind is that I see you've posted the project files as a comment at a later point. You may have copped a few downvotes for a problem not easy to repeat without a significant effort so that would be worth editing into the question. Remember if that was the case their downvotes may be \"locked in\" because you haven't edited the question since.
\n\nAnother thing is that on Stack Overflow it's accepted that there's no need to include tag names in the title. Rightly or wrongly that doesn't seem to go down well here, so maybe a title such as \"Errors upgrading SOPC VHDL project to Quartus II\" would come across better.
\n\nFinally it might be considered to be too broad, although personally I don't know enough about the Altera tools to know if that's the case or if all the problems are likely to stem for a few simple problems. Maybe a description of a few things you've tried without success would make it look a bit less like a \"port my code\" question.
\n" }, { "Id": "3056", "CreationDate": "2013-09-01T09:48:03.250", "Body": "I'm not here everyday, but I check in every now and again. I recommended someone to come here and ask their zener diode question. I came to see if they asked... (they hadn't yet)
\n\nAnd I regret recommending Electronics SE because now it's full of mean jerks.
\n\nWhat happened to the nice people that would try and educate with great answers?
\n\nUpdate hey thanks for a couple of you caring! Already, I've seen some edits and fixes, and very very much appreciate the genuine response. I was afraid I was going to get pounced on. What motivated me to say something is how impressed I have been with the patience of those answering questions. I was an ET for a stint in the Navy before going on to get my BSEE -- and I find I often learn from reading the questions and answers on here.
\n", "Title": "Why are the stewards of the community hurting and not helping?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Chris, the main problem that you are seeing is the product of a particular troll. When that troll appears, we all tend to pounce on him quickly. Sometimes his answers are better than others, but regardless of the answer quality we pounce. Give him an inch and he takes a mile (centimeter/kilometer?). Because of that you will sometimes see questions or answers that look reasonable but will have 5 or 10 down votes. It's unfortunate, but necessary.
\n\nOther times there is a legit person asking semi-legit questions, and they get an unfavorable response. This answer I gave to a different Q outlines some of the major reasons that questions are criticized: Does EE.SE have a problem with the treatment of newbies?
\n\nAnd... Of course there are valid questions that are unduly criticized. Unfortunately that's just how the Internet is. I'm not using that as an excuse! The people who do that should be called on it, and explained how it is not acceptable. But there will always be those types of people and those who use the 'net need to have a certain amount of resolve to look beyond those bad apples.
\n" }, { "Id": "3057", "CreationDate": "2013-09-01T10:33:28.677", "Body": "I've gotten downvoted again as I'm learning what I think is quite difficult:
\n\nHow to wire a system for Nios 2 in Qsys?
\n\nI've had some problem and I might be asking similar question over and over but I'm really trying to make the project work and it is a system for FPGA. I think that the question can be improved since it was hastely put, should I make the title more specific and include more details?
\n", "Title": "Kindly suggest how to improve my question", "Tags": "|discussion|specific-question|", "Answer": "Please edit over all critical material for answering your question into your question. Putting a note, \"here are some previous questions: 1 2 3 4 5\" works, but it is pretty time consuming to have users go back and read 5 previous questions to find what your project is.
\n" }, { "Id": "3065", "CreationDate": "2013-09-03T14:33:24.357", "Body": "I just tried to include a image in a answer and the system didn't let me. I used the same procedure I always do, which is to type ctrl-G, then enter the name of the image file on my disk. When I hit ADD PICTURE, it popped up a window saying \"Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page? You have started writing or editing a post. ...\". If I try to upload again after that it pops up a different window that says \"For security reasons, framing is not allowed ...\". I would upload screen shots if I could, but I get the same problem trying to upload images here in meta.
\n\nPlease fix this.
\n\nWhile you're at it, it would be nice to fix the long-standing bugs in the Add Image dialog. When I type ctrl-G, the Add Image dialog pops up. There is a place to enter the image file name with a BROWSE button immediately to the right of that. The stupid thing though is that you can't type in the file name line. You have to click on BROWSE with the mouse, which then pops up another window the finally does let you type a file name. I really dislike being forced to use the mouse. It slows down the flow and requires concious mental intervention as apposed to typing. This has been broken since the last change to this diaglog maybe a year ago.
\n\nAt least some others are not running into this problem, so I'll try to provide some screen shots. Since I can't upload them I'll put them on a server and provide the link here.
\n\nHere is the result of trying to add a image into this post: ![\"http://www.embedinc.com/temp/b.jpg\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/0BQZq.jpg\")
This is an issue that only presents in IE 8 on Windows XP and has to do with how the JavaScript engine iterates (or rather doesn't) in specific cases.
\n\nFixed in the next build (rev 2013.9.23.1029).
\n" }, { "Id": "3085", "CreationDate": "2013-09-15T17:45:35.127", "Body": "I found a funny behavior. When I post an answer, it isn't always last, despite earlier answers before me. Is the sorting not chronological? Is reputation a part of the ordering?
\n", "Title": "How are answers sorted when posted?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "Answers are sorted according to the tab you've selected: Activity, Oldest, Votes.
\n\nWhen answers are ordered by votes, higher voted answers appear at the top of the list. Answers with the same number of votes are randomized. The accepted answer appears at the top of the list as long as it wasn't written by the person who asked the question (OP). If the accepted answer was written by the OP, then it is sorted according to its votes.
\n\nThis topic is covered on meta.stackoverflow.com:
\n\nOrdering of answers for a question
\n" }, { "Id": "3087", "CreationDate": "2013-09-16T12:38:42.690", "Body": "I understand the purpose of up-voting or down-voting a question or answer. But there is another option for the questions i.e., marking a question as favourite. I don't really understand what purpose it serves. As far as I have searched, I could not find any explanation as to what it is used for. I know that this question does not belong to Electronics SE alone but to the entire SE network. But can anyone here enlighten me about the use of marking a question as favourite?
\n", "Title": "What is the use of marking a question as favourite?", "Tags": "|support|bookmarks|", "Answer": "Unlike voting, which is for the system and everyone else, marking posts as favorites is for you. Go to your user profile, and you will see there is a \"favorites\" tab. Stuff you mark as favorite shows up in this list. This is basically a way for you to make your own private list of posts kept for you by the system.
\n\nThere is one side effect seen by others that I can think of. The number of users that have marked a question as favorite is shown by that question. Possibly there is a rep threshold to be able to see the number of uses that marked a question as favorite; I don't remember.
\n" }, { "Id": "3105", "CreationDate": "2013-09-19T14:36:33.157", "Body": "It is not possible to accept more than one answer to any question but what if two people give a perfect answer each in their own way? How do we appreciate their response?
\n", "Title": "Accepting Multiple Answers", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Upvote both and pick one that was better somehow (better written, explained better, better formatted, etc) and accept that.
\n" }, { "Id": "3109", "CreationDate": "2013-09-19T22:38:58.333", "Body": "SE has this cool feature which allows you to link to specific comments etc.
\n\nThe standard share button, everyone knows about and it looks like this.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/vltuf.png\")
You can also link comments like below by copying the link expressed here. The encircled text is a hyperlink that you can copy and paste.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/iAmoV.png\")
Except that if you copy and paste that link while in the midst of a review session you get an incorrectly formatted link that leads to nowhere.
\n\nHere is the link for that comment from within a review session of \"low quality posts\"
\n\nand \nHere is a the proper link to that comment.
\n\nPrinting the links out you can see where things go awry:
\n\nBad:
\n\n\"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/24067#comment162570_82873\"
\n\nGood:
\n\n\"Why does AT91SAM7X microcontroller have different instruction modes?\"
\n\nAs an aside: This is not to call attention to a particular post, just simply using it as an example.
\n", "Title": "A minor bug with linking", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "The code was assuming that comments were showing on the question page only.
\n\nI have amended the link to actually go to that page if not already on it.
\n\nWill be with you the next build (rev 2013.9.20.1027).
\n" }, { "Id": "3138", "CreationDate": "2013-10-10T10:35:15.613", "Body": "In stackexchange sometimes when we search for a word, A short description appears. How can I add such a description for a word like \"EMI\" which stands for \"Electromagnetic interference\"?
\n", "Title": "How to add explanation for a searched word?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/tagging
\n\nThis is handled by tags. Take a look.
\n" }, { "Id": "3140", "CreationDate": "2013-10-10T20:35:06.740", "Body": "I came across this term when I checked out a fairly new guy who seemed to be answering a few questions and I noticed he had received, over the last few days, big negative numbers taken out of his reputation score with the tag \"serial upvoting reversal\".
\n\nI investigated and found out that it could be because of \"unusual activities\" surrounding a bunch of upvotes he/she received during a period of a few minutes i.e. it looked fishy; either a cheat, a fan or a stitch-up. I was impressed with the explanation and the tools available to moderators.
\n\nBut, I suddenly remembered that I had received 5 consecutive upvotes (on non-current questions) a couple of days ago. I checked, and lo and behold, the \"fairly new guy\" also had a series of rapid-fire upvotes at the same time on the same day.
\n\nMy 5 upvotes all occured at 10:48 and the new guy's 13 upvotes occured from 10:51 to 10:53.
\n\nCould someone look into this please. I don't want this guys votes if he's trying to cover his tracks or someone his trying to create a smokescreen.
\n", "Title": "Serial upvoting reversal", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Someone got a bit enthusiastic.
\nOne of the early lessons learned on Stack Overflow was that, occasionally, someone will lose sight of the purpose of voting - elevating useful information and providing gratifying feedback to authors - and will engage in indiscriminate voting for (or against) folks who they like/respect (or dislike). Throwing an extra vote or two at a co-worker or someone who helped you out is no big deal, but when this becomes a bigger problem it is caught and reverted:
\n\n\nBased on additional analysis of the voting data and user data, we\u2019ve\nrefined our detection of voting anomalies even further. I have to be\ncoy (again) about exactly how we do this because I don\u2019t want users\noptimizing around the various checks we do. But, in a nutshell:
\n\n
\n- \n
We can automatically detect sockpuppet accounts now. Sockpuppets used\nfor the purpose of upvoting or downvoting will be deleted, and their\nvotes \u2014 cancelled.
\n- \n
We now perform a more detailed statistical analysis\non voting patterns. Any voting patterns that are too far outside the\nstatistical norm will be nullified.
\n
The moderators here have contacted the folks responsible privately about this, and the votes have been invalidated.
\n" }, { "Id": "3151", "CreationDate": "2013-10-18T15:03:58.193", "Body": "I asked about graphene, an up and coming material that I keep seeing in IEEE that seems to be important. I read about it in wikipedia, searched the web, could tell it has importance, but that I don't have enough expertise to answer my question: what is it in relation to the semiconductor/electrical engineering world? So, I've seen people ask about materials before, and thought it was on topic.
\n\nEveryone down voted it, and told me it was off topic, and someone eventually suggested I ask in meta: is this on topic?
\n\nI thought this was the perfect place to ask about such things. How am I mistaken? Isn't the down-voting completely in contradiction to what this site is about? I understand how people that don't know the answer might consider it an \"opinion based question\", but there are people out there that know the answer, and those are the people that I wanted to hear from.
\n\nThe whole thing felt like a big attack-fest. I would have just taken it down, because I didn't like how I seemed to just get attacked, but Olin Lanthrop had posted an answer (a completely worthless answer that even he admitted didn't answer anything), and the system won't let me. Regardless of the negative reception and one user's insistence that it's off topic, I still feel it's an important question.
\n\nSo, at that user's suggestion, I'm putting it to Meta: are up and coming materials (that IEEE says will be used by electrical engineers in large quantities by 2020) that aren't yet well understood by the masses but have a chance of being answered by an expert off topic?
\n\nAnd, was Olin's answer appropriate, when he himself said \"I only gave a short answer because I expect this question to be closed soon\"?
\n", "Title": "Asking about Graphene: not on topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|off-topic|", "Answer": "I see the question has been deleted, so I don't know how it was phrased exactly. Anyway, I think questions like \"what is graphene\" are better suited for http://physics.stackexchange.com than electronics. As I understand it this site is more for current applications, and graphene hasn't made it out of the research laboratory yet.
\n" }, { "Id": "3155", "CreationDate": "2013-10-18T22:14:59.420", "Body": "Why is hardware multithreading not more common in embedded systems? was put on hold for being \"opinion-based\". Is there any way that the question can be refined to be answerable (by SE standards)?
\n\n(I can understand why the question would generate opinion-based answers. Since I was not expecting results from a 100-person-year research effort [which might be a low requirement for an \"actual answer\" determining the economic and other factors leading to the current state], perhaps I should have recognized that this would be an \"opinion-based\" question [though if the results of a substantial research project could not be summarized well, the question would be \"too broad\"]. However, I am curious about the seeming lack of market penetration for multithreading relative to multicore. [Strangely, I was more concerned, after seeing the first close vote, that the question might have been off-topic. As an outsider to embedded system development, I could not guess at how obvious the answer would be.])
\n\nWould reducing the breadth from \"embedded systems minus networking\" help sufficiently? E.g., if only microcontrollers were considered. (Limiting the question to microcontrollers would make the question less interesting to me, but I would still learn from any answers. However, even that question would still seem to be opinion-based.)
\n\nAsking about the success specifically of MIPS MT-ASE (i.e., in what types of systems is MIPS MT-ASE seeing use and at what volumes) would seem to be less opinion-based, but answers to that question would only hint at why even that specific ISA has limited uptake for its multithreaded implementations. However, it would at least provide some data on the reception of multithreading in embedded systems.
\n\n(Unless someone could get a mole into ARM, Ltd., I doubt a question about why ARM has not defined a multithreading architectural extension could be anything other than opinion-based. Likewise for those controlling development for various 8- and 16-bit processors.)
\n\n(I am grateful that it did not attract down votes [even getting two up votes--more than 3% of my reputation!--though based on comments it might not have been sufficiently clear, I think it \"shows research effort\" :-)].)
\n\nPerhaps the question cannot be fixed in any meaningful way and should just be allowed to pass into a permanently closed state.
\n", "Title": "Can this question be fixed?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|", "Answer": "Generally, I think questions of the form, \"Why does product XYZ not exist on the market?\" are a bad fit for the site.
\n\nThis question can only have a few different answers:
\n\nThe product does exist: see vendor ABC's website. (Then you should have asked first, \"Does this product exist?\", or even better, \"How can I solve this problem?\" With a note that you tried looking for a product to do XYZ but didn't find it.
What you're asking for isn't technologically feasible at this time. But then the answer would have have complete knowledge of what is and isn't possible, so we're only likely to be able to answer this way in the most extreme cases.
No manufacturer has thought that making this product would be profitable. This makes the question a marketing question and not an engineering question. It also requires us to speculate about the thoughts in the heads of every marketing department in the world.
\n\nIn particular, if the point of the question is that the product should exist in the market, then there are two problems: First, questions here should not be used to make a point; second, the asker should not be asking about the product here, they should be applying for a patent and/or polishing up a 30 second salespitch for the idea and spending their days going up and down elevators in buildings that VCs often visit.
My point is, no matter which of these answers applys to the \"why doesn't XYZ exist?\" question, either the question could have been asked in a better way, or the answer isn't going to be available from the other users here.
\n\nIn your case, I don't know if any of this applies specifically, but you do have other problems:
\n\nQuestion is too long. An answer touching on all your points would be too long for the site. I'd mark this under the \"too broad\" category for closing the question.
The topic of the question is marketing rather than engineering.
Answering the question requires speculation rather than facts. (I think this is what people were getting at when they checked the \"opinion-based\" box in the close dialog).
We have all probably seen mysterious downvotes occasionally, but recently there seems to be a more persistant vandal on the loose. Here are three answers I wrote yesterday and today that all got silently downvoted for no apparent reason:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/87165/4512
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/87252/4512
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/87335/4512
(Note that the first two are separate answers to the same question)
\n\nWhen you say something controversial or against someone's religiously held beliefs, you sometimes get a silent downvote. In those cases, at least you can take a reasonable guess you stepped on someone's toes who didn't leave a comment because they didn't want to admit the downvote was for personal reasons.
\n\nHowever, these three posts aren't like that. I think it's quite clear someone is going around downvoting for spite, retribution, or just plain vandalism. Has anyone else experienced this?
\n\nI don't care about the -6 rep. I do care that the time I put into writing answers is not wasted by pushing those answers artifically down the list where less people will see them or others may think they are wrong or unreliable.
\n\nHere are more:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/87336/4512
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/29224/4512
I had a couple of unexplained down votes in one day about two weeks ago. They occurred within probably 30 mins of each other and I believe they were the 1st votes cast on each question despite them being negative.
\n\nIf there were a way if seeing who was active on the site would their stats have shown -1 if I'd have visited their reputation profile?
\n" }, { "Id": "3184", "CreationDate": "2013-11-11T13:08:06.733", "Body": "This question is a perfect example. Nothing has been added or edited. What caused it to get bumped?
\n", "Title": "What constitutes activity on a question?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "As per What does "inactive" mean exactly? which semi-describes inactivity for the Archeologist tag (editing 6 month old inactive questions), activity is any new answers, or edits to the question or answers. Tag edits count for activity, but not for the badge.
\n\nThat specific question had someone add an answer that should have been a new question. That answer was deleted accordingly.
\n\nAnd it's not just mods who can see that, but anyone that has gained the \"Access to Moderation Tools\" https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools privilege at 10k rep. (Frankly, I wish there was a way to turn viewing deleted answers off, they are annoying).
\n\nAnd as W5V0, unanswered/upvoted questions get bumped by the system to give them more attention.
\n" }, { "Id": "3192", "CreationDate": "2013-11-18T21:24:27.100", "Body": "Last year around Christmas time we had an awesome promotion in which hats for for gravatars were awarded for completing basic tasks around the site. If you don't remember it, here is a link the promo from last year (and another!).
\n\n
This year, SE is planning to run it for everyone again because we all love hats, right? right?
\n\nBut to get this awesome hat promotion we have to opt in. That means acting on this meta post, whether that's voting it up, answering in the affirmative, positive comments and/or just directing positive energy this direction.
\n\nI think this is a good chance at a bit of harmless fun, that could potentially help keep site traffic up through the northern hemisphere winter (when traffic usually dies down a bit for us).
\n\nHOWEVER: this promotion is optional for sites, and/or individual users. If the users of this site do not want this in general feel free to voice that opinion. We can opt out of the promotion. Individual users will be able to opt out as well (they will be provided with an \"I hate Hats\" link to opt out).
\n\nDue to unanimous support, we will have hats! Thanks for voting!
\n\n(Majority of content blatantly stolen from freiheit's copy of waxeagle's post on meta.christianity.)
\n", "Title": "Do you like hats? (2013 Edition)", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "And I would wear them in a boat!
\nAnd I would wear them with a goat...
\nAnd I will wear them in the rain.
\nAnd in the dark. And on a train.
\nAnd in a car. And in a tree.
(Yes hats)
\n\n![\"No](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QgBTM.png\")
I was surprised to see this question deleted by a mod. It was about whether loudspeakers need FCC certification. It wasn't a great question, but I didn't think it was outright bad in the sense of warranting deletion either. Nobody had downvoted the question (or upvoted either) or voted to close it. Nothing inflammtory was said. What is going on here?
\n", "Title": "Why was this question deleted?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The OP requested for its deletion, I didn't see any particular reason not to do it. However, since you wrote the only answer, if you think it's a valuable contribution I can undelete it.
\n" }, { "Id": "3205", "CreationDate": "2013-11-21T21:20:37.417", "Body": "Arduino.Se is closed, and unfortunately for me, I only trust SE users. The last time i asked on this site, my question was stupid or dump or does not belong here, to say the least. I have another question about arduino question which is probably going to be labeled as a shopping question and closed. unfortunately for me, this is the only SE site which accepts arduino questions.
\n\nI am not afraid of my question being downvoted or closed, after all i don't have high rep to care about. But out of respect to this community, I learned to ask on meta first whenever i feel that my question isn't fit for the main site, especially that arduino isn't the main subject on this site. So my question is as follows:
\n\n\n\n\nI'm doing an arduino uno project and i need to control some motors\n using my mobile phone through bluetooth. I contacted an arduino\n reseller in my country and he said that he has bluetooth shield for\n 16$ and bluetooth module for 40$, i don't know which one to buy.
\n \nTo make things even more confusing, this guy has done something\n similar to what i wanted to do
\n \nusing this which is only around 6$
\n \nbut i've also seen other projects that are done using the shield, so\n what to buy? I don't really care about the price, i am willing to pay,\n but i don't know which one to buy.
\n \nAt first i thought that arduino bluetooth shield is a shield (cover)\n that protects the module but this guy was able to connect arduino\n using the shield only.
\n \nmy questions are: what is the difference between the shield and the\n module? what are the differences between different arduino bluetooth\n modules? What do you usually buy to connect an android device to\n arduino using bluetooth?
\n
Can I ask this on the main site? it's really not a shopping question because i don't really care about the price, i can buy anything, it's just that, it's so confusing to pick the right one since there are just so many options. I'm willing to take few downvotes, if my question is on topic and if i get good answers, i don't care about my rep, at least not on this site, but I don't want it to be closed.
\n", "Title": "Can I ask the following question on this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|arduino|", "Answer": "Actually it does largely sound like a shopping question, even if you're not asking about price.
\n\nAlso, when you're outside the Arduino cocoon like here on EE.SE, use grown-up words. It really pisses me off when people come here asking about \"shields\" and \"sketches\". I know that's what the Arduino documentation uses, but I resent Arduino marketing trying to re-define words for their own purpose at the expense of everyone else. Besides, \"shield\" in particular already has a specific meaning in electronics.
\n\nI don't care what the voting guidelines are. If I see \"shield\" and \"sketch\" and to some extent \"Arduino\", I'll look for excuses to downvote and close. If the question is really about electronics, then it doesn't matter whether an Arduino is involved. The Arduino questions we get seem to mostly be about user-level issues within the Arduino environment, which don't belong here.
\n\nIf you can leave the Arduino out of it and ask about the electronics, like how to connect something to a digital output or drive a A/D input, then it is welcome here. Basically, if it matters that one of the components is an Arduino as opposed to just something with inputs, outputs, power connections, etc, then it shouldn't be here.
\n\nI know a lot of people don't agree with this, but like it or not, that's my attitude. Surely there is some appropriate place for Arduino questions out there.
\n" }, { "Id": "3208", "CreationDate": "2013-11-26T23:58:20.093", "Body": "I don't like the usage of the word appliance in the off-topic close reason for poor repair questions:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Questions on appliance repair are off-topic unless they involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired.\"
\n
According to Merriam Webster's dictionary: An appliance is:
\n\n\n\n\n\"a machine (such as a stove, microwave, or dishwasher) that is powered by electricity and that is used in people's houses to perform a particular job\"
\n
A recent question about how to unplug cables on a computer motherboard was closed for this reason. The problem is, it's not really an appliance, and I envision the OP scratching his or her head wondering how we categorize these things.
\n\nInstead, I'd like to see a close reason for poor repair questions worded something like:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired.\"
\n
Or the short version:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Questions on electronics repair must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired.
\n
Zebonaut's meta question about improving repair questions is a great reference.
\n", "Title": "Change off-topic close reason \"Appliance\" repair", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "Proposed new close reason (shorter version):
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "3211", "CreationDate": "2013-11-27T18:51:38.943", "Body": "\"Questions on electronics repair must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired.\"
\n
Maybe a little bug, even though I think it worth to report.
\n\nIn Badges section you see that Reversal Badge has 1 awarded, like bellow.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/UgsNa.png\")
But when you click on it, there isn't any awarded. See below:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/5GCGn.png\")
There was a bug in the job that synced these counts routinely, specifically it wouldn't fix the \"now 0\" case, a join vs. a left join going on. This will be fixed in the next build.
\n" }, { "Id": "3228", "CreationDate": "2013-12-04T22:32:47.357", "Body": "I just got a question (Hotel keycard switches on 5,000W load when placed in its holder. How does it do that?) voted down. I know the question isn't a blockbuster, but the comments I got have already been helpful to me. So, I'm a bit confused.
\n\nWhat would be the likely reasons for the votedown? I wanted to know so that my next questions are better formulated and I can make better use of the EE.SE network in the future.
\n", "Title": "Is my question innapropriate to the site? Why is it likely to be voted down?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Here is what I just commented on in the question:
\n\n\n\n\n@Ricardo the question does show a lack of research and vagueness. Keycard vs keychain as original listed, no model numbers or even pictures, which is asking us to guess at a possible method it is working by, which makes it open ended. If you said \"How does Model X (part number: yyyzzz) Keycard Switch work? I have looked for a schematic or datasheet but can't find one. It does X, Y and Z\" that would draw less negative attention.
\n
Asking for essentially Educated guesses are not really conductive to the site, or to you as the asker. We have very little information to work on. And I didn't downvote it either.
\n\nAs for what we mean by like to actual devices or datasheet, WE mean that you should be providing that for the part you need to understand. Like a manufacturer and model number of the key card switch.
\n" }, { "Id": "3242", "CreationDate": "2013-12-06T14:48:30.783", "Body": "Previously when we hovered over our username we got a popup with a link to log out. Apparently the popup has gone, and I don't see how to log out.
\n", "Title": "How do you log out with the new header?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "I had to search for it too, but it's under the \"StackExchange\" pulldown.
\n" }, { "Id": "3251", "CreationDate": "2013-12-10T08:21:53.143", "Body": "I have seen questions related to programming like
\n\n\n\nas a matter of fact if I select the c18 tag (I have no idea why it exists here) I get many questions all related to programming
\n\nand many more...
\n\nNone of them has been flagged by anyone, am I missing something regarding to what is off topic for electrical engineering?
\n\nShouldn't these question have been asked in stack overflow ?
\n", "Title": "Related to off topic questions", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Things overlap. Just like there are some electrical wiring questions that are valid here AND on homeimprovement.se, or automotive 12v system questions. Not all, not most, but some. There are some physics or math questions valid here, there are some android and photography (ex. interfacing a microcontroller with a telephoto lens) and cooking (ex. controlling stovetop or toaster over heating elements via PID) questions as well.
\n\nThe thing they need to have in common though, is a relevant connection to electrical engineering (or embedded design). Coding overlaps in many environments, from home computing and mobile phones, to embedded designs and super computers. From 50 cent toys to billion dollar space satellites. So it falls into a few different exchanges.
\n\nSoon there will be a Raspberry Pi stack exchange, so some questions previously falling to SO and Unix/Linux andEE, will also fall there. And some questions that we think belong at the RPI.SE, they think belong here, because of the overlap between an embedded computer like the RPI, and the typical uses of the RPI like hooking up sensors or relays or transistors or leds.
\n\nOverlap is fine, as long as the main point of the question, has a very real connection with the site theme.
\n" }, { "Id": "3260", "CreationDate": "2013-12-11T12:27:35.093", "Body": "I noticed there is an electronics tag that seems a bit redundant to me. It appears to be used on a lot of questions migrated from Physics.SE such as Resistor on anode or cathode? presumably because it's one of the few common one between sites, but if removed those questions would be migrated as untagged as is the case with An amplifier with feedback.
\n\nThere are 75 questions tagged with it at the moment and most look like they could do with better tags being applied rather than it being burninated. I wondered if there's any objections to it being removed gradually via edits and maybe an edit on the wiki for the tag to say it's deprecated?
\n", "Title": "Is there any point to the electronics tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|", "Answer": "This tag has been removed from all posts and marked as \"intrinsic\" - it'll still be possible to migrate posts in that use it, but it'll be silently stripped and won't be allowed on any new posts or edits.
\n\nPlease help clean up the untagged
\n" }, { "Id": "3264", "CreationDate": "2013-12-12T13:25:13.457", "Body": "While reading this question (Controlling 500 LEDs with PWM), I noticed that none of the answers addressed a design issue of LED brightness variability in a batch, factor that I thought could impact the OP's design.
\n\nI added this answer to highlight the issue that I thought was relevant, and right away I got a comment complaining that my answer brought a valid point but didn't answer the question.
\n\nMy meta-question is: Are answers like mine valid for the site and appreciated by the users of EE.SE?
\n\nIn other words, Can I post answers that address side issues that are relevant to the question at hand, but have not been answered properly by others, but doesn't answer the question completely?
\n", "Title": "Is it valid to post an answer that only complements other answers already posted?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It is perfectly fine to give additional information relevant to the question in a answer, even if it does not directly answer the question. However, others may see that it doesn't answer the question and downvote.
\n\nWhat you should do is start a answer like that with something like \"This doesn't directly answer the question, but I think it's important to point out ...\". that way people will see that you aren't pretending to answer the question and may actually upvote if the additional information is useful.
\n" }, { "Id": "3275", "CreationDate": "2013-12-18T11:17:27.273", "Body": "I would like to know why this question Sniffing for iPhones was closed and this other question How many GPS channels make sense? my flag was declined.
\n\nThe two question is really good question, I really want to know the answer, but not here in EE.SE. In my understanding the two questions are off-topic, the questions are asking about some doubt in use of a communication protocol.
\n\nI flagged wrong?
\n", "Title": "Doubt in Off-Topic Question", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|closed-questions|off-topic|", "Answer": "I agree 100% with Stacey's analysis, but when you say \"I flagged wrong?\" the best thing to do is just flag how you see fit at the time. As long as you're doing your best to try and improve the site at the time for a lot of things like that there's not really a wrong / right decision.
\n\nEven when you get direct close / re-open votes I've seen questions closed I think should have been left open and others I think should have been closed that are left open. Everyone will have a different opinion and that's the idea of everone apart from moderators needing five votes to close or re-open a question.
\n" }, { "Id": "3283", "CreationDate": "2013-12-20T12:11:34.983", "Body": "I've just come across a question from someone clearly inexperienced with electronics trying to build a potentially dangerous AC/DC rectifier. An expert gave a very precise answer, but there was no mention of safety issues the OP may need to address to accomplish his task safely. But we newbies just don't know we don't know important stuff.
\n\nSo, my question is, should we take advantage of those opportunities and warn inexperienced users of potential safety issues? To make the task easier, we could create a few safety boilerplate questions and answers and provide links to those. What's the EE.SE policy on the issue?
\n", "Title": "Should we give safety advice to those new to electronics?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "\n\n\nshould we take advantage of those opportunities and warn inexperienced\n users of potential safety issues?
\n
My reaction to this is \"better safe than sorry\", so I'd rather get tired of repeating the safety consideration over and over again (especially when I feel the question comes from an inexperienced member) rather than having any chance of a person injuring himself unaware of the danger involved.
\n\nI personally prefer to add a danger warning in bold at the end of any reply that includes circuits that are potentially dangerous.
\n" }, { "Id": "3290", "CreationDate": "2013-12-26T18:47:03.717", "Body": "I am interested in how to setup a bounty to a question. I searched for the tag [bounty] here but all the questions are about the rewardeing of bounties. If I overlooked the explanation please link me the answer. Thank you!
\n", "Title": "What do I need to set a bounty to my question", "Tags": "|support|bounty|", "Answer": "Check Help Center > Reputation & Moderation for an explanation about bounties. Most important for you is that you need at least 50 rep to spend on a bounty.
\n" }, { "Id": "3296", "CreationDate": "2013-12-31T16:18:23.580", "Body": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/30251 and the next one offer no context on what the original post was. Is this as its meant to be?
\n", "Title": "Weird suggested edit with no context", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "The discharge is being used on questions, but nobody yet took the effort of writing a tag-wiki (and tag wiki excerpt). So the first one who proposes content for the tag wiki basically changes the empty text to a new text. Also notice that you often get two almost similar edits, but if you watch closely one is for the wiki and the other one for the wiki-excerpt.
\n\nMy personal opinion is that any reasonable text for a tag wiki is better than an empty one, so I am usually pretty easy on approving initial proposed text. When necessary it can be improved and I think it the threshold for improving an existing tag wiki is easier taken than the threshold for coming up with a completely new text.
\n" }, { "Id": "3321", "CreationDate": "2014-01-15T15:54:51.423", "Body": "Lately I've been seeing a lot of \"not an answer\" flags on things that are answers, just not good ones. Most recent example:
\n\nHow to search for a component?
\n\nThe \"not an answer\" flag says:
\n\n\n\n\nThis was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
\n
I don't think answers should be flagged and deleted just because the answerer missed the point or is wrong, but that's exactly what's happening. Suggest improvements in comments, sure. Downvote if it's really bad. But if you say someone's answer \"does not attempt to answer the question\", when in fact the author did attempt to answer the question (but missed the mark), that's really rude and discouraging.
\n", "Title": "\"not an answer\" vs. \"not a good answer\"", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "Flags, close votes and downvotes can all be applied unfairly. There are "checks and balances" in the system to reduce this.
\nA minimum reputation is required to close vote; it takes more than one close vote to close; and questions can be reopened.
\nPatterns of serial downvoting are detected by the system and reversed and failing that, behaviors can be reported and investigated by admins and possibly acted upon.
\nIn the case of flags, you can directly express your disagreement, if you have moderator privileges (10K reputation or more).
\nSometimes a little yellow number appears in the main bar, denoting flagged items needing moderator attention. Next to items there is a button [Flag or Disagree].
\nThe choices there are:
\n\n\nI am flagging this answer because
\n\n
\n- \n
it is spam: This answer is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.
\n- \n
it is offensive, abusive, or hate speech: This answer contains content that a reasonable person would deem inappropriate for respectful discourse.
\n- \n
it is not an answer: This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
\n- \n
it has invalid flags: I do not agree with the existing flags on this answer, they are incorrect and should be ignored.
\n- \n
it is very low quality: This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.
\n- \n
other (needs \u2666 moderator attention): This answer needs a moderator's attention. Please describe exactly what's wrong.
\n
The "invalid flags" choice seems to be designed exactly out of concern for the same thing that you've identified.
\n" }, { "Id": "3323", "CreationDate": "2014-01-18T11:51:59.887", "Body": "I've been looking for a quality, free introductory Electrical Engineering online course for a while, and finally came across these two below, from Coursera.org:
\n\nMy questions:
\n\n1. Does the EE.SE site have na interest in these courses?
\n\n2. If so, what is the proper/best way to advertise it to EE.SE users? I thought that someone could post a link to this question on the bulleting board and that would be it.
\n\nI think that this is an excelente opportunity for all of our new users who are avid to learn Electrical Engineering, but didn't have the chance of getting the fundamentals right.
\n", "Title": "Is our site interested in advertising online EE courses?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Personally, I think there's little reason to advertse or endorse a course until you've taken it yourself and found it valuable. Coursera courses will not disappear if you miss one opportunity to take it.
\n" }, { "Id": "3340", "CreationDate": "2014-01-31T09:52:49.087", "Body": "I have both Stack Overflow & Electrical Engineering accounts. But, I found that only Stack Overflow account can be attached to CAREERS 2.0 account. Why it is not possible for Electrical Engineering?
\n", "Title": "Why Electrical Engineering account can't be attached to CAREERS 2.0 account?", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "From memory when you sign-up only one account can be entered and that is used to see if you qualify for access. However once your application has been accepted under \"view & manage your profile...\" the following appears for me when I click on the edit accounts button:
\n\n![\"Careers](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GFmeg.png\")
From there you can add any example answers from each site that appear under your profile. Note that I haven't used Careers 2.0 much so hopefully this answers your question and you didn't have something else in mind.
\n" }, { "Id": "3354", "CreationDate": "2014-02-11T18:57:30.083", "Body": "Just read this question, What kind of tools would I need to analyze 1000BASE-T/gigabit ethernet waveforms?, but was disappointed that it was marked as off-topic. I was interested in hearing what the experts had to say about it.
\n\nSomeone suggested that a small change in title would make the question on-topic again. Well, I just did that, and am now waiting for the reviewers to approve it. I really hope they do.
\n\nSo, my question is: Why not edit the question to make it on-topic instead of voting to close it? Is there a badge for closing questions that may be driving this behaviour? It's just too bad if there's pressure to get good questions like that off the site.
\n", "Title": "Why close this question instead of editting it to make it on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Indeed you are encouraged to edit potentially good questions to turn them into good ones. Just, if you do so, leave a comment so that the poster can be aware of that and can improve the question.
\n" }, { "Id": "3360", "CreationDate": "2014-02-14T15:43:11.203", "Body": "This question was marked as a duplicate of this question, but the latter has been removed from the system. So the reason \"This question has been asked before and already has an answer.\" is no longer appropriate since there is no answer (or question for that matter). Regardless of whether the new question should be closed on other grounds or not, shouldn't the system have not the original question to be marked as a duplicate?
\n", "Title": "Duplicate question, question linked to no longer in system", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'm with tcrosley on this, in that this deserves to be fixed. But an automatic fix may not be so easy to implement. The logic to prevent dead links like this:
\n\nFrankly I think this is too complex and requires too much work for what it's worth, as it won't happen that often; questions aren't deleted that much. So an alternative:
\n\nI am one of the organizers of a robotics competition for high school students. We're entering our 14th year. Over the years, the students have amassed a fairly sophisticated level of technical knowledge, expertise and understanding, which has been passed down institutionally.
\n\nOne of the keys to our competition is that all of the work on their robots must be performed directly by students. So, while adult expert 'mentors' are available, they only offer guidance and may not always have an answer to a particular question.
\n\nNot being new to the Stack, I wanted to check with this group to ensure that it would find it appropriate for us to actively direct students here as part of their resource pool.
\n\nI think it would be a great resource, and offer the young students a chance to engage with professionals and expert hobbyists alike. But I also understand that the context of Stack Exchange is not geared to this, specifically. Would it be worthwhile (for us) to ask students to provide some context if they chose to post here, such as their age bracket? I know I read a \"silly\" question on Stack Overflow from an identified high school student struggling with a jQuery selector differently than from someone I perceive to be a professional web developer.
\n\nI also fully accept and agree with the necessity to close and down-vote bad questions for the good of this community (which is essentially why I'm asking).
\n\nIf relevant, we provide VEX-based base kits to student teams, and a few motors, but they are not limited to that. For example, some have interconnected Arduino boards and sensors to automate some tasks.
\n\nNOTE: I have posted a similar question to Robotics.SE Meta, as they are closely linked themes, but distinct communities.
\n\nEDIT: I'm sorry I can only accept one answer. Thank you, everyone, for your input!
\n", "Title": "Appropriate to send high school students from a robotics competition here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "All excellent points made by Jippie et al.
\n\nAvoid using multiple part questions. It is better to ask five separate questions than one question with five parts. This allows the answer to be short and specific and not end up as an essay.
\n" }, { "Id": "3403", "CreationDate": "2014-03-04T14:31:18.797", "Body": "Sometimes I stumble upon programming questions that are nor embedded-device specific, but instead ask about good practices, coding style or the programming language. An example:
\n\nUse of global variables in Embedded Systems
\n\nI think it would be interesting to add an option in the flag dialog to migrate to Stack Overflow, where there are more readers that could help the op faster with general programming questions.
\n", "Title": "Option to migrate questions to stackoverflow?", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-declined|migration|", "Answer": "The particular question you cited is actually a good example of what DOES belong here. Global variable versus other ways to solve the same problem is one of the areas where being on a small resource-limited machine matters.
\n\nSo to respond to your request, no, there is no need for a direct migration option to SO because:
I asked a question: Explanation of transistor amplifying action. I wrote my question very specifically by highlighting the main points which I do not understand but even I have not got any useful answer.
\n\nI don't know why someone downvoted my question. Perhaps the downvote is due to the grammatical or formatting mistakes; I can just speculate.
\n\nI want to ask more questions but I am afraid I would be again downvoted and banned.
\n\n\n\n\nPlease help me how should I ask my questions.
\n
I have more question to ask like on \\$LC\\$ tuned circuit and on pull down resister. Please tell me how should I ask these questions.
\n\nI also want to ask this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82949/steady-state-of-diffusion-current-in-semiconductors on this website because I think on physic.SE people are not so much familiar with solid state electronics. When I was using my previous account I cross-posted this question on this website but it get downvoted and soon deleted by the community moderator.
\n\n\n\n\nSo should I cross-post this question from phys.SE?
\n
This is a response to @ChrisLaplante.
\n My comment was not for the whole SE network(i.e. every SE website), it is only for https://electronics.stackexchange.com/. Although my comment has been edited by someone its essence is pretty much same as before.\n I had an account on this website which I have deleted. With my previous account I asked some questions which were downvoted silently. I did not know why my questions were downvoted that's why I could not improve them. I was banned to ask more questions. I do not have enough knowledge to answer Engineering questions that's why I could not lift the ban. Once I was banned on Phys.SE too but by posting answers I lifted that ban. I have made a new account here and asked two questions. My two question are not well received by the community and are downvoted. Now I know why my questions were downvoted in my previous account \\$-\\$ Because I did make some grammatical and formatting mistakes. But now I do not know why these two present questions are still remain downvoted although a gentle person has corrected the grammatical and formatting mistakes in it. Perhaps on this website people forget after downvoting.
\n Now let's come to the point. I am not mistaken this website. It is a FACT. On http://math.stackexchange.com I did make the same grammatical and formatting mistakes(like not capitalizing the word \"I\") but nobody downvoted for this reason. Math.SE is very good website there are very friendly people, they have given me very useful answers. This website should learn from Math.SE.
\nDo you know what most of the people do here(on EE.SE)? They downvote silently and walk away. They do not tell what's wrong in the post. They do not even bother whether the OP has corrected the error in his question or not. \n Like any country is known by the behaviour of its people, any website is known by the behaviour of its users. If majority of the people(users) of a community(website) discriminate(and humiliate) on the basis of language then that community(website) will be called \"A Linguistic discriminating community(website)\"
\n I did not came here to dissrespect anyone. I came here to learn and to ask questions. I did not want to make things personal but people here have prejudices for me, they made things personal. Yes I am an Engg. student and never understood any of my subjects. You know why? Because human race is alike, people behave in real life the same they do on any internet website. Throughout my academic carrier I have always been mocked because I ask questions which are difficult to understand and difficult to answer. My teachers always say: Your question is nonsense, it is not understandable, you are confused and confusing me too, etc etc. But the truth is my teachers do not have the qualification to answer my questions.
\n No one can take away my right to learn. I can self study like I did in school time. \nMr. Lathrop is right - I do not belong here. This website is an English based website for intelligent students.
You have asked this before, and apparently learned nothing from the answers.
\n\nYou just asked another question on the main site, and it's full of the same things you were told not to do. I did give a brief answer, but with so many wrong statements, invalid assumptions, and overall sloppiness, it's no surprise it is getting downvoted. All the problems make it difficult to answer because a lot of stuff would have to be unraveled first before the context for a meaningful answer could be established, let alone actually answering the question.
\n\nIn short, you were banned from asking questions for a good reason. You tried to weasel around the ban by creating a new account. That's probably against the rules in the first place. However, you haven't cleaned up your act, which is even worse from my point of view (the moderators may take a particularly dim view of creating another account to circumvent a ban).
\n\nOn a separate topic, you say that you are about to graduate with a degree in electrical engineering, but yet you are asking how a voltage divider works. You need to seriously think about your career plans, and take your education seriously - including how you're learning (or not learning) from your questions here.
\n" }, { "Id": "3429", "CreationDate": "2014-03-16T18:23:19.653", "Body": "If a question is marked as a duplicate for another question, what happens to the answers for the duplicate question? Are they merged with the original? Does the duplicate question remain in the system?
\n\nIf no to both these (the are not merged, and the duplicated question is to be deleted), then if an answer for the duplicate question applies equally to the original question as well, should the person who wrote the answer for the duplicate question then respond to the original question as well with the same answer?
\n", "Title": "What happens to answers on duplicate questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The question marked \"duplicate\" is closed and the link to the other duplicate is added on top. The questions and their answers remain unchanged.
\n\n\"Merge\" requires an additional action which is done by moderators. I haven't done it myself (yet), so I don't have first hand experience. Here's an SE blog post about merging.
\nMerging is seldom done on EE.SE (don't know if there is a rationale against doing it).
Problem testing an ADC with a DAC and voltage divider
\n\nHow do folks feel about this? Looks like a TI engineer reposting on behalf of a SE poster on the TI site. Might be a great way to help the OP, but feels sorta funny to me.
\n", "Title": "Redirection by engineer to other site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Reported to SE and left comment for user as this seems to have good intent.
\n\nYou are allowed to copy content with attribution, this is lacking it and seems to clearly be attempting to drag users to their site for discussion of a question on our site.
\n" }, { "Id": "3446", "CreationDate": "2014-03-25T23:40:34.557", "Body": "I recently had most of my questions closed, down-voted, or put on hold, so I'm asking.
\n\n\n\n\nWhat are the components I need for assembling a hobby mobile phone?
\n
Way too broad. Do you mean individual parts, like specific ICs, etc? Or do you mean high level, block diagrams? A hobby device is exactly like a commercial device.
\n\n\n\n\nHow would I go about assembling such a hobby device?
\n
Again too broad. There is no one way except \"Soldering\"
\n\n\n\n\nAre there laws governing assembly/use of such hobby devices?
\n
We are not lawyers. And most likely, noone here has built a device like you intend, so they haven't done any research on their own. And laws vary by county, state, federal even international levels. Only a lawyer or paralegal would have a clue of where to even begin looking up documents.
\n\n\n\n\nCan I flash the ROM of a mobile phone, e.g. Nokia, in order to install a custom minimal operating system on it?
\n
Yes. And a specific question on how to do that like \"I have xyz rom. I've check the datasheet but can't be sure. Can it be flashed?\" is good. A general question like \"I have a nokia 3620. I can hack it?\" is not.
\n\n\n\n\nWhich peripheral/main units can be used to check a firmware's digital signature?
\n
A computing question, at best. Not EE. Off topic.
\n\n\n\n\nCan someone point me to an appropriate SE site or a related SE forum? I'm hoping for a site with about as much users as this site has.
\n
There is no other SE site that is close to EE for electronics question, and most of the other questions are off topic on most of them. Sorry.
\n" }, { "Id": "3452", "CreationDate": "2014-04-01T20:00:18.087", "Body": "Is the number of \"flag\" you can set for moderator attention regenerating up to 10?
\n", "Title": "Is the number of \"flag\" for moderator attention regenerating up to 10?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Each user who has at least 15 reputation is allowed to use a certain number (anywhere from 10 to 100) of moderator flags per day. The specific number depends on your level of reputation and your previous flagging history. Your personal flag count resets at midnight GMT.
\n" }, { "Id": "3456", "CreationDate": "2014-04-02T18:33:21.430", "Body": "I've occasionally seen the abbreviations \"O/P\" and \"I/P\" used in a context where it can be inferred they mean \"output\" and \"input\" respectively. However, in years of doing electronics work (in the US) I've never actually encountered these particular abbreviations until recently on this site.
\n\nExample question: BJT Amplifier I/P O/P
\n\nAre these abbreviations common in other regions or languages? Should they be edited to conform to an English StackExchange site?
\n\n\n\n", "Title": "Are \"O/P\" and \"I/P\" acceptable or standard abbreviations for output and input?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Note: the question has been edited, see history
\n
A title where 3 out of 4 words are acronyms is not a good title.
\n\nWhen the acronyms are used properly, they don't impede (sometimes even improve) the flow of reading. When they are used improperly, they impede the flow of reading.
\n\nAbbreviations I/P (input), O/P (output), s/w (software), h/w (hardware), f/w (firmware), b/w (between), w/ and w/o (with and without). These are very handy for taking hand-written notes, especially in real time. But in the typed text, they should be used judiciously.
\n\nP.S. Here's another acronym question: What are acceptable abbreviations/shorthand for microcontroller?
\n" }, { "Id": "3463", "CreationDate": "2014-04-03T17:09:57.017", "Body": "What is a \"very low quality\" answer? I flagged this answer as very low quality, which was declined with the reason:
\n\n\n\n\ndeclined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer
\n
My reasons for flagging it in the first place were:
\n\nPerhaps I could have flagged as \"not an answer\", or not flagged at all.
\n\nAdvice on how I can flag this kind of answer better in future would be useful, as would any examples of when to use \"very low quality\".
\n", "Title": "What is a \"very low quality\" answer?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "In his case I declined the flag. Indeed the answer is quite poor, and could have been a comment (although I'm not sure how useful). That's why I left a comment below it.
\n\nThe reason I declined the flag is that it's an attempt from a new user to participate to the site, and I feel like deletion should be reserved for posts that actually harm the site when left there. I prefer seeing poor answers downvoted, then it's up to the poster to delete them if he/she has a problem with them.
\n\nMy intention was not to discourage you from flagging posts, just to give my feedback about what I consider worth flagging. I'm also open to your (and I mean anyone's) feedback on this.
\n\nLooking for reference, I've found this. And this (from a SE.Team's member ;)) pretty much explains my vision.
\n" }, { "Id": "3470", "CreationDate": "2014-04-14T17:43:32.497", "Body": "This question was recently migrated from Electrical Engineering to Software Recommendations. It is asking for a software interface to view the serial output of a microcontroller.
\n\nIt is certainly asking for a software recommendation, but I think it's much more applicable to an EE Forum than a software forum. The answers had more than 20 aggregate Upvotes in the EE Stack. I would liken the question to \"Should I use MPLAB X or MPLAB v8 for developing microcontroller code.\" Definitely software related, but only for EE's :)
\n\nAm I incorrect? Does it matter?
\n\nThanks.
\n", "Title": "A question was migrated, but I think it belongs in the original stack", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "My initial reaction was to close it as off-topic \"Questions seeking recommendations for specific products [...]\" (what @ThePhoton said). Then I have remembered that a stack for software recommendations was established recently, and I've migrate it over there.
\n\nWe have closed a lot of software recommendation requests on EE.SE.
\n\nQ: What should one do, if one thinks that he has a software recommendation request, which should be addressed by EE.SE specifically?
\nA: Ask for recommendations in EE.SE chat.
Trying to post an answer to a question in main EE StackOverflow, I will get \"an error occurred\" without more specifics.\nPosting comments works fine.\nWhy is that? Something going on? Something with my account?
\n\nThe specific error is a red box right next to the submit post button saying \"An error occurred submitting the answer.\"
\n\nAnd, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Seems to have started recently.
\n", "Title": "Why do my answers keep getting an error?", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "Sorry 'bout that. I broke a thing earlier today. This should be fixed now.
\n" }, { "Id": "3494", "CreationDate": "2014-05-05T22:18:39.827", "Body": "There is currently a question on the site called \"What are abbreviations used in electrical engineering?\" which has gotten quite a bit of attention.
\n\nSomeone just put an open bounty worth 50 reputation, with the reason \"This question has not received enough attention.\" (My emphasis.)
\n\nHuh? First of all, this question is Community Wiki, so what does a bounty even mean in this case? (Oh, I think I found that out, see below.) Plus it seems with 170+ answers, this question has gotten quite a lot of attention.
\n\nSo is the bounty just a joke then? I see the poster actually has only 50 points rep left, and claims to be 13, so maybe that is the case.
\n\nBut my question still stands, re the meaning of a bounty on a community wiki question.
\n\nI did some research (which I should have done before asking the question, my bad), and discovered in the meta.stackexchange.com FAQ that \"Bounties awarded to answer marked as community wiki give reputation as usual.
\n\nSo does this means that the person posting the bounty, can, a week from now, pick one of some 200+ answers (I'm sure it will be up to that point by then), and award one of those answers 50 points? I'm not begrudging the rep, just seems a bit strange. (And I don't understand why the authors of community Wiki answers should get awarded bounties anyway.)
\n", "Title": "What does an open bounty on a community wiki question mean?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It doesn't mean anything.
\n\nA bounty \"buys\" you up to 7 days under the Featured tab, and the ability to give reputation as a reward to one answer. While I'm not interested in researching/testing, the original author gets the award, not any additional editors. It's the bounty offer's money, they can award it to any answer they want.
\n\nAs to why... I can't answer that.
\n" }, { "Id": "3497", "CreationDate": "2014-05-06T04:52:17.510", "Body": "So we now have a Terminology Reference
\n\n\n\nWell this has grown into something much larger than originally intended. This started as a quickly implemented suggestion of a moderator, and that's part of the reason why it has stayed around so long. As of this writing, there are 174 answers (including the deleted ones). I have locked the post while we figure out what to do with it.
\n\nTo summarize the opinions I've seen (and feel free to leave a comment if I'm missing anything):
\n\nHonestly, I'm torn on what to do with this question. The only \"Con\" that I don't really care about is following the StackExchange guidelines, as long as there is community consensus. I've seen three suggestions on what to do with the post: Leave it as it is, Move it to meta.EE, or delete it. Those three options will be placed below as answers for a poll (see, it's fun to subvert the StackExchange engine for fun and profit). I'll be going by total answer score, so yes that means you can upvote what you like, and downvote what you don't like, or even have a preference in your options. If there is another solution, add it as an answer.
\n\nResults:
\n\nRemove the moderator lock, and migrate the question and all answers to meta.
\n" }, { "Id": "3700", "CreationDate": "2014-05-19T14:18:08.917", "Body": "Today I came across this suggested edit from an anonymous user. The edit added a schematic to a question that was begging for one. At first I found that suspicious: how could an anonymous user know what circuit the OP was talking about, but then I studied the circuit a little and thought that the circuit was ok and the anonymous user was just being helpful. Then I saw that PeterJ rejected it, so I thought that maybe I had been fooled.
\n\nMy questions:
\n\nAs a reviewer, how should I handle this and similar cases?
Should we just go in and rollback the edit (it's been approved now)?
It's possible the OP was using another computer and didn't log in, or didn't understand that logging in was necessary to make the edit appear to be from the same user. In a case like what you saw, I would leave a comment for the OP asking if the added schematic is correct.
\n\nOn the other hand, if you find a suggested edit that is clearly not correct, roll it back or flag it. I think anonymous or new users' edits to questions should be fairly minor until they've become trusted through reputation gain.
\n" }, { "Id": "3701", "CreationDate": "2014-05-20T17:16:51.633", "Body": "I need the components in my circuits to be labelled using sub-scripts like \\$R_1,\\ R_2,\\ Z_{in}, V_{DS},\\$ etc., Is there any way to do so?
\n", "Title": "Use subscripts in labels in schematic added from Circuitlab", "Tags": "|support|circuitlab|", "Answer": "For my graduate work, it was recommended for people to use Microsoft Visio to recreate their circuits with nice formatting and the capability to do subscripts for labels. It's still clunky for that if I remember right, but at least it's possible there. Visio has a nice library of elements for circuit schematics. Obviously, you can't simulate a circuit from Visio...
\n" }, { "Id": "3708", "CreationDate": "2014-05-29T19:37:00.030", "Body": "I was recently invited to the new Embedded Systems beta and I noticed that I could click on the vote number of a question or answer and it would show me the breakdown of up votes versus down votes. I thought this was pretty cool and mentioned to a friend that I wished the EE.SE could do that too... To which he replied that it did.
\n\nSo, I guess my question is: What is the rule/pattern for being able to view the up/down vote breakdown for a question or answer?
\n\nIt doesn't seem to simply be rep based because I have 101 rep on Embedded Systems and I can see the breakdown... but I have 560 rep on Electrical Engineering and cannot see it.
\n", "Title": "Up/Down voting breakdown on questions and answers", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "On EE.SE, the the Up/Down breakdown privilege turns on at 1k reputation (established user).
\n\nI'm guessing that privileges in the stacks that are in beta (like Embedded Systems) turn on at lower reputation, because their number of members is smaller.
\n" }, { "Id": "3716", "CreationDate": "2014-06-05T17:51:38.893", "Body": "Between fractions and subscripts using MathJax characters can get really small to the point of not being legible under the current default zoom conditions. From here it was recommended that I see if others on the EE SE are interested in changing the default size/zoom of equations here.
\n\nHere's an example text of a dual subscript in a fraction that makes it really hard to read. Even the \"t\"s in it are difficult to discern. Your votes will determine if I just need new glasses.
\n\n$$ \\frac{V_{t_p}}{V_{t_n}} $$
\n\nHere's the quote from the other Meta stack site stating a way to change the default size:
\n\n\n\n\nOr, if sufficiently many EE users think that the font size in formulas\n should be increased, that can be done site-wide, by changing MathJax\n configuration. E.g., the configuring script could include\n MathJax.Hub.Config({ \"HTML-CSS\": {scale: 120} });. This is something\n you can bring up for discussion on meta.EE.
\n
EDIT:\nNo one had come up with a good answer/solution to the original question on the other SE so this question was originally a feature request. I've changed it to be a support topic as no new feature is needed. W5VO answered this question perfectly in his comment.
\n", "Title": "Increase default size of equations to allow subscripts to be seen easily without zoom", "Tags": "|support|mathjax|", "Answer": "You can set the scaling for yourself using MathJax's contextual menu. Right click (or control click on a Mac) any typeset equation and select the \"Math Settings\" submenu, then the \"Scale All Math\" item. You can enter a scaling factor that will be used for all equations on the site where you set it. It is saved in a cookie, so should continue to be used for subsequent visits until you toss your cookies (or a year passes, which is the expiration time for the cookie). So if you don't like the default scaling, you can chance it, and can make it either larger or smaller.
\n\nNote that the readability of the text is very much dependent on the browser and OS that you are using, the rendering engine used by the browser or OS, and settings controlling antialiasing of the fonts. For instance, your example with the fraction and double-subscripted V's is very readable for me. I understand that Windows (particularly older versions) produce very poor results for small fonts in general.
\n\nSince the math displays nicely for me, I would find an enlarged scaling factor a distraction (since the math would not match the surrounding font well). So I would vote not to make such a global change.
\n" }, { "Id": "3725", "CreationDate": "2014-06-14T01:41:30.823", "Body": "Today I learned about a new Stack Exchange concept, called Review Audits (for more information, please see What are review tests (audits) and how do they work?).
\n\nWell, after having reviewed a fair amount of posts on our site (600+), I was quite surprised to learn about the new concept, and, more importantly, that I was being tested (yes, I'm a bit paranoid). I never came across an audit, at least, not that I know of. So, my questions are:
\n\nWhen I think I've seen everything that could ever be invented in StackExchange... then I learn about some more.
\n", "Title": "Are review audits turned off on our site, or did I just ace all of them without noticing?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "No, these are currently only active on the three big sites, as per this comment on the question you linked to. Actually, that is the post that I would take all my information from.
\n\nIf they were active, you would know immediately after completing a review test whether it was an audit or not.
\n" }, { "Id": "3730", "CreationDate": "2014-06-18T04:04:57.570", "Body": "I have a designed and prototyped a circuit, and it works. I'd like to get community review of the design though, in the same way that I can get code review at https://codereview.stackexchange.com/.
\n\nAre review requests on-topic here? I've checked the FAQ but can't find anything specific.
\n", "Title": "Requests for review on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "In general it's quite a broad question, but (IMO) can be a good one as long as you:
\n\nverify that the prototype works,
explain the design choices you made
express your perplexities and doubts you had in the design phase.
So in general I'd say that instead of just saying \"please look at my design\" you could ask for clarifications and feedback on the aspects you're not that confident about.
\n" }, { "Id": "3733", "CreationDate": "2014-06-18T22:23:19.333", "Body": "I understand that questions involving the usage of a particular electronic device are off topic. However, I asked a question about refrigeration compressors and a user has commented that it may be off topic. The question is not really about the usage of the equipment itself but the technical details of the operation of the device and how and why certain conditions may cause the device to operate incorrectly.
\n\nAre such questions on topic?
\n", "Title": "Are questions involving the technical details of the operation of a device on topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "I think that the question is fine here. It has a lot to do with the properties of motors, which are definitely part of electrical engineering.
\n" }, { "Id": "3735", "CreationDate": "2014-06-19T15:32:49.687", "Body": "Do antistatic bags have conductive interior, exterior or both?
\n\nThis is the Question with the answer that I flagged.
\n\nI came upon this question by way of a link from a comment on an answer to a question on the Superuser site.
\n\nI flagged this answer because it doesn't answer the question (to any degree), and this was the response that I received on the decline:
\n\n\n\n\nDeclined - This is a 3.5 year old question, not worth revisiting now.
\n
How is it not worth revisiting? Simple vote to delete would be sufficient to get rid of this \"non-answer.\"
\n\nRight?
\n", "Title": "Answer flag declined because of the age of the answer", "Tags": "|discussion|specific-question|flagging|", "Answer": "I went ahead and deleted it.
\n\nPart of the concern is to discourage going through old questions looking for trouble. When you go back 3-4 years, to the infancy of the site, you see a lot of behavior that would not be allowed now because people were unfamiliar with the format. Also, rules have changed over the years. Finding things to flag in old questions isn't that hard, but usually it's not a productive use of anyone's time.
\n" }, { "Id": "3754", "CreationDate": "2014-07-03T05:26:47.327", "Body": "With all due respect to the following (et all) : Andy aka, Spehro Spephany, Olin Lathrop, Russel McMahon, Phil Frost, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams, Dave Tweed, Passerby (darn, can I type in all of your revered names ? ) Thus \"et all\".
\n\nSometimes I feel like I cannot get an answer in before you gentlemen answer. I want to be a part of this vibrant community. And I do understand that the above mentioned gentlemen contribute mightily to this Exchange. I also have recently become aware of the competition among the above mentioned. These people are so good at using their knowledge and resources they are capable of answering all questions with concise answers, but with follow up beyond the question.
\n\nNow to my question (request ?) How will we build the base of knowledge for the future? .
\n\nAll of us have felt the frustration as a newbie. And now I (as a fairly newbie) find myself frustrated by the early and quick answers by the Guru\"s of Electrical Stack Exchange.
\n\nThis is not a complaint. I love your answers, and I learn (even fundamentals daily from you) from your answers, and I love it. I hope I am not being impatient. And I will not be impatient.
\n\nI think my expectations were that moderators, and the major players would eventually become the last resort (or the Guru type who were called upon later to settle the subtleties )
\n\nI will continue to answer to my limited abilities, with thanks to all of you. But a tiny request would be to give just a little time to all of us who want to contribute and advance would be appreciated.
\n\nIn conclusion, I just ask that the major
\n", "Title": "Future of Stack Exchange . So positive, and good, Now what about future moderators?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If you're answering questions with the goal of getting up-votes, then I understand your frustration.
\n\nSo, maybe you should consider changing your goal.
\n\nWrite the answer for your own benefit. The act of focusing one's mind to pull one's thoughts together and compose a succinct, coherent answer is almost always profitable.
\n\nRevisiting something you learned some time ago refreshes that knowledge and sometimes allows you make a connection you hadn't noticed before.
\n\nIn other words, make it your goal to come away with an improved understanding of the material for having written the answer.
\n\nMoreover, chances are good that, over time, some will visit the question and find your answer valuable too and show their appreciation with an up-vote.
\n" }, { "Id": "3759", "CreationDate": "2014-07-05T19:52:15.750", "Body": "I'm fairly new to EESE so I hope I didn't do something wrong to upset a mod.
\n\nToday I had a bit of spare time and wanted to do some \"housekeeping\" on tag wikis. I edited a fair amount of them (almost all having empty content) and all my edits were accepted.
\n\nUntil this and this. OK, no problem for a rejection, but I can't understand the motive for the second one: \"This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.\", especially because it is so different from the rejection reason of the first.
\n\nI've a bit of experience on StackOverflow, so I know this kind of reasons are used for quite inappropriate behaviors, but I can't explain what I've done here, besides maybe not meeting the guidelines. I guess on SO it wouldn't have been marked as such, so maybe here on EESE there are other criteria in place.
\n\nAm I missing something? Any explanation is welcome, so that I can avoid future mistakes.
\n", "Title": "Understanding the reason of a tag wiki edit rejection", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|tag-wiki|", "Answer": "I have rejected those edits. However, I've typed in the custom reason, and I'm surprised that these cookie cutter reasons got stored. If it was a miss-click on my part, I apologize.
\n\nThe custom reason I've typed in was along the lines of: \"This edit does not cover Fe - iron as element or material, which is used in magnetic cores, among other places. This tag is stretched and/or misused.\"
\n\nFor some reason, we have the soldering and soldering-iron as synonyms. Not all of the soldering is done with soldering iron. I'm inclined to break them up. After that, we could write proper tag wikis.
\n\nLorenzo, thank you bringing this forward.
\n\nedit:
\n\nYou are trying to add wiki excerpts to tags that are also common English words. These have multiple and very different meanings in engineering. But you are giving only one meaning in the excerpt. Examples:
\n\niron may apply to soldering iron. It may apply to Fe (the chemical element).
\nstack may apply to a LIFO. It may also apply to a protocol stack. TCP/IP stack, for example.
\ntube may apply to an electronic tube. It may apply to a general purpose tube/pipe.
\nstatic may apply to static electricity. It may apply to a static variable.
\nOn the opposite end, convolution and noise-spectral-density have narrow meanings.
One of the purposes for an excerpt is that a user can read it and decide whether or not the tag would apply to his question. If an excerpt is too narrow, it can be detrimental compared to no excerpt at all. Perhaps, that\u2019s the reason why nobody was creating the excerpts for those tags for a long time.
\n\nI would suggest that you don\u2019t edit the excerpts for these common words that have multiple meanings across engineering disciplines. At the same time, the wikis themselves are fair game, because they are not used on-the-fly for determining the applicability of the tag.
\n\nFinally, taxonomy systems are never perfect. I guess, this is a preemptive response to Olin\u2019s comment that he doesn\u2019t believe in the tag system here (or something along those lines).
\n" }, { "Id": "3762", "CreationDate": "2014-07-08T14:58:08.793", "Body": "Today was odd for me. I asked a technical question about a motherboard but someguys down-voted me! Why? the question is this:
\n\n4 Questions about Asus Z97 motherboard
\n\nI'm ciurios to know What's the mean of marketing bollocks???
\n", "Title": "Marketing bollocks?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "\"Marketing Bollocks\" is probably the correct answer to your original question, not a statement about your question. Those are all terms that Asus made up to help them sell parts - they likely don't have technical merits or real-world impacts. It's like someone is selling milk and making the claim that \"It comes from brown cows!\". You can't disprove the statement, but you would be hard pressed to identify how the fact that \"it comes from brown cows\" impacts the milk that you buy.
\n\nYour question was probably downvoted and almost closed because it was on consumer electronics (a computer motherboard), and four questions lumped into one.
\n" }, { "Id": "3765", "CreationDate": "2014-07-10T12:04:18.250", "Body": "Since I havn't experienced this, I want to ask it beforehand. If a question receives a number of down votes causing the asker to lose reputation, and then is deleted, will the reputation be restored or remain as it is? Same thing goes for up votes too. Sorry if this is already discussed. Couldn't find the post.
\n", "Title": "Reputation change for removed questions", "Tags": "|discussion|support|reputation|deleted-questions|", "Answer": "If you delete a question or answer then regardless of upvotes or downvotes your reputation will be reverted back to what it was before. So say for a question if you got 1 upvote (+5 reputation) and then 2 downvotes (-4 reputation) while sitting at -1 votes if you deleted it you'd lose the 1 reputation point you'd gained. Conversely for 5 downvotes (-10 rep) you'd get that back upon deletion.
\n\nSomething to remember though is that deleted posts still count towards automated question / answer bans. A person that posts a lot of questions or answers that are heavily downvoted can still get banned for that reason. That helps prevent people posting a continous stream of low quality content and then simply deleting it.
\n\nThe exact rules for question / answer bans aren't made public to prevent gaming the system but from what I gather having a lot of deleted posts weighs heavily into the rules.
\n" }, { "Id": "3766", "CreationDate": "2014-07-10T12:35:02.533", "Body": "What should happen to questions that are repeated again but have a post note that says 'Sorry if this is already discussed. Couldn't find the post.'? (Due to negligence of asker repeatedly). Should they be answered with links or flagged to get moderator attention for merging?
\n\nSorry if this is already discussed. Couldn't find the post. :)
\n", "Title": "Repeated questions problem", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "If you can identify an earlier question that is basically the same, vote to close the new question as a duplicate, giving the link to the earlier question.
\n\nIf you don't have enough rep to vote to close, you can either skip it and let others handle it, or flag for moderator attention. If it's really a blatant duplicate, others will catch it soon enough. It's probably not worth bothering mods about something that basic that plenty of ordinary users can take care of for them.
\n\nAnother option is to write a comment saying that you think this is a duplicate, and providing the link. That makes it really easy for those with higher rep to check out the supposed duplicate and vote to close if they feel it really is a dupe.
\n" }, { "Id": "3768", "CreationDate": "2014-07-10T14:36:25.957", "Body": "I wanted to edit a question by adding what I consider to be relevant tags. The edit was rejected with two different reasons:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/N2O3Q.jpg\")
The tags I wanted to add were the ones user_2 mentions: [blackout] and [power-outage].
I know that there probably won't be a ton of questions with these tags, but I still think they are relevant to the question and on-topic. And I can't see how those tags could be any more general, except [Power-distribution] which really doesn't say anything about what the question is about except \"not electronics\".
I believe that possible new users (myself included) might want to use those tags in the future. I'm quite certain the person posting the question wanted to add those tags, but couldn't due to low rep. For the moment, the only relevant tags that can be used by power system engineers (utility scale) are: [Power-transmission] and [Power-distribution].
[blackout] and [power-outage] should probably be synonyms as they basically mean the same thing, but I don't know exactly how that works.
I know that this site contains mostly questions about electronics, but according to this meta post, power system questions are on topic.
\n\nI would understand if my edit was rejected as too minor, but that was not the case. (The first rejection reason is in my opinion plain wrong, but probably the user didn't consider it a good edit and just picked a random reason to avoid wasting time. The main reason for suggesting the edit was actually to create the tags for future new users, and write tag wikis.
\n\nAny views on this topic? Am I wrong?
\n", "Title": "Are these tags really unnecessary?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Your proposed tags are both redundant and too narrow. The discussion of failures is an essential subtopic of both power-transmission and power-distribution.
\n" }, { "Id": "3771", "CreationDate": "2014-07-10T17:23:55.973", "Body": "I encountered this question today and it clearly is better suited for the raspberry pi stack exchange. So I searched on how to flag it to be moved and encountered this question which the answer states that a stack exchange is only allowed to have 5 migration paths. So I went hrough the process of flagging for migration and it turns out Electrical Engineering only has two migration paths.
\n\nSeeing as how the RaspberryPi is closely related to Electrical Engineering, we are no doubt going to get questions that should be on the Raspberry Pi exchange rather than the Electrical Engineering one.
\n\nCan we get a migration path?
\n", "Title": "Add a migration path to the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange", "Tags": "|feature-request|migration|flagging|", "Answer": "If something lacks a migration path, simply flag it for moderator attention and describe where and why in the flag note.
\n\nAlso, StackExchange policy is not to migrate to betas, even though EE breaks that often with RPI and Ardunio Betas :/
\n" }, { "Id": "3776", "CreationDate": "2014-07-16T17:58:04.273", "Body": "In your opinion, Which code viewer is better?
\n\nthis is the code viewer of the Stack:
\n\n![\"figure](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/cbAws.jpg\")
and this is another code viewer:
\n\n![\"figure2\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2IV70.jpg\")
Really Why doesn't the Stack has a good code viewer?
\n", "Title": "The code viewer isn't good", "Tags": "|feature-request|status-bydesign|", "Answer": "You have two problems. The first is that you're confusing StackExchange with an IDE.
\n\nThe code highlighting doesn't work on your question here because you have put a whole lot of relatively worthless tags on your question instead of one that defines the language you are using. For example, if you used c instead of each individual microcontroller you used, you wouldn't have an issue. I have changed your tags and now syntax highlighting shows up.
\n" }, { "Id": "3783", "CreationDate": "2014-07-20T18:48:26.587", "Body": "I have noticed that when a new user posts for the first time people around here tend to react in two very distinct ways. I am speaking of questions that are off topic for some reason but might be improved.
\n\nThe two reactions are:
\n\nI understand that if you stick to the rules option 1 is the way to go but sometimes I feel that waiting a bit and trying to help might be better, also if we want to keep the Q&A quality high since we are few, as I've read somewhere around here.
\n\nSo the question is: is there a sort of guideline or the guideline is \"well if you have time to waste to help someone who can't help you you are welcome but don't bother anyone else\"?
\n", "Title": "Attitude to new users regarding off-topic questions", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "IMO this site is all about (providing) information. A downvote by itself (whether on a question or on an answer) provides very little information. When I downvote I either upvote a comment that describes my reason for downvoting, or add such a comment myself. I consider leaving an author in the dark as to why he was downvoted as (somewhat) rude behavior. IMO such a comment itself does not necessarily have to be polite: a \"design this for me, and do it quickly\" type of question, or one that written in ALL CAPS SMS STYLE deserves a (mildly) rude comment.
\n" }, { "Id": "3785", "CreationDate": "2014-07-21T16:58:47.023", "Body": "I have a question about the workings of a particular processor (to give some context, it's the 6502, a very commonly used processor). Would such a question be on topic here?
\n", "Title": "Are questions about a particular processor on topic on this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "I think it's on-topic if it's a challenging question for you, but can't you simply look up the instructions and how they affect the flags? I wrote and ported a lot of math routines back in the day and all that information was actually necessary to do that job properly. Never had any problems finding it in the manufacturer's documentation (and that was long before the internet was common).
\n\nIn this case, a quick web search will easily locate a reference that answers that question exactly and authoritatively, so I don't think it would be a good candidate, and would probably vote to close if I was into that sort of thing.
\n" }, { "Id": "3819", "CreationDate": "2014-08-05T09:30:25.390", "Body": "Is this site intended for questions only about electronics as opposed to electrical equipment such as dimmers or light sources?
\n\nAs english is not my native language I not sure a question about the digital LED dimming standard \"Ledotron\" will fit here.
\n\nSo, Go or no go?
\n", "Title": "Dimmers and light sources", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It depends on the nature of your question. If you want to ask something about designing equipment that is compatible with the standard, then EE.SE is probably the place to do it. On the other hand, if your question is about installing/using the existing equipment, then DIY.SE would probably be a better place.
\n" }, { "Id": "3827", "CreationDate": "2014-08-08T17:19:52.943", "Body": "There have been times when I answer a question, in some cases, I'll be urged, by some commenter, that I haven't provided enough information or I should include something else.
\n\nIn other cases, I'll be chastised for having too much information, even while relevant.
\n\nI have always erred on the side that it's better have too much information, rather than too little. Because of that, I'll answer OPs question, while trying to provide some insight as to if their method is \"good\". If it isn't, I'll try to offer some extra info as to what else they should consider instead of what they are trying to force. Sometimes, I'll even list some reasons why if so merited.
\n\nIn both cases when I decide to include this extra insightful bit or not, I have been told I need more or less information by people and it is slightly confusing as to exactly how much I should give.
\n\nObviously I need to answer OPs question, but when should I give insight into their design that stems from their question but isn't necessarily the question.
\n", "Title": "What is the right amount of information in an answer?", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|", "Answer": "A newby here but hopefully I can add a bit of what I feel is the prevailing atmosphere here.
\n\nPersonally I would agree with David Tweed who is a regular here but would add the two following points.
\n\nIgnore personal identification with negative criticism as it does not mean a thing in the big picture once you have some points anyway.
\n\nThen also remember that SE is not intended to be a chatty forum for kids late with their homework, it is intended to be a serious place for recording the collected wisdom of uncountable (wo)man hours of personal experience in (many) diverse fields.
\n\nWitty answers like this appear to be frowned upon a bit. However your tactic of fleshing out your topical answer seems right and I will do the same when I have information to share.
\n" }, { "Id": "3840", "CreationDate": "2014-08-17T01:46:05.983", "Body": "When I logged in today, the little red inbox flag was lit up red with the number 1. So I clicked on it, and then clicked on the linked message, but whenever I log in again it still comes up red.
\n\nI have tried clicking on all the messages visible one at a time but that hasn't done any good.
\n\nIs there any way to mark \"all messages read\" like there is in a typical email program? Or some other way for me to get rid of the red flag?
\n", "Title": "Can't get rid of red inbox flag", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "We had problems with a datacenter test that left our caching layer in a partially broken state.
\n\nAll issues should now be resolved.
\n\nSee also https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/268957/topbar-notifications-dont-go-away
\n" }, { "Id": "3848", "CreationDate": "2014-08-21T07:46:45.560", "Body": "How can I make an educational topic? (e.g. when I have made a successful finished project and I want to share it with the others) Is there any feature to do that?
\n", "Title": "How can I create an educational topic?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "To add to @Ricardo's excellent answer:
\n\nWhen I come across puzzles or challenges during a project, and solve them myself, I sometimes look to see if there are any useful answers here about said problem. Occasionally I find the information I needed online, but it's spread out and often not easy to find. When that happens, I consider posting a question here and answering it myself.
\n\nYou have to present the question from the viewpoint of someone having that particular problem, and think wording it in such a way that others can benefit from it. For example, did you learn new vocabulary words while you solved the problem? If so, the question should include the terms you used before you learned the proper ones.
\n\nYour answer can provide an explanation of how you resolved the problem, and correct misunderstandings or incorrect term usage. Again, the goal is to provide useful content for future visitors (not to mention yourself, should you come back to refer to it, as I have occasionally).
\n\nHere are a couple of examples of questions I answered myself:
\n\nOther times, I asked a question I already knew the answer to, but it didn't exist on the site, or wasn't presented in the same way I would have asked if I had needed to. In that case, I asked and just let other users answer:
\n\n\n\nThere are also good opportunities to create question-and-answer pairs that explain a common misunderstanding. Consider Olin's legendary question-and-answer about choosing power supplies. I created one to help users with schematics, wiring and block diagrams.
\n\nSo while these aren't tutorials or a blog sharing the details of your adventures, you can still provide some great educational resources.
\n" }, { "Id": "3854", "CreationDate": "2014-08-23T01:12:06.717", "Body": "I have recently been informed that is frowned upon to ask if anyone knows a part that would work in your circuit. What I need, is a part. I have done digging, I can't find what I'm looking for.
\n\nSince it is bad form, I will not ask that sort of question here. What I would like to know, is if anyone knows of a place where I can ask that sort of question. (Another forum, something.)
\n", "Title": "Where to ask certain questions", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "There are types of questions that are one or more of the following: killed on sight, frowned upon, not a good fit for StackExchange Q&A format.
\n\nOne can try his luck with such question in the EE.SE chat, where rules are more relaxed.
\n\nThe link to the chat is through the StackExchange menu.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/swkiZ.png\")
After due consideration, I'd like to delete one or more of my own comments because they serve no site-valuable purpose. I don't find any means to do so, however. Plan B was to flag the comment(s) for deletion, giving a suitable explanation for said flagging. I also find no means to do that.
\n\nWhat can I do to clean up my own wayward tracks? Does any such mechanism exist? If none, could we add a means of at least flagging said comment(s) for deletion such that, if any there exist any replies relying upon said comment(s), such replies losing all meaning if said comment(s) get deleted, at least a moderator could examine the situation and take appropriate action?
\n", "Title": "How to delete or flag one's own comment?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|feature-request|bug|", "Answer": "If you hover your mouse over the comment, you should see the X button, which deletes the comment.
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/nVbkJ.png\")
Similar screenshot from StackOverflow.
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/813sq.png\")
P.S. This is a bit of a modern UI, where a function is hidden until you get close to it.
\n" }, { "Id": "3858", "CreationDate": "2014-08-24T00:03:41.307", "Body": "This is related to my prior question, but the subject material is different enough to warrant its own question.
\n\nIf one goes to one's own profile page, one can easily find a list of their own questions, answers, tags, badges, etc, but no historical list of comments they've made. Have I simply missed a mechanism by which one might find such a list?
\n\nI understand, of course, that I can find some of those comments indirectly (in cases wherein someone has responded to such a comment) by poring through my Inbox. The Inbox is a poor substitute, though, for a complete ordered historical list.
\n\nIf the site software lacks such a mechanism, that might be a handy feature addition. Speaking for my own case, I'd like to review comments I've made over the course of, say, the last two weeks as part of a self-audit. It might be handy, too, for the user who would like to review their own comments for other reasons - second thoughts, additional inspirations, followup questions, etc.
\n", "Title": "Is there any way to list one's own comments?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|feature-request|", "Answer": "Of course you can. Just go to your user page, select the \"Activity\" tab, and then the \"Comments\" tab under that.
\n" }, { "Id": "3862", "CreationDate": "2014-08-25T18:13:11.233", "Body": "This is the second time that I've seen a question appear faded!
\n\n![\"Screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EXAg7.jpg\")
If I recall correctly, I have already seen another question like this. Why does this question appear faint?
\n", "Title": "Why is this question faded?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You have probably put the tag in the Ignored list in the main page.
More information about the favorite and ignored tags can be found here.
\nQuoting:
\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "3872", "CreationDate": "2014-08-27T04:26:47.760", "Body": "Favorite tags are meant to call out questions that are important or interesting to you. Any question tagged with one of your favorite tags will be highlighted on the homepage and questions lists.
\nIgnored tags downplay subjects you are not as interested in. Questions with these tags are faded on the homepage and questions list, but are still visible. If you want to completely hide questions with containing your ignored tags, you may checking the "Hide Ignored Tags" box in the "prefs" tab of your profile.
\n
Why doesn't the chatroom have any smiley? It can help us to transfer the emotions. I know that here isn't suitable for chatting but IMO having the smileys is a good idea.
\n", "Title": "Why doesn't the chatroom have any smiley?", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "Because we are serious people :) (look, an emoticon!)
\n\nJokes aside, I don't really see it as a priority, and most of the people around here are probably more pleased with the plain text emoticons. Or at least this is my impression.
\n\nAnyway, I think the proper place to ask is the Stack Exchange Meta. Where, I just noticed, the issue has been raised with not so much success, I fear.
\n" }, { "Id": "3878", "CreationDate": "2014-09-01T18:24:52.560", "Body": "I've often seen a notation where there is a horizontal bar over a letter to indicate the inverted value of something, e.g. q and (not)q for the outputs of a flip-flop. The not q would be a q with a bar over it.
\n\nMore recently I was trying to describe the inputs to a 16 bit ADC, where one of the lines was R/(not)C.
\n\nI just waded through page after page of Unicode but could not find Roman letters with bars over them, except a few vowels.
\n\nIs there a way to do that in a Stack Exchange post?
\n", "Title": "How do you make a complement symbol?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You mean like \\$\\overline{this}\\$?
\n\nJust invoke the \\overline command in MathJax:
You mean like \\$\\overline{this}\\$?\nTo have it not italicized you can use \\text{} like in \\$\\overline{\\text{this}}\\$.
\\$\\overline{\\text{this}}\\$\nThe question how to choose resistors' value for common emitter amplifier? was closed (at the time of this writing) 1 hour ago, yet this answer was written 5 minutes ago. How is this possible? I thought closing a question prevents new answers. I have had answers I've written rejected when the question was closed before I posted them.
\n\nApparently I have a micconception about closing and answering. Please enlighten me.
\n", "Title": "Question answered after having been closed", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I've seen this asked a few times on Meta.SE and I believe this answer is still current:
\n\nHow was this answer posted after this question was closed?
\n\nThe message that you see not allowing an answer to be posted happens on the client side of things, the server allows a grace period of around four hours. So one likely cause is that Jim had it open in his browser for some time and that check failed. Or maybe he did the same using the mobile version of the site that according to that answer doesn't have that check.
\n\nThe real-time updates you see on questions (votes can change without refreshing etc) use a WebSocket on modern browsers but some operations fall back to XHR on older browsers. Looking at the JavaScript involved I had a bit of a problem understanding some aspects, but from what I could work out the ability to post seems to get disabled in the client browser as a result of a message back from the server so if that fails (WebSocket is closed / times out while the page is still open) you can still post an answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "3886", "CreationDate": "2014-09-05T16:28:50.293", "Body": "I have an inverter that generates modified sine wave output. My newly purchased AC adapter for my laptop is not working (first thing I tried it on was the inverter), and I'm wondering: could the modified sine wave output have damaged my AC adapter?
\n\nI've been looking for an appropriate Stack Exchange site to post this question to, including more details about wattages, voltages, and the research I've already uncovered about this. After reading through the valid topics here, I am thinking it would not be on topic because it involves consumer electronics. However I posted about this on meta Supuser and one 19k user there suggested it might be on topic at EE despite involving consumer electronics.
\n\nI'm uncertain and looking for clarification. Is my question on topic here?
\n\nFor reference, here's the meta Supuser post.
\n", "Title": "Is a question about the impact of modified sine wave AC output on a typical laptop AC adapter on topic?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Yes. Your question is an electronics design question and on-topic here.
\n\nThe answer, BTW, is also yes. The complete answer is \"it depends.\" It depends on what the modification is and how the laptop power adapter is implemented internally.
\n\nThe most common failure-mode in my experience is high voltage spikes on the \"sine\" wave edges that degrade the input clamp circuit to failure and then the failure cascades.
\n" }, { "Id": "3893", "CreationDate": "2014-09-11T18:57:43.073", "Body": "There seems to be a bit of difference of opinion here about editing questions to improve them with regard to English usage, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation.
\n\nIn this meta question, @Nick posted an answer which called me out for \"putting lipstick on a pig\" with a link to a question I never edited. It was edited by another user to improve gross capitalization errors. It (currently) has a score of -2 (+1/-3), probably garnering down-votes from its pre-edit state. It's still not a great question, but it is more readable. The posted answer was accepted and has an upvote.
\n\nI fail to see why anyone would object to attempting to improve the question for future site visitors. Therefore, Nick's answer seems somewhat off-base. He did say:
\n\n\n\n\nWe are still waiting from the O.P. for a schematic, or diagram, or any other clarification.
\n
That's fine. What's stopping the OP from adding said information? It's not as though the OP is likely to fix English mistakes when adding a schematic, so why object to another user volunteering to do so?
\n\nMore recently, another lack-of-effort homework question was posted with a silly misspelling and a couple of words to capitalize:
\n\n\n\n\nan electric cattle has coils A and B.When only A is switched on the water boils in 10 minutes and when only B is switched on water boils in 20 minutes.Calculate time taken by same amount of water boil if the coils are connected in series
\n
I edited the question but still voted to close it. My thinking is that if the OP wants to show some effort, they can edit their question to do so, and perhaps salvage it.
\n\n@Olin posted a comment:
\n\n\n\n\nPlease don't \"fix\" attitude problems in questions. The OP's disdain and disrespect for us should remain visible to all. Fixing the letters doesn't fix his attitude, which is important information in deciding how to react to the post. In short, you are depriving us of useful information by covering up for the OP. If someone is thumbing his nose at me, I want to know that before deciding whether to answer, downvote, and/or vote to close.
\n
I'm surprised by this, because I don't detect any \"attitude\" in the question. As much as it sucks, I've gotten used to the fact that questions often need editing and interpretation. The site attracts a lot of non-native English speakers, which is great for an international scope, but questions will sometimes require a bit of cleanup.
\n\nIn this case, the OP dumped a no-effort-shown homework question on us, which happens with annoying frequency. Still, there are some good homework questions from time to time. If the OP learns from comments and modifies the question, what is the harm in editing it?
\n\nQuestions that are beyond salvaging, I won't edit. It is my hope they get downvoted and deleted, and disappear. If the homework question never gets improved, then fine, editing it was perhaps a waste of time.
\n\nThe site is for Electrical Engineering. This is a field which requires clarity and precision, otherwise time-consuming mistakes start to add up. I do not view edits as cosmetic or \"beautifying\", but rather as making things clearer or more accurate.
\n\nThe FAQ says to avoid trivial edits, and there are ancient Meta.SE discussions about whether to edit to only remove greetings and thanks. I never try to change the tone or meaning of a question, only make it readable and/or conform a bit to standards.
\n\nVoting is supposed to be about the quality/accuracy of the question or answer, not whether it conforms to language standards.
\n\nSo what's the problem?
\n", "Title": "Editing for quality: The \"lipstick on a pig\" problem", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Observation: @Nick is wrong on (at least some of :-)) his assertions re OP laziness.
\nWhat is 'obvious' to some may be affected by culture, language and circumstance in ways which are completely inobvious to others*. And, as a bonus, the system auto-kneecaps enthusiastic new users using rules which it specifically notes that it does not reveal. Post say 3 questions early on which attract downvotes and it MAY lock them out from asking more questions until they fix their existing questions. This is not made as obvious to them as it could be, and odds are the downvoters have moved on to new victims and will never reverse their votes. Reopening closed questions seems usually to happen if there is an active \"campaign\" by other users.
*. Some are extraordinarily blind to cultural and language affects - so much so that they may rudely rebuke perceived offenders while themselves committing linguistic, grammatical and technical 'offences' in the process.
\n" }, { "Id": "3906", "CreationDate": "2014-09-18T16:36:44.177", "Body": "When trying to provide tags for \"How can error correction codes reduce bit error rate, for same amount of energy\" I noticed that there was no tag for energy efficiency. efficiency has the wiki summary of: \"The ratio of output power to input power\". (This seems strangely specific as output \"work\" to input power can also be a measure of efficiency, where \"work\" may not correspond to energy exactly but the accomplishment of the desired task. The referenced question is not about power conversion as such, which seems to be the focus for efficiency.)
\n\n(Incidentally, energy-harvesting does exist.)
\n\nIs there some other tag that would be appropriate or should efficiency's wiki entry be modified to be more inclusive? (There is a distinction between power efficiency and energy efficiency. I also suspect it would be appropriate for the subject to include concerns about energy use which are not strictly efficiency-based since battery life is not purely defined by energy used and energy harvesting (and grid electricity use) can make consuming more energy when it is cheap the appropriate strategy. However, energy budgeting might be excessively general as a subject and might even exclude the referenced question which concerns abstract energy efficiency outside of a system context where a budget would be implied.)
\n", "Title": "Should there be an \"energy-efficiency\" tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Just expand the definition of efficiency. In 99% of cases, power efficiency and energy efficiency are used synonymously. In those cases in which a distinction needs to be made between power (energy over time) and total energy, the question itself can specify what is meant.
\n\nTags are primarily a means of finding relevant quesitons, and a single efficiency tag would be the best way of meeting this need.
\n" }, { "Id": "3924", "CreationDate": "2014-09-24T01:21:35.307", "Body": "I have a question about parts for a circuit (specifically solenoids), but I'm unsure where to ask it as I've heard that it is taboo to ask for suggestions for parts on any '.SE forum. Would the EE.SE chat be an acceptable place to ask?
\n", "Title": "Question about parts", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "As Nick mentioned in a comment chat is a good place to ask those sorts of questions and I've asked a few component sourcing / recommendations questions in the past with good results. Although the name \"chat\" implies real-time (which it is if someone is around) often because of time zone differences and peoples availability it might take a while to get a response.
\n\nFrom that point of view just remember to start your message with something like \"@PeterJ\" when replying to someone that has replied to you and they'll get a notification in their inbox when visiting any Stack Exchange site. The only thing to avoid (other than if generally just saying hello) is doing that to random people who happen to have been in chat recently unless you happen to be familiar enough with the person to know they might be able / interested in that particular topic.
\n" }, { "Id": "3927", "CreationDate": "2014-09-28T11:09:23.930", "Body": "I always make sure I don't ask more than one question in one most. This is because by asking so, I might scare away a person who would know an answer to one of my questions but not to both. He might not share his opinion as he cannot answer the whole question.
\n\nIn this post,\nImportant Parameters to Check while Chosing a GSM/GPRS Antenna
\n\nI have carefully asked one question and another on this linked
\n\n\n\nBut the previous link it says, a possible answers in my other post, alerting a possible duplicate.
\n\nMy concern is why people without a clear understanding are allowed to make changes to the way posts/questions. I believe it decreases the quality of the forum. I've always tried my best to maintain the standard of the forum and I love this forum. I hope this post is seen by people responsible.
\n", "Title": "Post Changed by Someone Else", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "There is a fine line between piling too much into one question versus creating several questions that are similar. There is no simple single criterion you can use to decide how to ask the several related questions.
\n\nAsking too much in a single question makes it difficult to answer because it might require dispelling wrong assumptions implied by some of the questions, or be too long if everything were answered. If the questions are truly related, then sometimes a good answer can go into the background theory, although that is rare. Sometimes one or two of the questions can be answered and the others ignored, but the simplest expedient is to close on account of being too broad or possibly unclear.
\n\nOn the flip side, closely related separate questions are annoying when roughly the same answer would apply to each of them. You'd rather write a comprehensive answer and not have to repeat it. If the question is interesting, then sometimes a nice answer can be written in one place and the other questions closed as duplicates, pointing to the question with the good answer. However, the most likely and common expedient is to simply close all of them as duplicates. If the offense is particularly egregious, it's great fun to close all of them, each pointing to one of the others.
\n\nSo what to do? Three things:
If not, wait a couple of days, then ask the next question, referencing the first. It would help to make it clear you learned something from the previous question, but that has lead to confusion about xxx. This shows you are trying to learn, are actually reading other answers, and implicitly shows the new question is not a duplicate of the first.
\n\nAbove all, remember that this site isn't about you. You have to look at it not from the point of view of what you are here to get, but how to give those you seek a favor from the opportunity to do what they came here to do. There is no such thing as true altruism, no matter how much some people claim there are here just to help you. Nonsense. Everyone is here for their own personal private selfish reasons. They want to look smart, gain a high reputation (not the SE numerical kind) among their peers, like to contemplate interesting problems in their field, like teaching, etc. None of this has anything to do with solving your silly-ass problem directly. That is just collateral gain on the way so some other goal.
\n\nSince nobody gives a crap about you or your problem directly, and we get plenty of traffic here, questions that don't let people fulfill their purposes are dealt with expediently. That can mean downvoting and voting to close, sometimes for the quickest handiest reason whether it applies or not if the question is particularly bad.
\n\nThat all said, the mechanisms for people to get what they want here are set up to provide good answers, but only to questions that are well asked, aren't annoying to read, and don't appear to waste the answerer's time. Keep all this in mind, and you can get a lot out of this site.
\n" }, { "Id": "3942", "CreationDate": "2014-10-14T10:08:34.760", "Body": "Lately there have been some changes to the suggested edits review system. This now makes it impossible to reject edits as 'too minor' (which, in my opinion, is something terrible, but that's not what this is about).
\nI have the feeling that some users on this site are misusing the editing system.
\nIt's great that some of you want to capitalize every 'i' on this site, change every 'you're' to 'your', and all the 'its's to 'it's's. But please, please, please, if you edit, make sure you edit everything that can possibly make the post better.
\n(I'm mostly active on EE.SE, so I take an example from there, but this issue is network-wide).
\nSure, the 'i' is annoying. But what about the 'Thanks'? What about all the sentences that don't start with a capital? What about the abuse of capitals in 'Analog to Digital'? What about 'I have been searched'? What about the utterly useless texts 'please help me!' and 'please say simple!'?
\nWhat's just completely annoying me is that some people are treating data space (because every edit takes space) of others as if it's free. Because every edit takes data space. It's like visiting someone and drinking all the coffee he has in stock. You don't do that, even when coffee is cheap and they have more than you can ever drink.
\nWhen I reviewed the first edit suggestion on this one, I just couldn't accept it. I really wanted to skip, because I didn't think a question that was so clearly off topic deserved a proper edit to fix all the grammar, so I didn't want to waste my time on editing it either. But I knew that if I would skip, the edit would most likely get accepted.
\nIn the end another reviewer accepted the edit, but changed something himself as well: he removed the thanks. Great, again, but really. Do you guys only check for ' i ' and the bottom of the post when you edit? I truly think every post deserves more than that. So please, if you're going to edit, edit everything.
\nI think the system works. Some people just don't use the system properly. I feel there should be some editing guidelines. Ideally, the main points would show up on the edit page. But in this post I would just like to draw everyone's attention one's more to the problem.
\nThis is how I would like to see editing being used.
\nCheck the whole post for things to improve. If you feel like your time is too important to edit everything you see, leave it to others. If the post is so messy that nobody's time is unimportant enough, the post is really messy, the OP shouldn't expect an answer anyway and the question will most likely get closed as unclear what you're asking.
\nDon't edit for the 2 rep alone. This really isn't helpful to anyone, and the next privileges aren't as awesome and special as you think.
\nIf you're reviewing an edit that is way too minor, either reject and edit or skip. The initial suggestion doesn't deserve a place in the edit history, and the person who suggested the edit doesn't deserve the 2 rep, so don't accept and edit.
\nIn this particular case I didn't skip because I was really, really annoyed. My apologies.
\nRelated: Minor edits without impacting activity queue
\n", "Title": "Editing guidelines", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|reviewing|guidelines|", "Answer": "I agree with @Keelan completely. Sometimes questions only have one minor issue, such as a typo or non-capitalized \"I\". These are the ones I wish would not bubble up to the top of the active questions queue when edited, but nevertheless I feel should be corrected.
\n\nI've come across several posts that were previously edited, and only certain things were fixed. When I edit questions I really do read the whole thing and try to edit it not just for capitalization but also for readability. It's not always easy, however, because some posts are just very badly written. (It may be an iterative process, assisted by asking the OP in comments, etc.)
\n\nThe \"thanks\" politeness topic is somewhat of a debate. I agree with TheTXI's and Jon Skeet's answers. The take-away point being that this is not a forum. It should just be information as useful and concise as possible. Leaving various forms of thanks and greetings in the question just seems to invite more noise, and pretty soon you have something like Yahoo Answers, where it is difficult to trust anything.
\n\nI really would like if the site would provide some guidelines for new posters along these lines:
\n\nI do not have any brilliant suggestions for how to handle how \"minor\" edits bubble up on the active queue. Having an incentive (such as rep or badges) to edit is nice, but it also leads to a situation where you have to police the edits to ensure they are valid.
\n\nI don't edit for reputation, so why bother? It's simple: I like this site, and I care about the quality. I'd rather find useful information about electronics that's highly readable and not just SMS text and amateurish-looking posts on arbitrary forums.
\n" }, { "Id": "3966", "CreationDate": "2014-11-12T13:33:57.603", "Body": "I noticed this question was getting too many \"me too\", and in one case offensive, posts, so I was going to \"protect\" it. I know I have done this before. It requires anyone answering it to have some basic minimum rep. The bar is quite low, just intended to keep very new or drive-by users from chiming in with presumably no additional useful content.
\n\nHowever, the protect link is missing. I can see share, edit, close, and flag, but no protect as I'm sure I've seen (and used) in the past.
\n\nWhat am I missing?
\n", "Title": "What happened to being able to \"protect\" a question?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Non-moderator users with more that 15K rep can protect questions, but only after a full day has elapsed. See the blog post for details. I think you just jumped the gun on this one.
\n" }, { "Id": "3971", "CreationDate": "2014-11-20T01:59:43.100", "Body": "Last year around Christmas time we had an awesome promotion in which hats for for gravatars were awarded for completing basic tasks around the site. If you don't remember it, here is a link\n to the promo from last year (and the year before that).
\n\n
This year, SE is planning to run it for everyone again because we all love hats, right? right?
\n\nThis year we would need to opt-out if we don't want any of this haberdashery. For the purposes of a simple count, upvote this question to indicate you would like hats, and downvote this question if you don't want hats at all.
\n\nWe've had a lot of fun with this promotion in the past, and I'm sure it's going to be fun again this time.
\n\nHOWEVER: this promotion is optional for sites, and/or individual users. If the users of this site do not want this in general feel free to voice that opinion. We can opt out of the promotion. Individual users will be able to opt out as well (they will be provided with an \"I hate Hats\" link to opt out).
\n\n(Majority of content blatantly stolen from freiheit's copy of waxeagle's post on meta.christianity.)
\n", "Title": "Do you like hats? (2014 Edition)", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|", "Answer": "We will be getting hats again. Thanks for your input.
\n" }, { "Id": "3982", "CreationDate": "2014-11-24T22:25:06.597", "Body": "Control theory is part of many undergraduate electrical engineering courses. Are questions regarding the control theory portion of a control system relevant here? What I mean is not the electronics aspect of it, but rather questions regarding how to improve transient response, disturbance, etc.
\n\nIf it's not, are there any other stacks more relevant to this?
\n", "Title": "Do Control System questions belong in EE.SE?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "As it is stated in the Help Center:
\n\n\"We ask and answer questions about electrical and electronics engineering topics, which include electronics, physical computing, and those working with microcontrollers, Arduinos and embedded systems.\"
\n\nControl Systems is one the major areas of Electrical Engineering so they are welcome in this Q&A site.
\n" }, { "Id": "4006", "CreationDate": "2014-12-08T21:30:23.720", "Body": "What I would like to know is that is there some clearly defined purpose of this site? Is there some goal we're trying to aim for. It seems to me that if there's an agreed set of goals, it could be deduced logically what is the correct attitude and code of conduct to be followed here.
\n\nWe're engineers, we have the luxury of pragmatism and logical thinking in our skillset.
\n\nWhat are the goals that are most important to you, and what codes of coduct do you see eminating from them?
\n\nEdit: trimmed the question to tone it down a bit and hopefully leave the essence.
\n", "Title": "What is the purpose of this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Everybody is listing concerns here because they are invested in the site and want to see it continue to do well. On meta, one of the things we talk about is the community dynamics as a whole. To say that the dynamics of a site like this are complicated would be an understatement.
\n\nWe need to try and keep our existing users. While we can't keep everyone, we should try to maintain an environment where the community doesn't drive long-term users away. Part of this effort is to limit the questions that are frustrating to answer (aka \"bad questions\"). Questions that are incomplete, questions that change drastically, and questions with a wide scope generally fall into this category. Closing these questions is our primary method for dealing with these issues. This issue is very important to Olin, and is reflected in many of his answers regarding the treatment of questions and users who ask such questions. This is an important issue for long-term site health.
\n\nWe also need to grow the user base for this site. If we aren't increasing the number of users, then the community will eventually stagnate and die out. Users also make content for the site (questions and answers) so the more users we have the more content will be available. However, new users often aren't familiar with the rules we place on questions, or what information is required to get a good answer, and may unintentionally ask a question that we would consider \"bad\". This, combined with a different model from a traditional forum, can result in a bad user experience which will result in new users who quit. This issue is very important to Russell, and it is reflected in his meta posts. This is an important issue for long-term site health.
\n\nUltimately, both of these issues are important, but aggressively pursuing one goal will adversely affect the other. I can find anecdotes for both issues, but the plural of anecdotes is not data. It would be nice to actually have data on what is happening so that we can have a balanced approach and adjust our response to new users. Scott is calling for more data so that we as a community can understand what is happening overall and have some numbers to base community policy. To paraphrase, we have issues, but we aren't sure if they are serious issues or minor issues, and more data would help us assess that.
\n" }, { "Id": "4015", "CreationDate": "2014-12-11T00:01:29.400", "Body": "How long do chats kept for? Are they kept forever?
\n\nI'm particularly interested in chats that are created as a result of the suggestion after a long string of comments for a question, where it says, \"Do you want to move this to chat?\" or something to that effect.
\n\nObviously, the chat should be kept around as long as the question and comments are, but I wasn't sure if that was the case.
\n\nJust wondering.
\n", "Title": "How long are chats retained?", "Tags": "|discussion|chat|", "Answer": "As per W5VO's answer I think the rooms mostly hang around forever. I've written a data explorer query that I think should give what you're after along with a link to the chat room:
\n\n\n\nLooking at the list though I remember being in a chat room for the same reason and I'm not on that list. It would exclude anything where the original question / answer was deleted and also if the comment was flagged as obsolete or cleaned up by the user. When they're posted you're the owner of the comment so you can delete it yourself.
\n\nRegarding your comment about it being useful to search comment text here is a more general purpose query that someone else has written. The only caveats with the data explorer are that the data dump is only updated once a week and because it's public deleted content isn't visible.
\n\n\nSearch post where comment text like '...'
\n" }, { "Id": "4020", "CreationDate": "2014-12-13T05:21:19.133", "Body": "I think that my question does not ask for career advice. Rather I ask the motivations, salary and the future of the two important areas in electronics. How can I edit this question to get good quality answers?
\n", "Title": "How can I fix my career related question that was \"on hold\"?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "I'd like to expand on Nick's valid answer.
\n\nThe question you asked is in part off topic, since this site covers practical problem mostly, and career advice is a personal matter.
\n\nIt is in part subjective, since people might have different opinions on the matter, and both of them could be personally valid. The voting system, which is one of the key features of SE, would not work in this context.
\n\nIt is ion part too localized, because the answer may depend on time, on place, and on personal traits. Therefore, future readers, which are in a way the main target of the site, wouldn't do much with that advice, unless it perfectly fits their situation.
\n\nBut the chat would be a great place to discuss this kind of topics, and a lot of good stuff goes on in there.
\n" }, { "Id": "4031", "CreationDate": "2014-12-18T14:16:23.490", "Body": "I studied unnecessary tags, but my tags were not that much in appropriate. yet they were rejected.\n![\"rejected\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/WBxHx.jpg\")
\n I meant that Eagle is mostly used for PCB so why is PCB or PCB-design tag inappropriate?
Because it's not actually about those topics. If you look at the question, it is purely about using the software.
\n" }, { "Id": "4048", "CreationDate": "2014-12-28T12:59:13.307", "Body": "We've been discussing the issue of how to treat new users for a long time now, without much results so far (see [1]). The discussion gets lost in arguments between whether harshness is necessary for maintaining quality or not.
\nBut I can put my finger on one problem regarding treatment of newcomers that has nothing to do with keeping high quality and that can be fixed. That's the overuse of witty, demeaning comments.
\nI'll give you a few examples:
\n\n\nHow much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
\nWe do engineering here, not physics phantasy. No technology will ever tell you exactly where something is, so this whole question is pointless and needs to be closed. [Original here]
\nSo, how would someone reuse a rabbit? Oh, wait, I don't wanna know. Forget I said anything...
\nI don't want to confuse the poor little Arduino user with too much information...
\nWe don't care. This a Arduino user-level question, not about electronics or low level programming.
\nHuh? What? Try asking in English.
\nYes. ------------- [Original here and here]
\nWhen you stick the card into the slot, it cuts a tiny wire, which holds a mass on a pulley. The mass drops down, and hits a teeter-totter which projects a steel ball into the air. That steel ball lands in a receptacle, where it bridges two contacts. These provide current for a filament which lights a candle which burns through a cotton string. By this time, though, the card has also closed a little-known, inconspicuous switch, doing which activated a relay which closed a bigger switch which provided power to the hotel room. [Original here].
\n
I'm also to blame because one of the comments above is mine. And the last one was directed at me when I was a new user.
\nThe thing is that sometimes those comments are flagged, but moderators dismiss the flag as not helpful, arguing that a little humor is healthy or something to that extent (happened in my case). I agree, in a healthy environment humor is good, but that's not the case when one have problems treating new users like we do. The negative effect to the offended person far outweighs any humor benefits these comments may have to the offender and his or her audience.
\nTo correct this problem I propose the following:
\nI think we should not be lenient towards this behavior, as we are not tolerant with low quality posts. If we do this right, I think this would be a great start at fixing our problematic behavior towards newcomers.
\nWhat do you think?
\n", "Title": "Treatment of newcomers - enough with the witty, demeaning comments!", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "In my experience, the sort of thing you're highlighting is almost universal. I see it on this site (at which I'm a relative newcomer), also on StackOverflow (where I'm normally found), several other SE sites I've lurked on, also the Arduino forum (and the SE Arduino beta site), and ... and ... and ...
\n\nIt's common to find long-standing, high-rep users giving two types of response: either very helpful and informative or reflecting impatience, humour (however misplaced) or frustration. Often there's no middle ground. I could name a handful of users on SO that almost exactly match these same patterns of behaviour as I've seen in another handful of users here on EE.SE.
\n\nPersonally, it doesn't bother me unless I feel it's unnecessarily offensive, in which case I'll sometimes flag an answer or a comment before moving on.
\n\nSo it's not something that I think anyone can \"fix\" and almost certainly not worth any significant effort to try. It's part of human nature. Ask any experienced person enough stupid questions and eventually you'll get a metaphorical slap.
\n\nIf you hang around forums enough, you'll be used to it and it will not feel as disrespectful as it would to a complete newcomer. Language differences can mask apparent \"stupidity\" so it's wise to think twice before being overtly unhelpful, but really I do believe that most people have been around the online world long enough to grow thick skins - probably more so for younger users.
\n\nSo, I don't condone rudeness, but I don't expect it to stop. I also don't think it's a big problem. Leave things to level themselves out or it will get too personal.
\n" }, { "Id": "5075", "CreationDate": "2015-01-07T05:11:58.567", "Body": "Since you will never get back the bounty offered. Its more like a advertising medium. The term bounty confuses many user as in real life an unclaimed bounty return to the original owner. Yes it is clearly stated inside the bounty rules and regulation, but how many of us read the listed rules. One only learns from mistake.
\n\nWhy shouldn't we rename bounty or put a high alert message when a bounty is clicked. A simple message stating no refund for further information click here could save a dumb person like me whom failed to read the bounty rules and regulation at the first place.
\n", "Title": "Is Bounty Equivalent to Advertising Fee? Wished it had a Warning Message Box!", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "It's tricky because the system can't guarantee an answer for every bounty. Part of the mechanism of \"no refunds\" is there to prevent questions from staying up on the \"featured\" tab indefinitely for no cost (or if you don't like the answers you got).
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/fKN7x.png\")
Is there any way to protect you ideas when you asking question ?
\nAssuming you ask a problem that provides new ideas innovative, Which ensures that these ideas will be your property and not be stolen by other users ? Is it possible to protect these ideas by the community making them the property of the user and linked to his account.
It's best to assume that anything you post here is a gift which you're offering to anyone in the world to use in any way they deem fit.
\n" }, { "Id": "5093", "CreationDate": "2015-01-20T17:46:54.597", "Body": "Admittedly, this is not a colossal problem, but it's been bugging me a bit nevertheless.
\n\nIn Chrome, user profile pages look like the screenshot below. As you can see, the \"About me\"-section is below the rest of the information, making the whole page look a bit strange.
\n\nThis is the only network site I've seen this on, it's even correct on the meta-page. It looks OK in both IE and FF. I'm using Chrome 39.0.2171.95.
\n\nI have this both on my work computer and at home. I'm using Win 7 and Win 8, both 64-bit versions, if that's of any relevance. I don't have an adblocker installed, so that's not what's causing it.
\n\nIs it possible to fix this?
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ADZBV.jpg\")
It looks fine in Chrome when I use an IE \"simulator\":
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/3UFVh.jpg\")
This can happen if you are zoomed out - I was able to reproduce with zoom of 90%.
\n\nHowever, we don't support zooming - visual artifacts like this can be expected, but will not be fixed.
\n" }, { "Id": "5099", "CreationDate": "2015-01-21T13:48:43.793", "Body": "So recently a Arduino stack exchange has been created, meaning all any question concerning the microprocessor should be moved to there. While I'm all for that, I'm certain that many of you would agree that there is a lot of overlap between the two SE's. Many EE projects probably use an Arduino.
\n\nNow, my actual question is: how do we know what should go where? In this question the author states that he's using the Arduino in his project. The actual question was about selecting a good implementation method for his circuitry, but it was moved to the new SE. So any kind of hardware interfacing with the microcontroller goes there? Wouldn't this mean that for example, any ADC circuit connected to an Arduino gets moved there? Or am I missing some nuance here? Where are the lines between the two?
\n", "Title": "Arduino and Electrical Engineering", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Basically, if its not necessary to know that the microcontroller development board is a arduino, then it's probably OK here. In other words, if you have to say \"arduino\" in your question for it to make sense, then it doesn't belong here. If you can say \"microcontroller\" or \"microcontroller development board\" instead, then there should be no need to migrate to the arduino site.
\n\nSometimes people babble on, and you can't expect those who come here for good quality Q+A about electronics to wade thru a long rambling post to decide whether its really about electronics or just a arduino user issue. It is therefore a good idea to not mention \"arduino\" in your question, and absolutely never mention \"sketch\" or \"shield\" assuming the arduino usages of those words. If your question still makes sense after removing arduino references, post it here. You are safe from migration because nobody will know it has anything to do with arduinos. If your question doesn't make sense without \"arduino\", \"shield\", and/or \"sktech\", then it's a strong clue that it doesn't belong here. Even if it does, it may get booted because people see the buzzwords and don't want to bother reading the rest.
\n" }, { "Id": "5104", "CreationDate": "2015-01-22T15:51:00.287", "Body": "How does one bring inappropriate or malicious editing to the attention of moderators? I know the question or answer itself can be flagged, but that's not what I'm asking about. I don't want to flag the content of the answer, especially since I will have fixed it anyway. I want to bring the malicious behavior to the attention of the moderators. There seems to be no \"flag\" button in a particular edit. I'd expect to find it right next to \"roll back\" if there was one.
\n\nThere have been a few cases recently where a user has edited answers knowing full well he was changing author intent (the author explicitly told him this previously). The purpose was clearly to annoy the author, and the edits were even re-done after having been rolled back. In other cases, a typo or two were fixed, but then that used as a opportunity to change known author intent. Since this continues to happen, I looked for a way to flag the edit itself, but found no such mechanism.
\n\nHow should I handle this if I encounter another such deliberately malicious edit?
\n", "Title": "How to flag edits?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "You can flag the post for moderator attention with a custom message and include the revision number.
\n" }, { "Id": "5107", "CreationDate": "2015-01-23T13:51:01.163", "Body": "If you take a look at the comments** on this question: Replacing a Switch and Avoiding body diode conduction. You will see that someone has mentioned being paid for their answer and I was just curious as to whether or not this is deemed acceptable?
\nYou may notice that the question is being asked by me and I have no issue with the person themselves saying that or asking for that sort of incentive I was just wondering where the EE.SE stood regarding this.
\nThe user is clearly an experienced member of the EE.SE so there probably is no issue with it but again - just wondering.
\n\n\n", "Title": "Where do we stand with users asking for monetary incentives before providing an answer / idea?", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|comments|", "Answer": "[** Below are the comments in question. They have since been deleted in the original thread.]
\nBounty doesn't put any food on the table, and If you're going to sell it and make some money, I'd like to see some of it if you use my idea. Email me if you're interested. \u2013 EM Fields
\n@EMFields I am afraid you are mistaken... Unless your idea has a patent or something I would really appreciate the help. \u2013 elliotdawes
\nPatent??? I'm not trying to restrict you in any way, I'm suggesting that I can help you, for a fee, if you're interested in paying for help you're going to use to make money with. If not, oh, well... \u2013 EM Fields
\n
Well, who would have thought that merely offering a solution based on remuneration would have caused such great consternation?
\n\nCertainly not I, since the practice is allowed under the site's guidelines, nor would I have thought that I'd be providing a platform for a vociferous rant on the evils of not conforming to a narcissistic mandate.
\n\nOh well... :.(
\n" }, { "Id": "5118", "CreationDate": "2015-02-04T21:56:29.227", "Body": "On stackoverfow we have a Off Topic close reason
\n\n\n\n\nThis question was caused by a problem that can no longer be reproduced\n or a simple typographical error. While similar questions may be\n on-topic here, this one was resolved in a manner unlikely to help\n future readers. ...
\n
How useful are questions like this for future readers, should they be closed/flagged, if yes with which reason, or should they be kept.
\n", "Title": "How to handle questions which are resolved by circumstances which are not part of the question", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I think you have a point, and such questions could be closed as \"too localized\", as they are unlikely to help anyone else than the OP. (EDIT: \"too localized\" is not available anymore, and no other option seems to fit the case).
In the specific case of the linked question, I'm not sure it can't help anyone else with similar problems.
\n" }, { "Id": "5124", "CreationDate": "2015-02-12T08:49:17.573", "Body": "On my profile page, it says \"top 2% Overall\". What does that mean, i.e. how is it calculated?
\n\nI know it is not just my overall position within the membership. When clicking on Users - all, since there are 36 people per page, and the first page to have numbers over 101 is 183 (to discount the several thousand members that got 100 points free for coming from another site but haven't participated here), that makes 6588 \"active\" members. I am number 23 on the first page, so 23 / 6588 is 0.3%. So it's not as simple as that.
\n\nThe percentages start with 0.06% for Olin (top dog), then 0.12%, 0.24%, etc. gradually reaching 0.97% for member position 16. Then it jumps to 2% for the next 16 persons (obviously some rounding going on here) and jumps again to 3%.
\n\nSomething magical about 16?
\n\nJust curious.
\n", "Title": "Ranking on profile page -- what does it mean?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It links to http://stackexchange.com/leagues/58/alltime/electronics/2010-09-29/1322#1322. And there (right sidebar, on the bottom):
\n\n\n\n\n* users with less than 200 reputation are not tracked in the leagues
\n
I don't think the rounding starts specifically at position 16, but rather that exacter percentages are only shown below 1%. I couldn't find reference for this though.
\n\nNote that when a user performs significantly better in some timeframe (week, month, quarter, year – I think), it may say \"top 5% this quarter\" instead. Also, on Stack Overflow Careers, users may have an indication like \"Top 5% for c++\".
\n" }, { "Id": "5126", "CreationDate": "2015-02-14T15:27:54.617", "Body": "I would like to ask a question about the available selection of cell phone CPUs (systems-on-a-chip). Would it be on-topic on Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange?
\n", "Title": "Are questions about cell phone CPUs on-topic here?", "Tags": "|support|asking-questions|on-topic|", "Answer": "I would say that questions about cell phone CPUs are subject to the same rules as every other type of CPU - shopping questions are off-topic, but design questions are fine.
\n" }, { "Id": "5129", "CreationDate": "2015-02-16T02:06:25.007", "Body": "I would like to delete my account for Electrical Engineering S.E but I do not know how. I could not find the the delete button. Is there a procedure I need to follow. I googled it showed to delete my stack exchange account which I would like to keep. I just wan't to get rid the Electrical Engineering account. I believe this question may be a duplicate. Planning to use reverse engineering to get my answer as linked and related question would immediately pop up and save up my search time. IF none found please guide me and for the down voters go ahead down vote this question as I'm going to delete this profile anyway.
\n", "Title": "Please delete my Electrical Engineering Account", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Mods don't delete accounts on request for various reasons (which are probably on meta.stackexchange.com somewhere). Follow the directions on this help center page to request your account to be deleted.
\n" }, { "Id": "5133", "CreationDate": "2015-02-18T18:57:29.180", "Body": "Someone using Mark Rage's account is editing whole questions and answers to just contain this picture:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/h59yb.jpg\")
There are many examples, here is just one, but others are easy to find.
\n\nWhat the heck is going on?
\n", "Title": "What's with the angry chef picture?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Mark has stepped down as a moderator.
\n\nThe Soup Nazi reference comes from this blog article discussing Stack Overflow (though many parts are still relevant to our site).
\n\nTo summarize, Mark was unhappy with the direction of moderation (both community and elected moderator). He wanted a lighter touch from moderators, but things haven't been trending in that direction. He left the following message:
\n\n\n\n\nApologies to everyone who voted for me for moderator. I wasn't able to fulfill my promises.
\n
While Mark has not been an active mod for a while, he will still be missed.
\n" }, { "Id": "5137", "CreationDate": "2015-02-22T01:00:20.073", "Body": "I just wrote a comment to an answer and wanted to include a formatted link, but the result was completely broken.
\n\n![\"screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qioal.png\")
The link was formatted 100% according to documentation:
\n\n![\"screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/f58jG.png\")
Can you fix this?
\n", "Title": "Link in comment not displayed/parsed correctly", "Tags": "|support|comments|hyperlinks|markdown|", "Answer": "You got the link text and the link URL swapped. You should use this instead:
\n\n[SparkFun According to Pete 3-5-12: MOSFETs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFt8hkh17_w)\nwhich renders like this:
\n\nSparkFun According to Pete 3-5-12: MOSFETs
\n" }, { "Id": "5139", "CreationDate": "2015-02-23T18:13:55.953", "Body": "Mark Rages has voluntarily stepped down as a moderator of this site. Until his temporary suspension he has been relatively active, mostly in the review queues.
The last election has brought us two moderators from the camp that strives for high quality questions and puts questions on hold directly rather than tries to deal with the OP first to improve the question in a less drastic way. Mark Rages was a more clement moderator.
This turn of events means that things can only become more strict on this site in the near future. Of course, some people may be happy with this turn of events, others may not. This question is not to discuss that.
\n\nInstead, I'm interested in the way both the community and the moderators look at this turn of events. Specifically, I'm wondering if it's time to let the community decide in which direction we should go now. That Mark Rages stepped down means things will change in a direction that the users who elected him (and others) wouldn't have liked. That feels kind of unfair to me.
\n\nAs I wrote before:
\n\n\n\n\n[Mark Rages] stepping down also means things will continue 'trending in that direction [of demanding high Q from new users]', even though he hasn't been active for a while. That's a pity, and perhaps a new election to fill that spot should be considered, to let the community decide in which direction we should continue.
\n
So, I'm basically interested in any opinion on this matter, and in the votes on your answers...
\n", "Title": "Now that Mark Rages has stepped down", "Tags": "|discussion|election|moderation|moderators|", "Answer": "I don't see any real compelling reason to rush. I'm looking at the recently closed list, and many of the moderator-closed questions are duplicates. If the person who has enough drive to go dig up the appropriate dup happens to be a moderator, I can live with that, and in fact, thank them for doing the tedious part of the job that they signed on to do.
\n\nThere are a few non-dup closings by a mod after only a few close votes, and I'm hoping that that is being done judiciously, and passed over by mods on close calls. That said, the numbers on the review queues have seemed very high to me lately, and somebody has to clear them (I suppose). If its a moderator, it can look heavy handed, but if they don't do it, the backlog would just keep growing and quality would go down. If the numbers are high because we're short a mod, maybe we do need an election, but if we'd like the board to be community moderated, then the community needs to step up.
\n\nIn the meantime, I'd suggest that if you see something closed with less than five votes that you think shouldn't have been closed, post it on meta for discussion. I know that has the potential to sound like an \"I don't like the way moderation is going\" whine, but its the only way I can think of to give the moderators feedback on how the users want the stack moderated. If the discussion goes \"yeah, I don't think that should have been closed\", then the mods can adjust if they want to (or not, if they don't), and if the lions share of discussion goes \"I'm fine with that\" then there's no real compelling reason to adjust.
\n\nIndividual users unhappy with a close can reach out to the asker through comments and say \"If you fix this by doing X, I'll vote to reopen\", and then do so if they follow through-- maybe even lobby for reopen votes on meta if its important.
\n\nMy own experience is that a single close vote is often jumped on by other users fairly quickly, and that those questions end up closed anyway. Perhaps the best course is to lobby for reopening on what you feel are the most grievous occurrences, regardless of it was mod-closed or vote-closed.
\n" }, { "Id": "5141", "CreationDate": "2015-02-26T13:39:17.330", "Body": "I'm taking on a background mission of deleting inappropriate arduino tags as they come in, like in How to switch a Bluetooth module with a P-Channel MOSFET high-side switch?, which has absolutely nothing to do with Arduinos. The tag has become an absolutely meaningless meta-tag, and really skews our statistics
\n\nIts interesting that this doesn't seem to happen with the microcontroller tag.
\n\nAs an update, meta tags are officially discouraged:
\n\n\n\n", "Title": "Poor abused Arduino tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|editing|arduino|reviewing|", "Answer": "There\u2019s been a major uptick recently in tags that are not useful and just add noise. I want to stress that these are usually added in good\n faith, and I am not questioning anybody\u2019s motivation \u2013 I know that\n they all mean well. But this particular category of tags is one that\n has been historically referred to as meta-tags on MSO, and these tags\n cause a lot of problems.
\n \nThe reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the\n content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the\n question, like the author\u2019s skill level, or the author\u2019s motivation\n for asking it, or generally what \u201ckind\u201d of question it is (poll,\n how-to, etc.).
\n \nMeta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually\n call dependent tags. These are tags that don\u2019t say anything by\n themselves \u2013 you can\u2019t tell what the question is about unless they\u2019re\n paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a\n problem because people don\u2019t realize this and will often use that as\n the question\u2019s only tag. This is the insight that had eluded me for\n two full years. Seems obvious in retrospect, doesn\u2019t it?
\n \nFrom this point on, meta-tagging is explicitly discouraged.
\n
I think this is fine, as long as the tag doesn't provide context that only exists in the tag. Specifically, some users will ask a question that doesn't mention Arduino at all, but they include the tag arduino. In that case, consider adding a sentence to the question that either fills in the generic context needed (e.g. 5V I/O) or states that it's with an arduino.
\n" }, { "Id": "5156", "CreationDate": "2015-03-08T17:40:33.743", "Body": "Suppose that I make a question after having searched the existing ones; the question seems to satisfy all the conditions usually requested (clear, specific, detailed); but anyway the question receives one or more downvote, even without an evident reason.
\n\nIs there something that a user can do against such, unjustified down votes?
\n", "Title": "Unjustified downvotes", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "No. Users can vote how they want. The standards users maintain for voting also differ per user. Some users for example may have the rule of thumb to never downvote questions of new users.
\n\nAnyway, have a look at this Meta.SE post. From an answer there:
\n\n\n\n\nFirst, you should never take a down vote personally. Remember that a down vote only takes away 2 points of your reputation, while up votes add considerably more (5 for questions and 10 for answers). Everyone who uses any Stack Exchange site for any length of time will gather down votes here and there. The \"best\" will take every down vote as an opportunity to rethink a post, and ponder how it could be improved.
\n
And also from that answer, on whether users should explain their downvotes:
\n\n\n\n\nSome users leave a comment on their post asking for the down voter(s) to explain themselves. Be aware that this may not have the effect you want. It may, in fact, just attract more down votes. If anyone responds to your query, it's likely as not to be the person(s) who down voted originally, so your response might not be as accurate as you would like.
\n
Asking for explanation on downvotes is generally not well received though. You're supposed to learn by doing.
\n\nI really encourage you to read the whole linked answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "5161", "CreationDate": "2015-03-15T20:00:30.437", "Body": "I was pretty shocked to see my answer to this question deleted by moderators within 20 minutes of posting.
\n\nParticularly since they were alleging that my answer need to go because it was a \"follow up question\".
\n\nWhen in fact my answer (if you have the rep to see it) is actually challenging the accepted answer with a new answer. If I did my math right, the existing answer (prominently echoed in the question) is wrong.
\n\nSo regardless whether I am right or wrong, it raises a couple of questions of process:
\n\nI'll take ownership as an early flagger. You ended the original post with something along the lines of \"is this right?\" or \"am I missing something?\", which requires a response, and an answer soliciting discussion is not an answer. Better to post the clean answer, and DV the original answer if you believe it to be incorrect. If you want to have a discussion about it, or are unsure, post it as a question and refer to the original.
\n\nOr, perhaps best for this particular case: a comment on the original answer saying \"don't you mean 2(Vdd-Vc)?\" would have been direct and to the point.
\n" }, { "Id": "5168", "CreationDate": "2015-03-18T11:30:07.723", "Body": "I just noticed the following low quality post review and must say I can concur with null that it should be deleted, given the question makes no mention of problems \"welding\" the battery:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/66591
\n\nHowever it's currently three weeks old and viewing the reviews page anonymously I can see there's only one LQP review outstanding and I know what that one is. I think a delete / undelete may cancel a review as can an edit or a \"Looks OK\" review but I can't see any sign of any of that on that particular answer. So I wonder what caused it to be removed from the queue?
\n", "Title": "What caused this review to disappear from the low quality posts review?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "For a brief time, that answer scored +1. Positively-scored posts cannot be deleted by anyone but moderators, and so are ineligible for /review - thus the review task was invalidated.
\n\nIf you come across an extremely low-quality post, or an answer that does not attempt to answer the question, flag it - regardless of whether or not it's currently in review or was previously in review, it'll then be forwarded to /review and/or the mod team for handling.
\n" }, { "Id": "5175", "CreationDate": "2015-03-20T22:03:54.757", "Body": "A new user asked a question, found out the answer, and took the time and effort to inform us about that and even make his solution clear with a diagram: Arduino IR Receiver (Answer).
\n\nNow, he used Fritzing, which is clearly just not good enough for some people - sigh -:
\n\n\n\n\nEnough with those stupid wiring diagrams already! We do electronics here, which means we communicate circuits with schematics. \u2013 Olin Lathrop 8 hours ago
\n
I flagged this comment as rude or offensive. This comment violates all three points in the Be Nice policy. My flag was declined.
\n\nWhy?
\n\nWhether you agree with the comment or not, this is not a way to treat other human beings. This comment clearly violates many policies, written and unwritten rules that are on the very base of the StackExchange network. Clearly there are some disagreements about the treatment of new users and other things. But has this lead to the point we can't trust the flagging system anymore?
\n\nI've done a small test, and flagged some other comments:
\n\nA comment on Understanding to isolating sensor input capacitance which was removed (thanks for that).
\n\n\nWhat a mess! What MOSFET? What switch? Which capacitor do you think is the \"filter\" capacitor? Do you realize that D1 will always be reverse biased and therefore off? What's with the base of the transistor tied to the case of the opto, which also seems to be shorting across both inputs of the LED? link
\n
Declined, but clearly not in line with Be Nice, as it calls something (the post? The circuit?) a mess, which falls under the category name-calling (amongst others)
\n\n\nYou've asked a bunch of questions about motors here in a short time. Try to actually understand the answers to the other questions before blurting out new questions. You have already been given a lot of information that it seems you haven't taken the time to absorb and think about. People here want to help, but not if you don't appear to be learning. link
\n
\"actually understand\" is border-line, \"blurting out new questions\" is insulting.
\n\n\nYour question makes no sense because there is no standard \"up\" for a ethernet connector, and you didn't specify one either, yet you expect we know what you mean by \"upside down\". link
\n
Could've been much worse, but yes, I think even saying 'your question makes no sense' shouldn't be allowed.
\n\n\n-1 for blatant RTFM failure. link
\n
RTFM = Read The Fucking Manual. How that can be considered OK or even border-line, I really fail to see.
Note: all examples come from one user. I do not mean to pick on that user, which is why I didn't copy his/her name. It was simply because with this I could easily find a great enough comments pool to test with.
\n\nNote 2: since I flagged all these comments in a short timeframe, it's likely one mod reviewed all, so this test may very well not be representative.
\n", "Title": "My rude/offensive flags on insulting comments were declined", "Tags": "|discussion|support|comments|flagging|reviewing|", "Answer": "I'm stupid every now and then. I might hold a stupid belief about something or other and someone comes along, calls me stupid and explains why I was being stupid. On the other hand someone comes along and tries to explain my ineptitude without calling me names. Do I bother listening?
\n\nAnswer: I probably listen to the guy calling me stupid more often than to the guy not attracting my attention with that special word. It's a special word that rings a bell and puts me into \"listen mode\".
\n\nEveryone is stupid now and then and calling them stupid, to my way of thinking, is helping them come to terms with their stupidity as speedily as possible. They learn and then they are not stupid any more about that particular thing.
\n\nBut they (including me and you) are still stupid because most folk have a few of these wrong beliefs locked-away inside of them but, for now, having just had one of those numerous stupidities removed, the person ought to feel grateful. Showing gratitude is another issue!!!
\n\nThat's how it works for me - someone calls me stupid, I listen and the stupidity gets fixed and, believe it or not, I'm happier and grateful. Not calling me stupid (or \"retarded\" because that is also a word that works for me) is likely to lengthen the time I remain stupid/retarded.
\n\nNot calling me stupid AND not helping me understand the errors of my ways is downright rude as far as I'm concerned. So please do call me stupid if you think I'm wrong because you'll be doing me a favour and I will be grateful.
\n\n\"Read the data sheet\" does not have the same meaning as \"you must always read the data sheet\" but, to my way of thinking \"RTFD\" informs the recipient that he or she should always read the data sheet. It's a golden rule and \"RTFD\" being so succinct is probably better than \"you must always..\" etc..
\n\nHow is calling someone stupid AND helping them understand the error of their ways NOT being nice? It works for me but maybe some folk don't ever regard themselves as being stupid?
\n\nI'm with Olin all the way on this and my motivation is to help people and I'm sure his is too. Please don't forget that.
\n" }, { "Id": "5185", "CreationDate": "2015-03-26T18:10:05.207", "Body": "Occasionally, I see a question on the main site that ends in
\n\n\n\n\nThanks!
\n
or
\n\n\n\n\nThanks for any help that you can give.
\n
or
\n\n\n\n\nThanks in advance.
\n
or one of the million other ways to write an insincere, impersonal \"thank you\".
\n\nI've read on the main Stack Exchange Meta that we should edit these out: they're noise, and they don't add anything to the question. I think that's how it works on Stack Overflow, where the number of questions is much greater than what we see here. However, EE:SE is much smaller and more personal, and people might have different opinions.
\n\nShould I be editing these out?
\n\n(I guess my question also applies to
\n\n\n\n\nHi,
\n
and
\n\n\n\n\nWould appreciate any insight you have
\n
and
\n\n\n\n\n[insert name at bottom of question]
\n
)
\n", "Title": "Should I be removing \"Thanks!\"?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|reviewing|", "Answer": "As a rule of thumb:
\n\na) if it's a short \"thanks!\", I remove such parts if and only if there's something else to fix in a post. There usually is, because 99% of the time such salutations are a sign of a newcomer, but if a question/answer is otherwise top-notch, it's a good idea to spend your energy elsewhere.
\n\nb) If it's, e.g., a 3-sentence \"I would be very grateful if somebody would help me. Any help would be appreciated. My sincere thanks.\", IMO it warrants an edit action of its own, because it makes harder (sometimes a lot) to figure what OP really wants/needs.
\n\nBTW, in such situations I often find the main question/problem statement repeated a couple of times in the text, sometimes the paragraphs are ordered strangely (e.g. question asked first, repeating the title just below it, the actual problem/research/thoughts described after that etc.) - in short, the Thanks! is usually a sign that there is something in need of fixing. If there ain't, I suppose it's best to let it be.
NB this is also, not surprisingly, along the lines of what e.g. Olin says on this matter.
\n\nAs a side note: Greg, you got my +1 for or one of the million other ways to write an insincere, impersonal \"thank you\" - that's the main problem with such Thanks IMO - they usually don't make me feel better (regardless of the fact that's not what Q/A is about for me), but they usually make the Q/A worse in terms of readability & content.
I recently learned there is a stack site dedicated to math educators. I lurked around a little and found some very, very interesting questions (such as this).
\n\nI am no teacher at all (I'd like to become one though) but I think that there are some among the frequent users of this board. I also think that sharing experience on how to explain our beloved EE would be great because teaching a subject is one of the (if not the) most noble things you could do. This is a teach 'n learn board after all.
\n\nI don't have any particular example question in mind, I can try to think of some though, I was thinking of something like \"Do you think that analogy X is good for concept Y\" or \"Usually A is taught before B but for x, y and z I think it should be the opposite\".
\n\nI know you guys are already screaming \"Primarily opinion based you fool!\" but I actually read the help center and the last section, that I copy here for you, gives me some hope:
\n\n\n\n\nSome subjective questions are allowed, but \u201csubjective\u201d does not mean \u201canything goes\u201d. All subjective questions are expected to be\n constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective\n questions:
\n \n\n
\n- inspire answers that explain \u201cwhy\u201d and \u201chow\u201d
\n- tend to have long, not short, answers
\n- have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone
\n- invite sharing experiences over opinions
\n- insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references
\n- are more than just mindless social fun
\n
Do you think that a \"teaching question\" would be on topic? If yes, do you feel that some sort of limitations or rules should apply? Which ones?
\n", "Title": "Is it okay to ask teaching questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Yes, questions on how to teach some aspect of electrical engineering are on topic. We don't get many questions like that, but there have been some good ones that were well received and well up-voted. For example:
\n\nIllustrating op amp feedback without control theory
\nDesign a cheap 1.5V / 12V DC motor driver for high school students
\nWhat is / how can I get a student-safe power supply for electronics projects?
To avoid the question being too opinion-based, make sure to ask something specific. For example, \"How do I keep students interested to get to how transistors work?\" is too open ended, but \"What would be a good experiment to demonstrate in front of a class to show how a BJT works?\" would be better.
\n" }, { "Id": "5203", "CreationDate": "2015-04-09T15:38:39.900", "Body": "I'm a software engineer who works for a small unnamed company, however the firmware department has all quit together over a dispute about wages in the company(mainly because the marketing guys earn more). now I'm needing to write an EEPROM and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask on this site for tutorials and help in what certain things mean on the data sheet but like on SO these questions may not be allowed so I thought better ask here first before I post on the main site
\n", "Title": "Is it ok to ask for help getting started", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Seems OK to me, given that you keep the questions specific. Personally, I think you'd be better off in chat asking how to find a good consultant to get it done for you. I suppose that depends on how important it is that you get it right quickly, and what it will cost if you get it wrong.
\n" }, { "Id": "5211", "CreationDate": "2015-04-15T18:06:07.040", "Body": "why was https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/164973/turning-all-35-leds-on-sequentially-with-mm5451 migrated.
\n\nIt has nothing to do with the Arduino, it is a general ee question. Is this another baseless \"because they have an sucky Arduino\" migration?
\n", "Title": "why was Turning all 35 leds on sequentially with MM5451 migrated", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Arduino mod here. I've been asked to migrate the question back to EE, but in this case I'm inclined to leave it on the Arduino site.
\n\nI think it's a decent question and is potentially within the scope of either site. The main reason I'm not migrating it back is because it's been answered. The goal of migration (according to the Stack Exchange guidelines) is to ensure a question has the best chance of a good answer. It seems to have got that now so re-migration seems unnecessary.
\n\nHowever, I agree with those who are saying it shouldn't have been migrated to us in the first place (or at least not quite so quickly). The question was about the shift register, not the Arduino itself. If it had been lingering for several days with no answer then it might be different. Please try not to jump-the-gun though.
\n" }, { "Id": "5233", "CreationDate": "2015-04-28T01:35:38.693", "Body": "Just curious. I marked a question as a duplicate an hour or so ago, and came back later to see if it had indeed been closed. It had, and I expected to see a list of names after mine, or at least one more name besides mine, i.e. a moderator.
\n\nInstead what it said was \"marked as duplicate by tcrosley, Community\"
\n\nWhat does Community mean in this context? I've never seen that before.
\n\nI know that Community magically brings back unanswered questions to the active list every so often, and she (somehow seems like a she) \"owns\" Community Wiki answers. Not sure what else her superpowers are.
\n", "Title": "What does it mean to have a question immediately marked duplicate by \"Community\"?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "A (new) feature is that if you suggest that a question is a duplicate, the original asker can agree with you and the question will be closed immediately (as a duplicate).
\n\nMeta.SE link describing the UI and behavior: \nhttps://meta.stackexchange.com/a/250930/161579
\n" }, { "Id": "5237", "CreationDate": "2015-05-01T18:11:32.573", "Body": "Why was https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/167520/is-there-a-way-to-simulate-hc-06-bluetooth-module-communication-with-android-dev rejected as a migration out? I saw it hit the android stack but now it is back there and closed.
\n\nThis question is purely about Android usage and development and emulation, and only tangently about electronics.
\n", "Title": "why was http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/167520/ rejected as a migration out?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "According to their site scope, dev questions are off topic. Dumb. Apparently those questions belong on Stack Overflow.
\n" }, { "Id": "5242", "CreationDate": "2015-05-08T11:34:32.897", "Body": "I can't start an answer with \"Hi-z\" (this one: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/169579/4245)
\n\nI had to stick it in back-ticks to effectively escape it.
\n\nWithout that the \"Hi-z\" was changed to just \"z\".
\n\nIs this Stack Exchange thinking I'm being needlessly familiar and chatty?
\n", "Title": "Oddness starting a post with \"Hi-z\"", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Yes some salutations are blocked automatically at the start of posts, it looks like you've hit one of the rare cases where it's a false positive. You can see the following answer that shows the regular expression used to remove them:
\n\nShould 'Hi', 'thanks,' taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?
\n" }, { "Id": "5244", "CreationDate": "2015-05-09T06:00:26.763", "Body": "I have seen many stack exchange sites have modified their user-page and started using the new user-page. Why EE.SE isn't?
\n", "Title": "Why EE.SE is not using new user-page?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "I believe it's going to be rolled out to all sites and the only reason the release has been staggered is because of changes needed to upgrade the CSS style sheets. There's a summary here of which sites have been done already and which are planned and that includes EE.SE:
\n\nList of communities with base css updates completed
\n\nIf you look at the revision history you'll see progress on the remaining sites is slow but steady, but I'd expect it to be completed within 6-8 weeks.
\n" }, { "Id": "5263", "CreationDate": "2015-06-07T14:50:45.807", "Body": "I'm not happy uploading screenshots everytime I have a question about a circuit. Besides that, SE itself does not host the images used in the posts, which might lead to broken links in the future.
\n\nCan we have a code that generates a circuit after compilation? Analogous to MathJax in math.SE in order to type formulas.
\n\nIt can be similar to the syntax of current simulation programs, for example, the code
\n\n$\nV1 N001 0 1\nR1 N001 0 100\n$\nwould display a circuit having a 1 V DC supply connected to a 100 Ohm resistor and showing a ground connection.
\n", "Title": "Code to represent circuits", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "Sorry, but this is unlikely to happen
\n\nI know that you can limit searches to just your own posts by typing:
\n\nuser:usernumber\nin the Search box, e,g, \"user:1322 fpga\" (since I am usernumber 1322) to search all my own posts (questions and answers) that include fpga in them.
\n\nBut what's with this usernumber business? Why can't I just type in a username like this?
\n\nuser:tcrosley\nDoesn't seem to be much of a stretch to convert the latter into the former.
\n", "Title": "Searching your own posts by username", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "For your own posts, you can use:
\n\nuser:me\nThis doesn't work for display names, and won't ever work, because names are not unique.
\n" }, { "Id": "5274", "CreationDate": "2015-06-12T13:32:19.557", "Body": "\n\nAnd maybe suggestions on how I can improve it?
\n\nI wanted to get a more complete answer that answers my question of:\nWhere do I put the fuse in automotive circuitry?
\n\nI am also asking clarification on background knowledge that may or may not affect this question. e.g. electricity flow, electron flow, proton flow, etc.
\n\nI mention the headlight circuit, but I am trying not to limit the question to just the headlight circuit. This is more about the automotive system in general and how fuses work and how/why electricity flow directions affect the way the fuses work or not in whatever component circuitry in the automotive system.
\n\nI am sure much of the background knowledge stuff applies to more than just the automotive, but I am unsure of exactly what and how so I ask this question for clarification.
\n\nReferences:
\nHow the Current Flows in a Car?
\nanswer mentioning different flow types: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/95049/66759
I only saw this question just now and haven't gone back to look at the history. However, two problems immediately struck me:
1 makes it difficult to write a simple answer, so it's easier just to close. It's a bit like trying to answer \"Since tomatoes only grow on rocks, why are they always purple?\".
\n\n2 makes it difficult to answer since you either have to answer a lot of questions or it's not clear what the question really is. These questions are too broad in scope, which is one of the close reasons here.
\n\nYou may have some misconceptions and a bunch of questions, but this site works best when you don't first try to lecture, and then only ask one question at a time. If there are misconceptions behind that, they will probably be explained. That will probably help clarify other questions. If there are still other questions after that, ask them one at a time, and make sure your new questions take into account things you've learned from previous questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "5281", "CreationDate": "2015-06-30T18:58:43.010", "Body": "Is asking suggestions on EE stack exchange on topic?
\n\nFor example:
\n\nI'm looking for a intro semiconductor textbook, what are titles of books that have helped you?
My circuit design for this problem looks like this, is there any suggestions for me to improve?
I'm looking for a beginner microcontroller, what are MCUs you have worked with that had documentation, guides and are generally user friendly?
I'm just trying to get a clear answer.
\n", "Title": "Is asking suggestions on topic on EE stack exchange acceptable?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I have been much more active on Stack Overflow than here, and realize that the question closing guidelines may vary a bit. I'd like some help making sure I understand this site's definition of \"Too Broad\".
\n\nI recently came across this EESE question, and flagged it for closure as too broad. However, a few months back, I answered this EESE question and didn't flag it. Looking back at it now, it seems just as broad as the one I flagged.
\n\nAre one or both of these questions too broad by EESE's standards? If not both, what makes one Too Broad and not the other one? Should I have avoided answering the second one to discourage overly-broad questions?
\n\nNote: I have read through this MEESE question, and don't think either of my examples fit the criteria described in the accepted answer for a question to not be \"too broad\". Am I being too critical of my example questions?
\n", "Title": "Is this question too broad?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The first question, https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/179429/4512, is one of the poster cases for a bad question, since it's no question at all. I voted to close on account of this not being a show and tell site, and downvoted to kick the OP in the butt for dumping crap on us.
\n\nIf something related to this were properly asked, then it could easily be too broad. To me it reads as too complicated, which usually means too many things would have to be considered in the answer to be a good fit here. Too broad is the closest close reason we have, and it usually fits too complicated pretty well. Another could be unclear, since I find myself reading it then thinking \"Huh? What did he say\", and reading it again. Actually at that point I just vote to close as unclear and move on.
\n\nThe second question, Connecting PC and embedded system via USB, is at least a question. This one also reads too complicated to me, but from the first pass reading it seems that maybe someone with more patience and specific knowledge of what the OP is talking about could possibly write a useful answer. Then seeing it has a answer, and that had 4 upvotes, I feel the best thing to do is just leave it alone and move on if you don't want to delve into it. That's what I did.
\n\nIf this question didn't have any answers, then I could see the point in closing as unclear, since it refers to this USB3300 thing without any definition or link to a datasheet, mentions \"ULPI\" without definition, and the general hand waving level seems a bit high. At first glance it doesn't seem to qualify for too broad as it appears something reasonably specific is being asked about. However, without really understanding the question, that may be a incorrect conclusion.
\n" }, { "Id": "5313", "CreationDate": "2015-08-02T06:31:12.360", "Body": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/182864/arduino-relay-shield was migrated to the Arduino Beta stack. Aside from it having NOTHING to do with Arduinos from the meat of the question (will this new design work?), it seems it was blindly migrated. Was this a request by OP or what?
\n\nAs no response is forthcoming, it's obvious that one Mod has decided that Arduino questions are off topic, despite established community policy that they are on topic, and that questions are not supposed to be migrated to beta stacks against standard Stack Exchange policy as well. He will typically snipe any question he feels is \"\"off-topic\"\" to be migrated out within minutes of it being posted. This is unacceptable. Moderators are not supposed to dictate policy, or ignore the community, they are supposed to enforce what the community decided on.
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsUNS.png\")
I'm not real interested in reviewing every decision, but I can provide some rough numbers for discussion.
\n\nThere have been about 30 migrations to Arduino since July 1, and about 120 Arduino tagged questions that stayed over that same time period. One in 5 is getting migrated.
\n" }, { "Id": "5333", "CreationDate": "2015-08-14T03:22:55.523", "Body": "I really cannot understand why this question about LTspice settings was abruptly downvoted and, moreover, closed in almost no time.
\n\nOK, it wasn't the best question one could expect, but it was comprehensible and it did show a moderate effort to understand what was going on under the hood.
\n\nWhat really struck me was the reason for closing it:
\n\n\n\n\nThis question does not appear to be about electronics design within the scope defined in the help center.
\n
What?!? A question about a SPICE simulator is not on topic here? And where else would it be on topic then? On StackOverflow? SuperUser? Any idea?
\n\nAnd that reason is blatantly wrong, help-center excerpt (emphasis mine):
\n\n\n\n\nthe theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n
If it is not on topic, then I wonder why similar questions on, for example, Altium designer aren't subject to the same treatment! Just one in particular (the first I found about an efficiency issue).
\n", "Title": "Why a question on LTspice settings is not \"on-topic\"?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|on-topic|close-reasons|", "Answer": "Closing that question was inappropriate. It may well be that there is nothing one can do from inside LT Spice to use the specific processor more efficiently, but that's what the question was about.
\n\nPerhaps the difference is that I've never used LT Spice, so it wasn't obvious to me at all that the question wasn't about some little-know app configuration, or perhaps other suggestions on how to optimize a particular simulation (really, there aren't some relvant control for that in LT Spice?).
\n\nThose that argue that this is asking how to change the laws of physics can only be saying that because they already know the answer. If there were some controls inside the program to allow more effective use of different processors, I doubt these people would be closing the question. This means the OP can't know the question is close-worthy without knowing the answer to the question he's asking, which is unreasonable to ask.
\n\nInstead (assuming there are in fact no tweaks in the program), the proper action is to answer the question stating that there are no such tweaks, and that's all you get. That may not be the answer the OP wished for, but is still a valid and useful answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "5335", "CreationDate": "2015-08-15T02:02:48.833", "Body": "In the last few days I've noticed several closed questions getting deleted. This would be unremarkable if I had been noticing a steady drizzle of these all along, but I haven't. Maybe this has something to do with how I noticed the recent deletions, which is by some unusual rep changes. That would only happen if I answered a question that was ultimately closed, and had non-zero rep from that answer.
\n\nHowever, this brings up the question of when/if closed questions are deleted. Many closed questions are total crap, and I'd expect them to be deleted quickly. Others may be poorly asked, but yet gather some decent answers. Does the system just delete all closed questions eventually, does a mod have to clean them out, or something else?
\n\nFor example, see DC Motor reversing relays using a micro switch. It was poorly asked and I can see why it was closed, yet Andy and I both wrote useful answers that I don't remember being covered here otherwise. If a automated process eventually deletes closed questions, then that's just the way it is, but if a human looks at each one, then what's the criterion for deletion?
\n\nRelated to this, there seems to be a bug in how the rep change from such a question is accounted for. I got one up vote and one down vote on the deleted answer, for a total of +8. I'd expect to loose that 8 when the question is deleted. Yet the rep for the day shows both a -8 and a -2 for that answer, which I don't undertand. On the other hand, the rep total for the day looks like it's calculated for a net -8 due to the deleted question. Please understand I'm not quibbling about the miniscule rep difference, but either there is a bug to be pointed out or I've got a misconception about how the system works that I'd like to clear up.
\n", "Title": "When are closed questions deleted?", "Tags": "|discussion|bug|", "Answer": "As a general mention, if you put a decent amount of effort in an answer, then it is in your interest that the question is not closed. If you understand the question enough to offer a useful answer, try to edit the question to improve it, upvote it, or mention (in the question comments) why the question is OK. Closure is the first step towards (potential) deletion of a question.
\n\nThe close system is intended to prevent this situation from happening in the sense that ideally the question would have been closed before anyone posts an answer. The first close vote came right as Olin posted his answer, and Andy posted about 30 minutes later. The first close vote puts it in the Close Vote Review Queue, where it gained four more close votes.
\n" }, { "Id": "5338", "CreationDate": "2015-08-15T15:32:15.473", "Body": "I've not the required rep to use the usual tag synonym proposal procedure. I think simulator should be made a synonym for simulation. There's already such a pending proposal for that. Probably a mod should step-in and act accordingly.
\n", "Title": "Making [tag:simulator] a synonym for [tag:simulation]", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tag-synonyms|", "Answer": "There are (currently) 35 simulator questions, and 355 simulation questions. While there could be a distinction between the two tags, in practice there isn't.
\n\nEdit: With a community vote of 3 in favor, 1 against, the tags will be merged.
\n" }, { "Id": "5347", "CreationDate": "2015-08-19T17:26:20.323", "Body": "About an hour ago user Paebbels went on on a tagging spree for \"Lattice\" (The PLD manufacturer) so of the \"TOP QUESTIONS\" about half are about Lattice parts, this seems undesirable because a small percentage of electrical engineering is PLD's and a very small percentage of PLD's are Lattice. Does this work itself out? Because right now this looks more like \"Lattice stack exchange\" than \"Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange\"
\n", "Title": "Adding a tag is moving a bunch of similar questions to the top of the \"Active list\" Is this desired behavior?", "Tags": "|discussion|tagging|retagging|", "Answer": "Any edit of a question changes the activity value of a question. Any activity of a question will push it to the top of the active question list, the default sortation of the front page. That is by design.
\n" }, { "Id": "5353", "CreationDate": "2015-08-25T04:40:04.240", "Body": "We all know how important are datasheets in EE design so we appreciate users when they link to datasheets.
\n\nHowever, sometimes an otherwise good question is posted which lacks datasheets links, so the usual practice is to ask the OP in a comment to provide the links. Alas, I've collected some experience in doing this and I discovered than many newbies, especially hobbyists, have some trouble finding the right datasheet or they don't even know what a datasheet is. Moreover, new users don't know what are our policies regarding datasheet links, so they may link to some vendor's product page instead of direct-linking to the PDF on a manufacturer's server.
\n\nThe fact is that sometimes I grow tired of this janitorial work of writing a comment like \"please provide a link to. ... blah, blah\" and then reply to \"datasheet? what is that?\" or \"I can't find it on SuperCoolGoods, Inc. website\" and simply edit-in the question (or answer, sometimes) to provide the links myself. Ok, it is less educative for the OP, but sometimes I have little time and I deem it is better spent on making the post better, instead of trying inducing the OP to learn how to do it himself.
\n\nIn editing the post I try to be the less intrusive as possible (if no other editing is needed), so if the OP mentions, say, an LM317, I simply add a link around the part number without modifying the wording.
\n\nSometimes, however, the post is so conceived that this cannot be done (part numbers only referred to in the schematic, for example), so I usually restrain myself from editing, although I feel an itch to add something like a BOM at the end of the post like:
\n\n\n\n\nLinks to relevant datasheets:
\n \n \n
So my question boils down to this: is it acceptable to directly append such a list of datasheet links to questions when it would be impossible or very difficult to edit the post in a less intrusive way?
\n", "Title": "Should I edit-in datasheet links straightaway?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "As a relative newbie, I've found datasheet links in answers to be incredibly valuable. If you itch to put in a link, go for it.
\n\nHowever, if it's not fun or is dragging you down, don't. This place is supposed to be both useful and fun. Don't burn out or fret over a little detail like datasheets.
\n\nUnless we could get a script that automatically says \"You mentioned the LM317. Would you like a datasheet with that?\"
\n" }, { "Id": "5388", "CreationDate": "2015-09-29T19:32:20.570", "Body": "I just opened up my review queue, and there are 409 late answers. I've gone through a few of them, and they range in age from over a year old, to posted today. Was something changed in the way the late answers queue works? Related?
\n", "Title": "Did anybody else just have a ton of late answers pop up in their review queue?", "Tags": "|support|late-answers|review-queue|", "Answer": "The SE crew is tweaking the rules which seems to have retro-active effect. The changes are related to this discussion. As far as I understand, a similar thing was done in 2013 event.
\n\nSuggestion: As you review these new late answer, review the questions too.
\n" }, { "Id": "5405", "CreationDate": "2015-10-02T17:56:45.430", "Body": "Sometime earlier today, I started getting this alignment problem on all User Profile pages on EE.SE (both main and meta sites). See an example below:
\n\n![\"User](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nr9es.png\")
I added the red rectangles to show the empty spaces that appeared in place of the usual content.
\n\nIs it just me? I tried it on Chrome and IE and both showed the same problem.
\n\nHere's another screenshot showing more page contents. It looks like the rest of the page is shown on the left column. Before the glitch, the content used to be distributed among two columns.
\n\n![\"User](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/MOppP.png\")
Sorry about that. We accidentally included a wrong file in another file.
\n" }, { "Id": "5418", "CreationDate": "2015-10-07T11:46:24.847", "Body": "Why there are few questions which has yellow background instead of normal white in EE stackexchange. Is there any priority or something? Is this something related to the new design? What does this mean?
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNzSU.png\")
It happens when a question contains one of your favorite tags, so you must have one of microcontroller, audio or embedded selected under your favorite tags. I'm pretty sure it has been a feature quite a while (although I don't use it myself) so maybe the color scheme has just changed under the new layout which makes it more apparent. But I guess more likely you've probably just added some favorite tags?
\n" }, { "Id": "5421", "CreationDate": "2015-10-07T20:05:43.787", "Body": "I got thinking, and the electrical tag is pretty dumb. What's everyone think about nuking, banning, and retagging the affected questions? There are 197 at the moment, 30 of which are single tag.
\n", "Title": "The \"electrical\" tag", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "![\"Are](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/3XD5e.png\")
I was. I also blacklisted the tag. Please look over untagged questions to provide correct tags or vote to delete.
\n" }, { "Id": "5426", "CreationDate": "2015-10-08T18:20:29.103", "Body": "I noticed an old question about time constants which is tagged with time and constant as if the asker intended to tag the question with time-constant (which does exist). Then I noticed another one.
\n\nI think both of these questions should be tagged time-constant.
\n\nBut what about time and constant, which have 68 and 11 questions, respectively?
\n\ntime seems to be useful for some of its questions, such as those which involve determining system time, measuring a time, or perhaps to refer to time domain as opposed to frequency domain. On the other hand, there are questions about settling and charging time for which it may not be appropriate, and there are questions which should instead be tagged with the existing and more specific lifetime (e.g. this one about battery lifetime).
\n\nconstant doesn't seem to be particularly useful for any of its questions. It is mostly used in questions about constant voltage, constant current, constant power, etc. There is already a constant-current tag, and in any case voltage-source, current-source or constant-current, and power-supply seem to be better tags for these questions.
\n\nWhat should be done with time and constant? Should they be removed entirely? Should we simply clean up those questions tagged with them that can be re-tagged with more specific tags? Should we not bother?
\n", "Title": "Clean up \"time\" and/or \"constant\" tags?", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "I think the [constant] tag is an easy decision: all of the questions in the tag have other tags, so nothing would be untagged after it's removed. I vote to burn it.
\n" }, { "Id": "5431", "CreationDate": "2015-10-11T23:31:46.540", "Body": "Originally I made this question on the Electrical Engineering site but it was migrated to the Rasberry Pi site.
\n\nhttps://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/q/36627/34975
\n\nIt was later closed as off topic on the raspberry pi site - a decision I agree with as it the fact my scenario uses a Pi really has no bearing on the question posed.
\n\nSo is the question I asked off topic for this site as well or was someone being a bit over zealous?
\n", "Title": "Post Moved to Rasberry Pi Site", "Tags": "|discussion|migration|", "Answer": "Yes, Nick tends to knee-jerk migrate any post that merely mentions Raspberry Pi or Arduino, without considering whether the question is really appropriate for the destination site.
\n\nI've undeleted, reopened and edited your original question, and added a comment. Note that it is still borderline off-topic, since it's really about the use of existing devices rather than electronics design. But I'm going to err on the side of calling it a system-level design question. Let's try to keep it from crossing the line.
\n" }, { "Id": "5452", "CreationDate": "2015-10-19T17:04:05.277", "Body": "Prompted by this question, I'm bringing up the shield tag. Searching \"shield\" under tags brings up: shield, shielding, and arduino-shield.
\n\nshielding is exactly what you would expect it to be, referring to EMC. shield seems to be a synonym of arduino-shield. I don't have the tag rep to propose a synonym, but why not merge them? Thoughts?
\n", "Title": "The \"shield\" tag", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|", "Answer": "Here's what I'll propose:
\n\nI'm suggesting that we make shield map to the Arduino usage to reduce workload. If you look at the majority of the questions in shield, they are Arduino. I suspect EMC questioners would be more likely to distinguish between the two usages, and would result in the fewest false taggings.
\n\n(upvote/downvote as you see fit, and I'll revisit this in a bit.)
\n\nI ended up retagging 3 out of the 34 tagged questions that were EMC related, and I merged the remainder into arduino-shield. The shield tag should delete itself automatically in a day or so as long as nobody adds a new question. We'll try it this way and see if it sticks. Below is an image of the tag dialogue after getting rid of the shield tag:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/x7RHS.png\")
Despite the circuit tag wiki saying \"This tag is nearly useless\" and \"nearly useless. Consider using more specific tags to narrow your question down.\" -- which would seem to discourage its use -- the circuit tag is one of the most popular tags (currently the 10th most popular). But just quickly scanning the newest circuit questions, those that are tagged only circuit with no other tags either seem to be poor quality questions, or could more accurately be tagged circuit-analysis or circuit-design.
\n\nPasserby kindly provided a data analytic link for single-tag circuit questions:\nhttp://data.stackexchange.com/electronics/query/372728/find-questions-with-a-single-tag-now-case-insensitive?Tag=circuit
\n\nI initially thought questions that are tagged only with the vague circuit seemed to actually be about circuit analysis. But several of these questions are asking for help with circuit design, so maybe circuit-design should be re-activated.
\n\nThe more specific tags circuit-analysis, circuit-protection, and integrated-circuit seem useful and should be kept.
\n\nSuggested action:
\n\nAlternate action:
\n\ncircuit is one of the biggest tags, and will probably need a lot of time and effort to fix. But these \"please don't use me\" tags remain an attractive nuisance as long as they're available.
\n\nInterestingly, this very topic was discussed way back in 2011 at the dawn of time, when both circuit and circuit-design were removed. It's not clear when or why circuit came back while circuit-design did not.\nRemove circuit tag?
\n\n(Note: an earlier version of this request was posted 2015-10-08, but was subsequently deleted to avoid pulling focus off another tag discussion. Since then there's been more tag cleanup requests so I think it's worth opening to discussion.)
\n", "Title": "The \"circuit\" tag", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Here are my proposed actions for this tag:
\n\nThis tag, as mentioned, was originally deleted way back in 2011. As envisioned, this tag could encompass a large number of questions (say 20%-30%), since designing circuits is a major part of EE. I am against bringing this tag back, as I don't think it would be useful for categorizing questions, and it would have the temptation to go back and add it to a bunch of old questions.
\n\nUpdate: Marked as Status Complete on 11/10/15 due to circuit being cleared out.
\n" }, { "Id": "5462", "CreationDate": "2015-10-31T10:26:48.287", "Body": "Can anyone figure out what it's supposed to be about? It has no usage guidance and anything from voltage/current/frequency dividers to floating-point division algorithms seems to be in there.
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/divide
\n\nThere are no tags for divider or division.
\n\nWe probably don't want the SO tags as-is, but for the sake of comparison:
\n\nhttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/division \"In mathematics, division (\u00f7) is an arithmetic elementary operation.\"
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/divide: \"Separate or be separated into parts\" (Meh) They also have a \"split\" tag.
Looks like a pretty vague tag, and not very widely used -- looks like only 17 questions \"in all time\" and 4 in the past month. The most upvoted questions tagged divide seem to be about:
\n\nI guess it may add some value as clarification when paired with another tag, but by itself it's pretty ambiguous. I think the value of having question tags is to make it easier to find relevant questions (for those who bother doing research before posting), and also makes it possible for subject matter experts to notice new questions with that tag.
\n\nThere is already an existing tag voltage-divider, so perhaps
\n\nI have asked this question on how LCD/LED size influences energy consumption in mobile devices. I was very doubtful, if this question is on topic, and thus placed a lot of explanation in end paragraph.
\n\nI have received certain number of upvotes, three great answers and a comment, that this question is valid for this side.
\n\nBeing \"armed\" with such arguments, I have asked a very similar question on how WiFi being enabled or not influences energy consumption in mobile devices.
\n\nQuestion was closed as off-topic, then attempted to be migrated to Super User, where migration was rejected and SU's question again closed as off-topic.
\n\nWhat am I missing? How can question on correlation between LCD/LED size and energy consumption be on-topic, while similar question, on corerelation between WiFi and energy consumption (both questions in context of mobile devices) be off-topic?
\n", "Title": "Are questions on energy consumption on-topic here?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "I disagree with Nick on this one. Your first question was a very generic question relating LCD display resolution to power consumption — an important engineering question for anyone in the business of designing such systems, and very much on-topic for this site.
\n\nYour second question related strictly to the use of a particular device, not its design, and is indeed off-topic here.
\n" }, { "Id": "5492", "CreationDate": "2015-11-28T08:54:02.133", "Body": "Some questions involving I2C have been edited to I\u00b2C. They refers to Inter-Integrated Circuit, according to Wikipedia, is pronounced I-squared-C, a multi-master, multi-slave, single-ended, serial computer bus invented by Philips Semiconductor (now NXP Semiconductors). It is typically used for attaching lower-speed peripheral ICs to processors and microcontrollers. Alternatively I\u00b2C is spelled I2C (pronounced I-two-C) or IIC (pronounced I-I-C)
What is the preferred spelling on EE.SE? Should spelling being i2c, I2C, or I\u00b2C, or something else?
\n\nThe recent edit to I2C bit banging is why I bring this up. Even the url is not handled correctly by the SE system, as the \u00b2 breaks the automatic url recognition. A search for i\u00b2c will only bring up results for IC.
Peronally, I write it as IIC, and have done so consistantly here on EE.SE. It stands for \"Inter Integrated Circuit\". I dislike cutesey abbreviations like I2 for double-I.
\n\nIt should be plenty clear enough what IIC means, it's nicely searchable, and more accurately indicates what it's abbreviating anyway. Cutsey \"squared\" notation be damned.
\n" }, { "Id": "5497", "CreationDate": "2015-11-28T17:52:54.443", "Body": "What is the generic system tag supposed to be about? There's already control-system and at least the most recent \"system\" questions are just of the latter kind. It would take a bit of stamina just to survey what went into the generic system tag...
\n", "Title": "The \"system\" tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "This is another one of those really dumb tags proliferated by people that don't know better. After a cursory glance at the usage, I would be in favor retagging and banning it.
\n" }, { "Id": "5498", "CreationDate": "2015-11-28T22:33:53.317", "Body": "What might I do to improve the question How to gather data about how weight is distributed by feet on a surface over time?? It is linked to a similar question that was upvoted a bunch, so wondering how I might improve it to make it more useful for the site.
\n", "Title": "How to improve this question?", "Tags": "|discussion|down-votes|", "Answer": "I just cast the last close vote on your question, and gave you a -1 for good measure.
\n\nI personally find it obnoxious to have to chase down pertinent information to a question. No, I'm not going to follow a link to get such information. A link to reference information, like to a datasheet, is OK. Even then, if the question is about something specific in the datasheet, that small piece should be copied directly into the question.
\n\nI'm not getting paid to be here, and have no obligation to answer your question. Put another way, you are asking me for a favor. Expecting me to do your work for you in properly assembling a question so that I can then do you a favor is insulting and disrespectful.
\n\nSince I didn't follow the link, I don't know what you are asking, so I voted to close since the question is unclear. The downvote is a way to say screw you for the disrespect.
\n" }, { "Id": "5510", "CreationDate": "2015-12-07T18:36:44.883", "Body": "Can I ask a question about which one of two multimeters would be better to buy or it will be closed? I don't want a comparison between a lot of them as it would be opinion-based but just between 2 of them.
\n", "Title": "Comparison of 2 multimeters", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Could be okay, but be specific about what you are asking. For example, are there certain specs that you don't know how to interpret? Do you have a specific kind of project in mind that might require a specialized DMM?
\n\nIf you just ask \"which one is better?\", the answer will be \"Read the specs for each and see which one meets your need for a lower price\".
\n\nEven if you ask, \"how often will I need a capacitance measurement function?\" that's an opinion or anecdote based question and the answer depends entirely what kind of project you work on.
\n" }, { "Id": "5530", "CreationDate": "2015-12-15T21:22:42.660", "Body": "Every once in a while, I'll stumble upon a high-rep member who will have written a question and then a very lengthy answer that very effectively answers it. Case and point, a great Q/A by Olin
\n\nI want to make sure, are these on topic given they are usually inherently broad questions or is there a few things to watch out for when making these types of questions? I have a couple topics that I want to write a Q/A on.
\n\nI feel like it wouldn't be an issue if I had the answer already written up so I could answer it right away as to avoid confusion.
\n", "Title": "Are broad explanation type questions on topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'll throw in that there are a few other criteria and reasoning behind the rules, and varying degrees of flex in the rules. And to be pedantic, \"too broad\" and \"off topic\"are mostly orthogonal criteria. Let's try to avoid \"off topic\" in general.
\n\nMost close reasons are in place to basically protect the community from high effort, high frustration, low reward questions. Imagine a random user asking the same question that Olin did, expecting a long-form answer. It would be closed as too broad since demanding a long answer from multiple users is outside the norm. Another aspect is that the subject material may be so wide ranging that knowing which part is relevant to the asker is difficult.
\n\nIf you provide the answer along with the question, that provides a good counter argument to the \"too broad\" complaint. You are still required to follow the other rules.
\n\nIf the only thing you're worried about is the question being closed as \"too broad\", then go for it. Post the answer along with the question. Try doing just one to see if you like how it is received.
\n" }, { "Id": "5534", "CreationDate": "2015-12-16T15:16:40.567", "Body": "I'd like to appeal https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/205537/what-video-streaming-audio-streaming-is-used-in-microsoft-hololens
\n\nThis question: How to appeal a closed question? says I should link it here and explain my case.
\n\nWhile my question may or may not be suited for Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange (it was being debated and from the massive amounts of downvotes I got I probably am incorrect). But the reason given for why the question was put on hold makes no sense (the use of electronic devices are off-topic). In no way am I asking how to use a HoloLens.
\n\nI feel like there was no good radio button option to put my question on hold so they chose some random one. If my question is going to be put on hold I want to it to be for a legitimate reason (ie computer engineering questions do not apply at electrical engineering stackexchange).
\n\nPlease reopen, then if you must, put on hold for a legitimate reason.
\n\nUPDATE:\nThe reason this angers me is I posted very similar questions on other SE sites which I was upvoted for. Only this site destroyed my question. And it was not clear to me what the issue was. The next time I ask a question, it will probably be just as bad because I still don't understand what was wrong with that question other than it was NOT \"electrical engineering\" enough. But to myself I will continue to think, mob mentality makes it so much easier to downvote/close/call off-topic answers you can't answer than to take the time to find the answer.
\n", "Title": "Appeal Hold on Question", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "@SethKitchen - I'd consider it \"Off-topic -- Other\". It was moderator closed, because it took a moderator to deal with the bounty sealing it open, but it doesn't take a rocket engineer to see that it would last about 5 minutes to get reclosed with 14 downvotes, no upvotes, a string of comments from users who would have voted it closed, and its own special metapost about how the bounty prevented closure. Just because nobody can think of a SE to put it on, doesn't mean that it belongs here. Maybe there's an Area51 proposal to consider. \u2013 Scott Seidman 8 mins ago
\n" }, { "Id": "5550", "CreationDate": "2015-12-24T22:00:51.647", "Body": "The problem tag is impossibly, uselessly vague. Any question posted on this site is implicitly a \"problem\"! The questions under this tag have nothing at all in common, beyond that many of them are rather low-quality.
\n\nCan we please burninate and/or blacklist this tag? It's useless.
\n", "Title": "There's a problem with [problem]", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Looks like this tag was cleaned up in 2016. If it shows up again, remove it on sight.
\n" }, { "Id": "5553", "CreationDate": "2015-12-27T02:23:18.690", "Body": "The answer is this, and the two PNG images in the middle are just too big. i dunno the syntax for how to do this and i only am copying syntax from other answers.
\n\nthanks,
\n\nr b-j
\n", "Title": "can anyone tell me how to scale down PNG images i put in an answer", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "When you upload images using the \"add images\" button, the images get copied to Imgur, and multiple resolution copies are made in addition to the original. By default, the original is selected. However, you can easily change which one is used by appending a modifier to the link. For a visual example, consider the following image from your post:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RbokL.png\")
The link for that picture is https://i.stack.imgur.com/RbokL.png. Now the resized copies must be different links, so they are creatively named RbokLs.png, RbokLm.png, and RbokLl.png. Note that I am taking the existing hashed base file name (RbokL) and adding either s, m, or l for the small, medium, or large version.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RbokLs.png\")
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RbokLm.png\")
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RbokLl.png\")
Keep in mind that you need to upload them to the Imgur service for this to work (that's what the add picture button does). Your post just links to the wikimedia pictures, which is plagiarism (no attribution) and will break if they ever change the link. Please fix that.
\n" }, { "Id": "5558", "CreationDate": "2016-01-02T04:42:17.453", "Body": "I have asked a question and received some comments and an answer. Having solved the original problem, I now have another question related to the same circuit.\nShould I ask a new question or edit the original question? If I should ask a new question, should I link to the new question from the original question? \nMy thinking is that it should be an ongoing discussion regarding the same circuit but I'm not sure of proper etiquette.
\n", "Title": "Asked question, then had a related new question", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "If you were to edit your original, answered question, then either:
\n\nthe original answers would no longer make sense, which is undesirable because it makes the page less useful and takes away from the answerers' efforts, or
you would be asking two questions in one post, which is undesirable because then the answers are likely to answer one and miss the other, or do a good job on one and bad on the other.
For these reasons, editing a question like this is a bad idea, and you should instead ask a new question (and, as already said, link to the old one if you like, but make sure it stands on its own as well).
\n\nHowever, if your new question is really just being more precise about old question, so you're more tweaking \u201cwhat makes a good answer\u201d than \u201cwhat is the question\u201d, then it might make sense to edit the question. Be careful.
\n\nA different case: If you've asked a question that hasn't been answered (or has been answered extremely poorly), then editing it into a better question about the same topic does no harm.
\n" }, { "Id": "5562", "CreationDate": "2016-01-04T13:09:37.653", "Body": "Question... Where to draw the line with regards to HDL on EE.SE? This is akin to Arduino questions that appear on EE.SE where most are migrated but some aren't.
\n\nVHDL & Verilog are used to describe logic that could target hardware (be it ASIC, FPGA etc...) but they are in essence a programming language. Thing is ... writing in VHDL/Verilog has both hardware & software considerations.
\n\nWhen you compare StackOverflow (SO.SE) there are 2743 VHDL tags & 2,390 verilog tags. When the same tags are compared on ElectricalEngineering (EE.SE) there are 668 VHDL & 601 verilog thus SO.SE is geared towards accepting VHDL/Verilog coding queries.
\n\nNot all of the EE.SO questions that are tagged VHDL or VERILOG are valid EE.SO queries. Take How to convert a floating point number to integer, using VHDL? shouldn\u2019t this have been migrated to SO.SE
\n", "Title": "HDL and the EE board", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "Your perceptions seem to be somewhat skewed by the organization in which you're working. In the projects in which I've been involved, it's the hardware guys that are writing the HDL and the firmware guys that are writing the microprocessor code — sometimes for microprocessors that are embedded inside the FPGAs.
\n\nAnd I disagree that an HDL is \"in essence a programming language.\" HDLs describe hardware, which is fundamentally parallel, while conventional programming languages are fundamentally sequential. It takes very different mindsets to do a good job in both.
\n" }, { "Id": "5597", "CreationDate": "2016-02-01T20:30:33.557", "Body": "I'm new to electronics, and i made a schematic of something i wanted to try to build.
\n\nI asked something and included a picture of what i meant, but a battery i linked apparently had too much mAh to be realistic.
\n\nInstead of correcting me and explaining that a 18650 couldn't hold that much power, i was ridiculed by someone that didn't even bother to try to answer my question.
\n\nI thought this was strange, but I didn't expect a moderator to do the same. Instead of correcting the other commenter, or helping me, he made some stupid joke about how fire was in the name of the battery and that my battery would catch fire because it had so much mAh.
\n\nFrom the \"reputation & moderation\" page in the help center i got this:
\n\n\n\n\n(moderators) are patient and fair, lead by example and show respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words
\n
I don't think this moderator did any of that, is that normal?
\n\nthank you
\n\nedit: you guys are right, im an idiot, i should have done more research. i won't remove the post so others dont make the same mistake
\n", "Title": "condescending moderator", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I read your question and as a beginner myself I found that you tried to explain the question to the best of your ability. The problem is that some users respond in short aggressive ways. The response to your linked question and even this one here are clear examples of that happening. It would be great if one day we could block users but until then just do your best to ignore them or find other places to ask beginner questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "5603", "CreationDate": "2016-02-04T12:45:15.363", "Body": "I understand that there are different desires for what types of questions this community should be addressing. It is dificult to know when a question does not fit. Is there a guidelines somewhere?
\n", "Title": "Guidelines for types of questions", "Tags": "|discussion|guidelines|", "Answer": "It's usually covered in that site's Help → Tour. (Menu at very top of page.)
\n" }, { "Id": "5613", "CreationDate": "2016-02-08T20:11:05.113", "Body": "I answered this question and it's showing up with a -15 in the achievements drop down. When I look at the question I've got one up-vote and no down-votes.
\n\nAnyone know what that signifies?
\n", "Title": "I've got a '-15' in achievements drop-down but can't see why in thread", "Tags": "|support|down-votes|", "Answer": "Silent rep changes. Some events, when done quickly enough after the initial event, will just be silently adjusted, removing both events. If enough time passes (I think 1 UTC day), it will no longer silently change.
\n\nAccepts and Unaccepts. Down vote and Up vote. Bounty. User removal.
\n\nIf enough time has passed, you'll notice a new event line on your reputation in your profile, and it will say Unaccept.
\n\nAs @Matt has pointed out, -15 would indicate a removal of the 15 rep accept bonus.
\n" }, { "Id": "5617", "CreationDate": "2016-02-10T21:15:55.783", "Body": "If there is a way to add more symbols in the circuit editor, I think a motor symbol would be appropriate. There may be additional symbols people would want. Is this possible? Is it difficult?
\n", "Title": "Can additional symbols be added to the circuit button?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "What are the key pieces of information with respect to a motor that is needed when analysing a circuit & its control.
\n\ninductors, resistors, AC & DC voltage sources are available as is annotation. Just stating a load is a motor really doesn't help with circuit or control analysis.
\n" }, { "Id": "5618", "CreationDate": "2016-02-10T21:19:58.247", "Body": "In the circuit editor when you do a time domain simulation you can only look at voltage. In traditional spice packages, its common to be able look at currents also. Usually this is done by highlighting a the port of a part (not the wire connecting two parts, thats a voltage). It would be nice to be able see the current. It would also be nice to type in simple equations to do power analysis. For Example: V(Node1)*V(Node2) or V(Node1)+V(Node2) or V(Node1)*I(Node2). Is this functionality that is desired by the community and could be implemented?
\n", "Title": "Circuit editor functionality - current scope", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "We couldn't make that change if we wanted to. The schematic editor and simulator is Circuit Lab's, and it's behind a paywall now. We're lucky they let us continue to use their software for free.
\n" }, { "Id": "5624", "CreationDate": "2016-02-12T15:12:14.920", "Body": "This new user has been walking forward with homework questions, and the irritating part is that he has not learned from previously asked questions, instead keeps looking for the answers.
\n\nSo his approach involves setting a topic: nodal analysis, then enumerating it for a particular case. or more importantly, the question seems more about how to mathematically describe the current for nodal analysis.
\n\nSolve a circuit with the nodal analysis (2)
\n\nSolve a circuit with the nodal analysis (1)
\n\n\n\nSolve a circuit with the nodal analysis
I don't that's ideal for this forum, nor would anyone who's curious to learn about a topic (KCL in this csae) should have to browse through multiple questions to gain full understanding of how to mathematically describe a current flowing through a branch.
\n\nShould these questions be combined to a single question, and the answer contain multiple cases?
\n", "Title": "Should we combine these questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'm not too sure what exactly you want. Perhaps these two questions (1) (2) are similar enough to merge, but the others aren't.
\n\nHomework questions are explicitly allowed. You can't get upset for someone asking about a homework problem - save that for the people who just post a picture of a homework problem and expect results.
\n\nI've looked through the questions, and they generally follow all the guidelines we like to see in homework questions:
\n\nHonestly, I don't see issues with the questions as they stand. If you say \"they didn't learn\" then I will hand it right back to you with \"you didn't teach\". I'm glad to hear that you didn't have any issues learning material with any of your studies, but not everyone learns that way.
\n" }, { "Id": "5630", "CreationDate": "2016-02-14T23:20:54.977", "Body": "I am a newcomer to EE.SE and have asked and answered a few questions here over the past few months. I read nearly daily via my phone. I would like to contribute as much as possible since I gain so much from just reading through the daily posts, however as many Meta posts have addressed recently, there are several factors that seem to dissuade folks who are new to the field from posting/answering/commenting/ etc.
\n\nPlease note, I am not trying to address aforementioned factors in this question; let's all play nice
\n\nWhat I do want to address is this: what are the expectations of the community leaders with respect to ordinary members who are new to the field? Since this is a community which exists to build a knowledge-center for the Electrical and Electronics Engineering field, how can ordinary members who are new to the field contribute to this end? Or can they?
\n", "Title": "What is expected of members of EE.SE?", "Tags": "|discussion|new-users|meta|moderators|", "Answer": "If you want to be a part of EE.SE and do what's expected of you, then do this:
\n\nThere are a lot of people with less than 10 experience or have posted less than 10 times that create problems for the community. Some of these problems can be seen in these posts.
\n\nAttitude towards new users...\nCondescending Moderator\nAmongst others meta posts.
\n\nThis leads to the community firing back in some cases. This could lead to alienation, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if the users don't want to contribute but may also throw off some people who really want to learn. I can't say that I haven't had my share of comments that wern't condescending. I think this could be solved with a technical solution. There needs to be a bigger barrier for new users with questions. Something needs to force them to read the rules and\\or give them some incentive to write good questions.
\n\nWould this be useful to the community?
\n\nIf so what are some ways this could be accomplished?
\n", "Title": "Problems with new users", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "While it'd sometimes seem nice to be able to take some of the garbage posters' heads in your hands, open the /tour page & help center too, thenforce them to sit there and read it... Unfortunately I don't think any of us have time for that, and most new users are simply not going to read & follow 'the rules' until they 'get in trouble' for braking them
\n\nAs another possible solution (well, a partial one, at least) I'd like to at least see first questions/answers be marked as such, if not placed in a 'first posts,' 'quarantine,' or 'unfiltered' tab until the first post/late answer/low quality review has been done.
\n\nI don't think it has yet become necessary to impose a 'total lockout' lf questions/answers 'pending approval,' but I definitely see a benefit to reliability of information and ease of browsing if 'questionable' content is at least noted as such.
\n" }, { "Id": "5659", "CreationDate": "2016-02-19T15:53:56.540", "Body": "Sinking 80 mA with a microcontroller without any driver circuit? is a general question on parallel current sourcing capabilities, but it was single handedly closed and migrated to Arduino.Se. It has nothing to do with Arduinos specifically, and mentioned other platforms in the same sentence, like the Raspberry Pi, yet was migrated to Arduino.
\n\nIt was rejected for that reason, and still remains closed here, as this question does not appear to be about electronics design within the scope defined in the help center. when it's clearly about electronics design.
\n\nWhy?
\n", "Title": "Why was \"Sinking 80 MA from a microcontroller without any driver circuit\" migrated?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I suggest that migrations or other actions taken out of a feeling of irritation toward a \"lazy OP\" who can't read the data sheet should be curtailed. This is a Q&A site. People come here because they don't know things. The whole point of the Arduino and Pi platforms in particular is that people can get involved with microcontrollers without having much of an electronics background. One can use a Arduino, for example, without even knowing what microcontroller is on the board, let alone reading the data sheet for it. So if you were never a beginner, and never asked someone a question that you could have answered yourself with a little research, then by all means, pile on. Otherwise how about some patience?
\n" }, { "Id": "5675", "CreationDate": "2016-02-23T05:18:40.860", "Body": "So having reached 10k yesterday, that triggers the next privilege of accessing the mod tools. As a result, there is now the little orange number on the top bar next to the review button. This used to (pre 10k) just show when there were edits pending but now shows up when anything is pending. Makes sense.
\n\nBut I have a question. What does that number represent? For example, I've just been through the queues and whatnot and they are now empty as far as I can see, but yet the number of posts pending review shows 15:
\n\n![\"Pending](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/nUED2.png\")
Is there something obvious I'm missing?
\n\np.s. I have refreshed the page and it is still there
\n", "Title": "Review Queue - Posts awaiting review", "Tags": "|support|review-queue|", "Answer": "The orange indicator shows the (approximate) number of tasks awaiting a review.
\n\nThe review page shows the number of tasks awaiting your review. This excludes the items you are not eligible to review: because you flagged the post, or voted to close it, or have reviewed it already, etc.
\n\nIt's a pretty expensive process to identify which of the review tasks you are eligible for. So this is not done for the orange indicator, which is shown on every page load (SE has a lot of page loads...). In addition, the number it shows is cached.
\n\nReference: Review counts in top-bar and /review don't match
\n" }, { "Id": "5689", "CreationDate": "2016-03-01T17:50:33.480", "Body": "Context
\n\nYesterday I posted this answer, to this question on the development of LED illumination as an industrial product.
\n\nPossibly relevant is that my answer initially contained mention of, and Amazon links to, a specific product. This prompted a quite-valid 'spam' criticism in a comment, in response to which I edited out all reference to the product in question. I had debated about including the deleted material, and so didn't hesitate to remove it when challenged.
\n\nAnyways, also in comments, a moderator criticized some of the aspects of my answer. I attempted to respond to this criticism, but the moderator was not mollified. In an effort to put an end to the back-and-forth, I posted an admittedly snarky response (EDIT: now deleted at some point by someone other than myself), the audience of which I intended only to be the moderator in question. The mod then edited my comment, verbatim, into the head of my answer. I rolled back his edit; he re-rolled it back in, and so on. After a couple of these back-and-forth cycles, he rolled the disclaimer back into the post and locked the answer as 'pending content dispute.'
\n\nQuestions
\n\nRegardless of the interpersonal conflict underlying these events, I feel a disclaimer of this sort is superfluous. An expert in the field will likely read the answer and think, \"Well, duh.\" A non-expert will hopefully read the answer and think, \"Huh! Didn't know that.\"
\n\nMy questions:
\n\nDue to third-party intervention, the post has now been unlocked.
\n\nFurther, after reflection, I felt the moderator in question had some good criticisms about my answer. I have edited it accordingly, including working in a milder version of the 'target-audience disclaimer' from which the conflict arose.
\n" }, { "Id": "5692", "CreationDate": "2016-03-02T15:56:27.167", "Body": "I want to ask a question which has relatively wide schematic that would not be legible at the width allotted to SE questions.
\n\nIs there a way I can post the schematic so that readers will be able to view the wide image?
\n", "Title": "Large schematic handling", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This markdown syntax makes the picture clickable:\n[![description][1]][1]
\nWhen clicked, it behaves like an ordinary image file in your browser.
Example:\n![\"description\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/4QwAU.jpg\")
I was recently browsing EE.SE and came across this revision (Revision 2) by moderator Nick Alexeev on this question. I understand the revision of the tags, but I'm wondering why the simple \"Thanks for your help!\" on the bottom was removed. The text doesn't detract from the quality of the question as far as I can see; it's something that I myself have written on my answers and questions. Is this revision proper formatting of an SE question, or was it an unnecessary edit?
\n", "Title": "Why was \"Thanks for your help!\" edited out of this question?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "Because someone decided that there is something wrong with common courtesy. Frankly, I find it silly, and a waste of effort to edit such things out.
\n" }, { "Id": "5723", "CreationDate": "2016-04-05T02:18:08.103", "Body": "So I asked a question, which is now on hold. I get why it's on hold (off topic), but I specifically asked in the question if there might be a better stack where the question might be fit for migration. Apparently the community decided there wasn't.
\n\nAnyway, while the only existing answer did provide some interesting information, it didn't really answer the question (see the edits for the resolution).
\n\nMy meta-question is if I should just delete the question, since the community decided it was off topic anyway. Or leave it, since the existing answer is very interesting.
\n\nI'd rather delete it myself, rather than incur the negative rep and black marks of having the community delete or close my question.
\n", "Title": "Off topic question on hold, no real answer", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|off-topic|", "Answer": "but I specifically asked in the question if there might be a better stack where the question might be fit for migration.\n\n
Not our problem. Off topic here is off topic here, whether we know of a better place for the question or one exists or not. We are not the help desk for the SE site or the rest of the internet.
\n\nApparently the community decided there wasn't.\n\n
More likely they didn't want to encourage people coming here dumping random questions on us expecting us to tell them where those questions really should have been asked.
\n\nWe are here to discuss electrical engineering, not how to use the internet.
\n\nAnyway, while the only existing answer did provide some interesting information, it didn't really answer the question (see the edits for the resolution).\n\n
I didn't see the question originally, but what Spehro said was the first thing that went thru my mind as I was reading your symptoms. It is actually a very reasonable answer to the information you provided.
\n\nMy meta-question is if I should just delete the question, since the community decided it was off topic anyway. Or leave it, since the existing answer is very interesting.\n\n
Leave it.
\n\nI'd rather delete it myself, rather than incur the negative rep and black marks of having the community delete or close my question.\n\n
I'm not sure it works that way. I believe the algorithm that checks your posting quality and suspends your posting privilege if too low is not fooled by you deleting low quality posts. In fact, I think that makes things worse.
\n\nYou probably can't delete it anyway since there is a upvoted answer. Put another way, you have no right to delete Spehro's answer, which is what deleting the whole question would do.
\n" }, { "Id": "5738", "CreationDate": "2016-04-21T18:23:11.693", "Body": "I have built a pid controller that I am using to make yogurt, but I am having trouble tuning it because of the change of thermal conductivity during the culture. Where is the best place to ask about it EE.SE, Chemistry.SE, ENG.SE or Cooking.SE? I am afraid that pid questions would thoroughly confuse the folks over at cooking. Although Chemistry.SE does have a cooking tag, they have no pid tag or open pid questions, Eng.SE does have a pid tag, but my question is about the interaction of the software and the food. Where Should I ask?
\n", "Title": "yogurt on a pid controller: where to ask", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "Either here on EE.SE (we had controller questions in the past), or on Engineering.SE (versed in heat transfer).
\n\nYou could post it here first. If it doesn't pick up, then post a flag to the moderators with custom text along the lines of \"Please migrate this question of mine to Engineering.SE.\" We'll migrate it.
\n\np.s. Do not cross-post the same question to multiple stacks, though. StackExchange policy is against cross-posting.
\n" }, { "Id": "5746", "CreationDate": "2016-04-25T15:05:10.910", "Body": "Is there an accepted way of answering an old (3 years) question that has an accepted answer that I think is incorrect or giving misinformation?
\n\nAre comments to the answer the way?
\n", "Title": "Answering an old question that has an accepted answer", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|late-answers|", "Answer": "As long as you are adding something new, it's not really a problem to make a new answer. You can also mention why other answers are incorrect in your answer, though try to avoid phrases like \"The answer above\" as the order can change.
\n\nYou can also put a comment on the \"wrong\" answer as well.
\n\nIt is easy to change the accepted answer from one to another, but if the user that asked the question hasn't returned to the site in 3 years don't expect your answer to become \"accepted\".
\n" }, { "Id": "5755", "CreationDate": "2016-04-29T09:15:52.710", "Body": "EE.SE has quite a few questions asking to identify unknown parts, usually ICs. These are quite rare, so I cannot say I'm annoyed by them. Yet every time I see one, I come to to think whether they are useful to anyone besides the OP.
\n\nIn fact, these questions are essentially duplicates in terms of information one could reuse:
\n\nShould we post these instructions somewhere and close \"identify this part\" questions which show no evidence of the OP performing a basic search?
\n", "Title": "Does the site benefit from \"identify this part\" questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "I'm sure this has come up on Meta before, I can't find it easily.
\n\nIn previous discussions, almost everyone was in agreement that these sorts of questions are strictly not really within the remit of EE.SE and should technically be shutdown.
\n\nHowever, most everyone thought that there was enough of a historical momentum to these questions that we should just keep them. Call it puzzle solving.
\n\nSo, yes, it is inconsistent with some of the other stuff that gets shutdown, but it is just a little quirk of this stack and is accepted.
\n" }, { "Id": "5763", "CreationDate": "2016-05-02T16:42:06.730", "Body": "The question Does it matter if i put a resistor in backwards? is currently on hold:
\n\n\n\n\n\"put on hold as unclear what you're asking...\"
\n
I realize some SE functions have limited, fixed vocabulary, so maybe it's on hold for a slightly different reason. But it looks to me like the question is asking a straightforward question that the comments suggest is perfectly clear to many people.
\n\nSo far the answers are straightforward - electrically; no, but for circuit board inspection and validation purposes - possibly.
\n\nI'd like to add another answer in good faith and I feel it can contribute. I've left this and this comment asking that the hold be lifted so that I can add my answer, but I am not sure if this is the best way to make such a request, or if it's even allowed to make such a request.
\n\nCan I have some 'best-practices' guidance how best to ask that another's question be taken off of 'hold' so I can contribute another answer?
\n", "Title": "How to ask that another's question be taken off of 'hold' so I can contribute another answer?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "That question is on hold since it's asking for our opinion what the OP can do. We have no way of knowing the OP's capabilities, nor is that about electrical engineering. This question is just as bad as the \"Does anyone know ...\" type of questions we get here occasionally.
\n\nIf he instead had asked whether installing a resistor backwards matters electrically, then that would be extremely na\u00efve but valid question.
\n\nYou may say that interpreting the former as the latter should be understood. Maybe, but it's still annoying when people don't ask what they really want to know. Attention to detail matters in engineering, so sloppiness with language isn't tolerated, just like other types of sloppiness. Stop and actually think about the words you are using instead of blindly writing canned phrases.
\n" }, { "Id": "5768", "CreationDate": "2016-05-05T15:30:59.773", "Body": "I asked a question here about two specific products and their use in conjunction with each other in an electronic circuit. The question was put on hold as off-topic, but I believe this was in error. In the defined community scope of reference, it clearly states
\n\n\n\n\nThis site is for electronics and electrical engineering
\n
And electrical engineering is defined as
\n\n\n\n\na field of engineering that generally deals\n with the study and application of electricity, electronics, and\n electromagnetism
\n
Therefore, asking about using two devices in conjunction with each other in an electric circuit is fully within the community defined scope.
\n\nIf not, please do clarify.
\n", "Title": "Clarification of community scope", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "Yes, but questions about the application of commercial products are specifically off-topic.
\n\nThe reason for this is that without knowing anything about the design of the circuitry associated with the solar panel, it is impossible to infer anything about its behavior outside the applications specified by the manufacturer.
\n\nYou would either have to get more detailed documentation from the manufacturer, or do some reverse-engineering in order to derive the information from the object itself. We WILL answer questions at this level, but you have to show significant effort and understanding on your own; otherwise, it becomes a hopeless case of \"20 questions\".
\n" }, { "Id": "5771", "CreationDate": "2016-05-08T12:03:25.913", "Body": "I noticed that although when I directly click \"comment\" under someone else's question I get reminded that my reputation is not high enough yet, if I answer a very short answer it gets converted as a comment on the original post.
\n\nI have no opinion whereas it's a good or a bad thing, I just wanted to point it out! If it's voluntary, why not let the users under 50 rep comment the OP's post (if they can do it anyway by posting a short answer)?
\n", "Title": "users below 50 rep can still comment OP", "Tags": "|discussion|comments|reputation|", "Answer": "First, your answer was deleted and turned into a comment by a moderator. As long as your comment is relevant to the question, I'm not going to just delete it to enforce the rules, consider it some slack for the new users. Hopefully the new user will get 50 rep fast enough that it won't happen again.
\n\nIf you keep posting comments as answers, we will stop turning them into comments and just delete them. And after that, the system will stop accepting answers from you entirely.
\n" }, { "Id": "5774", "CreationDate": "2016-05-16T18:50:19.773", "Body": "There is a tag named combinationalcircuits which has 12 tagged questions that seem to range from mostly combinational logic circuit type questions to one about power electronics. There was also another question just asked about resistors in parallel that used the tag (I've retagged that one).
\n\nIt seems to be a rather useless tag and should probably be deleted (IMO). Doing so wouldn't leave any existing questions untagged nor make them harder to find.
\n\nIf not deletion, perhaps renaming it to combinational-logic or something similar would make sense (and then remove the tag from a couple of existing questions). But I don't see much point in that given how few questions there are using the tag.
\n", "Title": "Tag Cleanup: [tag:combinationalcircuits]", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "I'm going to go ahead and remove that tag. The existing tags boolean-logic and digital-logic fill the problem space fine.
\n" }, { "Id": "5777", "CreationDate": "2016-05-28T13:26:46.027", "Body": "These two answers (from the same person) clearly promote pcbgogo, and the author is clearly affiliated (when you look at the profile, but it is not explicit when you read the answers). But it somewhat answers the question. Is that spam ? I don't want to flag lightly.
\n\n\n", "Title": "Should this be considered as spam?", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|spamming|", "Answer": "In general, you should flag answers like that as spam.
\n\nIn this particular case, it seems as though we the moderators didn't deal with the posts (by removing the link or deleting the post). It looks like this was merely an oversight.
\n" }, { "Id": "5782", "CreationDate": "2016-05-30T08:15:13.580", "Body": "When I started out on EE.SE I asked a couple of questions with the \"Thanks for help\" line at the end because I wanted to express my genuine appreciation for people taking the time to answer my questions - only to find after 5 minutes people snagging it off.
\n\nCould I ask why this is? For the sake of appreciation and sacrificing one line, it seems pointless (except for those looking to earn the \"editor\" badge).
\n", "Title": "Why are \"thankyous\" depreciated on EE.SE?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "There are people, not being me, who think extra lines like that cause clutter.
\n\nI see the point of \"Hello, ...\" and \"I have a very specific problem...\" being removed, though the latter seems to be invulnerable to such scrutiny the last months. Those initial lines with no information make the overview/excerpt system pointless.
\n\nPersonally, however, I do not see the point of removing final thanks.\nMaybe some international (to me) element finds it clutter through inherent societal apathy. Whatever it be, someone decided to make it a rule (officially), for some reason, that such ends also do not belong.
\n" }, { "Id": "5788", "CreationDate": "2016-06-03T13:23:10.880", "Body": "More specifically, I'm talking about this answer: How efficient is a capacitive power supply? (the second part of the answer, which is, I think, essential).
\n\nDespite the comments people have made on this answer, I must say it has already confused me a few years ago, and I recently saw it again. It has been accepted at the time, and still has >0 votes (even with all the downvotes). The user doesn't seem to be around anymore (although he has been very highly active at a time, it seems, and was having a very high rep - which adds to the confusion), so he certainly won't edit it.
\n\nWould it be good practice to edit it myself and use the strikeout style for the part that is wrong (still leaving it here so the comments and context still make sense) ? It would of course change the intent. But I'm afraid if it stays like that, it would confuse other people, as it did for me at a time.
\n", "Title": "What to do with wrong accepted answers on old posts?", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|", "Answer": "I'm strongly tempted to delete the answer as \"not an answer\", regardless of the fact that it is the accepted answer.
\n\nKevin Vermeer hasn't been seen around here in several years, and clearly has no interest in it any more. (For that matter, the OP hasn't logged in in 6 months, either.)
\n\nHere is my reasoning:
\n\nFirst of all, any part of any answer that warns about the dangers of non-isolated supplies is just noise — the OP acknowledged the danger in the question itself.
The numbered answers that Kevin supplied are simply wrong.
Taken together, these mean that the entire post is not a valid response to the question in the first place.
\n\nI'd welcome any discussion, especially by the other moderators, before I act. There just doesn't seem to be any clear SE policy that applies directly to this situation.
\n" }, { "Id": "5791", "CreationDate": "2016-06-06T07:08:58.683", "Body": "I'd like to ask a serie of questions about power supplies, power solutions and other similar (as mentioned in title). For example:
\n\nBut, I have a feeling that these are more like shopping questions or otherwise off-topic questions here and would like to confirm this before asking to not get all these questions mass-closed.
\n", "Title": "Are questions about cables, connectors, plugs, adapters and powering solutions on-topic here?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|on-topic|", "Answer": "The first example would be off-topic, because it's too broad and also the internet is riddled with advise about car electronics (not as easy as wall adapter power, even though instructables makes you think it is) and 12V (9V~36V+) to 5V generation. So some personal research should give you more than enough to start with and ask specific questions about if something is unclear.
\n\nThe second is off-topic because of.... pretty much the same reasons.
\n\nIn basis none of the topics are nescesarily off-topic, but any question requires you to first put in effort, using this website and/or others. Most electronics and electrical subjects have many articles available on reliable sites and if there's stuff unclear, or things you doubt, almost any question on that is on topic. So long as it is possible to write an answer to it in reasonable time (let's say a rule of thumb of 15 minutes or less) by an experienced hobbyist or professional. Spending more time on it, will then be up to us, if we want to.
\n" }, { "Id": "5794", "CreationDate": "2016-06-06T19:57:01.930", "Body": "Is there any mechanism to apply the correct decision to all flag of a question?
\n\nI flag this post:Can an ATtiny print results to a console? saying that it was better to be migrated to the arduino exchange. The flag was rejected by a moderator X than fewer hours later the post was effectively migrated to Arduino exchange. What is the management behind the flag, is it by the \"feeling\" of a moderator X that the flag is rejected or accepted? It is pretty inconsistent for the management of the forum that moderator X reject it than few hours later moderator Y migrated or close the question.
\n\nShould the decision of 1 moderator concerning a flag should be considered as the final decision to maintain consistency across the management of flag?
\n", "Title": "Flag management policy", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "Migration policy is not a subject where the moderators agree. You get a flag resolution based on which moderator sees the flag in the queue.
\n\nMigration is something where the migrating mod makes a decision that cannot be easily undone or reviewed. If one moderator decides to migrate a question, it's gone.
\n" }, { "Id": "5800", "CreationDate": "2016-06-11T13:05:13.950", "Body": "I recently designed a board layout in Eagle and was thinking to post question so that anyone can review it and verify it as I am a beginner.
\nThis type of questions are ON topic or OFF topic on Electronics stackexchange. If they are ON topics where can I upload schematics or board layout. ?
A general review of a complex circuit would have to be classified as \"too broad\".
\n\nHowever, if you have specific questions about some particular aspect of your design that could be answered in a few paragraphs, that would be perfectly acceptable.
\n" }, { "Id": "5810", "CreationDate": "2016-06-21T13:12:12.060", "Body": "I have an idea for a sports equipment invention \"a new product\" that a track and field athlete can use to practice and train his sport. The technology involves a laser beam. I'm wondering if my idea is feasible and/or if it has already been done because we think the idea is good. Is there a more appriopriate place to ask about the feasibility of my product idea, or is it ok to ask it at electrical engineering?
\n", "Title": "Is this question ok for electrical engineering?", "Tags": "|support|specific-question|", "Answer": "Thanks for askng first!
\n\nUnless your question is specifically about the design of the electronic circuitry of the product, it sounds like it would be a better fit on the more general Engineering.SE site.
\n" }, { "Id": "5821", "CreationDate": "2016-06-28T19:38:54.297", "Body": "I just saw in the review a question about a stun gun electric circuit which can deliver 20kV. Does the website has any guidance regarding potentially lethal circuits that the main point is to be a weapon? Also, are these questions under the authority of government concerning weapons export rules?
\n", "Title": "Do we have any guidelines toward weapons design?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "No answer in almost a week... It seems nobody really knows what is the policy on this.
\n\nI think it is because there is actually no clear policy. A previous relevant discussion here on meta also showed there were no official guidelines on this matter, although the general consensus seemed to be \"there should be no restrictions\".
\n\nI also personally think that there should be no restrictions on questions asked, as long as answering them is legal (the only exception I know of being building bombs).
\n\nMoreover, I am quite confident that export rules restrictions here are irrelevant. These rules control hardware, softwares in a few cases (mainly cryptographic software), but I'm pretty sure they don't apply to simple information like what we're sharing on this site. Exporting from where anyway? The servers location? The poster's location?
\n\nSo I don't see any reason to rule out these questions, and if anyone had such reasons in mind, I think he would have made a post here already. So we can certainly consider anyone is free to ask how to make his stun gun even more lethal, how to switch the high voltage for his DIY electric chair, ... (as long as the question is well-asked and not too broad).
\n\nNow, anyone is also free not to answer, and I certainly won't, as I don't value much these devices and their use.
\n" }, { "Id": "5824", "CreationDate": "2016-06-29T10:10:55.353", "Body": "I keep a request for uploading sound files (wma, amr, mp3, midi etc). animation-file in gif format is being already allowed (and helpful) , but some-other sorts of video files (video recording files) such as mp4, AVI, 3gp, etc. within a strict limit of file-size and time.
\n\nAt the same-time, amazingly small SVG files (for still-image quite like png-s and gif-s) from wikipedia, could not be directly used here. If the spectrum of allowed formats for still-images slightly broadened, this website will basically be benefited.
\n", "Title": "Feature request for uploading small-sized sound and movie file, and SVG format still image files", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "I'm curious how often you anticipate this being used, and for what purpose. More than 9 times out of 10, a video in a question does nothing to clarify the answer, and (personally) I won't watch it anyway: I'd rather spend one minute reading a clearly written answer than waste several minutes watching a poorly lit, shaky video.
\n\nThere are so few instances in which a video or sound byte is really essential to a post, that simply linking to an external video or audio host (of which there are many) seems completely sufficient.
\n\nFinally, as Olin mentioned, adding such functionality would only encourage the unnecessary use of such media, leading to even more low-effort questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "5836", "CreationDate": "2016-07-05T19:17:55.673", "Body": "This website, evaluates question only on the basis-of public-votes, where the asker do-not have any right to put any evaluation to own question. But there is need for judging the question also from the viewpoint of the asker's own.
\n\nThe site requires downvotes, or mark for deletion etc. to distinguish 2 type of question ( type-1: some-of the questions are basic. They adds up the knowledge to future. And type-2 : that do-not adds-up significant-knowledge to the future. (Since this is a publicly-edited site, all-sorts of questions indeed come).
\n\nNow, these 2 (or actually many-more) -type of questions. It is as-if assumed, that, if a question attract more votes from other-user, it is useful. And if they accumulates some downvote ... then it is assumed that, the question has no importance for the future, and become prone to deletion.
\n\nBut that is not the practical truth. In many-cases (though not all-cases), as an asker, I (i.e. creator of the question), feel some future-importance of the question, but since such- judgement is a subjective-process (same thing felt as different, by different-persons) ; often a good question is mis-rated by other users. Later-on, on further manually-correspondence and discussion, the rating get up-rides in a drastic rate, or sometimes get deleted before they reach to right person.
\n\nHow it could be resolved?
\n\nNo I'm not telling to stop downvote or deletion-system. but I'm telling to change the criteria for deletion.
\n\nThe asker could define the type or quality of the question, by selecting some options/ categories/ form-fields.
\n\n(Since, On a problem/ question, only the asker (the creator) can tell the best.)
\n\nThis will Not add-up a vote to the question, but will help the judges to better-understand the question, on the basis of asker's evaluations, and also will help to automatically (programically) slow-down the deletion.
\n\nObviously in case of severe misrate by the asker/ vandalism ; moderators could re-evaluate the question.
\n\nEXAMPLES:
\n\n(These are just some examples. they could be further)
\n\n![\"Ask](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Qh6h.jpg\")
Thus the website can ask categorie/ quality of the question, from the user; that would help a lot in sorting-work. ( Also, The website could warn the users to not-to-post homework-style question, or make sure it is a conceptual or rare (unavailable on web) question)
\n\nAlso, the website should ask the user about what should be the fate of this question, in another form-field. (Also If it is a transient-requirement question, website could warn user. The website could warn the asker to ask such question in the chat-section).
\n\n![\"Ask](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/86Kq9.jpg\")
These will improve question-evaluation, will help to save proper-question to future for the right-person, and to reduce stack-overloads (bad-questions)by preventing (instead curing) programically, on basis of evaluation of
\n", "Title": "Feature-request- Some user-selectable categories for better filter, as-well stack-overflow", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|deleted-questions|", "Answer": "Your question reads as if you have misunderstood the purpose of the electronics.stackexchange site. Please go and read its help centre, and check that this question makes sense in the context of electronics.stackexchange.
\n\nAnyone posting a question must understand the scope and purpose of the site, and accept that their question may get downvoted, closed or even deleted if it is not a good fit.
\n\nThe community does not require anything more from a question than it fit the purpose of the site, and be clear enough to answer.
\n\nThe community doesn't usually need to understand the motivation of the person who asks a question. The question needs to stand on its own merits. Why should we care why it is asked if it is a good question which people feel is worth answering?
\n\nAs Olin has explained, some of the 'fates' make no sense. Giving the ability to mark questions as 'almost immediately deletable' is pointless because we don't want those questions. It would be better to have a 'Do not post, delete immediately' button next to the 'Post Your Question', and likely less web development work.
\n\nAlso, who would be struggling with a problem, post a question, and mark it in anyway that might reduce the chances of getting a good answer? I find that very hard to imagine. So some of the categories make no sense. There might be an argument for using a homework tag. IMHO the others are purely confusing, and detract from the existing system's simplicity and elegance.
\n\nAlso, who is better at categorising a question? The person who is stuck and doesn't understand how to answer it, or the people who propose answers, and feel knowledgable enough to vote and hence identify better or worse answers? It seems to me that the person asking the question may be the least qualified to make any value judgements.
\n\nFinally, you identified in a few of your comments questions which were downvoted then upvoted. E.g. What is the function of "Picture tube charger"? and How CRT allows use of ligh-guns or pens etc?
\n\nIt may have taken a few hours, but the results seems to have worked out fine.
\n\nThat demonstrates that the existing system, without any changes works. Further, there is no reason to believe that accurate use of your categorisations by the person asking the question would have had any effect on the community answering it, or that your categorisations might have lead to a better outcome.
\n\nFinally, it is extra development work, which, IMHO, at best makes an existing simple and effective process more complex. So you need some evidence that their is a problem to address.
\n\nYour proposal appears to either cater for types of questions we do not want, or it saves no effort for people answering questions, and it asks for a value judgement from people asking questions, when by definition they don't understand the answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "5843", "CreationDate": "2016-07-07T09:56:42.883", "Body": "I'm aware the title is rather unclear. Couldn't manage to formulate it correctly.
\n\nI actually found this question:
\n\nHalf Bridge with dual powre supply and two N-channel Mosfets?
\n\nis similar to this one, which was asked previously:
\n\nIs it possible to build an H-Bridge with only N-MOSFETs (and these other components)?
\n\nSo, naturally, I went to close it as duplicate, so we can vote, etc... Unfortunately, I forgot it, but I had already voted to close it (as unclear), before an edit was made to make it more clear (timeline). So I can't do it.
\n\nI really think it is a duplicate. Shouldn't the fact that the question has been edited be relevant, and allow me to cast a new \"close as duplicate\" vote, although I already casted a close vote before? I mean, the question wasn't formulated the same at that time, and the close reason is different.
\n\nMaybe this belongs to the main meta, as well. Not sure.
\n", "Title": "Close as duplicate *after* I voted to close before question was edited", "Tags": "|feature-request|exact-duplicates|closing|", "Answer": "Community review is purposely designed to prevent any one user from dominating the process. Therefore, each user only gets to vote on a post just once.
\n\nYes, that means that you'll sometimes get locked out in a situation like this. The most you can do at this point is to leave a comment that will guide other reviewers in the right direction. Or if you think it's urgent enough, raise a moderator flag on it and explain what the issue is.
\n" }, { "Id": "5854", "CreationDate": "2016-07-10T21:09:11.363", "Body": "The website contains many users who are skilled and know what they are doing in the field. For example if a person had to do a engineering report, is the stack exchange able to be to cited?
\n", "Title": "Can Electrical.SE be cited?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "From the Stackexchange Terms of Service page:
\n\n\n\n\nIn the event that You post or otherwise use Subscriber Content outside of the Network or Services, with the exception of content entirely created by You, You agree that You will follow the attribution rules of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license as follows:
\n \n\n\n\n
\n- \n
You will ensure that any such use of Subscriber Content visually displays or otherwise indicates the source of the Subscriber Content as coming from the Stack Exchange Network. This requirement is satisfied with a discreet text blurb, or some other unobtrusive but clear visual indication.
- \n
You will ensure that any such Internet use of Subscriber Content includes a hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site on the Network (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)
- \n
You will ensure that any such use of Subscriber Content visually display or otherwise clearly indicate the author names for every question and answer so used.
- \n
You will ensure that any such Internet use of Subscriber Content Hyperlink each author name directly back to his or her user profile page on the source site on the Network (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username), directly to the Stack Exchange domain, in standard HTML (i.e. not through a Tinyurl or other such indirect hyperlink, form of obfuscation or redirection), without any \u201cnofollow\u201d command or any other such means of avoiding detection by search engines, and visible even with JavaScript disabled.
As for how you would cite it, you would use your Style Guide's rules for a single webpage. For example, MLA Works Cited, Electronic Sources (Web Publications):
\n\n\n\n\nImportant Note on the Use of URLs in MLA
\n \n\n\nMLA no longer requires the use of URLs in MLA citations. Because Web addresses are not static (i.e., they change often) and because documents sometimes appear in multiple places on the Web (e.g., on multiple databases), MLA explains that most readers can find electronic sources via title or author searches in Internet Search Engines.
\n \nFor instructors or editors who still wish to require the use of URLs, MLA suggests that the URL appear in angle brackets after the date of access. Break URLs only after slashes.
\n \n\n\nAristotle. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 13 Sept. 2007. Web. 4 Nov. 2008. \u2039http://classics.mit.edu/\u203a.
\n
Of Course, the Creative Commons has their own suggestions for attribution.
\n" }, { "Id": "5877", "CreationDate": "2016-07-20T13:21:36.287", "Body": "I just added a \"c\" tag to make sure the code blocks are properly shown.\nSTM32 Sleep Mode: Interrupt gets executed but the CPU stays in WFI. In this case, there was plenty of room for tags, but in some cases there isn't. Also, users simply don't know that if they specify the language as a tag, their blocks will read better-- so they don't.
\n\nIs there not a better way to format code blocks that don't require us to waste a tag to specify the language. I can understand the need to specify language as a tag in a programming stack, but not here, where programming is usually a secondary issue.
\n", "Title": "Wasting a tag to properly format code", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|tags|syntax-highlighting|", "Answer": "\n\nAs always, @dim makes good points as to how to explicitly set the code formatting language.
\n\nHowever, I will also add that if you can identify a tag where a lot of coding is involved in a dominant language, you can always bring it up on Meta.EE. At that point, we (the mods) can set the default code language for a tag. Lets be sensible here, meaning no code tags for led.
\n" }, { "Id": "5880", "CreationDate": "2016-07-27T23:17:24.993", "Body": "I have more experience on Stack Overflow than EESE, and I often come across questions here that strike me as too broad, but are either left open or even have upvotes. All of the following questions seem like \"here are my requirements, design this for me\" or \"explain this massive complex topic\" questions:
\n\nHow do I design my very own ARM based processors?
\nHow do I design a current transformer?
\nHow to design blinking LEDs circuit using analog elements only?
\nHow to design mutual inductor in proteus for wireless charging?
\nhow to design a pattern detector state machine in vhdl
\nHow design a circuit to control a switch?
\nHow to program enc28j60??
\nHow to Design a State Feedback Controller using an algorithm
I can think of a couple of explanations:
\n\nI've recently started reviewing first posts here (I've been doing it on SO for a while), and I want to make sure I'm understanding this site's expectations before I make a bunch of bad reviews.
\n\nI have read over this question and its answers: Should "how to design a project" questions always be put on hold as "too broad"?. The accepted (and most upvoted) answer makes perfect sense to me, but the example questions I've listed don't appear to meet that answer's criteria.
\n\nTL;DR
\nI would appreciate some commentary on the example questions I've listed. I would like to hear which of those questions I'm correctly and incorrectly judging as \"too broad\" and why.
These are some of the guidelines that EE.SE has decided upon. If you don't want to click on the link I'll quote it below. There are also good resources on asking questions here and here
\n\n\nYou should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
\nYour questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you\u2019re asking too much.
\n
IMO there are a lot of questions that are boarderline, if the question is boarderline I think the user should be warned attempt to fix it. I suppose the question could be closed also and that could be a warning, they can always edit and reopen it. (Which a lot of people can't figure out why and just leave it closed, another portion of users try to edit their question and fail to fix the problems, these questions should stay closed)
\nThis problem happens because you have a few camps of people: Beginners and Experts, and those who participate in community and those who want an answer. It seems that there are more people who just want an answer and don't want to participate, or even format there question correctly. I think the community could be a bit more lenient in some cases, but only in cases where the question directly relates to electrical engineering. Why? because the dont ask help page also says this:
\n\n\nIf your motivation for asking the question is \u201cI would like to participate in a discussion about ______\u201d, then you should not be asking here.
\nHowever, if your motivation is \u201cI would like others to explain ______ to me\u201d, then you are probably OK.
\n
If a user were to ask a question on the latter, it would be closed. And I think explanation questions should be closed, most of the time if users 1) Do sufficient research 2) Ask a good question, then the question of closing it shouldn't even come up.
\nSome questions get past the reviewing process, I don't think there are enough people that understand the guidelines of the site, and so bad questions get answered and they should be closed to get rid of the clutter.
\n" }, { "Id": "5883", "CreationDate": "2016-07-28T21:33:31.870", "Body": "A user posted this question on Stack Overflow. I close-voted and left a comment that it felt like an electronics question. They then posted the question to SuperUser.
\n\nI asked them why they didn't post it on Electronics, which was met with:
\n\n\n\n\nThe questions I\u00b4ve looked at have nothing to do with my question, or\n does not answer it in a manner I understand (ie software developer\n perspective).
\n
Before I push for them to post to Electronics another time, I thought I'd verify that the question is on-topic and answerable. Should I continue recommending that the OP posts it here?
\n\n(Edit: if you think that it IS a software question, please let me know that too, and I'll be happy join in a re-open vote.)
\n", "Title": "Is this question on-topic for Electronics?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "No, it's really not a EE.SE question, and there's a two main reasons for it:
\n\nIn general, one should be familiar with the standards and requirements of a site they recommend migration to - just because it's off-topic on one site doesn't make it on-topic or a good question somewhere else.
\n" }, { "Id": "5885", "CreationDate": "2016-07-29T08:19:55.003", "Body": "I am wondering whether tags can legitimately be used to provide context to a question, or if they should be there only to classify the questions and ease searching.
\nAs an example, there has been this question recently: Possiblity of Using Transistor as Resistor.\nAnd here is an extract of some comments that have been made (in case they get deleted):
\n\n\npipe: Sounds like you're actually designing an IC. If that's true, you must inform us about this quite vital information.
\nOP: [...] Yes, I am designing an IC circuit for a research purpose [...]
\n[... some more comments, and some time passing ...]
\nme: I'm downvoting because it is a shame you still didn't update your question to indicate you're designing an IC. This is obviously a crucial information. Giving it in the comments is not enough. If you update your question appropriately, I'll remove my downvote.
\njbord39: dude it's been tagged IC the whole time.
\nme, falling off my chair: An IC tag? We're supposed to see that and guess it means you're designing an IC? Seriously, just add a sentence to your question.
\n
I don't think my point of view is completely broken in this specific case (except I made my last comment as if it was OP answering, but this isn't really relevant). I don't see how we could assume the integrated-circuit tag implicitly says your question is about ASIC design. But it's true that, for example, on Stack Overflow, tags are often used to indicate the relevant programming language, without mentioning it again in the question itself. And it's also true that I never think of looking at tags to check if they provide additional context information, which may be a mistake.
\nSo my questions are:
\nTags are irrelevant to the content of a question. They are for limiting search results only.
\n\nMy brain has long ago tuned them out when reading a question. If it's not in the question body (comments don't count either), it's not in the question. I'm totally with pipe in your sequence above. I wouldn't have noticed the tag either. The downvote for not adding pertinent information to the question, especially after it was pointed out, was justified.
\n" }, { "Id": "5889", "CreationDate": "2016-08-02T07:35:24.450", "Body": "Help says:\n\"You can vote 30 times per UTC day, plus 10 more times on questions only.\"\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up
\n\nWhat exactly does it mean?\nToday I have up-voted 37 times. So, I would expect to be able to up-vote questions at least.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/KmqXq.png\")
And now I am not allowed to vote for answers nor questions. Message is: \"Daily vote limit reached; vote again in 16 hours\"
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/MRPhV.png\")
Am I missing something? Or is there some bug?
\n", "Title": "up voting limit", "Tags": "|support|voting|up-votes|", "Answer": "It\u2019s not that simple. Your total vote limit is set in a complicated way such that once you see a \u201cyou have 5 votes left\u201d warning, this is correct. More specifically, the limit is set once you cast your 25th answer or total vote (there are conflicting reports as to which is true). So, to use up all your votes, you have to be sure to cast a given portion of your early votes on questions.
\n\nSee this post on the main Meta for details and join the campaign to simplify the mechanism here.
\n" }, { "Id": "5900", "CreationDate": "2016-08-05T18:26:01.157", "Body": "Does the community encourage providing links to other questions in your answers?The purpose would be to back up the statements you make,but the answer would be in a way segmented,so it doesn't stand alone.To clarify my second sentence,I will exemplify by saying that the questions are independent of comments,so if the OP has to add any sensible information,he/she should not post it as a comment.I am sure about links to other sites(not SE) are permitted,but unsure if the same thing applies to linking other questions in answers.
\n", "Title": "Question about question links", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|", "Answer": "You should not have to follow any links to understand a good answer. That said, links to pages explaining details or alternatives usually makes an answer better and more complete.
\n\nTherefore, it does not matter if you link to a question on EE.SE, an answer on EE.SE, an answer on any other website, or another external source. If your answer does not answer the question if the link goes away, it's not a good answer. Linking to a question can indeed be useful, for example to highlight differences between concepts.
\n\nIt's worth mentioning that if the question can be answered by another question on EE.SE, it may very well be a duplicate, even if it's not a 100% match.
\n" }, { "Id": "5903", "CreationDate": "2016-08-21T06:03:08.480", "Body": "I was poking around the newly designed Network Profile page, and clicked on the \"Flair\" tab. The Identicon embedded in the flair isn't the standard Identicon for my account, which is shared across each stack that I've joined.
\n\nHere's a big screenshot (click to zoom). The flair is in the lower-left corner.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/7sY4H.jpg\")
I believe they used to be the same. What's up?
\n", "Title": "Why is my \"flair\" Identicon different from my standard Identicon?", "Tags": "|discussion|bug|", "Answer": "This is an issue currently being addressed on meta site-wide. Why is there a peeking duck in my profile pic? or Moderator election ballot: Different default images for candidates or Why is my profile image different?
\n\nYou could upload a new avatar to fix it, or just wait till it's resolved site wide.
\n" }, { "Id": "5920", "CreationDate": "2016-08-31T22:27:38.813", "Body": "I couldn't make title short and to the point, just let me elaborate it:
\nWhat is the correct SE site where to ask questions like:
It would really be nice to have separate \"Product design SE\", but I suspect not many questions are out there for such thing.
\n\nBut for example I am designing electronic device and I have question about casing, like what material can I use under high temperature or pressure(just an example). I guess EE is not the best place to ask this, but where to go then? Or maybe its OK here?
\n\nHave to say I actually don't have any questions like this at the moment, but I am just curious where can I go if I will have something like this to ask.
\n", "Title": "Where to ask questions about product design outside of electronics?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "If it is related to electronic design, ask here. Things like mechanical and thermal issues of case design are on topic at engineering.SE. Some of the company management might be on topic at workplace.SE. Much of the shipping and logistics is probably not on topic anywhere here.
\n\nThere are new SE sites popping up all the time. The best thing to do is go thru the list to see what's available. That's better than us guessing about those we happen to know about. Put another way, you need to do your own homework.
\n" }, { "Id": "5941", "CreationDate": "2016-09-15T13:18:06.410", "Body": "As far as I can tell there is no private message feature between members here. I understand that, being a basic Q&A site, PMs are hardly necessary but nonetheless it could be useful for personal communication. Obviously no technical questions would be allowed to be asked in private messages, but there are a few people here with whom I would like to speak on topics not related to EE. Am I the only one? Are there any particular reasons why the creators/owners of the site have elected not to host any private messages?
\n\nIt is a feature request, but I would not be too broken up if it was turned down immediately (provided there is a solid reason not to have it). I'm just curious if this has been discussed before and if a consensus was reached. I am not finding anything about private message discussions here.
\n", "Title": "Private Messages", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "This has been discussed many times on various sites over the years.
\n\nThe answer has always been \"no\".
\n\nThe definitive answer is probably on Meta Stack Exchange from 2009 on the accepted answer to this question
\n\n\n\n\nit's about the questions and answers, not social networking. But if you want to contact someone, check their profile -- they will provide an URL or email address there.
\n
It boils down to the fact that the focus of the site is the Q&A. We always tell people to vote on the merits of the post and not on who posted it, for example.
\n\nYou can try inviting a user into chat for a discussion, but they are free to ignore that if they wish to. If a user doesn't provide contact details in their profile then you should assume that they don't want to be contacted off site.
\n" }, { "Id": "5963", "CreationDate": "2016-10-02T00:05:50.230", "Body": "This is of course subjective, but I hope it's OK on meta.
\nI've been out of EE.SE for a while and now I am reading hot last month questions, to my surprise one of the most popular questions last month was this one.
I've seen a lot \"identify component\" questions and they rarely get more than 1 upvote even after a long time (try search \"identify\"). And sometimes people ask to identify some cool stuff that you don't see often.
\n\nBut now there is question about ferrite bead with 15 upvotes and 3 favorites. I just don't get it. EE.SE was always quite stingy on upvotes and now all of a sudden this happens.
\n\nAnd yes, I know and I am genuinely happy that this post is now the first Google result for \"gray box clipped to wires\" (like Jason C mentioned in comments), but this is the consequence of upvotes, not the reason. Well, unless all upvoters knew that this will lead to that beforehand. So therefore I would want to learn why so many people decided to upvote it?
\n\nI understand that this discussion has no benefit to EE.SE, but this is quite shocking to see so many upvotes for such boring thing, while other cool stuff can consider to be lucky to have 1 upvote here. And many people before discussed the stinginess of EE.SE considering upvotes, so I thought I may be not the only one baffled by this.
\n\nOnce again, I am all for EE.SE being more upvoting community, no offense to people upvoting anything :)
\n", "Title": "Why boring questions have so much attention?", "Tags": "|discussion|up-votes|", "Answer": "Just my 2cents, from a new EE-SE user and definitively a \"non expert\" EE guy.
\n\nMany people (like me) ask question to gain some help on EE topics (...I know, this sounds trivial, but this is what all SE network is all about, isn't it?) so it is likely that \"boring\" topics for you might be \"interesting\" enough for (the noobs of) us.
\n\nThus, all the up-voting.
\n" }, { "Id": "5968", "CreationDate": "2016-10-07T08:56:08.443", "Body": "I have a highly technical question relating to converting design files from one electronics design software package to another. It's not an I.T. question and I'm not certain it fits in the electronics.stackexchange.com remit either. Although it does need the attention of electronics engineers, it's not about designing electronics. The design part is already done and dusted.
\n\nI'm reluctant to post it on electronics.stackexchange.com unless someone can reassure me it's really \"on-topic\".
\n\nWhere should I ask my question?
\n", "Title": "What is the correct SE channel to ask about an electrical engineering SOFTWARE question?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It does seem a bit odd that you're converting designs TO a software package for which you've stopped paying the support fee. (I'd be curious to know the thinking behind that decision, but that isn't relevant here.)
\n\nI would recommend that you go ahead and ask a question on EE.SE in which you mention the two software packages involved and give a brief description of the nature of your question without getting into the details. There would be a number of possible outcomes:
\n\nSomeone will express an interest in answering your question, in which case, you can edit the question to provide the details.
One or more people will offer pointers to where free support for the package can be found, in which case, you go there to ask your specific question.
The question gets downvoted and/or closed, in which case, you go ahead and delete it with no permanent harm done.
If I were to ask a question about signal and noise in home electronics, and how to debug an issue, and what possible solutions might be, would that be on-topic?
\n\nIn my mind, system-level debugging and noise in consumer electronics occupy a weird space between consumer electronics (where enthusiasts are in over their heads compared to engineers) and electrical engineering (where practitioners have a solid understanding of the fundamentals that can cause weird behavior).
\n\nAs a case in point, I've got a receiver sending a signal to a wireless transmitter to my subwoofer. Somewhere before transmission, the line is picking up an FM station at 140Hz (that's the cutoff at which the sub's low-pass filter removes the noise), but only when the receiver is off. Would it be on-topic to ask how one might debug this setup or isolate the various components from noise?
\n", "Title": "Is home electronics debugging on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Debugging of \"home electronics\" is off topic as that term is likely interpreted by most. The reason is that it usually doesn't have real electrical engineering content. For example, plugging in ethernet cables to routers and PCs isn't electrical engineering, and debugging such a setup is off topic here. \"Plug dis inta dat\" isn't electrical engineering.
\n\nFor debugging questions to be appropriate here, they have to be seriously about the electrical engineering aspect. They need to be clear about what exactly the setup is, show a proper schematic, explain what was expected, and what was actually observed.
\n\nA bug is a discrepancy between expected behavior and observed behavior. It should be obvious that it therefore takes both to define a bug, but unfortunately we get too many questions not specifying one, particularly what was expected.
\n\nSome examples:
This is a reasonably OK question. It shows a good enough schematic, and a reasonably decent attempt to describe the problem. In this case, the desired behavior is implied by the specification of \"audio amplifier\".
\n\nNote that the totally clueless nature of the circuit doesn't make this a bad question, only a rather ignorant one. It's OK to be ignorant, but never to be stupid.
\n\nDon't let this happen to you. Note the confusing hand-waving trying to describe the problem, no diagram or schematic, and very low electrical engineering content. This is more of a consumer electronics question than about electrical engineering.
\n\nThis question Use Paper as Shim for Circuit Board in 3V device got migrated to http://photo.stackexchange.com from your site.
\n\nWhile there's always debate about where a question belongs, especially if it touches on multiple subjects, I think it's clear that this question is not related to photography, just because the device is used in that field.
\n\nDid this one get migrated by accident? Can you take it back? Do you want it back? Do we have to push it back or can you \u2026 pull?
\n", "Title": "Why was this question about a shim for a pcb migrated to photo.se?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|migration|", "Answer": "I read that question as a use/repair of some sort of photographiccy thingy.
\nAs such it's off-topic here and should rightfully have been closed.
\nAs for migration - I would probably have erred on the side of SE's policy of \"don't migrate crap\".
Why is the rate for accepting answers on SE:EE so low, compared with other SE sites?
\n\nHow could users be more encouraged to hit the button and therefore help others know which answer was really helpful?
\n", "Title": "Low answer acceptance rate?", "Tags": "|discussion|users|user-interface|", "Answer": "I made a few statistics using DataExplorer on the main SE sites, and a few others sites taken randomly (from the ones I visit from time to time):
\n\n QuestionCount AnsweredCount AcceptedCount Accepted/Answered\ntex 123789 104753 75154 71.7%\nmathematics 691306 582320 365594 62.8%\nstackoverflow 12804240 11169780 6976659 62.1%\nprogrammers 42679 40457 25164 62.2%\nunix 103348 86958 50792 58.4%\nserverfault 232025 208532 117444 56.3%\nelectronics 70754 66819 37490 56.1% ***\nenglish 77106 72596 40655 56.0%\nitsecurity 34928 31910 17177 53.8%\nsuperuser 332158 271327 142278 52.4%\nworkplace 12807 12582 6429 51.1%\narduino 9063 7528 3639 48.3%\nparenting 4449 4287 2065 48.2%\nraspberry pi 15810 12206 5717 46.8%\naskubuntu 246617 195549 83889 42.9%\nWe're actually on the average.
\n\nWe're certainly not on the top, maybe for the following reasons (but that is very subjective):
\n\nNow, going back to your question: \"How could users be more encouraged to hit the button and therefore help others know which answer was really helpful?\". Actually, I think there is no real problem. The system, as it is, works well enough. The \"which answer is the most accurate?\" feedback is, anyway, mostly given by the upvotes, not the accept flag.
\n" }, { "Id": "6019", "CreationDate": "2016-11-28T15:04:14.373", "Body": "I've a problem in understanding the feedback I get, mostly from one specific reviewer (although it's not limited to him per se); I got \"This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.\" feedback numerous times:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129264\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129267\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129326\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129335\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129347
\n\nAll the edits done by me in a batch (mostly oscillator-related, because I was digging up that stuff during my research) were done in the exact same fashion I was doing for the last 5 years on SO: typography, defluffing, style corrections. Most of the times I've removed \"developer story\", salutations, added/removed missing/extraneous typographical characters or formatting markers etc.; those are IMO hardly things one would call \"not making the post even a little bit easier to read & actively harming readability.\"
\n\nI'd understand if the feedback was that \"I change the author's intent too much\" (although I don't think it was the case in any of the scenarios). What's more funny, is that the reviewer who rejected those suggestions also accepted my other ones, virtually identical in scope and extent:
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129265\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129266\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129320\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129324\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129331\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129332\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/129333
\n\nAm I completely in the dark here, or is there something wrong with the reviewer's feedback?
\n", "Title": "\"doesn't make the post even a bit easier to read\" feedback problem", "Tags": "|discussion|reviewing|", "Answer": "I've looked at all the ones you posted. Only half are legit.
\nThe most egregious. You deleted some key information. No, op was not just "trying to build an audio device". He explicitly told us what he was actually trying, Trying to Drive a Piezo Buzzer. That alone merited a roll-back of your edit, which I just did. Sure it can use some help but deleting facts is not a valid edit!
\nYou removed a nicety and a salutation. It's a push, borderline trivial edit.
\nSame as 4. You actually deleted a keyword that makes people think OP is trying to modify a commercial product instead of their own design. ALSO grammatically incomplete. You forget to edit in the adjective "A" in multiple places. Incomplete edits claiming to fix grammar make an ss out of me and you.
\nSame as 3. Same edit attempted twice.
\nYou remove the part explaining OP's experience, but not the whole fluff about not knowing electronics well. Why exactly do one but not the other? Also the Salutations.
\nApproved though:
\nSlight change to inflection, nothing bad.
\nBest edit out of all of them. You inlined the links.
\nSimple grammar edits. Good.
\nGrammar, and removed actual fluff.
\nYou added a run-on sentence but otherwise neutral edit.
\nSecond best readability edit with no content changing.
\nSimple cleanup.
\nThey are different in scope. Less content, more formatting changes. Had I seen those edits, I too would have rejected the first half, with #1 being marked as a harmful edit, the others trivial or approve/reject and edit.
\nThey approved multiple of your edits, and others agreed with rejecting some edits. Your stats show 90 approved 5 rejected, a 94.5% acceptance rate. Stop complaining about "feedback problem". You made some bad edits and they were rightfully rejected, but overall still batting 900.
\n" }, { "Id": "6034", "CreationDate": "2016-12-09T22:34:29.663", "Body": "We have a tag named superpositiontheorem which is currently on 12 questions. Tags composed of multiple words generally use hyphens between the words by convention:
\n\n\n\n\nHow to format tags
\n \n\n
\n- Use all lower case
\n- \n
Replace spaces with hyphens (-) to combine multiple words into a single word (e.g., tag \"unit testing\" as
\n \nunit-testing)...
Can we rename this tag to superposition-theorem or perhaps just superposition? Since it's only on a few questions it won't take much effort to rename it.
\n", "Title": "Rename the superposition theorem tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Seems like there's good support for this, go ahead and name it superposition.
\n" }, { "Id": "6040", "CreationDate": "2016-12-19T14:47:40.177", "Body": "I am fairly new to this forum but I am repeatably running into the same problem. This is the user who has found a formula or data on the internet which they think can be applied to a problem. They go ahead and post or quote this blindly without giving any thought to its applicability and then insist they are correct because they can refer to some web page. Can we do anything in the guidelines reputation or flagging system to discourage this behavior?
\n\nThe voting system on answers seems to address the problem there. But it does not apply to comments, Perhaps there should be a flag category a little stronger than not helpful say \"just plain wrong\". If upheld it could lead to a loss of a little reputation which might just make people think before posting spurious information.
\n\nSo far I have succeeded in remaining polite but the temptation to call some people idiots is becoming overwhelming.
\n", "Title": "Inapplicable internet information", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The internet is full of idiots, and some of them come here. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.
\n\nWhat we can do is deal with their idiotic postings. That means downvote, and usually leave a comment explaining what is incorrect. That mechanism already exists, and seems to largely work.
\n\nYour point seems to be about comments. Remember that comments aren't really content at all. They can be, and sometimes are, deleted. If there are excessive comments going back and forth, mods will usually clean out the whole lot, or sometimes move them to a chat room. That's basically the same thing because most people aren't going to follow up in a chat room to continue a tedious conversation.
\n\nIf someone writes something wrong in a comment, you can say so in another comment. Rember to use the @user syntax so that whoever wrote the original comment sees your response. If things get out of hand, flag for moderator attention and suggest the whole mess of comments should be deleted.
\n" }, { "Id": "6043", "CreationDate": "2016-12-23T17:42:26.390", "Body": "I'm not sure why the system performed this action for this one:\nWhy is the common emitter input insensitive to base width modulation?
\n\nWhat does \"this question may have good or bad answers\" mean?It looks like nobody interacted with the question in a while,so why did this happen?
\n", "Title": "Why was this question bumped to the homepage?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "The system periodically bumps questions with no accepted answer to the front page. This will appear to have been done by the \"community\" user.
\n" }, { "Id": "6046", "CreationDate": "2016-12-26T11:58:28.597", "Body": "There seems to be a user that I keep noticing answering questions with answers that are generally related to the question but only in the vaguest sense rather than specifically addressing the question at hand.
\n\nI've downvoted and flagged a few of them, though I am concerned if I start downvoting too many of them the system will assume that I am attacking the specific user. Additionally it seems that the users answers are consistently appearing as having been flagged as low quality in the moderation queue, along with several being answers to questions which are several years old and long since forgotten.
\n\nAs such I want to put it to the folk here as to whether or not my suspicions are correct, and also give the user a chance to respond if they are real (I've had no response to comments on the answers).
\n", "Title": "Possible robot user?", "Tags": "|discussion|spamming|users|", "Answer": "I'm new as well, and have sometimes felt that the community was a bit hostile. His answers look well intended.
\n\nPerhaps you could put some faith in that the up/down vote system will promote quality answers without deterring people from trying to participate?
\n" }, { "Id": "6048", "CreationDate": "2016-12-26T15:28:29.803", "Body": "As a new reviewer and trying to be a good citizen I am seeing numerous first answers to old questions which are low quality and in some cases blatant trolling.
\n\nThe ideal way to deal with this would be to mark the answer down. This costs me reputation and I am not yet at a level where I can do this without thinking of the cost.
\n\nWould it be possible to change the system so that marking down an answer within a review does not cost you reputation. My solution at the moment is simply to flag the answer which costs effort on the part of the moderators.
\n\nThe bottom line is this. Doing reviews effectively gains me nothing and costs me reputation. Why should I continue doing it?
\n", "Title": "Reputation expenditure in reviews", "Tags": "|feature-request|down-votes|", "Answer": "You will get back the reputation once the answer is deleted (either by a moderator or the user), so if you are 100% sure that the answer is inappropriate then you can go ahead and downvote, there will be a refund.
\n\nLeaving a comment is always good because the OP can improve the answer. Once the answer is edited (and turned out to be appropriate) you can remove your downvote, reputation will be refunded again.
\n" }, { "Id": "6060", "CreationDate": "2017-01-02T19:28:03.387", "Body": "How would it be if the first and second user who answers a question would gain reputation for being one of the first volunteers?
\n\nWhy implement this feature?
\n\nIt can be a reward for loyal people,for those who answer a lot especially.For a reason which I will present below,it can be quite pleasant to see that spending so much time on the site is finally appreciated.This can also be a feature for new,decent users who wish to gain points.It would be fun to race against others,too.I will explain some more.
\n\nSince EE.SE's purpose is to be a good archive of questions and answers,I have figured out that certain restriction must be part of my request.Otherwise,the message would be that the quality of the post doesn't matter,only your speed does.I propose two ways:
\n\n1st way
\n\nIn order to receive the rewards,the question should have at least 3 upvotes and the answer should have at least 2 upvotes.Only after these conditions are met will the users receive their rep:+6 for the first and +3 for the second.
\n\nBy arranging it so users will still have to their best.A rather poor question will probably not have more than 1-2 answers,but those with votes are more likely to have more.
\n\n2nd way
\n\nThe question should have at least 5 upvotes and the answer should have at least 3 upvotes.The rewarded points are the same.
\n\nI'd go for more rewarded reputation,but I want to hear some opinions instead.In the very unlikely case that the users answer simultaneously,the will get +4,regardless of the fact that they are the first or the second.The qualitative posters,active people will have another advantage.
\n", "Title": "Points for the first and second answerer", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|reputation|", "Answer": "If anything, we have the reverse problem. Twice in just the last few days, I saw a question with only one mediocre answer, wrote a good answer, and discovered that the OP had accepted the mediocre answer while I was writing mine. In both cases, that was less than one hour after the question was asked.
\n\nWe want quality, not speed.
\n\nQuality comes in part from having lots of competing answers. Your system will discourange answers after the second, because it will be more fuitful to spend time on questions that only have 0 or 1 answer. You may think of your system as encouraging fast answers, but it likeways discourages additional answers.
\n\nWho answers first also has a lot to do with what time it was around the world when the question was posted, or when someone happened to have a break and checked the site. Neither of those are related to quality, and often there is little that answerers realistically (assuming they have jobs) can do about it.
\n\nIf you want to incentivize better answers, don't allow OPs to accept one until either 24 hours have passed or there are at least 3 answers.
\n" }, { "Id": "6066", "CreationDate": "2017-01-20T18:43:02.403", "Body": "We have quite a few questions with this, https://electronics.stackexchange.com/search?q=mifare+is%3Aq, it's a particular technology people are free to fool around and with a wide professional impact,
\n\nCan we have mifare the tag? :)
To create new tags on EE.SE, you need 300 rep.
\n\nI somewhat agree a Mifare1 tag could eventually make sense. We have a few questions relating to this already. There are many many tags much less relevant than this that have been created. And there is also already a desfire tag, a iso14443 tag, etc...
\n\nBut
\n\nYou have to realize that tags here don't have the same role as on the Stack Overflow site, for example. On SO, people are using tags to filter down the questions because there are thousands of question ranging from programming (in any kind of language: mainstream or esoteric, and in any kind of environment: desktop, mainframe, mobile, embedded), to database, source control, ... anything. If there were no tags, SO would be unuseable.
\n\nOn the other hand, on EE.SE, although the range of technologies and domains is still very wide, there are much less question. Nobody would filter the questions on \"mifare\" only: you'll see four questions each year. And people who know mifare, also know how other contactless technologies work, more generally.
\n\nSo what makes sense is to choose a more general tag for your question, such as the nfc tag.
\n\nAnd it doesn't really matter if there is a mifare tag or not. For such a tiny domain (because it is just a tiny field in the whole electronics area, although I agree Mifare is widely used in corporations), if people want to search such questions, they search by text, not by tags.
\n\n1. Note to people who don't know what Mifare is: it is a protocol used for contactless smart card communication (NFC). And I agree this should have been mentioned in OP's question from the start.
\n" }, { "Id": "6072", "CreationDate": "2017-01-25T16:32:46.213", "Body": "I had ten upvotes on an answer I posted to a good question, and then the question got migrated to a site that I am not a user on. I find this rather disheartening. Why can't I keep my rep here if I am not a user on the other site? (Prompted by Nick Alexeev in response to a comment I made on another question)
\n\nI am expecting to get ripped apart for asking, so rip away.
\n", "Title": "Why does my Answer Rep go away when a Question is migrated to a site I am not part of?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Presumably, the question you answered was off-topic at this site, otherwise it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been migrated away. At least, that's what the FAQ on migration says:
\n\n\n\n\nDon't migrate for the sake of migration. We only migrate questions because they are off-topic on the original site. It is perfectly possible for a question to be on-topic on multiple sites, but that is not a reason to migrate it elsewhere. As a general rule, if someone asks a question here, and it's on-topic here, it should stay here.
\n
Normally, off-topic questions are closed and eventually deleted, along with their answers. However, since the question you answered was on-topic at another SE site, it was migrated there instead. Your rep for the answer that you managed to post before the migration went along with it — if you wish to reclaim it, you can sign up for an account at the other site.
\n\nAs Dave Tweed notes, this is how it's meant to work: you rep on any given site is meant to reflect your on-topic contributions to that site.
\n\nTo illustrate why that's how it should be, let me give a hypothetical example. I know quite a bit about programming, and currently have 32k rep on Stack Overflow. On the other hand, I know essentially nothing about Buddhism, and I don't even have an account on Buddhism Stack Exchange (even though I do have quite a few accounts on various SE sites that I've never used for anything other than flagging spam).
\n\nNow, suppose some confused user happened to ask a programming question on Buddhism.SE, and I just happened to notice it, and registered an account and answered it there before it was (closed or) migrated to SO where it belongs to. (We all know that some SO users are clueless, and will ask programming questions on any site that even vaguely looks like SO.) Let's also assume that, if nothing else, the OP managed to accept and maybe even upvote my answer on Buddhism.SE before their question was migrated, so that I gained some rep from it. In that hypothetical scenario, should I really get to keep any rep points on Buddhism.SE that I might have earned from that answer, even though it had nothing to do with Buddhism?
\n\nOf course, your actual case was (presumably) not quite so clear-cut, since you say that your answer had 10 upvotes when it was migrated, suggesting that at least some other users thought that it was both good and on-topic here. (It's also possible, of course, that the upvoters were visitors from other SE sites via Hot Network Questions, and therefore not so familiar with what's on-topic here, or that they simply upvoted your answer because it was good even though it was also off-topic, with the expectation that it would eventually be migrated to a more appropriate site.) But in any case, the basic principle holds: if the question does not belong on this site, then neither do the answers, or the rep earned from them.
\n" }, { "Id": "6074", "CreationDate": "2017-01-28T07:30:52.910", "Body": "I understand that asking questions about the choice of consumer electronics are not allowed, and with good reason. Similarly, opinion based questions otherwise too are not allowed. I would like to know whether questions asking about the best simulation software and/or practice, related to the design of electronics (such as a C-E amplifier), or electrical devices (such as a dc-dc converter- electric motor setup) allowed?
\n\nI am in conflict as to whether to ask them as they involve some opinion-related answers (as some them are commercial products), while on the other hand knowing and using simulation tools is a valuable skill for electrical engineers/hobbyists/students etc., and therefore knowing what the best tool is for the purpose beforehand goes a long way.
\n\nI have seen this question What is the correct SE channel to ask about an electrical engineering SOFTWARE question?; however that question was related to the usage of a certain software, which usually does not bring opinionated answers; while I ask about questions regarding the choice of software tools, which has the possibility of strongly opinionated answers
\n", "Title": "Can we ask what software is best for the job", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "A opinion-based question might work in our EE.SE chat. The customs are more relaxed there.
\n\n\"What software is best?\" is such a common type of question that there is a separate stack for it: Software Recommendations SE. It was established for all kinds of software, rather than electrical engineering specifically.
\n\nCombined approach: post a question to Software Recommendations SE, then go to our EE.SE chat - or other SE chats where right kinds of expertise might hang out and post a link to the question there.
\n" }, { "Id": "6077", "CreationDate": "2017-01-29T21:13:00.037", "Body": "\n\nis clearly formulated in a way that emphasizes what the programming-technical differences between GPU and CPUs are.
\n\nIt's hence a programming question, and I can't find it covered under the topics in the help center (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).
\n\nIt is especially not
\n\n\n\n\nthe writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications
\n
but it specifically is
\n\n\n\n\nProgramming software for a PC
\n
So for me, this is clearly off-topic; at the point of asking, at least 11 people seem to agree with me.
\n\nSo:
\n\nOpen basically the same question on meta.SO; closing here:
\n\n\n", "Title": "Why was this question migrated from StackOverflow to here, and can we please revert that?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|migration|specific-question|", "Answer": "12 people upvoted your comment, but only you have voted to close the question. Nobody has downvoted the question, and it has attracted reasonably high quality answers. Personally I think it's borderline as to being on-topic, so I'm letting the community decide. Comment votes don't count.
\n\nTo reject a migration, the question simply needs to be closed. That's it.
\n\nAs to it getting migrated here - that was likely done by a StackOverflow moderator. Migrations are instant, with no way to easily undo it, and no waiting for the destination site to approve. If you disagree with the question being migrated in the first place, then the proper place to complain is meta.SO.
\n" }, { "Id": "6090", "CreationDate": "2017-02-11T04:01:55.953", "Body": "When searching up on the tags, I found that there were identification and component-identification. Shouldn't component-identification be merged into identification as it already fulfills that question type?
\n", "Title": "Component Identification tag merge", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Seems like a no-brainer ... Done!
\n" }, { "Id": "6092", "CreationDate": "2017-02-11T14:01:52.970", "Body": "Hopefully this is not a duplicate, but I have some concerns about this topic, and would like to share them.
\n\nI am a relatively new active member of the community, and I saw that the \"elder\" community (like, over 10k reputation) is quite strict with the question formats. Let's take my question from few days ago:
\n\nWhy should I learn a microcontroller architecture?
\n\nI have actually quite benefitted from the answers, lots of experts have shared their experiences. I believe some other folks here have also enjoyed it, however it was put on hold for being \"opinion based\".
\n\nThe only sensible reason I could think for that is \"lots of people sharing their thoughts about topic so topic stays bumped frequently, which will keep other questions from being reviewed\".
\n\nThis site is home to many experienced engineers, and I actually want to benefit from their experiences as much as I can. And I believe this is needed more in EE, because EE subjects have steep learning curves, unlike programming for example, which you can try, fail, correct yourself and learn much faster.
\n\nHas there been any attempts to implement this kind of environment to Stack Exchange? If so, what were the repercussions?
\n", "Title": "On \"Opinion based answers\"", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange's purpose is to be an archive of well documented questions and answers and since quality is a vital factor, there are rather strict rules which should be followed by everyone.
\n\n\"Primarily opinion based\" means the answers will be mainly biased, subjective and that's not useful to the others. Technical problems, in general, demand crisp objectivity, don't you agree? There are too many things to consider in your case. It's the same as asking \"Personally, would you learn microcontroller architecture?\". There's no narrow array of solutions and it can depend on your goals. Again, too subjective , it's not going to help others. Well, it might, but by bearing in mind those who came here for the technical problems , one realises that it won't. Anyway, I mentioned why this format must restrict you like that.
\n\nIf you narrow it down to something like \"Why is microcontroller architecture vital for designing this kind of circuit\", then nobody should close your question anymore(for this reason at least).
\n\nI'm not sure what you mean by:
\n\n\n\n\nEE subjects have steep learning curves, unlike programming for example, which you can try, fail, correct yourself and learn much faster.
\n
However, you can use your technique of learning here, too. Your question didn't fit in the format, that's how it happened. Nobody stops you from correcting this issue by making sure you keep in check the next posts you write :) .
\n\nKeep calm and carry on :)
\n" }, { "Id": "6096", "CreationDate": "2017-02-14T19:15:45.433", "Body": "Can we alias the far less often used ble to bluetooth-low-energy?
\n\nFrom its 26 usages, ble is used 10 times in conjunction with bluetooth-low-energy already.
\n", "Title": "Tag alias: BLE / bluetooth-low-energy", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-synonyms|", "Answer": "Looks like a reasonable request ... done!
\n" }, { "Id": "6135", "CreationDate": "2017-03-30T19:55:20.033", "Body": "I was poking around in the help center and saw this:\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask-beta
\n\nI'm pretty sure this is left over from the EE.SE beta or chip hacker days. It doesn't look like its relevant anymore since I cant add beta questions, in that case some of the stuff in the help center should probably be revised.
\n", "Title": "Saw a link that probably isn't relavant", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "This bug has been reported on Meta.SE from January 28, 2017. I'm going to guess that it's a low-priority bug given that it hasn't even gotten an official response in 2 months.
\n" }, { "Id": "6137", "CreationDate": "2017-03-31T09:30:05.040", "Body": "Sometimes when browsing questions I see one with an edit request. It looks a bit like this:
\n\nshare edit(1) close flag\nClicking on that edit(1) takes me to a preview where I can see the edit, and possibly approve it. If I approve it, I'm greeted by a window saying:
This suggestion still needs 1 approve vote from other reviewers.
\n\nWhy? With a rep of 2000+ I can edit the question myself without having anyones approval, if I want. I don't see the point of having to wait for a second review here. Any approved edits will still show up at the top of the queue, for community review, so I don't see what type of abuse it can prevent.
\n\nI assume this is a site-wide feature, but just in case it is not, I'm posting it here in EE.SE, because I'm not sure how much every sub-site can be customized.
\n\nI captured a screenshot of the window, but it looks a little bit confusing here since it has the same style as the actual text, so I've tried to move it away from the question.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/tR66D.png\")
System wide. It's stupid, and really meant for high traffic sites like SO, but everyone is stuck with it. Why does approving an edit require more than one vote?
\n\n\nMultiple approvers are required on Stack Overflow because when only a single person did it, we had a lot of junk edits go by really quickly. Things which contributed little, things which skipped a whole lot of errors, or things that didn't even really revise the post properly. This was bad.
\nMultiple approvers thus allows some level of check-and-balance, a second pair of eyes can notice errors that were overlooked. It's certainly not a guaranteed success, but since its instantiation there have been fewer reports on Meta Stack Overflow of such problem edits getting approved.
\n
Of course you can force it with an Approve and Edit, or Reject and Edit.
\n" }, { "Id": "6139", "CreationDate": "2017-04-03T13:37:28.010", "Body": "This question was migrated to Arduino.SE but apart from that the Atmega328P happens to be on an Arduino board it has nothing else to do with Arduino regarding the problem stated in the question.
\n\nThe question itself is about USART usage on register level no Arduino library is involved.
\n", "Title": "AVR question migrated to Arduino.SE", "Tags": "|discussion|migration|arduino|", "Answer": "A good test whether a question is a arduino user-level question is whether you can replace all mention of \"arduino\" with \"microcontroller\" or \"microcontroller development board\".
\n\nIf the question still makes sense, then it's not about the arduinoness. Of course then the OP should have done the substitution in the first place to not give the impression of a arduino-specific question. When \"arduino\" is mentioned, particularly in the title, then you can't really blame people for closing or migrating without looking at it more closely.
\n\nOn the other hand, if the question makes no sense without specifically mentioning \"arduino\", then it's about the arduinoness and doesn't belong here.
\n\nThe question you linked to fits into the second category. Especially considering code was shown, it doesn't make sense outside the arduino context. It was correctly migrated.
\n" }, { "Id": "6148", "CreationDate": "2017-04-07T14:23:09.233", "Body": "I am not sure if i am asking in the right place however, i'd just like to know this information.
\n\nI have completed a question and have calculated an answer however there is no way for me to know if the gained answer is accurate or if i have a flaw in the method, can i post for users to verify the method? would like to prevent being marked down.
\n", "Title": "Can you post worked Electrical questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I wouldn't want to do homework for other people, it deprives them of valuable learning. I've even seen a few people posting exam questions and even one question that appeared to be an in class quiz question of a snapshot of the board where the OP was asking for a quick solution (presumably before the quiz was done. These types of questions are offensive to me, because a student shouldn't be only concerned with the end result (the answer) but should be interested in the process of learning and how to come up with the correct answer.
\n\nIf your going to post any question, make sure you take the time to format it and put some thought into it, instead of posting a question right out of the book\\assignment.
\n\nHowever if you have a homework problem and prove that your working on it and your stuck I don't have a problem with answering that type of question provided that you've shown your attempt. SE is a site for students:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6151", "CreationDate": "2017-04-09T15:00:15.137", "Body": "This site is for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts. We ask and answer questions about electrical and electronics engineering topics, which include electronics, physical computing, and those working with microcontrollers, Arduinos and embedded systems.
\n
I think we should merge quartus and quartus-ii tags. Both refer to FPGA/ASIC design software from Altera. Quartus II has been around since about 2003, and recently (since version 15.1) was re-branded to Quartus Prime. I've never seen older versions of Quartus (without the \"II\").
\n\nIn any case, most features of the software remained similar throughout the years, so I believe that questions about it would benefit from being kept together. IMO the most reasonable thing to do is to keep quartus and make quartus-ii its synonym, but I'm sure there are more experienced users here which know what is the right thing to do.
\n", "Title": "Merge [quartus] and [quartus-ii] tags?", "Tags": "|support|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "I second the vote for yes. Given that it has been Quartus II since at least 2002 (possibly earlier), there is really no difference between the two.
\n\nI'm not sure if it was necessary or not, but I added quartus-ii as a suggested tag synonym of quartus.
\n" }, { "Id": "6159", "CreationDate": "2017-04-12T16:50:43.273", "Body": "Its homework time, seeing as how most universities are approaching finals week. As of late I've seen a few questions that are homework with an attempt in the VTC bin. Historically we have talked about closing homework with no attempt as off topic but what do you do about homework with an attempt?
\n\nI think that these type of questions are fine as long as people put some kind of effort into solving them.
\n", "Title": "Closing homework questions with an attempt", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'm not sure we need a fixed policy. You recognize bad questions when you see them. You recognize lack of effort when you see it.
\n\nThe question you first link to is simply a bad question, homework or not. \"Can you check my work?\" Is not a valid question. If the poster took the time to explain what he was confused about, where his doubts of his work were, and what concepts he was having trouble with, that would make it a very good question, instead of a fairly bad question -- whether it was homework or not.
\n\nRubber Duck explanations are the posters' friends.
\n" }, { "Id": "6169", "CreationDate": "2017-04-18T19:43:48.310", "Body": "I'm surprised to see that this question How to roughly know if a electronic scheme will fail soon and protect from it? has been put on hold as primarily opinion-based.
\n\nIt could (maybe) have been put on hold as too broad, because the OP could've narrowed more the question. But, in any case, it's clear to me that the question can be objectively answered within the framework of RAMS engineering, a very specific expertise field.
\n\nThe OP was asking (maybe without knowing the exact technical terms) two things:
\n\nIs there any reliability data (MTTF, failure rate...) available for Raspberry Pi and/or similar SBCs?
How can I calculate the MTTF (mean time to failure) and then the MTTM (mean time to maintenance) so I can preemptively replace the boards before a failure?
This is not the realm of \"almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise\". It's 100% reliability engineering.
\n\nWould it be worth if a moderator corrected this situation? Or, alternatively, what changes needs the question in order to be reopened?
\n\nAdditional note:
\n\nI was really curious about what could other people with RAMS background answer to the OP's question. I'm here to volunteer, but also to learn. That could have been a good question for someone with firmware/software RAMS background to step in. My answer was focused just in the hardware aspects of RAMS.
\n", "Title": "Question about RAMS engineering closed as \"opinion-based\"", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|", "Answer": "In addition to the actual reasons for this question being closed, as given by the other answers, it's also worth noting that the voting system is not without its own flaws. Sometimes questions are not closed fast enough, and sometimes they are closed too quickly. In this case, you identified a question that was treated unfairly in one way or the other, notified the \"proper authorities\", the question was re-opened, and arguably the system worked.
\n\nThe problem as I see it is that when I review questions that are nominated for closure, I'm already biased: \"This is a bad question, someone has nominated it, or someone else have voted\". For a reviewer (at least for me!), this makes it easier to lean toward adding your close vote instead of using the equally important Leave Open button:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrcIX.png\")
I probably use it less often than I should. It is something I have been thinking of more, the longer I've had the option to vote.
\n" }, { "Id": "6173", "CreationDate": "2017-04-21T14:08:52.027", "Body": "I have some questions about \u00b5C and DSP programming but I don't know where these kind of question belong? Pure programming question belong to \"stackoverflow\" forum but DSP and \u00b5C are related to \"Electronic engineering\" forum.
\n\nDoes \"Electronic engineering\" include low-level, embedded and real-time programming?
\n", "Title": "Where does \u00b5C programming belong?", "Tags": "|support|asking-questions|", "Answer": "Low-level programming, especially programming related to interfacing with external circuits is very appropriate for EE. Topics related to real-time systems are also appropriate. We also handle some DSP here, but there's also a separate DSP.SE for the more application-specific questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "6179", "CreationDate": "2017-04-25T10:21:05.597", "Body": "This user has been vandalising (but not deleting) his/her own questions. He/she has edited the questions, wiped out the title and all the text, and replaced it with \"deleted question\".
\n\nIs there any policy in place regarding this kind of behaviour? Is it allowed at all?
\n\nI've rolled back all the vandalising edits, out of respect for the users that took the time to answer, and then flagged one of the questions for moderator attention. But I don't know if this is the right thing to do.
\n", "Title": "User vandalising (but not deleting) his/her own questions. What to do?", "Tags": "|discussion|deleted-questions|", "Answer": "No, this isn't acceptable, as posted content belongs to the site once posted here. Questions should only get deleted if they are bad or violate site rules.
\n\nWhen vandalism like this happens, you need to flag one of the vandalized posts for diamond moderator attention.
\n\nYou could of course rollback the posts, but then you might end up in some rollback-war against the poster. And there can be other reasons why posts get vandalized by the author, such as a hijacked account.
\n\nThe best thing to do is to let the moderators deal with the issue as whole.
\n" }, { "Id": "6186", "CreationDate": "2017-04-28T04:50:42.407", "Body": "The moderation system shuts down questions like these:
\n\nCan I connect a button on my motorcycle to the main button on a garage door remote?
\n\nModding my laptop, is 5v to 12v step up module safe for motherboard?
\n\nI'm sure there are scad's of these types of questions.
\n\nBecause they are more of DIY questions they get shut down, what kind of self respecting engineer would want to answer a question as basic as switches.
\n\nYet from the help center:
\nConsumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones, except when designing these products or modifying their electronics for other uses
So either the moderation community needs to be more lenient or we need to stop advertising that we'll answer these types of questions.
\n", "Title": "Are modifying electronic questions on topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The help page says
\n\n\n\n\nElectrical Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site\n for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students,\n and enthusiasts.
\n
It doesn't say \"...for people who want to do stuff that has to do with electronics but don't know how to go about doing it.\"
\n" }, { "Id": "6202", "CreationDate": "2017-05-08T09:52:19.947", "Body": "I am trying to see the first revision of this post.
\n\nWhen I click one the 1 to unroll the text, an image with three 'loading' dots ... appears.
After a couple of seconds, a message appears in the developer console saying an HTTP 500 in jquery.min.js:4:
GET https://electronics.stackexchange.com/error?aspxerrorpath=/revisions/28255/ad5f0b0a-ec48-4f45-bc3a-11dc3fc33832/diff 500 ()\nI was interested in seeing the first review to better understand why the post became community wiki.
\n\nI have the same problem with the 2nd review. The 3rd one works great.
\n\nI'm attaching screenshot.
\n\nIs this a bug ?
\n\n![\"screenshot\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QJtVE.png\")
Related: Can not get to suggested edits review page
\n\nThere were nonstandard HTML tags used in such a way that the rendering engine gets very unhappy. The original version and probably the diff'd version 2 are probably affected. If you want to see the original content, the \"source\" tab shows it.
\n\nHonestly, I don't remember the reason it was turned into a community wiki, I think the current consensus is that it should be used incredibly selectively.
\n" }, { "Id": "6206", "CreationDate": "2017-05-12T02:01:37.970", "Body": "If I were to have hard questions regarding circuit design, where would be the best places to go for help?
\n\nFirst things that come to mind are co-workers and stackexchange. Sometimes co-workers don't know the answer. Stackexchange is great and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the best option.
\n\nIs it inappropriate for me to consult my past professors now that I am a professional? My questions are related to projects at work, but I am mostly curious for myself as an engineer.
\n\nAny other resources I am missing?
\n\nThanks
\n", "Title": "What are the best places to go for engineering help as a professional?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Once you're out of school and have a real job doing engineering, the first thing to do for answers is a little digging on your own. The trick is not to look for the specific answer to your immediate problem, but to learn more about the concept being applied. Nowadays there are good papers and write-ups on just about every topic out there.
\n\nOf course finding them isn't always so easy. Many search terms cough up lots of extraneous hits, and then modern search engines are getting more and more cluttered with ads. Try different ones. Don't just go for Google all the time. For example, I start with Bing more often lately, although that's gotten more ad-infested over just the last few months too.
\n\nPosting the specific problem here on EE.SE is reasonable once you've made a attempt to learn about the concepts behind it. First, think about the problem clearly and what exactly the issue is. Then post a clear and concise question. If it takes more than half a page of text to describe, then you haven't thought about the real problem clearly enough. Go back and think again.
\n\nAfter you've done some learning on your own and you still can't figure out what's going on or how to attack a problem, ask a senior engineer you work with. That's not their main job, but is part of it. The job of any senior engineer does or should include mentoring junior engineers. If you have a history of first trying to learn up on the topic, then asking when you get stuck, you'll probably find most of them are eager to help you and guide you to the solution.
\n\nIf you are a junior engineer that isn't working with at least one senior engineer, get out of there now. Learning from someone senior is a important part of your education and career development. Engineering school was just the start. Mostly you learn theory there, with some practical experience from side projects to help put the theory in context. Almost never is there any formal training in realities of engineering in a production environment where something is made in high volume, cost of field failures have to be considered, etc.
\n\nWhen you do engineering professionally, you also have to keep the cost/benefit of various ways for you to solve the problem in mind. Your employer needs good return on the substantial cost of keeping you around. A few hours here and there learning about concepts relevant to your job is acceptable and even expected. However, wasting two days wondering why your processor keeps randomly resetting when the senior engineer could have spotted the problem in half a minute is not in the company's best interest. Of course constantly interrupting the senior engineer with trivial stuff that saves you 5 minutes each time and costs him 10 minutes in interruption and broken thought process is not in the company's best interest either. It's also a good way to get yourself canned by having the senior engineer tell the boss you're a moron behind your back.
\n\nIn any case, no, contacting past professors about a technical problem at your new job is not appropriate. It's not their job to teach you anymore. They need to spend their time on the next batch of students they are getting paid to teach. College doesn't come with a lifetime free support contract. Also, professors are usually very good at the theory, but too often amazingly clueless about real world engineering.
\n" }, { "Id": "6214", "CreationDate": "2017-05-23T18:45:57.580", "Body": "I saw several question about homework with absolutely no proof of attempt these days. I wonder if these question deserve a flag? If yes, which one? None of the actual flag fit for this need.
\n\nAs said WesleyLee in the comment section of this post,
\n\n\n\n", "Title": "Which flag to use for no attempt on homework question?", "Tags": "|support|feature-request|flagging|", "Answer": "At first looks like \"low quality\", but this question would be\n salvageable if OP edits his attempts in. And \"in need of moderator\n intervention\" seems a bit too dramatic. I really don't know
\n
That's only an issue for users with rep < 3,000. I can see that your rep is currently some 1,000 and that's probably why you're asking yourself about this. I had this very same doubt until I got beyond the 3,000 rep mark.
\n\nThat's what I did then and what I do now:
\n\nWhen I had rep < 3,000 I just downvoted the question and hoped that a higher rep user saw that as a signal and closed the question himself. There are a lot of users with rep > 3,000 in EE.SE, and they pull they trigger fairly quick when a bad homework question comes in. Sometimes I also flagged it as \"unclear what you're asking\".
Now that I have rep > 3,000 I can add off-topic reasons (which also automatically adds a comment to the question, very convenient), an option unavailable if you're below that mark. See the screenshot below. That's what I use for this kind of questions when I'm the first user voting to close. Other users prefer to vote to close as \"unclear what you're asking\", and sometimes I use that option if the question already has 3-4 closing votes, just to avoid messing up too much.
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/15eT4.jpg\")
However, all of these are just guidelines, personal preferences or unwritten rules at best. I would also like to see a dedicated \"homework attempt with no solution attempt\" off-topic flag. It would be a convenient feature for users under 3,000 rep, and would also send a clearer message to users incurring in this kind of off-topic.
\n" }, { "Id": "6217", "CreationDate": "2017-05-23T23:10:28.980", "Body": "The answerer to a certain question had this to say when the questioner edited his question to make some clarifications;
\n\n\n\n\nThe above was written in response to the original question, which made\n no mention of this mouse not being USB. Since pretty much all new mice\n have been USB for a decade or more, it was reasonable to answer in\n that context. When you ask about something unusual, it's your\n responsibility to make that clear.
\n
Above this paragraph was a good answer for USB mice - and below it a good answer for non USB. This whole paragraph doesn't add any value to the question and exists only to berate the asker.
\n\nSo I edited it out, and the edit got accepted. He just reverted the edit, presumably because he thinks that the asker should be publicly shamed instead of just letting him learn.
\n\nOn stack overflow (my main community) this sort of stuff would not stand - but I was wondering how this community dealt with it if at all.
\n", "Title": "Does this community have an official stance on entire paragraphs of an answer devoted to berating the asker?", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|", "Answer": "Sometimes I would like to vote on a question while reviewing close votes.
\n\nI can already edit the question and add a comment from the same page. Is there a particular reason for the vote functionality being hidden in that view?
\n", "Title": "I want to vote on questions in the Close Votes review queue", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "Self-answering this based on a comment by Nick Alexeev.
\n\nThis is a site-wide decision, and the rationale behind it is explained in the answers to two StackExchange meta questions:
\n\nEssentially it boils down to:
\n\n\n\n\nThe core philosophy here is that each queue focuses on a specific task or question, and provides the tools most important for resolving it.
\n
and
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6221", "CreationDate": "2017-05-25T16:28:48.510", "Body": "You're given a subset of questions (generally skewed toward the worst) without a chance to even read the answers, and may indeed be predisposed to voting when you don't really have a strong opinion on the contents of the post.
\n
This question: \"What makes a computer a computer? [closed]\" has been put on hold.
\n\nThe original poster was unable to ask their question in a format suitable for this medium but I think the implied question - What is the difference between ASICs/micro-controllers and computers? - can be addressed to add value.
\n\nWhile more specific, this question: \"Is BeagleBone Black a microcontroller or computer?\" is along the same lines but I feel fails to address some of the theoretical components.
\n\nI have written an answer - referencing Alan Turing's model for computation and the critical differences between memory management between micro-controllers and computers that I think could elucidate the subject (i.e. without an MMU microcontrollers lack support for crucial paradigms like processes, dynamic linking, and protected memory that most programmers use to reason about computers).
\n\nI would normally include this in a comment but as a low rep user I am unable to do so, nor am I able to direct message the poster.
\n\nDo I have any recourse?
\n", "Title": "How to provide input to questions on hold as a low rep user", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Hopefully not.
\n\nThe point of closing a question is to prevent bad questions getting the desired result. Unfortunately, there are always some who either don't care about the site quality or put their own personal looking smart ahead of it. As a result, we have to lock them out.
\n\nThose very new here are much more likely to not get how this site works, and blunder around making a mess or otherwise defeating the quality mechanisms. We therefore try to limit what newcomers can do before they become more in tune with the site mechanics.
\n\nRep is used as the measure of how much we trust you to deal responsibly with these issues. It's not perfect, but reasonable enough. To put it bluntly, you only have 18 rep, so we don't want you doing these things because we don't trust you to do them right.
\n\nThe solution is not to look for ways around this system, but to learn the site and its customs. That comes with time and experience here, measured in rep. There are quite a lot of privileges that you earn at various rep levels. The system isn't perfect, but works well enough. Whatever one thing you want to add to that question is immaterial in the larger scheme of things. We'll be fine without it.
\n\nSo go answer some questions or ask some good question yourself. You'll get more rep and access to more privileges. By that time, you'll hopefully understand how this site works, and what you do with those privileges will be beneficial to the site.
\n" }, { "Id": "6225", "CreationDate": "2017-06-05T17:26:46.423", "Body": "After asking a question on EE forum concerning an aspect of my home project, I figure out that some peoples were interested by what I am planning to do. And maybe those people want to follow the project, to see how it grows.
\n\nSo I thought that it may be a good idea to create a kind of new feature where people could deposit some file, introduce the project, explain what they are doing and why. Other people could ask the project owner about a specific part of the code, schematic, or overall system.
\n\nIt doesn't look like anything existing on stack exchange so I'm pretty sure that won't be possible.. But still, I think it's a good idea :)
\n", "Title": "Project deposit feature", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "Keep in mind that EE.SE is just a sub site of stackexchange programming time is split between all of the sites, its not likely that you'll get a new feature as it needs to work for most of the sites and needs to be maintained
\n\nWhat little of the sites that did have blogs have now had that feature removed because they were not used.
\n\nYou might want to poke around on the stack exchange meta to learn how things work globally.
\n" }, { "Id": "6248", "CreationDate": "2017-06-19T08:29:57.387", "Body": "There's a significant amount of questions\u00b9 of the type:
\n\n\n\n\nHere's a {LED driver|amplifier|inverter|\u2026} circuit I found on some website, explain how it works, or why we need {component}?
\n
Problems with that are that
\n\nNow, I consider these to be questions of especially low quality for the following reasons:
\n\nSo, of course, I can downvote such a question (which I think is the common thing we do for \"bad question, do some research\"), but I'd rather have a clear help page/rule entry that points out why exactly people shouldn't ask these.
\n\nNow: How do we want to approach such questions?
\n\nI'm slightly leaning towards the third option, as it's the clearest.
\n\nI think we already have the tools to handle these questions. As with any broad class of questions, there is quite a range from How do I increase the gain of this amplifier:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/om6pT.gif\")
To What's the purpose of C2 in this audio amplifier:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SeBIo.gif\")
The first is just random garbage thrown at us, whereas the second is a legitimate question with good opportunity to teach some electronics in the answers.
\n\nThe first needs to be closed for the nearest handy reason (I'd probably pick too broad, but it really doesn't matter) and downvoted because the OP clearly didn't do any research at all, and just copied some mess he found in a dark corner of the internet somewhere.
\n\nSo as with all these things, the answer is it depends, and it's a judgement call each time. It's hard to come up with a clear rule, but I'll know it when I see it.
\n\nBroadly, we don't want whole circuits the OP doesn't understand dumped on us. However, explaining details of how a circuit works, what it does, why particular components were chosen, what the criteria for choosing the components are, etc, can be good questions.
\n\nOf course no matter what else, these question need to be written with a little care, no sloppiness, and the schematics must also be neat, readable, and follow common conventions.
\n\nWhen the first thing I see is a wiring diagram instead of a schematic, I downvote on principle, refuse to read the text, then vote to close as unclear since without reading the text I don't know what is being asked. The same holds true for anything else that makes a question annoying to read and is just wasting the time of the volunteers here.
\n" }, { "Id": "6252", "CreationDate": "2017-06-20T20:31:22.943", "Body": "In my case, I want to ask about IIR, but as algorthim and the math involved in it, not as circuits.
\n\nIs it OK to ask about it here?
\n", "Title": "Algorithms based on signal handling and systems are acceptable here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Yes, but you'll probably get better answers on DSP.SE.
\n" }, { "Id": "6259", "CreationDate": "2017-07-09T11:15:15.040", "Body": "Let's suppose that a certain user makes me wonder if he/she should be trusted or not and I wish to discuss this on meta. Perhaps some people would recommend flagging right away, but the idea is that I'm not sure if the person in question is doing something wrong.
\n\nHowever, if I decide to make a post that implies some sort of public shaming, which is not quite right. How should I address such situations? Can one talk about such a thing here without problems?
\n", "Title": "Discuss a user's behaviour without making \"name and shame\" happen", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You are overthinking this. Everything anyone writes here is public. If they don't want something pointed out and talked about, they should have thought of that before posting it publicly.
\n\nIf you want to discuss any particular passage, regardless of who wrote it, link to the source question or answer here, and ask what you want to ask. If the part you want to ask is small enough, copy it into the question here, but still provide a link to the question or answer it appeared in so others can look at context.
\n\nIf you object to something that was written, object to the post, not the user.
\n" }, { "Id": "6263", "CreationDate": "2017-07-12T13:07:45.157", "Body": "I'm quite surprised to see this answer go, especially with a "spam or rude/abusive" epitaph on its grave. From what I can see, the last revision of the answer had 24 upvotes, 2 downvotes and looked like this:
\n\n\nIt can be done, with a few precautions.
\nDon't put them in the same bed with, especially when the batteries are charged.
\nDon't put them in the upper bed, especially if the bed isn't sturdy.
\nDon't heat them up when you sleep with them.
\nBe careful about leaky or old batteries. Acid spill can be bad.
\nI would also recommend against sleeping with them when they are being charged with or discharged at high current levels.
\nIt is generally safer to store them away from your bed, preferably in a acid resistive isothermal chamber.
\n
Regardless of the usefulness of the answer, I believe that having a history of content deleted as abusive is a pretty strong black mark against the account (involving rate limits for questions, answers and comments and more CAPCHA) which the user doesn't seem to deserve.
\nOr did I miss something that happened behind the scenes?
\n", "Title": "Why was this answer deleted as rude/abusive?", "Tags": "|discussion|spam|", "Answer": "Yes, you're missing some information. This particular user has only been with us for 5 months, but has had an unusually high number of issues raised against him. He's having a hard time fitting in here, and this is just one more problem among many. The moderators are trying to manage the situation as best we can.
\n" }, { "Id": "6285", "CreationDate": "2017-07-30T05:51:50.207", "Body": "I have read many application/design notes, data sheets and lectures and other stuff about electronics. But when I come to real application I find many components that I don't why they are used(e.g phone charger).
\n\nI am working for 2 years, in a new product development department, we have no seniors to give us much information. The products we are developing are commercial. We have not copy other products circuits, but we want to gain the knowledge.
\n\nSo if I did a reverse engineering and obtain the schematics then want to ask a question (in forum like this one) I have to include the detailed schematics as not to get no answer or negative votes.
\n\nIsn't this violate the proprietary/patent rights?
\n", "Title": "Electronics circuit reverse engineering and proprietary rights", "Tags": "|discussion|legal|", "Answer": "There are a lot of ways this type of question can go wrong. I think it needs to meet these qualifications:
I vote to close a question immediately when information is missing. That starts the process, so you have to respond quickly before too many others see it and agree there is missing information.
\n\nFunny. Though it hurts a lil. :D
\n", "Title": "I downvoted an answer today and that downvote shows to have deducted my reputation by 1. Why?", "Tags": "|support|bug|reputation|down-votes|", "Answer": "Another way to look at it is, once you've earned a few hundred reputation points, you can spend those hard-earned points moving bad answers down.
\n\nDownvoting bad questions is free, but downvoting a bad answer costs you one rep point. (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (This only applies to the main site, not the meta site.)
\n\nAs a practial matter, those rep points are only good for unlocking priviledges (everyone's a moderator, to some degree) and perhaps placing a bounty on the rare overlooked gem of a question that needs more attention.
\n\nStill, I know what you mean, the first time I got downvoted on an answer years ago, I \"quit\" for a week. Then after I calmed down a bit I went back and fixed my answer (which actually was indeed flawed). Since then I've learned to double-check my answers before posting. Engineer types do thrive on carefully-tuned negative feedback.
\n\nCan't find the quote, I think it was either Joel Spolsky or Jeff Atwood; when you put a number next to sombody's name, they tend to do whatever they can to make that number increase...
\n" }, { "Id": "6291", "CreationDate": "2017-08-05T18:23:53.233", "Body": "I'm tired of seeing bumps made by community. It's always questions made by one-timers making an account, receiving answers and leaving forever without accepting an answer. Many of those questions have answers that do solve the question asked, but because the person who asked the question has left the building and will never come back the right answer will never be accepted.
\n\nIs there any way to introduce some flag for answers that do solve the question asked? I don't have enough reputation to vote to close so I don't know exactly how that procedure works, but can there be something similar for an answer like \"Vote to accept\"?
\n\nI'm not aware of how much authority our moderators have, so this question might be all in vain, but there must be some way to get rid of the questions with answers? Right now I'm avoiding questions bumped by community.
\n", "Title": "Vote for an answer to become accepted", "Tags": "|feature-request|flagging|", "Answer": "Can we add an additional reason for voting to close a question, i.e. \"No answer accepted within 90 days\"?
\n\nIf the question is a good one and worth keeping, it could be asked again by someone, answered by them and accepted and the original deleted.
\n\nI take the point that only the OP can say if their question has been answered, but if enough people consider that it has, it's probably more likely that the OP hasn't asked the right question in the first place.
\n" }, { "Id": "6301", "CreationDate": "2017-08-10T20:58:00.440", "Body": "What should we do with the 12V and 24V tags?
\n\nI can't see a reason to group questions with the same voltage because many different types of circuits could be defined by either voltage.
\n\nWe seem to have people relating this most to automotive applications due to tag descriptions, but if you look at the questions listed, they have automotive or battery applications or even solar. Someone could be designing a circuit with a 12V Vcc and throw that on the 12V tag.
\n\nI think these tags should be deleted. The questions in each tag are smattered with different unrelated subjects.
\n\nPeople should come up with a tag for their specific application, if its automotive, then they should use an automotive tag. If its a battery tag, then use the battery-charging or battery-operated tag.
\n\nI checked the 5V and 3.3V tags before I wrote this, but they actually have titles. However, if we were to change the 12V and 24V tags we should look at them also. At least the 3.3V and 5V tags have titles and seem to be associated with level shifting:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Questions regarding 5V level signals, level-shifting, and circuits.\"
\n
3.3V has the same thing:
\n\n\n\n\n\"Questions regarding 3.3V level signals, level-shifting, and circuits\"
\n
instead of an ambiguous title like the 12V and 24V.
\n\nI don't know if I'd get rid of the 3.3V or 5V tags as they actually have a title (although I'd be much happier if we split those tags into something more meaningful, like 3.3V-CMOS or 5V-usb power ect) or just kill them also.
\n\nAgain the voltage level has little to do with the question if you look at the other tags associated with the 3.3V and 5V tags.
\n", "Title": "Delete the 24V, 12V, (and maybe 5V, 3.3V) tags and discontinue use of tags associated with a voltage", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "I don't think the voltage is important enough to be a tag - yes, it should generally be specified in the question, but asides from maybe high-voltage (over 50-60 volts), I don't think there is much benefit from having those as tags (even 3V3 and 5V), as most devices have a tolerance range, i.e. maybe 4.5-6.5V and 4.75-5.25V would both be classified \"5V\", but those are a bit different and the nuance is better explained in the question rather than via tags - especially when you get into \"automotive 12v\" which generally means devices can handle spikes up to ~18V, but if you have a more sensitive 12V device, such as maybe a router or a switch, it's unlikely to be as robust.
\n" }, { "Id": "6302", "CreationDate": "2017-08-13T18:20:45.677", "Body": "I wanted to draw a circuit and export it to a PDF for a university project. I found out about them by a link on this site. When I tried to print, it says
\n\n\n\n\nYou must save your circuit before exporting.
\n
When I tried to save, it says
\n\n\n\n\nError: create an account to get started.
\n
Ok, if doesn't cost anything, why not? I'm disappointed about what happened when I created the account and tried it again, though
\n\n\n\n\nAn active Circuit Lab membership is required to save circuits.
\n
Man, that's gross. I understand that \"to get started\" does technically not mean \"in order to save\". But why do they need to trick their users with nifty word games? This is a well known bait technique, usually applied in marketing to promise things for no charge. I did not expect Stack Exchange to link to such a fraud site.
\n", "Title": "Please stop the account-bait with circuitlab", "Tags": "|discussion|circuitlab|", "Answer": "I think this falls to the realm of UX. You expect to have the ability to save your work, by default, while they are not. This expectation may come from the fact (I think so) that most web services allow you to save when you have an account. However, not doing so is absolutely acceptable. The thing to \"blame\" is the popularity of free saving feature of other web services.
\n\nHowever, I do share with your frustration.
\n" }, { "Id": "6314", "CreationDate": "2017-08-20T09:25:41.000", "Body": "As a normal user, sometimes my peripherals don't work as expected. Here is the question I want to ask:
\n\n\n\n\nI have a PS3 controller, but my computer doesn't recognize it when plugged in for the first time for a couple of hours or more not using it. However it recognize the controller after replugging it. Since in theory it shouldn't be like that, I wonder what is happening.
\n
It's on-topic on Super User, but seems to be poor-received (example: What makes keyboard suddenly stop working when BIOS is loading?). There is a peripheral tag on this site, but the questions there seems to have more technical knowledge than I have. From What topics can I ask about here?, it is not clear that this kind of question explicitly be on-topic, but IMO it doesn't fall on the off-topics:
\n\n\n\n\nThis site is for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts. We ask and answer questions about electrical and electronics engineering topics, which include electronics, physical computing, and those working with microcontrollers, Arduinos and embedded systems. We feel the best Electronics Design questions have a schematic, links to pertinent datasheets or some source code in them, but if your question generally covers \u2026
\n \n\n
\n \n- a specific electronics design problem
\n- the theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n- a communication scheme
\n- the writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications
\nand it is not about \u2026
\n \n\n
\n- a shopping or buying recommendation
\n- consumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones, except when designing these products or modifying their electronics for other uses
\n- Programming software for a PC
\n
Would question asking for reasons and fixes on peripherals be on-topic here? If yes, will it be well-received?
\n", "Title": "Would questions about peripherals asking in user perspective be on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|scope|", "Answer": "Questions about use are off-topic.
\n\n\n\n\nQuestions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site is intended specifically for questions on electronics design.
\n
Questions about repair are off-topic.
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6317", "CreationDate": "2017-08-20T18:19:27.260", "Body": "Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. See also: Is asking on how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?
\n
I asked a question about surge protectors on diy.stackexchange.com (Link to the question) and did not receive an answer. I assume the reason is the lack of sufficient expertise on that site. So I was thinking of asking it here.
\n\nWould it be on topic here since it relates to electronics, or would it be off topic because it's not technical enough?
\n", "Title": "Are questions about consumer electronics such as this on topic here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Posting that question to DIY.SE was the right decision on your part. If you posted it to EE.SE, it would get migrated to DIY.SE. The EE.SE members are good with principles and design, but an electrician would be better with knowledge of the building codes.
\n\nOther than that, you can post a link to your DIY.SE question into our EE.SE chat.
\n" }, { "Id": "6340", "CreationDate": "2017-09-01T20:09:38.297", "Body": "The tags esc (113 questions) and speedcontroller (89 questions) are essentially the same thing, and both poorly named (cryptic or unhyphenated). I propose that they should be merged/synonymized, perhaps to something like speed-controller or motor-controller, but in any case there should not be two tags.
\n\nI'm bringing this up on meta because they both have a substantial number of questions, and neither one is a good name for a mere synonym proposal, so it seems worth moderator action. (I have been trying to remove controller, an ambiguous tag whose own excerpt says it shouldn't be used, and a significant fraction of its uses are about motor controllers.)
\n\nCaveats:
\n\nThe speedcontroller excerpt claims that it could be used e.g. for devices which control fuel flow to an engine. This seems unlikely to be useful or used.
It might make sense to make further distinctions:
\n\nand arguably esc might mean one of those, but I don't think it is consistently used that way, and I think there should be a tag that suits all-kinds-of-motor-controllers since they have common elements.
I'm inclined to make the tag motor-controller and merge both esc and speedcontroller into it. I'm not sure that the distinction between BLDC and brushed DC motors is useful in the tags, but I'm open to corrections.
\n\nUpdate:
\n\nTags esc, speedcontroller, andspeed-controller have been merged together. They all have synonyms to motor-controller.
\n" }, { "Id": "6349", "CreationDate": "2017-09-20T15:39:10.513", "Body": "I would like to ask a question about CPU design; I am no sure whether it belongs on this site or not. It is at an architecture level, rather than at the level of transistors and other components.
\n\nWhere would the appropriate place be to ask a question about CPU design?
\n", "Title": "Where to ask about processor design", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Look into the stacks which Dave had mentioned. If you find that EE.SE would be a good fit, you're welcome to give it a try. If it turns out that some other stack is a better fit, we'll benignly migrate your question there.
\n" }, { "Id": "6352", "CreationDate": "2017-09-21T10:52:13.547", "Body": "My question is regarding a mod-deleted answer to: Digital Logic circuit - exam question. In this day and age with modern design methods, it seems to me that a software algorithm used to solve a difficult design problem or prove it is unsolvable, is a valuable tool.
\n\nAn answer by new user @Ido Kessler presented some source-code that he said ran for 2 hours and returned false. The answer needed a little improvement so I wrote a comment asking that he include a description of the algorithm and his level of confidence that the algorithm was correct and the software bug-free. The question was deleted while I was writing the comment.
\n\nIdo Kessler obviously spent some time working on this method of proof and I was intrigued as his method could be adapted to other hardware-design problems and be a useful tool. I therefore feel that this was an important answer and should not have been deleted.
\n\nI should note that I had not yet up-voted the answer as I wanted to wait for the improvements I was suggesting, and verification that no one else had a valid solution to the problem (no one did).
\n\nWhat better answer could there be to a problem that is un-solvable than a proof showing that the problem is unsolvable?
\n\nEdit: I know that the line for software here is often drawn between embedded (allowed) and PCs (often not allowed); but although the software in the answer was probably intended for a PC, the software was intended to solve a hardware design problem and in my opinion allowances need to be made for that.
\n\nEdit2: Here is the link to the restored answer: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/330122/25328
\n", "Title": "Software proof that a hardware design problem is unsolvable - why was the answer deleted?", "Tags": "|discussion|deleted-answers|", "Answer": "I have restored the answer, but it could be improved by the OP.
\n\nI'm not sure why, given that the question included the suspicion that there is no solution to the problem as posed, a proof of it would be considered a non-answer. It at least deserves to be discussed.
\n" }, { "Id": "6354", "CreationDate": "2017-09-22T01:41:21.303", "Body": "Looking for a list of questions with the most upvotes. Like most up voted questions of the day, week, month, all time.
\n\nDoes this exist?
\n", "Title": "Is there a list of the most up voted questions?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "Yes, we do have a view for most upvoted.
\n\nGo to https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions
\nSelect the votes tab.
\n![\"votes](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/iP9W1.png\")
This tab is available for search results too. If you make an advanced search with time limits, and sort by votes, then you could find out the most upvoted of the week, month.
\n" }, { "Id": "6380", "CreationDate": "2017-11-22T17:10:37.747", "Body": "I seriously think we need this choice under the close flags...
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/mWamG.png\")
There are just so many questions that obviously fit this category and need to be marked for closure, example, but simply do not fit under the other options.
\n\nWhat is the general consensus of which of the others is most appropriate?
\n\nEDIT:
\n\nQuestion was marked as a duplicate of the LMGTFY question....
\n\nThis question has NOTHING to do with allowing LMGTFY links.
\n\nDespite my attempt at humor in the image...
\n\nTHIS QUESION has to do with adding a close reason \"User obviously did no research or demonstrated no reasonable effort to answer their question.\"
\n", "Title": "Let me Google that for you", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "I know I come late to this.
\nI had the same experience with members of my family. The say they can't find anything on Google and are astonished when I can find it immediately.
\nI have come to the conclusion that searching on Google requires a certain mindset which I (and probably you) have, but a lot of people lack.
Just to remind you of what kind of questions people ask:\n\"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?\"
\n\nHaving written all that: Yes on several occasions I have put in the comments: \"use Google with <.....>\"
\n" }, { "Id": "6384", "CreationDate": "2017-11-23T21:35:01.247", "Body": "The question in question has been reopened and closed but is still need to be open so more answers can be given. I will gladly read even if it is hypothetical and upvote.
\n\n\n
\n\nI have a question about my Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange post: Can solar cells be wired to produce 120 volts AC?
\n\n\n\nThis doesn't answer my question really. I was hoping that someone whom has experience in solar design could get a chance to answer before it was closed by the same person who answered it in such a short time? Thous gaining reputation with out any other valid answers could be given seams like cheating and left me without the input from other experts who did not even have a chance to look at it?
\n", "Title": "Unfair use of Moderation tools", "Tags": "|discussion|bug|moderation|moderators|unanswered-questions|", "Answer": "Your revised version of the question no longer has anything to do with the moderators. Note that this time the question was closed by 5 ordinary users.
\n\nOne reason it got closed may be that you state a very unusual and seemingly silly requirement, but refuse to justify it. That makes it sound like it is indeed silly, religious, and arbitrary. People won't take you seriously that way, and they don't want to waste time answering what may well turn out to be a X-Y problem.
\n" }, { "Id": "6412", "CreationDate": "2017-12-15T20:03:13.190", "Body": "See the question Is this circuit OK for a Nixie Tube clock?.
\n\nI know it wasn't a great question and it was at -2, but it did have one answer at +2, and that answer was accepted. One of the two points in the single answer ended up not applying due to the OP providing incomplete information. The other point is still valid and possibly useful to the OP.
\n\nI could understand if the OP got frustrated and deleted the question. But, it got deleted by \"community\", which is a bot as I understand it. I thought only questions with no answers with positive score got cleaned up automatically.
\n\nObviously I'm misunderstanding something. How does the \"community\" cleanup algorithm really work?
\n", "Title": "Why was this question deleted by \"community\"?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "The question got deleted because the user account itself was deleted.
\n\nThe account was deleted by the user himself.
\n" }, { "Id": "6414", "CreationDate": "2017-12-16T04:48:38.787", "Body": "I have tried to fix and make my low quality questions better to no avail, if I do anymore the questions I get more down votes. Can I do stuff like answer questions with in my ability and edit grammar mistakes to gain the privilege back?
\n", "Title": "My question banned is still active after months?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "According to the canonical post on the subject What can I do when getting \u201cWe are no longer accepting questions/answers from this account\u201d? the answer is that possibly you can, the relevant parts are:
\n\n\nThe only way for the ban to be lifted is by contributing positively to the site in other ways.
\nIf you are banned from asking questions, then writing a few quality answers that get upvoted might enable you to ask questions again. But as the internals of the filter are secret, there is no way to know for sure.
\n
Something you might not be aware of is that while the question block won't expire automatically:
\n\n\nIf you're unable to improve your existing questions, you'll get the chance to ask one new one 6 months after your last question. If that question is positively received, you may be able to continue asking questions; if not, then the ban will be reinstated.
\n
Just to add a few personal comments and observations:
\nI've never seen it confirmed that suggested edits will help lift a ban, although they might because it is a form of positive contribution. But if you do that the edits will get reviewed by others so make sure you fix all problems and don't introduce any new ones otherwise they'll get rejected which might make things worse.
\nWhile Stack Exchange don't confirm it officially the question ban does seem to related to answers to me. A few times I've seen users on Stack Overflow that have a bunch of heavily downvoted questions that still seem able to post new (often bad) questions because they have posted lots of good answers. Although the few I've seen have something like 50+ answers so that might not be an easy path to follow.
\nAnother problem you're likely to have with answers is that you don't seem to have a lot of experience / knowledge in the field and often simple questions are answered within minutes and posting new answers that don't really add much isn't normally well received. For those question what you'd really have to do is find some with mediocre answers and spend some time writing an outstanding answer.
\nBut looking at some of the questions you've posted around the network most of the problematic ones seems to revolve around physics which you seem to have an interest in. I'd recommend getting maybe a high school level physics book and having a red hot go at reading it all and doing all the exercises, your question would be received much better if you showed a bit of basic understanding / research and you'd probably be able to work out for yourself why some ideas wouldn't work.
\n" }, { "Id": "6416", "CreationDate": "2017-12-17T04:54:48.167", "Body": "I really love it here and I don't want to loose any more privileges. I've revised the question but it only got me more down votes. It is with in the scope of this sight but 5 people out of 1000s decided it was off topic. Once on hold or closed the question is practically dead. Can some one actually help me with this question instead of shooting me down? I' will read and up vote 3 of you questions. I learn here and I am learning that the system is intolerant. Don't you want to pop up on top every time on google?
\n\nDoes Tesla make anything that didn't work like this divise?
\n", "Title": "Why is this question still gettng downvoted?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You really need an education in electricity and magnetism up to the point where you can understand Maxwell's Equations before even thinking about Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics (virtual photons).
\n" }, { "Id": "6420", "CreationDate": "2017-12-21T22:08:53.010", "Body": "I am learning so much here, but have a ways to go. What are ways that a low rep novice user like myself be of assistance?
\n", "Title": "How can I help? Novice in Electrical", "Tags": "|support|editing|reputation|homework|promotion|", "Answer": "This is getting ridiculous.
\n\nYou have clearly learned nothing from your previous questions here. Attempting to answer this question would be pointless, and just repeating what was previously said anyway.
\n\nGo read the previous answers:
\n\nLow quality question tag?
\nMy question banned is still active after months?
\nWhy is this question still gettng downvoted?
Or better yet, just go away altogether.
\n" }, { "Id": "6424", "CreationDate": "2017-12-27T14:39:19.947", "Body": "As someone who went from 500 rep to 3k rep in a couple of month's, I've come to miss some of the \"privileges\" of having low rep.
\n\nIn the same way that moderators might want to simply \"vote close\" rather than insta-close a question. I want to simply make a suggestion for an edit rather than an insta-edit. I want my edits to be approved by other people, especially the persons question/answer I am editing. Otherwise it feels as if I am stepping on other people's toes.
\n\nBefore I had instant edit privilege, I saw \"oh this.. certainly need a little puff to look better / get the point across seamlessly\". And knowing that other people would only say \"yes\" if it was correct gave me the feeling that \"if your edit is crap, then it won't go through\". Like a safe edit.
\n\nNowadays I barely edit (only did some edits for the hat thingy), and the only edits I do is text to mathjax edits so it looks \"correct\" / \"serious\" / has the quality of being on EE.SE.
\n\nWith that said, is there any way to make suggested edits to questions / answers as someone with +3k rep? Or should I make 3x 500 bounties to drop my rep to below 2k? Because I really miss that feature. \n
But then.. if I got below 2k rep, then I will miss the vote to close option, because some questions really... need that vote.
I think the most important thing when it comes to editing is making sure the question is readable (good grammar and punctuation) so it looks presentable. Get rid of all the text speech. Changing equations is another way to make questions look good. Sometimes there are formatting errors.
\n\nThe next thing that may be a little hard to do is eliminate first person speech (if its a question that is worthy of making it look professional). In doing this is helps the editor be a better technical writer. In academic and technical settings first person speech (pronouns) are harder to read and not necessary.
\n\nI sometimes rewrite the answer and provide a specific question to make it more readable.
\n\nIf the OP objects to this, they are more then welcome to edit their own post. \nMore often than not, it's easier to edit the post than it is to let them edit it so edit away.
\n" }, { "Id": "6427", "CreationDate": "2017-12-27T19:31:22.857", "Body": "I noticed that in our Stackexchange, the inline for Mathjax is different from the Math SE or Physics SE.
\n\nFor the Math and Physics SE, the way the inline for their equations for Mathjax equations is: $ equation $
However, on our website, the way we inline our equations is: \\$ equation \\$.
Why is that? Is it a different version of Mathjax?
\n", "Title": "Why does our inline syntax for Mathjax different from say, the Math SE?", "Tags": "|bug|mathjax|", "Answer": "Relevant Post: TeX Delimiters should be changed
\n\nBasically, the initial SE implementation of MathJax decided to use the $ ... $ syntax despite the following notice in the documentation:
\n\n\nNote in particular that the $...$ in-line delimiters are not used by default. That is because dollar signs appear too often in non-mathematical settings, which could cause some text to be treated as mathematics unexpectedly.
\n
I'm guessing it was originally for a \"pure\" site that never has to worry about the cost of components, so they thought it should never be a problem.
\n" }, { "Id": "6429", "CreationDate": "2017-12-29T20:40:29.897", "Body": "On occasion, when I come across a particularly bad question (e.g. homework with no attempt; or requests such as \"why doesn't this work\", where no schematic or sufficient detail is given), I'll go ahead and immediately vote to close.
\n\nI'm beginning to wonder, though, if this is in bad form. Perhaps I should down-vote, paste a standard form comment, and give the OP a day or two to comply.
\n\nHow do \"you\" approach these questions? Is there a generally agreed upon (albeit unofficial) grace period?
\n", "Title": "Typical grace period before voting to close questions", "Tags": "|discussion|vote-to-close|", "Answer": "Perhaps I should ... give the OP a day or two to comply.\n\n
Absolutely not!
When viewing the flag history page, I find that each entry has a number following the title of the flagged post. For instance:
\n\n![\"example](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/zW7CY.jpg\")
What does the circled number represent?
\n", "Title": "Profile flag history: What does the appended number represent?", "Tags": "|support|flagging|", "Answer": "I wondered about that myself, and I eventually concluded that it's the number of answers that the question has.
\n" }, { "Id": "6437", "CreationDate": "2018-01-02T07:41:14.310", "Body": "I have searched long and hard for information on how to save photo/video taken by an NTSC camera to an SD card and also save other data taken from sensors to that same SD. I have not yet figured it out, but am still determined to find an answer. The question that I ultimately asked on EE.SE was put on hold because, I admit, it was originally worded in a very convoluted and broad way. I have now edited it to the best of my abilities to make it specific, conforming to the site's rules, and to include the kind of information that I am looking for. Is there anything else I can do/any other edits I can make to get this question reopened?
\n", "Title": "Are there any other changes I should make to this question to get it reopened?", "Tags": "|support|closed-questions|", "Answer": "While I appreciate the effort you have put into editing your question, it is still far too broad. The nub of it seems to be:
\n\n\n\n\nHow do I write multiple streams of real-time data to a filesystem?
\n
And the answer is that you need a filesystem driver that supports having multiple files open simultaneously, and has enough performance to support the total data bandwidth. This also has implications about the hardware platform (CPU and memory) you choose and the operating system you run on it.
\n\nThe fact that the filesystem is on a memory card is not relevant, except for the constraints it puts on performance. Same thing for the sources of data, and how you compress and buffer that data.
\n\nYou have all of this information jumbled together, yet you have made no hard choices on any of the technology. You're essentially asking us to do the entire top-level design of your system for you. THAT is what makes the question too broad.
\n" }, { "Id": "6443", "CreationDate": "2018-01-07T19:41:49.910", "Body": "Does the previous actions by other users count in, as if it is like \"no more action needed\" or is it some kind of vote which is meant to indicate that it is OK, no matter what previous opinions are?
\n", "Title": "How is \"no action needed\" interpreted? (review queues)", "Tags": "|discussion|review-queue|", "Answer": "It's just your vote, meaning that you think it is fine as it stands. If enough people agree with you, no action will be taken. But it still gives people with different opinions the opportunity to vote, too.
\n" }, { "Id": "6449", "CreationDate": "2018-01-09T12:12:05.400", "Body": "I have a question regarding the usage of the PC-based software that is delivered with a Logic Analyzer.
\n\nI see that some software questions seem to be on-topic already, e.g. PLC software, CAD software and also a question about LT Spice was closed incorrectly.
\n\nI tend to say a Logic Analyzer question would be too specific for SuperUser. It would probably not be off-topic, since it is about computer software. However, I don't think I would find the right people to answer the question.
\n\nI would like the question to be on-topic here, but that's not my decision :-)
\n\nHere's my hypothetical (at the moment) question:
\n\n\n\n\nIn Saleae Logic 1.2.17, I have captured 10 bytes of RS-485 data. Unfortunately, the zoom level is either too small to see the details or too high to see all the 10 bytes. Scrolling with the mouse wheel and using the arrow keys for zooming increases or decreases the zoom level just too much.
\n \nHowever, I know it must be possible to get the zoom level right, because I have a screenshot of the exact same 10 bytes where all the details fit on the screen. The screen has the same resolution as mine.
\n \nHow would I fit the zoom level so that all my 10 bytes are displayed?
\n
Can I ask it (along with a 2 screenshots of current zoom levels and 1 screenshot expected zoom level) or is it off-topic?
\n", "Title": "Are software usage questions on-topic if they belong to a logic analyzer?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|on-topic|", "Answer": "[Let me preface by saying that I don't have a general prejudice against specialized EE software questions and EE lab equipment questions. I've asked and answered a few of those myself.]
\n\nThe question boils down to: \"How to work the zoom on the Saleae logic analyzer chart?\" It's more of a software (usability?) question than an EE question. As such, it's a better fit for Saleae's own support forum.
\n" }, { "Id": "6450", "CreationDate": "2018-01-09T12:50:51.210", "Body": "I've noticed a user who seems to answer mainly via a picture of scribble and maybe a few words instead of writing it down, using the circuit simulator and MathJax.
\n\nAn example would be this answer. [The initial version with the scribble.]
\n\nI was wondering if this is an acceptable way of answering questions.
\n\nIn my opinion answering in a picture of scribble is not acceptable as:
\n\nI'm just not sure what the appropriate action is: just down-vote or should they be flagged for attention?
\n", "Title": "Is answering questions in pictures of scribble acceptable", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Too many of your complaints say \"depending\". That is to say, \"depending on if the work is good or bad\". I retort that good work is good work, and bad work is bad. I am never ok with bad work.
\n\nBut I'm super ok with hand-drawn graphics, as long as it is good work. As to your points:
\n\nSE is a gift economy. People contribute freely like beer. Often we have real luminaries with very limited time to compose answers, so they use the tools they work best in. I draw my own circuit diagrams rather than use CircuitLab because I need to use 11 colors and I package info CircuitLab refuses to, like screw colors and cable bundling.
\n\nOthers give, but you also are here to give. Your proper response to a posting you feel can be improved is not to throw rocks and judge, because that damages the gift economy by deterring giving. The proper response is to improve it. So feel free to edit the post, textify his handwriting, fire up Photoshop and cut up his doodle into several graphics and place them inline. Capture his intent, then comment to say \"Did I capture your intent?\"
\n\nI've done this for others, and it never occurred to me to be mad or bitter about it. I don't get your problem.
\n\nWhen you just fix it, you change the author in a different way, instead of driving him off, you get him thinking \"you know, I could just do that myself\" and next thing you know, he will. It's educating by demonstrating, rather than \"educating\" by rallying people into downvote harassment, which, I can't see where the pot of gold would be on that.
\n" }, { "Id": "6462", "CreationDate": "2018-01-13T17:27:59.137", "Body": "I had an odd thing happen a month or so ago when I answered some question, (unfortunately I forget which) but the OP was one of those user's that does not seem to accept what people are telling them.
\n\nI logged in to discover a pending edit on my answer from the OP trying to change the context of the answer to his mistaken beliefs of how it worked.
\n\nSort if like \"I reject your reality, and substitute my own..\"
\n\nI was sort of shocked he was even able to do that.
\n\nShould the owner of a question be able to edit the answers to said question?
\n", "Title": "Should an OP be able to edit answers to their own question?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "There is already a mechanism that requires sufficient rep to edit answers. If your rep is too low, then edits go onto a review queue instead of just happening. That lets others who presumably know the system more than someone with low rep decide whether the edit is something that should be allowed.
\n\nThis apparently worked, since you said it was a pending edit. In other words, the system didn't let him edit your answer. The person was only able to propose an edit. Apparently this happened recently enough before you logged in that the edit hadn't been resolved (rejected or accepted) yet. You as the post author can single-handedly reject a proposed edit. It looks like everything worked to properly deal with a bad proposed edit.
\n\nI don't think we need more than we already have to handle edits from new users. This really has nothing to do with whether the user is who asked the question the answer is for is the one proposing the edit. Some other moron could have proposed a bad edit too.
\n\nBad edit proposals that alter author intent get rejected pretty reliably. I've seen a few of those on my posts over the years too. Often they are rejected before I even realize the whole thing happened.
\n\nIn the rare case where a new user manages to edit one of your posts to say something you don't want to say, just roll back the edit. If it persists, call it to the attention of a moderator.
\n" }, { "Id": "6465", "CreationDate": "2018-01-20T17:39:40.140", "Body": "Are shopping question where a user(Me) has done a bit of research but is noob and doesn't want to stupidly spend money on a High end(> 150$) electronic measurement device and is comparing two products but cannot figure out which one suits his needs valid?
\n", "Title": "Regarding the shopping questions!", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Comparing two products would be off-topic, but a more general discussion about how to measure what you need would be fine.
\n" }, { "Id": "6469", "CreationDate": "2018-01-23T13:24:46.383", "Body": "There's numerous instances where inexperienced users bought things off the internet that didn't come with anything resembling sufficient documentation, often even of very basic things like operating voltages, and expect us to compensate for the shortcoming of the seller.
\n\nI think we should not tolerate these kinds of questions for (at least) two reasons:
\n\nFinally, I also do think it's bad for beginners. If I accumulate my experiences with things that people have bought over {insert direct far-east import marketplace platform here}, it's that these things seldom work as well as to expect from a reasonably engineered and quality-assured product, and that's usually the reason why the price tag's so low.
\n\nBeginners are led to believe that not getting the specs of what they pay for from whoever they pay is the norm. And that should really not be the case. And, if we don't proliferate quickly outdated info based on guessing on (usually actually stolen) product photos, we can at least avoid giving this impression a platform.
\n\nSo:
\n\nCan we please have a close reason
\n\n\n\n", "Title": "Explicit close reason: \"OP bought undocumented stuff, asks us instead of seller for documentation\"", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|vote-to-close|", "Answer": "I'm voting to close this question as off-topic, as StackExchange should not be used as substitute for sufficient documentation. Please refer to the manufacturer, seller or service dealer for sufficient documentation, as is the standard for any reputable business.
\n
I disagree that we should banish all things Ebay or otherwise. We do have the option to close out the OP in a hurry if it is that bad.
\n\nSpeaking of bad, what concerns me more is an OP with little to no skills who wants to build a Tesla coil from an Ebay power supply. That is like trouble squared.
\n\nYet in spite of that often and dreadful combination I do not think we should just close because of poor or missing documentation alone. They are many hobbyist who know the pin-outs of many IC's by heart-like me. And may have spent decades building this-and-that, so they do not mind hand-me-down parts from Ebay or other parts brokers with high prices.
\n\nWhat we should question the most is does the OP know what they are doing?\nThe worst case scenario is the OP knows little and has no documentation. From there it gets a little better. Does the OP have documentation to present to us but lacks skills? Does the OP have much skill but is missing a detail or an understanding of a dubious spec?
\n\nThe variations I have seen in just a few years suggest that we continue as is and let the close/re-open and migrate system take out the garbage too messed up to work with. This includes what seems to be a good question and documentation but a stubborn OP who does not cooperate with us, such as providing us with a diagram or schematic.
\n\nThe close option gives us the option categories we need to take the garbage out of the system, sometimes in one day.
\n\nI see NO point in putting a noose around the OP's neck just for lack of documents. We must judge such events based on the OP's skill (or lack of) as well.
\n" }, { "Id": "6483", "CreationDate": "2018-01-30T18:29:54.623", "Body": "Original question: Review request: DIY DC to 50MHz differential oscilloscope probe
\nIt is getting completely ignored (save for two comments), despite an outstanding bounty and several edits no narrow down the scope. I don't think that my question is too broad, too low effort or too niche for the knowledge of other users. At the time I'm writing this, it has four upvotes, one downvote and no close votes that I am aware of. What is wrong with my question, and how could I improve it? Is it just too boring to answer? Is this kind of question acceptance on this site? This led me to believe that it is: Circuit review acceptable?
\nIn addition to downvoting, please tell me what I'm doing wrong. Downvoting alone is completely useless and only serves to annoy people.
\n", "Title": "Why is my \"circuit review\" question getting no attention?", "Tags": "|discussion|bounty|unanswered-questions|", "Answer": "As others have stated, your question is simply too complex.
\n\nAs a volunteer, seeing something as complete as that it tends to put me off. I could spend all day analysing and simulating parts of it but that really is way too much time for this hobby pastime. Moreover, without being able to sit down with it hooked up to a scope on the bench, a lot of anything I could say would be just hand-wavy generalizations.
\n\nIn truth, if you need a proper review, you need someone local to help with hands on experience to really do it justice.
\n\nFurther, that is also a pretty niche development area that many folks really do not have much experience with.
\n\nMe, and I am sure many others, just move on to the next question without giving it an up or down vote.
\n" }, { "Id": "6503", "CreationDate": "2018-02-20T14:39:30.600", "Body": "The spell checker doesn't seem to know many common electronic terms. This is quite surprising for an electronics forum. Is there a library file somewhere that can be updated with common electronics terms such as inductor, MOSFET, ferrite, and I'm sure many others?
\n", "Title": "Can Spell Check of Electronics Terms be Updated?", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "No you can't blame google chrome, at least not directly. You'll have to look further and/or deeper into language settings and spelling dictionaries, possibly even saved mipsellings of words. Oh no!
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6505", "CreationDate": "2018-02-26T15:59:29.650", "Body": "\n
I'm trying to address a comment to the person who answered my question using @name. This is similar to what was described in this thread, except in my case, I'm the original poster, and I'm addressing only one person in my comment. In other cases, this works fine for me--in fact, while typing @name in the comment field, the user name usually pops up above what I'm typing as an auto-complete. In this case, there's no auto-complete, and after I submit the comment, the @name is stripped out. One thing that's different about this username is that his last name, which is German, contains an umlaut over the letter \"u\". Could the special character be causing a problem? Or, is this a feature that the user can turn off, so that he receives no notification of comments that are addressed to him?
\n", "Title": "Trouble addressing a comment using @name", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "The behavior is expected, as you are commenting on Marcus' answer, the OP in this case is the answerer.
\n\nIn general 'OP' is used for who posted the question, but in the case of comments, the author of the commented post gets notified of all comments and that's why there is no need to tag him. (sorry for the repetition)
\n" }, { "Id": "6508", "CreationDate": "2018-02-27T21:10:14.687", "Body": "OK so once you get to a certain rep you get to see these numbers.
\n\nHelp is useless.
\n\nAnyone know what they mean?
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/4VNvu.png\")
That's how much score (upvotes) remain and how many questions you need to answer until you get that tag badge (bronze badge for circuit-analysis in your case).
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/so9Wv.png\")
You have 97 upvotes out of 100 required.
\nYou have answered 32 questions, while 20 is required.
Here we have Are book recommendations a good fit for this site? a thread for book recommendations.
\n\n\n\n\nI'm pleased that I learned about The Art of Electronics from this question..... book recommendations help fulfill the educational goals of this site and should be allowed or encouraged. Of course, if in future it is observed that book recommendations are causing a problem, I would be happy to revise my opinion on this.
\n
For those who are students/learning new subjects would need some help to have a idea what book would be easy to understand/standard book/the book which is mostly preferred (for instance, The Art of Electronics:Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill from here). In our EE.SE, we have many experts who can recommend good books for beginners but it is considered as off-topic.
\n\nSo, I want to know why book recommendations are marked as off-topic?
\n", "Title": "Why book recommendations questions are off-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Just to clarify what I think the situation is. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the current rules: -
\nToday, User Andy aka closed a question as duplicate. I however disagree with this, as in my opinion this question was regarding something far more specific than the general solution provided in the question it was supposed to be a duplicate of. However, I don't want to start a \"yes it is - no it's not - yes it is - etc\" in the comments.
\n\nIs there a standard practice to bring this up? I don't want to \"undermine\" Andy aka, nor do I want to go out and say that Andy aka is \"wrong\" and I am \"right\" since I don't have any authority to make that claim.
\n", "Title": "A question was closed as duplicate, but I dissagree with it (I am not OP). What is the correct way of bringing this up?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "Standard practice would be to add a comment under the question, and then nominate the question to be reopened, which places it in the review queue to be examined by other community reviewers.
\n" }, { "Id": "6520", "CreationDate": "2018-03-19T03:49:48.990", "Body": "Double checking; there aren't any restrictions ahead of time for whom the \"Stack Exchange network of websites\" are available, are there?
\n\nSurely this is just a poor choice of words, and the author has been to busy to notice the up voted comment below the post.
\n\nIf I'm wrong and SE is not for some people, please enlighten me.
\n\nThe post goes on to explain the purpose of the site, but I think the idea that some people should be excluded from using SE because of who they are can't be the author's intention, and an adjustment to the language could make this clearer.
\n\nThe answer goes on to talk about how users interact with the site, and that's certainly a reasonable way to approach the OP's question. So maybe a \"Yes, but...\" makes better sense than concluding that \"SE is not for some people\"?
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Somewhat related: Is this site for beginners?
\n", "Title": "Is this site for everyone?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The help entry states
\n\n\n\n\nElectrical Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site\n for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students,\n and enthusiasts.
\n
Seems pretty clear to me.
\n" }, { "Id": "6526", "CreationDate": "2018-03-19T20:44:24.837", "Body": "I've seen it happen several times, someone will ask how to build a railgun, or how to charge large capacitors to high voltages while demonstrating a level of skill and attention to safety that can only be described as (to be polite) \"here, sign this disclaimer, this is your problem now, I'm out of the legal blast range now.\"
\n\nSame story with the guy who puts an isolation transformer on his scope and uses a totally standard probe on non-isolated mains-powered stuff. Sorry, can't find a link at the moment, but it was definitely there a few months ago. Also the guy was a teacher, I remember. Wow.
\n\nSo, I was kinda baffled by the absence of a \"kill yourself\" tag, or should it be \"suicide\"? There is an \"electrocution\" tag but it seems to only be used in questions from people who actually worry about safety, which is obviously not the same...
\n\nThus, next time someone wants to build a fibrillator (it's the opposite of a defibrillator in case you wonder) what should we tag it with?
\n\nI'm torn between \"killyourself\" and \"darwinaward\" myself.
\n", "Title": "Kill Yourself Tag", "Tags": "|discussion|legal|", "Answer": "Tags are used to describe the topic of the question (see help center):
\n\n\n\n\nA tag is a word or phrase that describes the topic of the question. Tags are a \n means of connecting experts with questions they will be able to answer by \n sorting questions into specific, well-defined categories.
\n
What you suggest here seems completely outside their scope. Nobody will sort the questions to answer only \"darwin award\"-type of questions. This isn't an expertise domain (although I know a few people would could claim such a degree).
\n\nThe warning could be part of the answer, but should certainly not be added as a tag by the answerer. And I don't think anyone would (but, as per the rules, they should not, anyway) ask a question specifying a \"killyourself\" or \"darwinaward\" tag beforehand.
\n\nSee also this blog entry from Jeff Atwood about meta-tags.
\n" }, { "Id": "6528", "CreationDate": "2018-03-20T19:15:52.967", "Body": "When ever I ask a question it is always the same group of people down voting and closing my questions and got my banned on questions. Isn't that serial behavior and is not tolerated?
\n\nIt may take longer to close, so be it, that way it is sure that the questions was closed with bias. When the same users down vote me, close my question and in some cases answer then close it so it cannot be deleted makes it serial.
\n\nIMO Users who all they do is close questions to get a badge without helping the question first then they are not really helping.
\n\nJust because they couldn't answer it doesn't mean someone out there with experience in that question can't. The expert in those fields will never see it if these few close it right away.
\n", "Title": "Same mob of people keep closing my questions. Serial closing?", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "So, you had a choice of courses of action on getting your questions closed do you:-
\n\na) Try to learn from the experience and stop posting nonsense or ridiculously broad unanswerable questions.
\n\nor
\n\nb) Accuse the volunteers here who are freely giving their time and effort of picking on you.
\n\nCan I suggest that you give this matter a bit more thought. Several very senior people on this site have already given their opinion as per Olin's answer here it appears that I am not allowed to express the same sentiments.
\n" }, { "Id": "6536", "CreationDate": "2018-03-29T10:30:09.187", "Body": "Sometimes I have a question about the IDE meant specifically for use for a microcontroller (e.g. System Workbench for STM32, TrueStudio).
\n\nAt StackOverflow most people are focussing on PC/Linux, not to microcontrollers. But Electrical Engineering is focused to hardware design, not software related questions.
\n\nOr is there another forum I should ask such questions?
\n\nAn example of such question Question
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/1jL9D.png\")
![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y2xyS.png\")
STL/stdlib in AC6 System Workbench SW4STM32 Eclipse\n\nI'm using Eclipse AC6 SW4STM32 System Workbench, which is used for STM32 microcontrollers.\n\nI can add e.g. vector as include, but I get a linker error that vector is not known.\n\nIs it possibly anyway to use STL/stdlib to use in Eclipse System Workbench projects?\nQuestions regarding how to write firmware for microcontrollers is on-topic here. It is also on-topic on Stack Overflow.
\n\nBe aware however that SO does not allow tool or library recommendation questions, so questions like \"which IDE/tool/library is best for...\" are off-topic there. But it is however perfectly fine to ask how to solve a specific IDE-related problem. You can use the embedded tag on SO to get attention from the right kind of people.
\n\nIn this specific case you should also have used the eclipse tag. There ought to be some Eclipse gurus over at SO, that you are unlikely to find here. I'm guessing that your question drowned in the SO flood, which easily happens if you don't use popular tags, since that site has such massive traffic.
\n\nI'd do like this:
\n\nI raised an off topic flag with the specialisation of \"Blatantly off-topic (this question has nothing to do with electronics design)\" for the question IT TTT block in assembly language which was declined. I would like to know why I was wrong to flag it so I don't make the same mistake again.
\n\nWould the decliner please enlighten me how I was wrong?
\n", "Title": "Reasons for a declined flag", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "I'm not a mod, so had nothing to do with declining the flag.
\n\nHowever, that question is about computer architecture, which is on topic here. The question itself isn't great because it gives very little context, and doesn't even speak to anyone not having detailed knowledge of its tiny corner of the world. But that doesn't make it off topic.
\n\nYour flag was correctly declined.
\n" }, { "Id": "6552", "CreationDate": "2018-04-13T09:01:51.543", "Body": "I'm looking for a specific chip, which I know how to use - just can't find one with enough parallel channels (so its not really a knowledge question as such...) but can't find a suitable candidate. I've looked on all the usual sites, but can't find one. Is this a reasonable question to ask in the EE forum, if not - where could I ask this?
\n", "Title": "Should I ask for help finding a chip in the EE forum?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Should I ask for help finding a chip in the EE forum?\n\n
No. We don't do component recommendations here.
\n" }, { "Id": "6558", "CreationDate": "2018-04-16T07:53:50.997", "Body": "If I have a question about features of Solidworks Electrical, specifically about it's features to draw schematics for power electronics, would they be welcome here?
\n\nA possible alternative would be Engineering.SE, but I think it could just as well work here. Just that the help center isn't explicit about it, so I better ask here first.
\n\nUpdate:\nFirst solidworks-electrical question posted here. Don't hesitate to let me know if I screwed up.
\n", "Title": "Are questions about Solidworks Electrical welcome here?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|scope|", "Answer": "I'd say the line is between how to do 'something' with the software (in-topic) and how to 'use' the software or how it works (off-topic).
\n\nThink about it: it should be about engineering, not software support. In that case I think it's fine.
\n" }, { "Id": "6560", "CreationDate": "2018-04-16T18:24:05.987", "Body": "This user has asked 3 very similar questions in a short span of time (one of which was an exact duplicate of another older question which I answered).
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SCJAK.png\")
All three questions seem to variations in the same series of exercises:
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/NDjph.png\")
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/unEHP.jpg\")
He does not seem to be learning from the answers as on each question he asks how to approach the problem, then someone solves it for him, and he moves to the next one.
\n\nSo, would it be reasonable to close the questions or are those legitimate questions for EE.SE?
\n", "Title": "Similar questions on same topic, mark as duplicate?", "Tags": "|discussion|homework|", "Answer": "Close 'em. They are \"homework questions\" (whether or not they are actual homework), which is a category that is of dubious long-term value to the site in general.
\n" }, { "Id": "6574", "CreationDate": "2018-04-27T23:45:06.070", "Body": "How is someone perceived asking more questions than answering them?
\n\nAs the website is mixed between experts and beginners, there is obviously going to be an imbalance. But someone like myself still learning to ask more questions than answers, it generally looked down on? I find on StackExchange the bar is set high (which is good) but it limits you to only answering questions you really know. Do you feel as long as the questions are quality it does not matter or more effort should be made to answer (even if others do it better), or wait and learn and give back to the community later?
\n", "Title": "Too many questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "This site is ultimately driven by good questions getting asked. Asking good questions helps the site. It doesn't matter whether you also answer questions or not.
\n\nThe important point is that anything you post, whether questions or answer, be of high quality. I just looked at your question history, and its positive but spotty. Out of 19 questions, 4 have been closed. Two have a negative score, 8 have 0 score, and 9 have a positive score. You should be examining what you did right and wrong in each case, and strive to improve the quality of your questions going forward.
\n\nDon't worry about the total number of questions, or the mix of questions versus answers.
\n" }, { "Id": "6579", "CreationDate": "2018-05-03T01:13:29.983", "Body": "The Votes Cast section on the user-profile activity page, has Month and Week fields. What do these indicate?
\n\n![\"votes](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ivTcb.jpg\")
This indicates how many votes you have cast this month and this week.
\n\nWhy the number of votes for a month smaller than the number of votes for the week? That's because the month is 2 days old and the week is 4 days old, at the moment of writing.
\n" }, { "Id": "6586", "CreationDate": "2018-05-11T00:47:39.393", "Body": "I came across a question asked by a new user. The new user was refered to as OP in the comment section. I'm not familiar with what it means in that context. Can someone clarify this for me? Is there a particular background story to that acronym?
\n", "Title": "Acronym OP for a new user", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It can mean Original Post, or Original Poster, and often used interchangeably both here and on the web in general. It's very old internet slang/shorthand that pre-dates Stack Exchange/Stack Overflow. See \"Does OP mean \u201coriginal poster\u201d or \u201coriginal post\u201d?\" on the English stack exchange for more info and examples.
\n" }, { "Id": "6602", "CreationDate": "2018-05-22T16:24:43.880", "Body": "Quick inquiry about proper behavior on this stack exchange. I wrote a question recently and posted it during a period where not a lot of active users are active. Thus, my question didn't receive a lot of views or answers.
\n\nMy question was, is there a proper behavior regarding question bumping? I know that editing my question will put it back on top of the queue, but I don't want to infringe on any written or non written rules.
\n", "Title": "Manual bumping of a question", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It shouldn't matter, if its a good question, you've tagged it appropriately and there are a reasonable amount of 'experts', someone will look at it. If your question is getting views and you aren't getting answers, it's probably a good time to see if it's a well written, answerable question. If it isn't then you might want to change that.
\n\nAnother possibility is you've written a question that doesn't have a lot of expertise in the area, most people here do circuit design.
\n" }, { "Id": "6609", "CreationDate": "2018-05-30T19:16:26.003", "Body": "Since Altera was acquired by Intel in 2015, Altera brand was withdrew. The company (Altera) completely became a part of Intel and all social media accounts were renamed \"Intel FPGA\". 1,2,3
\n\nShould we create intel-fpga tag to use instead of altera, or should we add intel and fpga tags to the (new) questions?
\n", "Title": "Which tag(s) should be used for Intel FPGAs?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "It does seem like Intel and Altera are getting close to finalizing the acquisition. The www.altera.com website warns it will be redirected to intel.com on 6/30/2018.
\n\nHere's my proposed set of actions:
\n\nMy rationale is that the altera tag is a good filter for FPGA/CLPD questions, and intel focuses on x86/x64 type offerings. There is also a good argument for merging altera into intel, or making altera a synonym for intel. If someone feels strongly for either of those alternatives (or even doing nothing), please post an answer suggesting that.
\n" }, { "Id": "6619", "CreationDate": "2018-06-15T09:59:45.523", "Body": "I just posted a question on EE. I am not used to this peculiar SE guidelines, where could I found it if any.
\n\nI have received few comments from an user that I do not completely understand. I also found myself a bit uncomfortable about the path he used.
\n\nWhat should I do in order to improve my question. Is it just about the page citation? Or is there something else to improve that I have missed?
\n\nThank you,
\n\nUpdate
\n\nHaving the above user commenting again:
\n\n\n\n\nPage 81 does not have the schematic you eventually embedded in your\n question. That appears to be on another page entirely. I downvoted you\n because your incompetence wasted time and you argued about it and you\n didn't fix your question. Your question is still not fixed. This isn't\n rocket science, it's plain common sense.
\n
I post what I do see in one of my PDF reader:
\n\n![\"Look](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PC9zP.png\")
Other PDF readers also agreed. From this now I can understand that it is not my question which has a problem. And I do feel very unconformable about the words he is having with me.
\n\nUpdate 2
\n\nHaving time to chill out about this meta, I just want you to add some inputs:
\n\nHere is what I think was missing in the question:
\n\nBasically, you need to explain within the question itself (not through links), the general context of the question. You can assume that people know what a resistor is, what a microcontroller is, etc..., but you can't assume we know what a \"Adam 4055 module\" is. And give this information at once, because if we need to follow links, people will consider the question isn't complete. The principle is that every question should be self-sufficient. Providing links is good (and if you don't provide datasheet links, sometimes, people will get upset too), but enough explicit information within the question text itself is essential. Same for acronyms (some people ask questions with lots of acronyms). Except for a few, like \"MCU\", you need to be explicit, because they may have multiple meanings, and it can quickly get ambiguous.
\n\nFor more information, here are the things you generally need to take care of, when asking a question: Electrical Engineering Question Checklist
\n\nBut overall, the question isn't that bad. What is good about it, for example, is the fact that you explained what you think the solution is, and clearly explained the difference between your setup and the example setup given within the product documentation.
\n\nSo, even if it is a basic question, I don't consider it a bad one, and I wouldn't downvote that myself, even in its original state (but different people have different standards).
\n\nSo, don't focus on a single downvote. It may even be reverted by an upvote...
\n" }, { "Id": "6622", "CreationDate": "2018-06-23T08:05:30.503", "Body": "I am working on a permanent lighting array for my bicycle. I'm not an electrics or electronics person, but this is a real plan and I intend to complete it.
\n\nI have current and voltage measurements, wire gauges/lengths, and specs of my battery source.
\n\nIs it on-topic for this site to lay all that data out and check my working and calculations ?
\n\nPossibly related Is specific circuit debugging questions on topic? but that's about a circuit - my question is simpler because there is no circuit, and the schematic would be quite simple.
\n", "Title": "Are \"check my working\" questions on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Battery capacity vs. lifespan was discussed here many times (example), and so was wire gauge vs. voltage drop (example). If your question boils down to repeating the same calculations for your set of numbers, it will likely not be received well.
\n\nIf you've done your own calculations, built your circuit, and observed a discrepancy you cannot explain, that would make a much better question.
\n" }, { "Id": "6627", "CreationDate": "2018-06-29T02:46:59.677", "Body": "I try to use down-votes judiciously, and only do so when I truly feel that the -1 is deserved.
\n\nStill, at least a couple of times I have revisited the question/answer the following day, and found replies that made me regret my down-vote. For instance, I may read a response that points out subtleties of the original post that I hadn\u2019t considered.
\n\nIn cases like this, where I no longer feel that the down-vote is warranted, I\u2019d like to be able to uncast the vote. But, of course, since up/down votes are locked-in after an hour or so, I\u2019m prevented from doing so unless the original post is edited.
\n\nI can see the logic in locking up-votes, which might prevent retaliations from disgruntled users, but I fail to see how disallowing down-vote retractions is beneficial.
\n\nIs there a valid rationale for locking down-votes?
\n", "Title": "Why are down-votes locked", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "\n\n\nStill, at least a couple of times I have revisited the question/answer the following day, and found replies that made me regret my down-vote. For instance, I may read a response that points out subtleties of the original post that I hadn\u2019t considered.
\n
In this case you should actually edit the post to make it more clear and include the subtleties you missed, especially if you got the new information from the comment section. After the edit, you can also flag the comments as no longer needed - you have taken care of the issues.
\n\nYou are probably not the only one who misunderstood the original post, so the edit will lead to two good things:
\n\nThese two answers were posted by the same user, both to old questions (one of which is almost 8 years old).
\n\nHow can I make connection on pcb (circuit board) holes without solder (for prototyping)?
\n\n\n\nBoth answers are identical, and both promote the author's website/blog. The author did disclose his affiliation.
\n\nNeither answer actually addresses its question:
\n\nThe answers were in the review queue and I flagged them as spam; both flags were subsequently disputed. I have no problem with the decision - I just want clarification.
\n", "Title": "Does this constitute spam?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "\n\n\nNeither answer actually addresses its question:
\n
Completely matter of opinion. Both identical answers do address the questions imho.
\n\n\n\n\nIn the first case, the question specifically asks about connecting to thru-holes without solder, whereas the answer implicitly requires soldering header pins.
\n
Soldered header pins are not required, press fit, or offset pins that are held by friction is enough, and you could wire it around the edge holes. Even if we don't assume it's 100% correct, the answer is still on topic, and \"not an answer\" answers normally aren't even on the same planet (It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge.)
\n\n\n\n\nIn the second case the question is asking for PCB inter-connectors, and the answer rather clearly misses the mark.
\n
Wire wrapping is a valid PCB inter-connect method. It predates most other newer methods. NASA still uses it!. That answer is 100% on topic to OP's question.
\n\nIs it Spam? Sure, it could be. But! THATS NOT ALWAYS A PROBLEM. Specifically from the rules regarding self-promotion:
\n\n\n\n\nThe community here tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that\u2019s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.
\n
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/promotion
\n\nIf OP happens to spam his website on more, lets say a nice arbitrary 5 posts, then custom flag for a moderator to review, and maybe they will shoot them a message or warning. For the most part, it looks like someone just passionate about a technique they use. No overt ads on their website, not spamming unrelated multiple posts, and they aren't even selling it.
\n\nSide note, the user in question has a few posts across Stack Exchange over a few years and none are off topic or questionable.
\n" }, { "Id": "6647", "CreationDate": "2018-07-26T13:43:08.367", "Body": "This question has the tag lightn \nwhich has no other references.
\n\nIt's easy to delete the tag at the question itself, but how does one get the tag removed from the forum's list of available tags?
\n", "Title": "Found what appears to be effectively a bogus tag - what to do?", "Tags": "|support|tags|", "Answer": "After the errant tag has been removed from the question (i.e. the question has been correctly re-tagged) then the (now unused) tag should be auto-purged from the list of tags - assuming that it is not in use elsewhere. This happens after a certain period of time. when the auto-purge scripts are run, which I believe happens daily at 03:00 UTC.
\n\nSee this answer to How can we get rid of misspelled and unused (or \u201czombie\u201d) tags?, the emphasis is mine:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6651", "CreationDate": "2018-08-01T18:37:21.400", "Body": "You should edit out the tag from all the questions that use it. Note\n that you should probably seek consensus on the per-site meta before\n doing so, if the tag was somehow added to a significant number of\n questions without anyone noticing the misspelling.
\n \nTags not associated with any question are automatically destroyed at\n 03:00 UTC every day.
\n \nTags which are misspelled should have the questions under them\n retagged to the appropriate tag, which will result in the misspelled\n tag's destruction due to having no uses.
\n
Just wondering how many folks out there received this in their inboxes recently ... i'm a little perplexed since I'm not actually a moderator on any SE site.
\n\nSeems weird since the questions are implying an actual diamond-user (were you elected or appointed, etc.)
\n\nDid any other 20k+ non-mods get this survey, or am I just a glitch in the matrix?
\n", "Title": "Stack Exchange Moderator Survey email - including non-moderators?", "Tags": "|bug|moderation|", "Answer": "You're not the only one. See this SO post. You should be getting an email soon saying something like
\n\n\n\n\nPlease forgive us, we just goofed
\n \nI would like to sincerely apologize. I just mistakenly sent you an email that was meant for Stack Overflow moderators. Please ignore it.
\n \nThank you for your patience,
\n \nAnita M. Taylor, Email Marketing
\n
To summarize - a survey is being sent out to all the mods and they made a mistake and sent it to a bunch of non-mods. The mods now have their survey and you guys get the apology email =) No need to fill anything out, obviously.
\n\nTo quote Tim Post's answer there:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6682", "CreationDate": "2018-08-30T02:50:15.337", "Body": "This was a mistake on our end. In order to consolidate the places where we have people's contact information, we've been moving everything into one system. This has been great, we don't have to worry about spreadsheets and CSV files gathering dust in storage, but getting used to new stuff can get a little hectic.
\n
If I was looking to pay for free-lance consultation on circuit-project, where on this site would I start?
\n", "Title": "Looking to pay for consultation on circuit-project. Here?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Our EE.SE chat is the only place on EE.SE to ask about paid freelance consultations.
\n" }, { "Id": "6697", "CreationDate": "2018-09-04T02:18:52.380", "Body": "In the interest of having an explicit strategy on component identification questions, here is a \"poll\" question for community opinion on the matter. Historically, these questions have been allowed, but this is an existing strategy, not necessarily the current opinion of the community. This question is designed to be a simple binary question that will be used to shape a more nuanced policy later. I will include the pro and con reasons that I can think of, if you have another reason that I did not include, feel free to leave a comment.
\n\nPlease note, only upvotes will be counted.
\n", "Title": "Should we keep component identification questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|identification|", "Answer": "In an addition to other conditions already proposed.
\n" }, { "Id": "6736", "CreationDate": "2018-09-18T22:22:08.373", "Body": "Something changed at SE, or at least EE.SE in the last few hours. I just logged in, and the same browser window size I had been using doesn't work anymore without very annoying horizontal scrolling. It appears the reason is that the buttons HOME, QUESTIONS, TAGS, USERS, and UNANSWERED are now on the left, using up more window width. These used to be at the top where they weren't really in the way.
\n\nOn the off chance someone at SE cares, I don't like this because now I can have only one slim window on the screen at the same time, whereas previously more of my screen was left to my uses. I use the browser for various things other than SE, and having to resize the window between uses is a pain. It's also totally unnecessary for SE to require that much window width.
\n\nHowever, the question is, How can I get the old layout back?.
\n", "Title": "Web page format change, much wider than previously", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "I've once again posted my opinions on the change, this time at https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/315639/274872. I encourage everyone to do the same.
\n" }, { "Id": "6749", "CreationDate": "2018-09-21T13:41:25.237", "Body": "It's custom for SE sites to hold regular moderator elections. However, it seems there has been no election on EE for 4 years. List of elections.
\n\nWhy is this so? The site appears to have a steady growth of users and we need moderator numbers to grow in proportion to this, in order to preserve quality and prevent moderator burn-outs.
\n\nAlso, since moderators are volunteers and can go inactive like everyone else, keeping a steady flow of new moderators is important. Particularly if the veteran moderators can teach and mentor new ones.
\n", "Title": "What happened with moderator elections?", "Tags": "|discussion|election|moderators|", "Answer": "Currently we don't really need more mods, as flags' handling is not a big issue. We have an average of about 2 hours before a flag is handled, and the queue is more often empty than full.
\n\nI have to add that Dave, W5VO and Nick are handling the great majority of the flags, and if one of them were to go inactive we would soon need to replace him.
\n\nWhat could be helpful, in my opinion, is to increase the reviewing activity, by established users more than mods.
\n" }, { "Id": "6752", "CreationDate": "2018-09-27T12:55:15.117", "Body": "Suppose your rep is just over the borderline of a new privilege (eg. reviewing the edit queue), and you get downvoted, or downvote something yourself.
\n\nIf the loss of rep brings you under the privilege requirement, do you lose the privilege?
\n", "Title": "Can you lose privileges with loss of rep?", "Tags": "|discussion|specific-question|", "Answer": "Yes:
\n\nCan you lose an ability if your reputation falls below a threshold?
\n\nI actually experienced it myself. Some guy serial-upvoted me past the 10,000 threshold (note: nobody asked him to do so). I could then see the deleted posts. He did it just for fun, so then he cancelled his upvotes, and I was unable to see those posts again (until I regained the rep more \"legally\").
\n" }, { "Id": "6755", "CreationDate": "2018-09-28T09:20:30.520", "Body": "Since this post outlining component identification guidelines, I keep spotting identification questions being closed for no visible reason or for superficial reasons like a missing identification tag.
Speaker input connector got closed as recommendation question because the author mentioned they wanted to buy similar connectors at Digikey. However, the question asked (What are these plugs called?) is obviously an identification question: the OP didn't ask to search Digikey for them, only which name to search for. The question is missing the identification tag, however, the OP was not told they had to include it.
please help me identify this component (now deleted (screenshot)) was closed as a repair question, even though the OP already found the (suspected) point of failure and were asking to identify the component they wanted to replace. Again, it misses the tag and the OP didn't type out the text on the part, but I don't see how a newcomer could guess it was required if nobody tells them.
\n\nI think this is an Op Amp (BIM-79Z2) how can I find datasheet? was deleted by the OP (screenshot), arguably because it was poorly received (4 close votes at the moment of deletion, condescending comments, downvote). The original question was asking to identify several components, however it kept getting close votes even after I edited the question to limit it to the component mentioned in the title.
\n\nTo sum it up, I don't think it's a sane approach to expect that newcomers will follow the rules without even telling them what the rules are. People who disagree with the value of identification questions to the site are welcome to discuss it on meta, NOT to take it out on random users posting actual questions.
\n\nOr did I overlook something which warrants closing and deleting those questions?
\n", "Title": "Identification questions getting closed formally", "Tags": "|discussion|identification|", "Answer": "If these questions need work, the best course of action would be to close the question, and then direct the users to the on topic page and here: Component Identification Question Guidelines
\n\nNone of these questions fit the guidelines that were agreed upon.
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n- Include a clear picture of the part in question, including a ruler if possible for scale.
\n- Type out any text on the part. Many parts have text that is difficult to read from a picture.
\n- Include any information about the surrounding circuit, or any knowledge on the type of system your component came from.
\n- Include the identification tag.
\n
The first question is asking for a specific product and is worded incorrectly, we defiantly do not help people shop on this site.
\n\nThe other two questions do not follow the guidelines for asking, they do not provide the text on the part or other information about the circuit. Props to the OP's for providing a picture.
\n\nAnother course of action would be to edit the question and make it presentable, because that about as much effort as closing it or complaining about it.
\n" }, { "Id": "6759", "CreationDate": "2018-09-30T20:21:52.597", "Body": "I was looking up on google why there was an x in RX and TX, and I found this. While maybe it was off-topic and should be in English.SE (Though I think EE makes more sense. At least, the OP will find a better answer here), how could this be marked as \"opinion based\"?
\n\nEven if the answers are opinion based, the \"closed\" box states the question is what needs to be edited. This doesn't make sense to me - the question is as objective as a question can get. History is true and permanent. Maybe no one knows the history, and thus may create bad answers, but regardless the question itself of \"What's the meaning of \u201cx\u201d in RxD and TxD of UART?\" just isn't opinion based at all. It's a very explicit and factual question.
\n\nIf the answers are comments are poor, perhaps require higher reputation to answer. I've seen this implemented before. I just don't believe this should have been marked as \"opinion based\".
\n\nAm I simply misunderstanding the meaning of \"opinion based\"?
\n", "Title": "Opinion Based question?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "I don't agree with the posted answers so far. I believe the question is on-topic and should be re-opened. No other Stack Exchange fits the question better either.
\n\nThe question is asking for the rationale about common terms used for electronic signals. Tx and Rx can be found everywhere in electrical engineering, from formal standard terms to IC datasheets. Asking about the rationale behind the name should be as much on-topic as asking about the rationale for the terms \"Vdd\" or \"Vcc\".
\n\nThe posted answer isn't great and opinion-based, but only since it lacks sources. That is no fault of the OP.
\n\nI'm voting to re-open the question.
\n\n(It is quite possible that the answer originates from radio communication and Morse code. Wikipedia seems to agree and in turn cites various sources.)
\n" }, { "Id": "6761", "CreationDate": "2018-10-01T17:55:23.550", "Body": "I recently saw, on this question, that someone - rather than asking for the OP to provide more details via a comment, as I usually see - edited the question and wrote a \"template\" containing placeholders where the details would be needed.
\n\nIs this appropriate? One concern of mine is that such template content is potentially confusing to people newly arriving at the question, and that the intent of the template is only made clear by digging into the edit history.
\n", "Title": "How do we prompt for more detail?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "This is definitely not appropriate. I have reverted to the most recent valid revision.
\n\nWe prompt for more detail by asking for the missing pieces in a comment (which is exactly what comments are for). Then optionally vote to close as unclear so that a lot of answers won't be invalidated by the new information.
\n" }, { "Id": "6774", "CreationDate": "2018-10-07T14:31:03.547", "Body": "I find consistently poor reviews in the Suggested Edits queue, by a given reviewer.
\n\nI recently voted to reject a particularly unnecessary/harmful edit, and found that it was voted for approval by the reviewer mentioned above. No big deal, if this didn\u2019t happen so frequently, but it does.
\n\n![\"user](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/nNBth.jpg\")
I don\u2019t mean to call anyone out, so I\u2019ve scratched out the names, but to compare the stats:
\n\nMy question comes down to this: Does anyone review the reviewers?
\n\nAnd, I would suggest a feature that gives notification to a reviewer if their review statistics grossly deviate from the average (after the user has submitted enough reviews for a fair calculation, perhaps 100).
\n\nHere are a couple of examples:
\n\n![\"approved](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzCms.png\")
\n(comment/answer posted to the question)
![\"approved](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2zRg.png\")
\n(original post deleted and replaced with spam)
I have lots of experience of this from SO, after doing thousands of reviews there. They have exactly the same problem with sloppy reviewers, though on a much bigger scale. Particularly when it comes to suggested edits. The term used is \"robo reviewers\", people who just click approve without thinking (check the term on https://meta.stackoverflow.com/ and you'll find plenty about the subject). The root of the problem is that users get a bit of reputation and badges for reviewing.
\n\nThere are measures in place - the audit reviews. Failing enough of these will make you automatically banned from reviewing. First ban, a short period of time. Second ban, longer, etc. The audits are however easy to dodge for someone gambling the system on purpose.
\n\nNormal accept/reject ratio should from somewhere around 70/30 to 30/70, depending on how pedantic the reviewer is. People with accept ratio over 90% are clearly doing a poor job, because edits are rarely consistently of that high a quality.
\n\nBringing the specific matter up on meta isn't really a good idea, since this should be handled by diamond moderators rather than \"lynch mobs\" of meta users.
\n\nWhat you can do upon finding that a review was incorrectly accepted:
\n\nThere seem to be a small but steady stream of questions being tagged as convert.
\n\nFrom what I can tell, they seem to range from power regulation (\"convert 110V to 230V\", etc.), to digital logic (\"convert 32bit 2's complement...\"), to programming (\"convert float to hex\"), and so fourth.
\n\nThere is no wiki entry or usage for the tag, and given the varied use of it, it appears to be a completely meaningless tag.
\n\nThere are several instances of now only two questions that are only tagged as convert, both of which are closed. So deleting the tag now would only require those two to be retagged.
I'm of the opinion that convert should be consigned to the dustbin of tags never to see the light again. Thoughts?
\n", "Title": "Tag Cleanup: [convert]", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Sounds reasonable to me. All convert tags have been removed. The tag will age away as long as no new questions get added.
\n\nIf it continues to be created, we can blacklist the tag.
\n" }, { "Id": "6780", "CreationDate": "2018-10-11T14:24:47.720", "Body": "Steps: Click \"flag\" for a question. Choose \"should be closed\", then \"off-topic because\" and then \"This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network\". I, at least am then shown two options for \"another site\": \"belongs on electronics.meta... \" and \"belongs on superuser.com\".
\n\nBut say it belongs, IMO, on neither, or even specifically, on, say, \"Signal Processing\"? How does one indicate that?
\n", "Title": "Flag a question, choices for suggesting another site", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "If it's off-topic, then close it as off-topic.
\n\nIf it's a good question that is off-topic, then you can flag it using the \"Other\" line and a moderator can review it for migration.
\n" }, { "Id": "6788", "CreationDate": "2018-10-12T11:48:44.450", "Body": "I was looking at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/asking. There is a list of links, including:
\n\n\n\nWhat's this? Something left over from an older, better, happier time? Is it still relevant?
\n", "Title": "What is \"Private Beta\"?", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "It's no longer relevant to EE.SE, but every SE site goes through a \"private beta\" stage as part of its development, and this FAQ is part of the standard boilerplate that goes along with that.
\n" }, { "Id": "6793", "CreationDate": "2018-10-13T17:19:00.813", "Body": "More than half of the questions asked on this site seem to be either review/fix my design (Example) or I don't know how to design, please help me design it (Example). Is EE Stack a free design assistance forum?
\n\nI'm slightly confused what is supposed to be asked on stack? I thought the whole idea of Stack was to ask generic, reusable questions to create a database.
\n\nI understand specific design questions may require design help ect, but the vast majority seem to be 'Design this thing for my Uni project/hobby project ect'. Which I expect is the reason that whenever you go to 'active' the vast majority of questions come from people who have >50 rep and are never seen again.
\n\nCan experienced members please clarify?
\n", "Title": "Is EE Stack a free design and advice website?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "Doesn't really matter what kind of question it is or how much rep you have, if it's not on topic then the question will be closed.
\n\nIt also helps to have a well written question, and ask a specific question so people know how to answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "6796", "CreationDate": "2018-10-15T13:30:18.173", "Body": "The current de-facto policy we have regarding homework-like questions is to require an attempt at solving the problem by the OP. While this keeps the most blatant cases of laziness out of our question list, there are at least two kinds of questions which I personally don't like that slip through:
\n\n\"check my calculations\" - this is when the OP asks yet another question about equivalent resistance or Kirchhoff's laws. They made their calculations, but suspect there's a mistake and ask to double-check it. This is a waste of time IMO, they could simply present their solution to the professor giving them the course, or simply enter the circuit in a simulator and get the right answer.
\"monkey with a typewriter\" - this is when the OP doesn't know how to solve the problem, but since questions without an attempted solutions are closed, they will present a nonsensical solution to fulfill the rules. A proper answer will still have to start from scratch.
Yet, the requirement to present an attempted solution keeps away some legitimate questions where the OP doesn't have an idea where to start. As an example, if the OP doesn't know about delta-star transformation, they will be completely stuck with a problem where they need to apply one. They can of course resort to the \"monkey with a typewriter\" strategy, but I don't think that's very educational.
\n\nPerhaps a better policy for homework-like questions would be to favor conceptual questions, which don't ask for specific numbers. Such a policy would keep people who are too lazy to plug their numbers in well-known formulas away, and also get rid of \"check my calculations\" questions. Additionally, we would be able to keep questions which the OP doesn't know how to tackle, without giving them an incentive to present a nonsensical solution as an excuse. And conceptual questions make better duplicate targets too, because exact numbers don't matter.
\n\nNow, I'm not arguing that engineering questions should not include numbers. In fact, if the OP is debugging a circuit and had measured a voltage at some point which they think is abnormal, the exact value of the voltage is crucial for answering. But I believe it's fairly easy to distinguish homework-like questions from engineering ones: they feature circuits with no practical application, have artificial constrains (e.g. a requirement to calculate something that could be easily measured) and so on, so I don't think we'll be throwing out the baby with the water.
\n\nI'm also not opposing to homework-like questions which include numbers as an illustration. If the OP have an question with numeric values printed on the schematic, they don't have to remove them. What would be forbidden is to ask for a specific number: be it the equivalent resistance, voltage between points A and B, or the cutoff frequency.
\n\nAlso note that we don't have to drop the \"attempt at solving\" requirement, though I would suggest we lax it quite a bit. That is, the OP who has been tasked with equivalent resistance calculation and didn't try anything will still get their question closed, either because of \"no attempt\" rule, or because they asked for a specific numerical solution. The OP who worked on their problem and got stuck in the middle will be able to both demonstrate a reasonable attempt at solving and ask about a specific step rather than the final answer.
\n\nAny thoughts on the above? Examples where such a policy would be lousy?
\n\nEdit: please don't hesitate to downvote if you dislike the idea. So far all answers I got are critical, yet there's only one downvote.
\n", "Title": "Are we keeping the right kind of homework questions on the site?", "Tags": "|discussion|homework|", "Answer": "For many years, the SE policy has been that we don't care why someone is asking a question, but only about the quality of the question itself. That is, a student asking for help with their homework will receive the same treatment as an electrical engineer looking to verify their design. In either case, they have to demonstrate an insight in the topic and their attempts to solve the problem so far.
\n\nA question which provides a complete calculation of some electronics problem, with provided schematics etc, shows sufficient research effort. It is fine and on-topic.
\n\nAs for the \"monkey with typewriter\" case, the attempt provided has to be relevant to the question. These attempts are often easy to spot. If the \"research effort\" or \"attempted solution\" is just fluff and not relevant to the question, it should be treated like a question with no effort at all: close as too broad.
\n" }, { "Id": "6801", "CreationDate": "2018-10-24T07:10:38.797", "Body": "Our tagging system is inconsistent in the way we treat different microcontroller families. I'm looking for people's opinions on how (or even if) we should make them more uniform.
\nThe pic tag, for example, is used for (almost) all PIC-related questions. Indeed, there are tag synonyms which automatically rename any PIC subfamily (e.g. pic16, pic18, dspic33, etc.) to the generic pic tag. This tag is currently used in 2224 questions.
\nHowever, with the STM32-series microcontrollers, the tag structure allows the questions to be divided into families:
\nSo, our options:
\nAllow the PICs to be segregated by family.
\nThis would kinda suck, frankly, because we'd have to remove the existing tag synonyms and then manually separate out the different PIC questions.
\nCreate tag synonyms to combine all of the STM32 families.
\nThis is easy to do, but difficult to undo (see #1!).
\n"Stop worrying about it, already!!"
\nI often hear this from my spouse, and it's often good advice :)
\nPersonally, I strongly prefer the ST model. There is very little similarity between an STM32F0 and an STM32F7, either in technology, use-cases, or EE.SE questions! Similarly, there is almost no overlap between a PIC16F and a DSPIC33.
\nHowever, with the difficulties of Option #1, I'm leaning toward following my wife's advice :)
\nYour thoughts?
\nIn the meantime, there are a few tags which I believe are overly-specific and should be wrapped into stm32f1. I'll go and propose some synonyms...
\nI can recommend to ask for SO developers to implement a tags tree.\nIn this case you would have something like:
\n\nstm32\n+- stm32f0\n+- stm32f1\n+- stm32f2\n+- stm32l\nThis would make sub-tags to automatically merge under parent tag. At this moment this is a common issue in large communities.
\n" }, { "Id": "6807", "CreationDate": "2018-10-25T08:43:38.067", "Body": "Why are there no down votes for comments as there are for questions and answers. People sometimes use the comments to give answers as well.
\n", "Title": "Why are there no down votes for comments", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "This is site wide (through all of SE's networks) and is not going to change as it would affect all sites. This has already been covered here in the meta:
\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6814", "CreationDate": "2018-10-31T19:16:30.650", "Body": "I just saw this question where the OP tagged the question as mux and multiplexer.
\n\nLooking at the info for mux, there's no information whatsoever.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/7xvnF.png\")
With multiplexer, this is different.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVbqg.png\")
Is there a reason why we need both of these tags if one is simply a shorthanded writing expression of the other? Both tags do receive a fair amount of utilization.
\n", "Title": "Mux, Multiplexer: Why not merge these two tags?", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "There doesn't seem to be any point having both of them.
\n\nI've proposed the tag synonym on the multiplexer page to have mux mapped to multiplexer as they are basically common terms for the same thing.
\n" }, { "Id": "6822", "CreationDate": "2018-11-04T11:12:29.847", "Body": "I wonder if the following question is on-topic and if not if their is another Stack-Exchange site I could ask it.
\n\nFrom the repair tag description it seems like it is no on-topic but I just wanted to be sure and ask if there is a way change it to be on-topic:
\n\n\n\n\nQuestions relating to electrical/electronic repair. Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. Please ensure your questions are somewhat generic in nature so they are likely to help future visitors and not too localized to a specific piece of equipment.
\n
I am afraid my question is to specific as it is. But I wonder if I could change it to make it more general, for example by asking more about the function of the part.
\n\nThe question would be:
\n\nI am currently trying to change the display of my LG G2.
\n\nWhen I tried to remove the display I noticed that one screw turned through. It turned out, that the electrical part the screw is attached to detached from the board. I assume that it was already detached before I started my repair efforts. I wonder if the phone can still work with this part being lose.
\n\nSo my question is: What type of electrical part is the loose part and how does it work?\n.
\n\n![\"loose](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/foN8u.jpg\")
\n![\"loose](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PrLLd.jpg\")
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/gApTp.jpg\")
Note: I had it fixed before so it was not the first time the display was replaced (not by myself)
\n", "Title": "Is this question about a part of smartphone concerning it repair ontopic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Thanks for asking first, but I'd have to say no, it isn't on-topic, and there's no way to make it on-topic.
\n\nThe biggest problem I see is that from your photographs, it isn't an electrical part at all, but rather a mechanical part. Its only electrical connection seems to be to the ground plane of the PCB. It may have something to do with making a shielding connection, but even then, it would be very specific to the mechanical design of that particular phone.
\n" }, { "Id": "6828", "CreationDate": "2018-11-14T16:36:10.900", "Body": "About 4 years ago, I asked a question, which was closed as off-topic, but is now on topic in a recently created SE site. Can someone migrate this question? Thanks in advance.
\n", "Title": "Request to migrate a question", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "We can't migrate old questions, unfortunately. The SE system doesn't allow to migrate questions older than 90 days.
\n" }, { "Id": "6830", "CreationDate": "2018-11-16T23:40:09.423", "Body": "In chat, I asked about a possible undocumented core temperature sensor in a specific embedded processor. While the discussion itself was helpful, I was told that questions regarding undocumented features is off-topic on the main site because they would be opinion-based. Regardless of the topicality of the original question I wanted to ask, I would like to understand under what circumstances questions based on undocumented features or behavior are on-topic, if any.
\n\nMy argument is that many well-known and commonly used features for microprocessors, FPGAs, CPLDs, etc. are undocumented despite being well-known and having established behavior. In fact, for some microprocessors, you cannot even run an emulator for them for any non-trivial program without supporting undocumented opcodes. So would questions regarding, say, undocumented opcodes, sensors, or JTAG ports be off-topic? Are they always off-topic, or only if the undocumented feature requires a significant amount of guesswork or is otherwise not well known?
\n\nFrom what I can see on the rest of meta, even questions regarding hardware which is entirely undocumented is on-topic despite every feature lacking documentation of any kind. I also see a number of well-received questions on the main site asking about undocumented features.
\n", "Title": "Topicality of questions pertaining to undocumented features", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "I'd like to add some points to what Dave Tweed already said in his answer, which I agree with.
\n\nReverse engineering usually has lots to do with researching undocumented features, and reverse engineering is a legal mean of obtaining information about a design of a competitor, so it has industrial relevance in the electronics field.
Reverse engineering is also a standard practice in cases where you must cope with a design whose blueprints have been lost (say you have a sophisticated and expensive niche instruments to repair/upgrade and the manufacturer has gone bankrupt and cannot be contacted any longer).
Not yet/well documented silicon/firmware bugs are undocumented \"features\" that need to be researched.
Often a designer must research whether a component can be used outside the characterization provided by the manufacturer. This is a sort of research on undocumented features. This may involve complex statistical analysis on batches of the part and usually can be outsourced to manufacturers for a price. But sometimes you need to to that yourself because, for example, the manufacturer asks too much or it is not going to do it or it has not the expertise to do that (think of the characterization of a component in extreme environmental conditions, e.g. freezing cold, extreme hot or vacuum).
So, IMO, questions about researching undocumented features/behaviors of a component or a design are well withing the scope of our site and electronics design in general.
\n" }, { "Id": "6834", "CreationDate": "2018-11-19T23:49:08.127", "Body": "Can we have a collection of the worst engineering examples from this beautiful site?
\n\nThe conditions would be:
\n\nI remember this: Add ground earth to a Chinese music player
\n\nBasically a cheap MP3 player with an unisolated supply, that brings 220V mains straight to its line-out/speaker-out jack. Nice.
\n" }, { "Id": "6841", "CreationDate": "2018-11-27T17:31:55.123", "Body": "I have a technical question about a small appliance that doesn't fit with the Home Improvement stack exchange. But it's not an electrical engineering question but a electrical safety question and is fairly specific (burnt probe end on skillet controller probe, is it normal?) Thanks!
\n", "Title": "Can I ask a specific technical question about a small appliance?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Thanks for asking, but no, it doesn't fit here either. It would fall either into the \"usage\" or \"repair\" categories, which are both off-topic.
\n\nYou can try our chat area to see whether anyone there is interested in discussing it.
\n" }, { "Id": "6845", "CreationDate": "2018-12-01T09:53:10.207", "Body": "I don't know where to ask this question. It has to do with electronics and electrical engineering, but only as a tool for learning.
\n\nWhat I need are suggestions for a beginning electronics kit for an 8 year old. I know everyone says that their 8 year old is the smartest kid ever, but this isn't my child so I'm good (nephew). He's a smart kid, very intuitive and curious, and I'd like to give him the opportunity to get into electronics. If anyone has any suggestions for kits that I should look at, I'd be very grateful. I'm kind of at a loss as to where I should start him. I think anything with programming is probably out of his pay grade at this point.
\n\nIf this question would be better elsewhere please let me know gently and I'll post it there, and I apologize.
\n", "Title": "Question about electronics kits as gifts for an 8 years old", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Thanks for asking.
\n\nThis would be a topic for chat. Even if you avoid asking for specific product recommendations (which would be off-topic), the discussion would be largely anecdotal and opinion-based, which would also be off-topic.
\n" }, { "Id": "6856", "CreationDate": "2019-01-12T15:10:41.123", "Body": "Have used StackExchange quite a lot, first time user on the electronics site though. Posted a question where I am after a value:
\n\nLength of Signal When Simulating a Computer Fan Speed Sensor
\n\nSeemed to have annoyed Elliot here and can\u2019t see why they\u2019re acting hostile.
\n\nReady to eat humble pie if I\u2019m being antagonistic, however this is the only place where this question received this kind of response. Elsewhere we\u2019ve been going through motherboard\u2019s supported maximums and are trying to find a standard.
\n\nAm I doing something wrong culture-wise on this site?
\n", "Title": "I\u2019ve obviously rubbed people up the wrong way - no idea how - am I doing something wrong culture-wise on this site?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I don't want to wade through the edit trail, which is extensive, but it really looks to me like you're slowly adding the info needed to provide an answer, and it's frustrating a user. The user seems a bit grumpy, but certainly not over the top.
\n\nMy bent is to simply ignore such questions, or close vote as \"unclear what you're asking\"
\n\nThe first frustration, for me, is the long edit trail. It makes it difficult to understand the history of the question. There is no formal policy on this, but if you've gone through three edits and still need to change something, you might consider deleting and starting fresh (or ask a mod to help with deleting). The long edit trail is a pretty clear sign that there is a problem.
\n\nAs near as I can figure out, your main question is \"How fast a signal can a motherboard handle?\" without even providing information on which motherboard. The user's issue with this is pretty valid. That makes the question underspecced. For all I know, you're talking about a PDP/8. Do you mean \"all computers a person is likely to be able to buy today?\" Do phones count? Chromebooks? How fast is the motherboard clock?? I suspect that will make a difference.
\n\nThen, it looks like orbiting around the main question is \"how can I program this\"? When the whole question has an anchor that's floating around, that can get pretty frustrating to answer.
\n\nYou also really never get around to saying what \"combining four fans\" means. Are you trying to drive them all with one PWM signal? Are you trying to just AND their Hall Effect outputs together? Are you building a fan control board? Without details like this, this is an XY problem.
\n\nThe best approach for this particular question, for a start at least, would be a question on SU to the effect of \"is there a standard for a motherboard fan interface, and where can I find it?\" I think that question would float on this stack, too.
\n\nFWIW, a quick google for 4 wire fan control standard yielded https://folk.uio.no/kyrrens/diverse/viftekontroller/developer-specs-REV1_2_Public.pdf as a first hit.
\n" }, { "Id": "6874", "CreationDate": "2019-02-01T17:11:03.760", "Body": "I was one of the ones who voted to close this question: Could single-line-power-transmission be used for a space elevator's climber as, at the time it was made, the actual question was not very clear and seemed very broad. I did see a way to redeem it and commented as much.
\n\nAfter it was closed the OP revised the question and made it a clear and worthwhile one (in my opinion). However, it is also clear to me that for most EEs the topic might sound like voodoo or perpetual motion. But I can assure you it is not, the principles are well-stablished, well-understood, and in one way or another have been observed at least since the times of Nikola Tesla. That's part of what makes it a good question, as a means to explore this undeserved bias.
\n\nI voted to reopen, but the vote got nowhere (the question got edited since then so I cannot vote on it again.)
\n\nCould someone tell me (and the OP), what is wrong with the current state of the question?
\n", "Title": "Request to reopen. Peer-pressure or peer-review?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|closed-questions|", "Answer": "The linked question does not meet the guidelines if there site or stack exchange. It fails in several ways: it is an opinion question \"is it possible\" questions automatically make it a matter of opinion.
\n\nIt's too broad, by asking several questions. Questions should be specific, clear, and answerable. Multiple questions could in most cases be asked separately.
\n\nAnd as far as being on topic this is a gray area, asking a question about space elevators on a site where most people practice circuit design is probably not wise.
\n\nThe OP has question that they should not have asked per the site guidelines:
\n\n\n\n\nyou are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: \u201cWhat if ______\n happened?\u201d
\n
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
\n\nThese two questions are opinionated and openended:
\n\n\n\n\nIs single-line power delivery physically possible at all? Is\n single-line power delivery practical with probably available\n technology?
\n
That alone would invalidate the question, but the OP asked 5 questions, which is in most cases too many because to sufficiently answer all these questions would take more space and several pages.
\n\nI would also vote to close this question
\n\nFurthermore the topic is not really in line with the site guidelines:
\n\n\n\n\nThis site is for electronics and electrical engineering professionals,\n students, and enthusiasts. We ask and answer questions about\n electrical and electronics engineering topics, which include\n electronics, physical computing, and those working with\n microcontrollers, Arduinos and embedded systems. We feel the best\n Electronics Design questions have a schematic, links to pertinent\n datasheets or some source code in them, but if your question generally\n covers \u2026
\n\n\na specific electronics design problem\nthe theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces\na communication scheme\nthe writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications\n
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\n\nIMO the topic is too outside the scope of this site, and is not about electrical design.
\n\nA better way to phrase this question would be \"I have material X with Y conductivity, would this be a suitable material to be able to deliver 1MW of power 200km?\" That is a design question that can be answered.
\n\nYou have to have 5 votes from different reviewers to open or close a question, so most of the time (not all) an action taken it on a question is correct
\n" }, { "Id": "6876", "CreationDate": "2019-02-03T22:01:32.217", "Body": "I have a gaming device I want to ask about repairing and want to make sure I can ask it here
\n", "Title": "can I ask about how to repair a gaming device", "Tags": "|discussion|scope|", "Answer": "We discourage broad, open-ended questions relating to the reverse engineering, modification and/or repair of devices here on EE.SE because the answer(s) tend to become long strings of unrelated edits and/or comments. While this might help you with your immediate problems, it is of no value to the site overall. We DO allow certain questions about reverse engineering in which you explain in detail what you know about the circuit and then focus on a few points about which you still have doubts.
\n" }, { "Id": "6878", "CreationDate": "2019-02-08T09:04:09.353", "Body": "I am a novice engineer with the task of making CE marked products. Unfortunately I am being lost in directives and often I don't understand which standards and directives apply to my product. I want to get help but it seems that these are too legal to write on electronics.se, and too technical to write on law.se. Can I ask these on electronics.se?
\n", "Title": "Can I ask about product requirements on European Standards?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "Such questions are on-topic, as long as they are related to electronic design. This includes questions about directives/regulations regarding:
\n\nI've recently asked a question on EE.SE about setting up a home electronics lab which has been closed for being too broad. Original Question
\n\nThe default explanation that I've seen for removing these types of questions are along the lines of 'preventing answers/comments becoming discussions' 'keeping the focus of the site to electronics design'
\n\nHowever a lot of the discussion these questions create has really useful content. In the case of my question the answer I got before it was closed highlighted things that I hadn't thought of. The question was on topic for electronics design and was generic enough that other people in similar situations to myself would have found answers / comments useful.
\n\nClosing questions that are so broad they either a. cant be answered or b. aren't useful to anyone else but the author or c. are impossible to answer is fair enough but I've seen a lot that would have been helpful
\n\nIs there a place these types of questions should / could live?
\n\nId further like to add that when closing a question like this it should be necessary to give suggestions / pointers about how the question can be made more specific as many times I've seen questions being closed and the author re-posting a very similar question getting frustrated they cant see how to make it more specific.
\n", "Title": "Where to ask discussion / advice questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|on-topic|closed-questions|", "Answer": "Where? Right on Electronics StackExchange. But rather than re-think the where, perhaps you should re-think the how:
\n\nI've grown my electronics experience, home lab, and various projects all while using StackExchange to varying degrees. The trick is to have focused questions.
\n\nThe question \"What safety considerations in setting up a home lab?\" can mean a lot of things. ESD safety for components? Electrical safety for the occupant? Fire safety for the home? Safety for your cat that loves to investigate your bench?
\n\nBreak such a question down to constituent parts and really focus on a particular aspect. Say you're building the bench and wondering about whether you should get an ESD mat and connect it to ground. Look for questions that already deal with that topic first, and then if you don't find anything, ask about it.
\n\nSay you're considering getting a soldering station and wonder whether you should invest in one with various safety features (power-off timer, sleep function, etc.). Again, look for questions that already cover this, and then ask a new question if you don't find what you're looking for.
\n\nThe advantages to this strategy are many:
\n\nSeven years ago, I asked whether PCB review questions were on-topic. I think they're generally acceptable when they fit certain guidelines. However, I noticed that we don't seem to have good tags to assign to such questions.
\n\nWe do have a review that that's not used much (18 times). I think its purpose would be similar to the identification tag. Therefore, I am checking with the community:
\n\nWould a design-review tag would be useful to add for questions seeking a review of the design, whether schematic or PCB?
\n", "Title": "Proposal of design-review tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "This is a meta tag . Searching on it is useless, and it's frowned upon in the stack exchange network
\n\nJust look at the results of a search for \"design review\" https://electronics.stackexchange.com/search?q=design+review The hits fall into a few categories.
\n\nThe most common, to me at least, is just plain mediocre questions. There's also a class of good questions that are undertagged, which decreases their value. Many are good questions that have some very good tags, and adding a design review tag probably won't make them better.
\n\nFor example, let's say I'm interested in constructing an rf circuit as a pcb, and I scan for design review questions.
\n\nSearch on \"rf\" : https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rf\nSearch on \"rf design review\": https://electronics.stackexchange.com/search?q=rf+design+review\nSearch on \"rf PCB\": https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rf+pcb
\n\nThe last looks to be the most useful search to me.
\n" }, { "Id": "6890", "CreationDate": "2019-02-17T01:21:40.970", "Body": "I was viewing a post on my iPhone (in Safari) which had some MathJax equations, and I accidentally clicked on an equation and opened its MathJax menu:\n
![\"MathJax](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/BWHDu.jpg\")
\nI can\u2019t seem to find a consistent method to repeat it (though I can get it to open sometimes with a random volley of frustrated taps).
\n\nTest Equation
\n$$\\text{Menu}=C_a*T (t_n, t_d) $$
where \\$C_a\\$ is the coefficient of annoyance,
\n\\$T\\$ is the tap sequence as a function of the number of taps \\$t_n\\$, and the tap delay \\$t_d\\$.
To open the contextual menu on a mobile device, use \"double-tap-and-hold\", which is a tap followed quickly by a second (long) tap where you continue to hold down until the menu opens.
\n" }, { "Id": "6894", "CreationDate": "2019-02-24T05:19:22.593", "Body": "Trying to access a page that doesn't exist on this site returns a colorful 404 page. For example, try to access the question number \\$\\sqrt{-1}\\$ and you get the 404 page with the image below.
\n\nI'd really like to know the origin of this image. Is this a computer interconnect architecture? A notable or historic effort?
\n\nI'm not asking for pure speculation. A google image search shows this image is used in several places for effect (e.g. slide 14 \"The Yellow Wall\"), but I haven't been able to track down the original source or a discussion of what is being shown.
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LSfCK.png\")
There is more info in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/cablefail/comments/1vdhky/the_great_yellow_wall_more_pics/
\n\nFrom \"scattyboy\":
\n\n\n\n\nI took these photos along with the original yellow wall in 2000. This was in the Lehman \n Brothers data center in 3 World Financial Center. In addition to the CAT5 cabling there was so much coax under the floor that the tiles would not lay flat.
\n
This seems confirmed by some other source:\nhttps://royal.pingdom.com/the-worst-cable-mess-ever/
\n\nUser \"Bob johnson\" says
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "6896", "CreationDate": "2019-03-01T19:53:08.777", "Body": "This picture is of Lehman Brothers World Financial Center 3 data center. Pre 9/11 it was the primary Data center, post 9/11 this site was breached by the dust and written off completely. Which was a good thing since there was no other way to fix that mess. Days were lost just trying to trace a single connection. There is a smaller gray version of this wall one of the NJ data centers thats still in use.
\n
I have seen variations of this a couple of times, but this particular case is quite blatant.
\n\nThe questioner went from a somewhat reasonably sounding homework question to something that has no context and makes no sense at all.
\n\nI feel tempted to revert the question one or two versions back, and I would if it had not been the questioner himself that made the changes.
\n\nWhat should be done? Prod the questioner to edit it again, or simply revert it?
\n", "Title": "What to do when questioner edits question into oblivion?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "A user vandalizing their own question is common enough. After a question is posted, it's no longer \"owned\" by the person who posted it so there's no reason to treat an edit from OP different than an edit from someone else.
\n\nOnce a question has been answered it should not be removed unless it's off-topic or breaks any other policy. Stack Exchange's goal is to create a repository of good questions, so the question is the asset here - not the user (I understand that the Corporate Overlords disagree these days, I guess marketing dollars and PR is more important to the business side).
\n\nIn the future, just revert it. IMO, OP does not deserve any slack after such a move and will probably not come back until it's time for the next homework question anyway.
\n" }, { "Id": "6899", "CreationDate": "2019-03-04T15:47:46.183", "Body": "I've noticed that some recent questions have been tagged with both op-amp and operational-amplifier (e.g. this question). The former seems to be the main tag (it has a tag wiki and over 4 thousand questions) whereas the latter has no tag wiki and only 111 questions.
\n\nThere is no need to have two tags for op amps. I suggest we make these two tags either tag synonyms and/or merge them. Assuming the community agrees, which should be the master tag?
\n", "Title": "Why do we have an [op-amp] and an [operational-amplifier] tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "OK, done. operational-amplifier is the master tag, and op-amp is a synonym that maps to it.
\n" }, { "Id": "6901", "CreationDate": "2019-03-07T22:35:26.583", "Body": "The [high] tag serves no useful purpose and should be deleted.
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/high
\n", "Title": "Obliterate the \"high\" tag", "Tags": "|support|tags|moderators|", "Answer": "Someone with enough rep created it, and then it got added on by a bunch of new users. I've edited it away. I've also done the same on the low tag.
\n" }, { "Id": "6907", "CreationDate": "2019-03-14T19:03:46.707", "Body": "Sometimes a question "A" will be closed as a duplicate of question "B", where "B" is closed as a duplicate of a third question, "C". Thus the relationship looks like:
\nA -> B -> C
For a concrete example, consider:
\nA: Can I use a single resistor for multiple LED with different +ve sources?
\nB: Why do different colored LEDs interfere with each other when connected in parallel?
\nC: Why exactly can't a single resistor be used for many parallel LEDs?
Is this the commonly accepted way to close duplicates? I understand that Q&A quality, not age, of a question should determine which one is a duplicate of the other. In this case, C clearly has the best Q&A, judging by votes.
\nI can make an argument for any of the following strategies. Perhaps the correct strategy is one of the following, or perhaps there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
\nThis allows other users to clearly tell which question has the best answers at a glance. Users are not directed through a chain of duplicates, where such a chain could be confusing to new users. Finally, this helps collect all the good answers in C.
\nNavigating to question A gives a link to both B and C. Why wierd capacitance values is an example of such a question with multiple duplicate targets. A user is given access to a (potentially) large variety of answers.
\nNew questions (A) can be marked as duplicate of another duplicate (B). Similarly to argument 2. above, this gives a user access to a variety of potential answers, but in a different manner.
\nIs there a canonical best approach to these duplicates? Or, is there guidance in choosing which one of these approaches fits a given situation?
\n", "Title": "Should a Question be closed as a duplicate of another duplicate?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Never close duplicates as dupe to a duplicate. Find the highest quality post on the topic and use that one as \"canonical duplicate\", meaning all dupes should point to that one.
\n\nTechnical quality of the question and answer is all that matters. Keep the highest quality post, which is not necessarily the oldest one.
\n\n( As a side note, \"dupe chains\" can be a major pain when (user) moderating. If you have A -> B -> C and then need to delete B for whatever reason, it isn't possible as long as A or other posts link to it as dupe. In order to get rid of B, you would have to find all posts linking to it, then either get rid of those or close them as dupes to some other post (like C). )
\n" }, { "Id": "6909", "CreationDate": "2019-03-15T16:25:33.437", "Body": "In this question, I get a good reaction why the answer is not good, so I want to delete it. However, the persons who made the comments spend some time on it; should I immediately remove the answer or should I let them know to remove it? It feels bad to remove an answer including their comments 'immediately'.
\n", "Title": "Deleting a bad answer after a remark", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The entire purpose of comments is to induce the poster to modify a post (question or answer). You have two options — either make modifications or don't. Modification could also mean deleting.
\n\nDon't worry about the comments. Comments that become irrelevant after modification will probably get deleted.
\n" }, { "Id": "6916", "CreationDate": "2019-04-03T19:21:06.853", "Body": "There are many comments that solve the problem, but the question has no answer. If the comment could make a answer is it ok to make an answer out of it to get rid of old unanswered questions?
\n\nA heat resistant connection between power supply and a resistive wire circuit (heat grid)
\n", "Title": "May comments be used to answer old unanswered questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|answers|comments|moderation|unanswered-questions|", "Answer": "Absolutely! If people choose to write answers in comments, that's on them. There's no reason for you not to put the same information into an actual answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "6918", "CreationDate": "2019-04-03T22:31:52.170", "Body": "I asked: May comments be used to answer old unanswered questions?
\n\nOne moderator says yes and the another moderator said no on the old questions answered this way. Should I listen to the moderator with a higher rep.?
\n\nSide Question? Is it better to have a half answer then no answer to lower unanswered questions?
\n", "Title": "Which moderator to listen to?", "Tags": "|discussion|moderation|", "Answer": "There's a general rule across SE sites that if someone posts an answer as a comment, it's fair game to turn that into an answer. I think there's even a blog post by Jeff Atwood (SE co-founder) saying it's fine.
\n\nHowever, the examples of what you did that Nick Alexeev posted are a terrible way to do it. If you understand a question and answer well enough to turn the comment(s) into a full-blown answer, I'd say that's fine. But simply copying a few different comments into the answer box isn't useful at all. They might be components of a complete answer, but the examples are pretty much incoherent.
\n" }, { "Id": "6930", "CreationDate": "2019-04-29T10:12:41.973", "Body": "I regularly review suggested edits. One prolific editor is constantly making the same mistakes in his edits, namely misusing \"a\" vs. \"an\" and not understanding that both the \"ise\" and \"ize\" word endings can be equally valid.
\n\nShort of re-editing or rejecting all of his suggested edits what options do I have for giving him feedback on his edits?
\n", "Title": "Contacting a user for editing feedback", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "You can also contact them via the comments of any post that they have edited, using @, as it works for editors as well, see How do comment @replies work?
Adjective tags are bad because they generally cannot be used on their own, requiring a noun to define. I found a few examples of such tags which I'd like to clean up.
\n\ncommon
\n\nWe currently have 37 questions tagged with common. \"Common\" is only meaningful when paired with a noun describing what is common: common-mode, common-base, common-ground, etc. Most of such composite tags already exist.
\n\npassive
\n\nThere's also passive with 12 questions, which refer to either a passive-filter (or, more generally, passive-networks), or to NFC tags lacking a power source. Perhaps we need a passive-nfc tag?
\n\nstable
\n\nAnother ugly adjective tag is stable, which hosts 11 questions. Here, I would suggest to replace it with stability when the question is about stability in terms of control theory, otherwise simply remove it and add an appropriate tag (e.g. voltage-reference) if possible.
\n\nresistive
\n\nresistive includes 24 questions which almost exclusively refer to resistive load, and eventually to resistive networks or brake resistors. Perhaps we should change that tag to resistive-load and remove it where it doesn't apply.
\n\ninductive / capacitive
\n\ninductive and capacitive mostly refer to either inductive / capacitive load or inductive / capacitive coupling. However, these tags are quite popular so I expect there will be plenty of exceptions. I suggest we start retagging these questions with appropriate tags such as capacitive-coupling and see what remains.
\n\nlinear / non-linear
\n\nThen there are linear and non-linear tags. These are more complicated because many more questions are using these tags, and 5 people currently watch linear. Most of these questions refer to two distinct topics:
\n\nI believe we should retag all questions in the second class with linearity, dedicate that tag to the property it names (and make that clear in the description) and eventually change linear to linear-systems. I'm afraid it won't be so simple though, as edge cases will pop up.
\n\nwireless
\n\nwireless is a very popular tag, which can as a first approximation be split between wireless communication (which IMO is just a cool name for radio) and wireless power transfer including wireless-charging. I think we should eventually change it to wireless-communication (and maybe make it synonym with radio), but before that questions which are not about communication need to be identified and retagged.
\n\nI would like to contribute to the cleanup, hopefully without disturbing the site too much. Any advice on how to proceed?
\n", "Title": "Common adjective tags must go", "Tags": "|discussion|retagging|", "Answer": "I would strongly encourage EE to follow the procedures used by our sister-site Stack Overflow (SO), since they have tons of experience here. From SO meta:
\n\nWhat is the process for tag removal (burnination)?
\n\nWhy not adapt their system instead of re-inventing the wheel?
\n\nThey have a special tag \"burnination-request\" used on meta, to flag candidates for tag removal. The post is then left open for discussion for a while, and if there's reasonable consensus, tag removal can proceed.
\n\nSO uses two different methods as outlined in the above link, one \"small burnination\" that can be carried out by high rep users alone, and one that requires moderator assistance.
\n\nThe most important part when doing tag clean-up is to review the question as whole. Is it on-topic in the first place or should it be closed? Are there other problems we should fix while editing? That is, once we've decided to \"disturb\" the site by editing a lot of old posts, we should make sure to fix as many problems as possible at the same time.
\n\nNow what SO has but EE lacks, is the luxury of countless high-rep users. Even in specific domains: meaning that clean-ups can even be done by domain experts. We won't have that luxury, so we have to be far less picky about who performs the clean-up. It is probably sufficient if the user has high rep.
\n" }, { "Id": "6940", "CreationDate": "2019-05-17T16:28:27.977", "Body": "We have several tags that are synonymous: ground, grounding, earthing. At the least we should roll grounding and earthing into the same tag. What do you think?
While most circuits have a \"ground\" reference, not everything is grounded to Earth. Thus they aren't necessarily synonymous.
\n\nCommon bench power supplies may have both \"ground\" (-) and \"Earth\" (green) jacks, but coupling them may be optional, since they are not the same thing.
\n\nMaybe that's not enough to keep the tags separate though...
\n" }, { "Id": "6942", "CreationDate": "2019-05-19T01:41:28.173", "Body": "I don't see any guidelines for down-votes. I thought that they should be reserved for answers that are wrong or misleading, not for correct answers that maybe aren't quite as good as others. Am I wrong?
\n", "Title": "Guidelines for down-votes", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "When a question should be closed (and down-voted)
\n\nIf it doesn't live up to the quality criteria described here:
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
This means that questions have to be specific, on-topic, narrow, reasonably researched/trouble-shooted in advance. And it has to be a question, not just a random statement.
\n\nQuestions asking for recommendations of components, places to buy, tools, libraries and other off-site resources are off-topic.
\n\nQuestions asking for help with homework must demonstrate research effort and be specific, with schematics, calculations or source code provided if needed.
\n\nQuestions requiring readers to go through lots of off-site resources may be closed too, on case-to-case basis. Schematics, pictures and source code should be posted on-site, not through a link. Links to external datasheets are however fine and encouraged.
\n\nWhen a question is closed, it is first put \"on hold\", to give the OP a chance to fix it. After a while, the status automatically turns closed and then it may eventually get deleted.
\n\nWhen a question should be down-voted (but not closed)
\n\nIf a question shouldn't be closed, but lacks in quality, it should be down-voted. This is a bit subjective but the purpose of down-voting is to encourage the OP to improve the post.
\n\nIf some things are unclear or contradicting, if the question is sloppily formatted or hard to read for whatever reason. Etc. Things that make it bad, but not bad enough to warrant closing.
\n\nWhen an answer should be down-voted
\n\nSame quality criteria as for questions, if things are unclear. Technically incorrect or unhelpful answers should be down-voted.
\n\nIt is polite but not required to:
\n\nNormally I can understand why edits were rejected, but in this case I can't. Just out of interest, why was this suggested edit rejected?
\n\nMaybe it is a matter of taste, but in my mind the edits improved the post's presentation:
\n\nAdmittedly I could have tidied the units, with non-breaking spaces, but as it was quoted text, then that would have been incorrect, IMHO.
\n\nAm I missing something obvious?
\n", "Title": "Rejected blockquote suggested edit", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "I think it looked funny to me, and so I rejected the edit then continued to edit it. As I continued to look at it, it looked fine, so I canceled the rejection. Apparently the system doesn't like that.
\n\nI can't follow what happened because of the changes to the edit stream. I'll be a little more careful next time.
\n" }, { "Id": "6959", "CreationDate": "2019-06-12T06:34:48.333", "Body": "This post was just migrated to the car mechanics site:
\n\n\n\nWhy?
\n\nIt is a 100% electronics question and has absolutely nothing to do with cars at all. Car mechanics can't answer questions about the behavior of CAN transceivers or about line impedance.
\n", "Title": "Why was this post migrated to mechanics.se?", "Tags": "|discussion|migration|moderators|", "Answer": "It shouldn't have been. Migration should only happen when something is OFF TOPIC HERE, and on topic there. This is clearly an on topic Electrical Engineering question. The mod who migrated it single-handedly does this to any question that even mentions a car, arduino, or raspberry pi to those other stack exchange sites.
\n\nFlagged for migration review by Mechanics mods.
\n\nUpdate: The question has been closed on Mechanics as Migration Rejected. It can be voted to reopen here now.
\n\nFurther update: The question has been reopened here.
\n" }, { "Id": "6962", "CreationDate": "2019-06-13T14:34:14.290", "Body": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/posts/442521/revisions ????
\n\nThe author is CONSTANTLY vandalizing his own post so a to make it unintelligible, with other users trying to save it. It's been locked, unlocked, deleted, and undeleted by divine intervention.
\n\nI'm downvoting, because I'm petty and pissed, especially about the useless intervention from on high, and will vote to delete if the option ever appears to me. If it gets edited back to remove the figure, I'm flagging it as vandalism, and I suggests everybody do the same.
\n\nIf the author has a reason to delete the figures, perhaps he should request deletion of the question, or reword it to make it understandable.
\n", "Title": "What's going on with this question?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "From the OP's requests in comments and chat, they wanted to remove the original images from the question. They had stated they would be in legal trouble if they could not.
\n\nThey clearly wanted to delete the question, but you can't delete your own question when it has upvoted answers. Unsure how to contact a mod to remove the question, they resorted to vandalizing the post (repeatedly). Chalk it up to a mixture of unfamiliarity with the site and posting something they shouldn't have (or believed they shouldn't have).
\n\nIt sounds like they spoke to the site mods and/or SE staff to resolve. They were given one last attempt to remove the offending information without rendering the question unanswerable, and did so here. The whole debacle should be over, now.
\n" }, { "Id": "6977", "CreationDate": "2019-06-24T13:16:02.283", "Body": "I review the edit queue. Part of my review procedure is if edit is done by user g or user p tick accept. Although these users do not have the reputation to edit without review they have consistently improved posts with a better use of English, formatting style and attention to detail than I can ever do.
\n\nI appreciate that trying to make changes to the SE system is like trying to push water uphill but in this case I think there is room for change. If for instance you make 25 edits in a row all accepted it would streamline things on the site if you were given edit privileges. A reputation bonus would be nice too to compensate for the failure to gain reputation when edits are approved and would encourage editing and good editing behavior.
\n\nReputation higher than 2000 does not particularly make you a good editor. Judgement should be made on success at the specific behavior which is what I am proposing.
\n", "Title": "Earning edit privelge", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "The edit privilege is given after you gain a certain amount of trust, because it's a rough measure of how involved in the site you are. SE doesn't want people simply editing, they want people to answer and ask questions. Another reason for this is it takes a certain level of knowledge of the topic of the site to earn 2000 rep. You will also notice that the rep system and badge system are to help you to learn how to contribute in many different ways.
\n\n\n\n\nWe believe in the power of community editing. That means once you've\n generated enough reputation, we trust you to edit anything in the\n system without it going through peer review. Not just your\n posts\u2014anyone's posts!
\n
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit
\n\nIf you're making a change to the system, you also need to consider the negative aspects of the change. Making the edit privilege easier to obtain would make new users, trolls or bots more able to earn the editing privilege and abuse the system, if it were only up to a 25 of edits to earn the privilege, it would also be easy for someone to create an account, roll through 25 edits and use the edit system for evil purposes. The edit rep limit is in place for a reason, the bar is set high, the limit prevents abuse, not only on this site but on all of SE.
\n\nSecondly, to get this changed, it would need to be changed not only on this site, but on all sites, and there would have to be very good reasons to make a change like this, and convince SE.
\n" }, { "Id": "6980", "CreationDate": "2019-06-27T20:36:33.607", "Body": "Sometimes, there are questions bluntly in the order of \"What happens when I stick a nail into wall socket while holding it?\"
\n\nOne could argue these questions concern electrical safety, which is an inherent part of electrical engineering.
\nHowever, in most of those questions, I only see the safety related part, without the covering engineering part. I feel some of those questions(1) are more sensation related than EE related.
So, I wondered: What is the policy regarding safety questions without covering engineering case/problem/schematic?
\n\n(I exclude questions related to X1/Y1 caps, how to explain safety related standards, etc)
\n\n(1) in general, not specific refering to linked questions above
\n", "Title": "What's our policy regarding safety related issues without engineering context?", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|down-votes|off-topic|", "Answer": "My view is that asking about concepts of electrical engineering are on-topic. For example, one could ask how a capacitor functions, with no other context. It should be on-topic as a means to cover topics that are \"the basics.\" Without this tenet, all questions would necessarily have to include some sort of engineering project or goal, which is certainly not always the case.
\n\nElectrical safety is a necessary topic that involves understanding the physics of electrical systems. If we (as a community) can provide resources to help others understand how they function, and how to be safe about it, then I consider that worth keeping on-topic.
\n\nSome examples:
\n\nThere may be a fuzzy line between someone asking a safety question with good intentions and someone asking with a different motive (sensationalism; a clearly unsafe project; or malicious purpose). The site's community-based moderation is a relatively good mechanism to reject the latter.
\n" }, { "Id": "6993", "CreationDate": "2019-07-21T17:04:15.060", "Body": "I'm talking about this answer which says:
\n\n\n\n\nThe link below explains the default rated (180VA) receptacles. [link]
\n
I see no difference between this one and the canonical \"i think you should take The tutorial HERE\". Without the link, there is no single fact mentioned in the answer which helps the user with their question.
\n\nHave I perhaps overlooked something?
\n", "Title": "Was I wrong flagging this as not an answer?", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|not-an-answer|", "Answer": "Just because a moderator does not ultimately affirm a flag, it does not mean that you shouldn't have raised it.
\n\nIn this case, I reviewed the flag, and decided that the fact that it was a self-answer was enough of an extenuating circumstance to allow the answer to stand as-is.
\n\nOf course, any edits that improve on the answer would be welcome.
\n" }, { "Id": "6995", "CreationDate": "2019-07-25T08:02:26.063", "Body": "Is it a good idea to immediately slap on the wrist and close questions? Or would it not be better to guide people in the right direction?
\n\nTake this question for example: How to evaluate the reliability of a PCB-printing service? I find the OP had legitimate concerns and wanted to have some feedback from other (probably more experienced) people about the general process.
\n\nI understand recommendations are considered off topic. But what is of greater worth? Guide someone in the right direction? Or slap him immediately on the wrist, close his question and send him into the woods.
Compare for example the above question which is of real world practical concern with this highly upvoted and purely theoretical and borderline philosophical question: Can a bird, previously at earth potential, get electrocuted by landing on a powerline at high-enough voltage due to the initial "equalization charge"?
I might be wrong but engineering has always been about providing practical solutions to real problems. Physicists can indulge themselves in theoretical debates of the kind in the 2nd question.
I see no comments, no feedback, nothing for the OP to go on, so that he may have had a chance to improve his post.
Or am I wrong?
\n", "Title": "Is it a good idea to immediately slap on the wrist and close questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|off-topic|", "Answer": "There are a few things you can do:
\n\nEdit the question if the question can be made on topic, many questions don't have a question or the right question.
Comment to the OP to correct their question (in a nice way)
Closing a question is a way for people to correct their questions, the site even shows how this is to be done. The people that have a valid question, and don't mind doing a little work to correct their question, will correct it and re-open it.
\n\nThe moderation system can reopen the question. If it's a valid on-topic question, most moderators will have no problem re-opening the question.
\n" }, { "Id": "7000", "CreationDate": "2019-07-25T21:50:11.143", "Body": "I must admit that I felt a bit offended by a specific user's attitude towards people trying to answer his question.
\n\nI also realize he mentioned that it's not the first time people helped him (and he didn't want their opinions), but his profile shows no prior questions. Strangely, I feel like I've interacted with him before. I might really be mistaken about that, and I frankly don't want to know; I think it's both better for my mood and him if I just choose to privately ignore him in the future.
\n\nI don't think he's commited a \"bannable\" offense, or anything that needs third-party rectification. I just have a desire to choose not to interact with him.
\n\nnb: I'm back later, but have decided to catch some sleep now, as I'll probably be less grumpy than I am now.
\n\n(note that I'm adding references to the interaction in question not to accuse the asker, but to clarify what kind of feelings I'm trying to avoid having to choose to either ignore or express. I would value your input on how to manage these feelings, but I'd guess that would justify asking a separate question.)
\n", "Title": "Is there a way to ignore specific user's questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|users|", "Answer": "\n\n\nIs this at all a sensible thing to do, as community member?
\n
No. You accuse Op of being rude multiple times, of wasting \"multiple expert's time\", of being entitled, snark and sarcasm as if OP should have known better. This site does not work on \"if you have to ask, don't\", and at the point where you feel entitled to insult someone for the crime of not seeing things your way, who do you think is the real problem?
\n" }, { "Id": "7004", "CreationDate": "2019-07-27T11:17:13.750", "Body": "A new user just asked this some minutes ago:
\n\n\n\n\nAs of now most of the negative feedback systems I have encountered\n have a feedback factor that is less than 1 but positive. However in\n some situations it seems the system can behave as positive feedback if\n the feedback factor is not negative.. I just don't seem to comprehend\n how this negative attenuation is accomplished just using resistive\n networks.. Ones I have used till now in my studies.
\n
I happened to be online and answered the following:
\n\n\n\n\nThere are some reasons why this can happen, and in fact happen all the\n time:
\n \n1 The output signal polarity may be reversed (or have enough\n phase shift) due to the plant transfer function. When you take a\n sample of this signal you can feed it back to the input directly\n because it already is negative feedback.
\n \n2 If the plant transfer\n function doesn't reverse polarity, then the injection point of the\n feedback at the input may reverse it instead, thus having the same\n effect. That's the reason why we use the negative input of opamps for\n feeding back the output, for example.
\n \nThese situations are effectively\n equivalent to what you call \"negative attenuation\" and are used\n extensively in amplifier design, etc.
\n
Two other users commented on his question post, too.
\n\nThen he briefly accepted the answer, then unaccepted it, then deleted the question. I don't know why, maybe he felt embarrassed... who knows. I browsed back to the deleted post and then raised a flag requiring moderator intervention. This is what I've said to them:
\n\n\n\n\nThis new user has asked an interesting question that might be useful\n for future users, but once he's got an answer then he has deleted the\n question. I found this to be disrespectful both for future users that\n might have a similar question, but also for those who took the time to\n read, comment and answer to the question. Should the question be\n undeleted and protected from user vandalisation?
\n
My question is: Was I right to raise the moderation flag, or it's just a waste of time? Do we, as a community, try to recover questions from their vandalising OPs because they belong to the site? Or it's just a fact of life that OPs can do whatever they want with their question, ignoring future users and efforts from those who answered?
\n\nI want to know just in case this happens to me again, not to bother moderators without a valid reason.
\n\nUpdate: It looks like the question has been undeleted, upvoted and accepted. Go figure. :)
\n", "Title": "Newbie asks question, gets answer, deletes question immediately afterwards", "Tags": "|discussion|new-users|", "Answer": "Yes, you were right to flag this.
\n\nNote that the system prevents users from deleting their questions if there are any upvoted answers. The reasoning for this is that it is removing another user's (your) content.
\n" }, { "Id": "7009", "CreationDate": "2019-07-30T15:37:04.983", "Body": "\n\nIt has apparently been used on only 5 questions. Two are for permanent-magnet motors and generators and one for a permanent-split-capacitor (PSC) motor.
\n\nI would be inclined to create permanent-magnet-motor and permanent-magnet-generator tags. A single permanent-magnet-machine tag might be better, but some people might not recognize it as meaning either a motor or a generator.
\n\nWould a permanent-split-capacitor-motor tag be too unwieldy? I suppose that anyone who would be looking for that might be just as likely to look for psc-motor. Perhaps the single-phase tag is all that is really needed, leaving the asker to give the sub-type as part of the description.
\n", "Title": "How should the [permanent] tag be eliminated?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Usually, tags like this are created by people typing in words in the \"tags\" field and hoping for the best.
\n\nThe low usage indicates that we do not need a tag for any of these, it would be better to use larger categories such as motor or brushed-dc-motor. Just edit as needed to get rid of the permanent tag, and then the tag will be automatically deleted when there are no tagged questions left.
\n" }, { "Id": "7026", "CreationDate": "2019-08-06T18:12:43.890", "Body": "The excellent Audio Pages by Rod Elliott had to move to a new hosting company, and the URL had to change with the move.
\n\n\n\n\nDespite 18 years of use, Westhost doesn't value their long-term customers, so we will be parting ways.
\n
I'm sure some of you have noticed that I have already updated the previous URL http://sound.whsites.net to the new https://sound-au.com manually over a few days, trying not to flood the front page. I did this because the automatic redirect will likely disappear in a year or so.
There are however still 87 posts containing the old-old URL: http://sound.westhost.com. This URL does not redirect anymore, and thus these links are broken but easily repaired by doing a search-and-replace http://sound.westhost.com to https://sound-au.com. The rest of the URL has not changed.
Is it possible for a diamond-mod to do such changes in bulk, or is there a bot that can do it? Otherwise I will do them manually over the next weeks.
\n\nThe related \"main\" meta question Bulk change hyperlinks tells me that it was not possible as of 2013, but I thought I could ask a more specific question here after 6 years of development, and this also serves as a \"heads up\" to let people know I'll be changing things.
\n", "Title": "I want to bulk-edit a domain change for Rod Elliott's Audio Pages", "Tags": "|support|hyperlinks|", "Answer": "![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/BjFVE.png\")
Manually changed every link, and did some very minor cleaning on the respective answers (and sometimes the questions, while they were already bounced to the front page).
\n\nAlso got me the Archaeologist badge:
\n\n\n\n" }, { "Id": "7037", "CreationDate": "2019-08-27T09:47:43.707", "Body": "Edit 100 posts that were inactive for 6 months.
\n
It turns out that the part in the question Generating negative voltage rail using 7805 is a P7805, which is a DC-to-DC converter, not a linear voltage regulator.
\n\nI notice that no-one has changed the part number in the question's title - is that deliberate or just that no-one's done it yet? (I know I've missed editing a title elsewhere lots of times when editing the body of a question.)
\n", "Title": "Should the 7805 part number in the title be corrected?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "Done. And the comments and answers based on the misreading have been cleaned up.
\n" }, { "Id": "7039", "CreationDate": "2019-08-29T01:12:51.890", "Body": "I've asked the following question: How would 'Electronics Right-to-Repair' legislation affect Electrical Design?
\n\nWhen I posted this I felt it was extremely applicable to electrical design. My intention was to find out what types of technical design changes would need to occur in order to accommodate this law. I thought this should be a fairly un-opinionated question with citation to IEEE or other design standards. I'm not looking to start a debate or open a forum question.
\n\nHowever, I received a pretty mixed opinion on the question. It was put on-hold almost immediately, and still is, but it is currently sitting with 4 up-votes, 4 votes to reopen, 1 vote to delete. One user thinks it is extremely appropriate, the other thinks it is completely off-topic. So I'm lost, is it on topic or not? I have read the help page but I get stuck on the fact that it uses words like feel and generally to describe appropriate questions.
\n\nI tried narrowing the question down to just the fifth point in order to make the question less broad but I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I edit the question further and try to salvage it, does it need more (or less) context, or do I just vote to close it myself? I don't care much whether is stays open or gets closed at this point but I am looking for an opinion from the community and to educate myself further about EE.SE.
\n", "Title": "What to do with my question on Right-to-Repair?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "So looking at the question, I think it's on-topic, but it's subjective and hypothetical. The main reason I see it as hypothetical is because you are asking about a trade group's goals, not necessarily about enacted legislation. A similar hypothetical is \"What if PETA had their entire agenda implemented in law?\".
\n\nSee the help center for further guidance.
\n" }, { "Id": "7041", "CreationDate": "2019-08-29T18:48:33.267", "Body": "I recently stumbled on this question and among the answers I found this one from an high rep user AND a moderator.
\n\nAlthough there is nothing wrong in the content of the \"answer\", it is clearly not an answer according to our standards, but just a comment.
\n\nIt simply states:
\n\n\n\n\nIt takes a lot of technology to make that possible. A grid-tied inverter is significantly more complex than an off-grid inverter.
\n
Hep! That first sentence could be used as a reply to more than half the questions posted on EE.SE! And the second sentence barely dismiss the question as \"too difficult to explain\", without even attempting at answering the actual question, which is about how a grid-tied inverter is able to do so.
\n\nThe fact that the question was answerable in a highly professional way is demonstrated by the very good answers that have been posted in that thread, so I hope there is no one arguing the \"answer\" I flagged was the only meaningful way to answer the OP.
\n\nTherefore I flagged the post accordingly as \"not an answer\" and then, to my utmost surprise I got this notice on my flag summary page (yellow emphasis mine):
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2lC1x.png\")
I really think the mod reviewing the flag has done a mistake. How on earth could that \"answer\" be considered otherwise than an insightful comment?
\n\nOtherwise I could be well go hunting for random questions and posting a canned answer on the following lines:
\n\nIt takes a lot of technology to make that possible. A [thingy named X cited in the question] is significantly more complex than an [thingy named Y somewhat related to X].
\n\nand see how many rep points I can reap, just for fun!
\n\nEDIT
\n\nSince an answer and relative comments made me think that maybe I wasn't completely clear, I'll try to reformulate my objections:
\n\nThe original question was comprehensible, on-topic and answerable in our format.
Any answer posted on any SE site must
\n\na. attempt to answer the question
\n\nb. stand on its own feet (no link-only answers, cryptic statement with no explanations, etc.)
\n\nc. provide information to the community, regardless of whether the user asking the question understands it or not
The above conditions in point 2 are to be met by an answer, regardless of the quality of the question. A bad question doesn't make a bad answer good!
Even if the question was poor or had problems, this doesn't authorize a user to post low-quality answers. The problem I see with the answer I pointed out is exacerbated by the fact that it was posted by high-rep user which is also a moderator, who should know the rules and help enforce them.
\n\nNote: I'm not particularly upset because that answer was posted. People (mods included) can do mistakes.
\n\nOn the other hand, I'm almost pissed-off by the flag rejection. Whoever handled that flag completely ignored the SE guidelines on what constitutes an answer. And this is still worse given that our site is notorious for having a harsher moderation policy.
\n\nMoreover, that answer will give other users a really bad example. They could point to that and justify any silly answer they could give with \"See. A mod did it, so it's good practice!\".
\n\nEDIT
\n\nIt has been brought to my attention by a comment by user Ilmari Karonen (posted on the meta-answer of user Pipe) that the title of the question was changed after the answer we are discussing about was posted.
I did notice the question was edited, but I didn't notice the editing involved its title. That's a reminder to myself to check the editing log more thoroughly! My bad!
\n\nWith the question's original title that answer was more justifiable, even if not great, since the question was really more blurry.
\n\nI still stand by my opinion regarding the objections raised by other meta-answers: if originally the title were really what appears now, that answer would amount as \"not attempting at an answer\", IMO.
\n\nAnyway, the point is now moot since the poster deleted his answer (kudos to Dave Tweed for recognizing it turned out not be an acceptable post, even if it marginally was when it was posted).
\n\nIf Ilmari Karonen reposted his comment as an answer, I'd accept that.
\n\nPROBLEM SOLVED
\n", "Title": "Why on earth was this flag on this answer of a moderator rejected?", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|", "Answer": "The question, as originally asked, was clearly based on a fundamental misconception. (The original question title was \"Why is adding AC power is easier than adding DC power?\") The answer you refer to corrects that misconception, and is thus a valid answer to the question as originally asked. In fact, it's arguably the only answer the original question needed \u2014 the other answers just went off on various tangents.
\n\nHowever, after that and several other answers were posted, the question title was edited (by a person other than the OP) into something quite different (and more in line with the assumed question the currently top-voted answers are answering). As a side effect, any earlier answers that didn't go off on tangents about the internals of grid-tie inverters were seemingly invalidated by the edit, at least if you're mainly focusing on the title. (The question body does still include some evidence the OP's original misunderstanding, if you read all of it.)
\n\nThe legitimacy of editing questions in ways that invalidate existing answers can be and has been debated in various places. My personal opinion is that it's situational, and that one needs to always consider whether the advantages (get a better question, hopefully invite better and more focused answers, possibly avoid the question getting closed) outweigh the disadvantages (put words in the OP's mouth and possibly piss them off, screw over folks who spent time answering the original question in good faith, maybe end up with answers that the OP doesn't want, need or understand). In any case, it's already been done here, and at least so far nobody's reverted it.
\n\nIn the mean time, it looks like the question has since then been closed as unclear, the OP has accepted an answer that sort of answers both their original question and the edited version, the author of the top-voted competing answer is about to get a gold badge, and the answer you flagged has now been deleted by its author. In short, it's all a big mess. Whether it's a bigger mess than if the question had not been edited is anyone's guess. Anyway, maybe someone will edit the question further and get it reopened, or maybe this is how it will stay. Who knows?
\n" }, { "Id": "7045", "CreationDate": "2019-09-05T03:29:44.113", "Body": "Is this a valid question for the EE exchange? \u201cI\u2019m an EE student who\u2019s minoring in math and am curious about what upper division math classes will be beneficial to me in the industry and/or graduate school. If I go to graduate school I will most likely follow the controls path.\u201d
\n", "Title": "Can I ask this in the EE parent site?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|", "Answer": "No, career and class questions you want to ask about are not on topic on the main site. You could try the EE.SE chat room .
\n" }, { "Id": "7049", "CreationDate": "2019-09-13T23:05:55.380", "Body": "I am having a problem pairing a beats headphone with my Samsung TV. It worked a couple of months ago, I lent them to my son who used them with different devices and now the TV doesn't see them. No problem with my Mac or iPhone. Where is this on-topic?
\n", "Title": "Where is question about pairing headphone to TV on topic?", "Tags": "|support|asking-questions|", "Answer": "It's on topic at the respective company's customer support.
\n" }, { "Id": "7057", "CreationDate": "2019-10-01T22:39:04.147", "Body": "If I remember right, there used to be an edit button on the schematic. The schematic html section says there is one. I can't find it, I remember it being next to the simulate this circuit link.
\n\n<!-- Begin schematic: In order to preserve an editable schematic, please\n don't edit this section directly.\n Click the \"edit\" link below the image in the preview instead. -->\n\n\n\n<!-- End schematic -->\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/B6w77.png\")
Anyway, one needs to change or the other, we shouldn't tell people something is there when it is not.
\n", "Title": "Where is the edit button on the schematic circuit lab tool?", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "If you edit the post, then you can edit the schematic.
\n\nThat's what the reference to \"preview\" means — you only get a preview window while you're in the process of editing the post containing the schematic.
\n" }, { "Id": "7072", "CreationDate": "2019-10-29T19:45:31.130", "Body": "The reverse tag is very meta, covers several categories. I nominate it to go away.
\n\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reverse
\n", "Title": "Nix the reverse tag", "Tags": "|discussion|support|tags|moderation|", "Answer": "I would agree; many of the questions tagged would be covered by the reverse-polaritytag latest questions tagged with reverse-polarity.
The first question in the latest for reverse is asking about a reversing light circuit on a car. How that adds any value to the question is beyond me.
The term reverse covers such a broad range that a proper definition would appear to be impossible and that being the case it adds no value (but does clutter the tags with a meaningless entry from my perspective)
\n" }, { "Id": "7077", "CreationDate": "2019-11-14T18:13:40.137", "Body": "From the tag info (highlight mine):
\n\n\n\n\nElectrical Machines are Electro-Mechanical energy converters. They maybe classified into motors (electrical -> mechanical), generators (mechanical -> electrical) and transformers (electrical -> electrical).
\n
The inclusion of \"resting\" magneto-electric devices in that category is imho controversial, but that's not the point:
\n\nSince transformers are significantly different from motors and generators, a tag covering all three feels less helpful:
\n\nWhilst you cannot, without knowing the direction of power flow, tell whether a specific machine is a generator or a motor at any point in time, so it's helpful to have a general tag for both.
\n\nA transformer is a transformer, and no (intended) mode of operation changes that\u00b9.
\n\nSince someone asking about a transformer is likely to use that tag, shouldn't we exclude that usage from the electric-machine tag description?
\n\nA reason for including transformers in the electric machinery category is that they are included in electric machinery textbooks. A good knowledge of transformers is required for learning about electric motors. The heart of the circuit model for an induction motor is a transformer.
\n\nA reason for not including it is that this is not a text book and using that tag is not all that likely to be helpful. Most people searching with that tag are not likely to be looking for questions about transformers.
\n\nI would be inclined to delete transformers from the tag.
\n\nFrom Wikipedia:
\n\n\n\n\nOther electromagnetic machines include the Amplidyne, Synchro, Metadyne, Eddy current clutch, Eddy current brake, Eddy current dynamometer, Hysteresis dynamometer, Rotary converter, and Ward Leonard set. A rotary converter is a combination of machines that act as a mechanical rectifier, inverter or frequency converter. The Ward Leonard set is a combination of machines used to provide speed control. Other machine combinations include the Kraemer and Scherbius systems.
\n
There are electrostatic motor and generators, but I don't know of other electrostatic machines.
\n" }, { "Id": "7078", "CreationDate": "2019-11-19T19:29:17.893", "Body": "Currently, we can mention a user using '@' under comments, only if he/she has already commented in that thread. Why our Stack Exchange doesn't allow one to mention any other users in comments so that he/she gets attention of the question or discussion? Particularly, if somebody wants to get attention of a person who has more expertise in that topic?
\n", "Title": "Mentioning a particular user", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|", "Answer": "We do this all the time in chat. You can ping any user, and provide a link to the question. Users are free to ignore this, so don't abuse it. If you get no response, don't go begging for a response.
\n" }, { "Id": "7090", "CreationDate": "2019-12-18T11:50:00.323", "Body": "I've encountered multiple questions that are marked as being highly active and requiring a higher reputation to answer. The only problem is that some(or maybe most, I did not keep track) of them last had activity years ago.
\nAs an example this question was asked and last active over 6.5 years ago, Highly Active does not describe it in my book.
Now I do vaguely recall seeing questions that were protected/locked to prevent the same activity that this header claims to prevent.
\n\nMaybe it's been brought up before, but I tried 2 or 3 different subjects and did not see it pop up.
\n\nJust wanted to voice my concern.
\n", "Title": "How does the system determine a \"Highly active question.\" -- I think 6 year old questions are not Highly active", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "The \"highly active\" term has now replaced the \"protected\" term, but the principle is the same: these are questions that have been specifically marked by moderators to prevent new users with very low reputation to answer.
\n\nIt is typically used for questions that get viral (due to the Hot Network Question list, or some tweet - hence \"highly active\"), so that people that aren't quite aware of the site rules don't pile in just to answer things like \"great question\", or \"I experience this too\", or some other kind of noise or spam.
\n\nRecently, the post notices for closed/protected/locked/deleted posts have been refactored by the SE team. So now, the \"protected\" term has been deprecated in favor of \"highly active\". It is possible that these questions aren't actually highly active anymore, but at some point, they have been. And they are still in that state where low rep users can't answer.
\n\nThere is more details about the significance of this statuts on the main meta: What is a \u201cprotected\u201d or "highly active" question?
\n\nAlso, see this post about the refactoring of post notices: New Post Notices are live network-wide. And have a look at pkamb's answer there, which summarizes pretty well how this new \"highly active\" notice is, indeed, very misleading.
\n" }, { "Id": "7095", "CreationDate": "2019-12-20T20:51:32.603", "Body": "![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/qjVYo.jpg\")
Of course, this should be capital M from mega, not the lower case m from milli!
\n", "Title": "Can we have the correct prefix for \"people reached\"?", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "That's a system-level issue that you'll have to raise on meta.
\n" }, { "Id": "7099", "CreationDate": "2019-12-30T14:41:33.887", "Body": "I am following an old schematic and a few of the Inductors are discontinued and cannot be found for sale anywhere. I have the datasheets but don't know enough about Inductors to find a suitable substitute.
\n\nThe rules specifically state shopping type recommendations are off-topic, so I'm wondering if my question is in a grey-area.
\n", "Title": "Can I ask about finding a substitute / replacement component that's discontinued?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Sure, I think it's a good question if you emphasize this part:
\n\n\n\n\ndon't know enough about Inductors to find a suitable substitute
\n
An answer to that will be valuable far longer than a simple shopping question.
\n" }, { "Id": "7106", "CreationDate": "2020-01-06T08:06:38.173", "Body": "How low have mains frequencies gone? What areas once used 30 Hz, and why?
\n\nVotes are +10/-3, there are three good answers with summed votes +18/-0, and the answers.
\n\nThe stated close reason is:
\n\n\n\n\nQuestions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site is intended specifically for questions on electronics design.
\n
I'm not sure how this applies because design of a power distribution includes the choice of mains frequency (in this case as low as 30 Hz) and this is certainly a circuit, and questions about mains power distribution are demonstrably on-topic (I can find many that are well-received and answered).
\n\nThe only negative comment I've found is that it lacks
\n\n\n\n\nenough effort or EE aptitude
\n
but I don't know if that's the reason this question was closed or not.
\n\nSo my questions are only:
\n\nOne edit I can think of off the top of my head is moving the \"why?\" to the beginning of the title.
\n", "Title": "How to edit the question to address the likely reasons that it was closed?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|specific-question|", "Answer": "This question was closed because 5 people were of the opinion that it didn't conform to the stated mission of this forum:
\n\n\n\n\nElectrical Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site\u2026.\n \u2026we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about electronics [and electrical engineering] design [and theory]\u2026.\n This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum.
\n \nFocus on questions about an actual problem you have faced. Include details about what you have tried and exactly what you are trying to do.
\n \nAvoid questions that are primarily opinion-based, or that are likely to generate discussion rather than answers.
\n
The stated reason is actually just a box that was checked by more voters than any other. The real reason can only be determined by interviewing the voters. That is often the case.
\n\nIn my opinion, the question is largely opinion based. As a history question, it does not pertain to an actual problem that anyone is facing today. The answers are not very likely to be useful for the education or assistance in the field today. That is not to say that the question and answers lack value, but only that they do not serve the purpose of this forum. I hope answers answers and comments provided are of some value to the asker, but I don't think they contribute to the mission of this forum. For those reasons, I provided an answer but voted to close the question.
\n" }, { "Id": "7115", "CreationDate": "2020-01-30T22:24:51.773", "Body": "PSU Series and Parallel Tracking Mode, Current Limit Behavior
\n\nI think this is a well considered and articulated question. Also not that deep or esoteric. So why hasn't it gotten any love?
\n", "Title": "Critique My Question", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I suspect it hasn't gotten attention because no-one who's seen it categorically knows the answer. It's the sort of thing where if the docs are unclear or ambiguous, nothing short of a test to learn the real answer would do.
\n\nIf you'd like some help designing the test that would tell you the answer, edit the question to so reflect, perhaps with your first stab at a test design -- though I suspect once you try your first stab, you'll have your answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "7132", "CreationDate": "2020-02-27T11:44:33.570", "Body": "Roses are red, violets are blue,
\nNormal links are blue, visited links are red.
But has the visited link color changed, very recently? I can't seem to recall it was red. Maybe my memory is weak, though.
\n\nAnd why red anyway? That's way too prominent in my opinion. I don't care that much whether I already saw the link (and question titles are easy to remember), but the red color made me wonder if there was some kind of error, or thing that the system was urging me to check on a few random questions, before I realized the actual reason.
\n\nCan we make that color less disruptive (as I'm pretty sure it was some time ago)?
\n", "Title": "Did the \"visited link\" color change recently?", "Tags": "|discussion|design|", "Answer": "So, it indeed changed, and several sites have been affected by this (see: Why are the colors of visited and non-visited links on Academia.SE so different?). This is likely due to some tweaks in the CSS (see this answer to: Code highlighting colors were changed. Intentional or not?), and was probably unintentional, which explains why nobody haven't been warned about this change.
\n\nIn any case, it seems to be fixed now.
\n" }, { "Id": "7145", "CreationDate": "2020-03-14T13:24:10.830", "Body": "A lot of electronics beginners use the NE555 as a learning tool, and that might very well be a good thing \u2013 but: in real-world applications, it's rarely the optimum (under any perceivable metric but \"I only like the NE555\") solution, and often not even an acceptable one.
\n\nThe NE555 stands out here among other components, because the difference between popularity (at least on EE.SE) and applicability is quite singular.
\n\nSo, following an answer Elliot gave, I came up with the idea in a comment:
\n\n\n\n\nit just appeared to me that we might want to have a \"reference question (and answer)\" that we can just refer this kind of askers to: \"I've noticed the NE555 isn't appropriate for my application or makes it much harder, so is there a simple replacement for these common types of NE555 applications: {list of the typical things}\" with a wiki answer, where we'd refer people to simple other one-off triggers, ramp generators, PWM generators\u2026;
\n
So, I'm about to write the reference question, and will start a reference wiki answer, in hopes it doesn't get downvoted to oblivion before it's really a solid reference.
\n\n\n\n\nAre such reference Q&As desirable?
\n
Absolutely! Look at Olin's Choosing power supply, how to get the voltage and current ratings?
\n\n\n\n\nIf it works out, how can I encourage power users to link to it, or even close as duplicate thereof, often?
\n
That's hard to predict or control. It all depends on the quality of the question and its answers.
\n\n\n\n\nSo, here it is: Replacements for NE555 circuits (or: WHY and HOW should I replace my NE555?)
\n
OK, let's talk about that.
\n\nWhile I appreciate the evident level of frustration that drove this, the question and its lengthy answer come across as very one-sided — practically a rant against ever using a 555 under any conditions!
\n\nThe question needs to address both the pros and cons of the 555 (and possibly its more modern variants), and the answer needs to avoid getting into the design of replacement circuits for specific applications — those should be references to separate questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "7156", "CreationDate": "2020-04-07T13:03:47.543", "Body": "A longtime user said that my answer was inappropriate. SN74LS93N is not counting as expected Please help me understand why it is inappropriate. I have been an active user for a year now, and I thought that I understood this site.
\n\nAt the time that I answered the OP had not posted a schematic, however a video indicated two potential issues. I pointed out these two issues in my answer. The OP made the corrections that I recommended and the problem was solved.
\n", "Title": "Inappropriate answer?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I'd just let criticism roll off your back like water off of a duck (I try and do that with some success, not always).
\n\nI do think people are a little trigger happy on the downvoting, but that comes with the space at SE, can't make everyone happy. Sometimes people just hate you for no reason or stupid reasons, that doesn't stop me from posting.
\n\nI think the answer is good.
\n" }, { "Id": "7166", "CreationDate": "2020-04-15T09:19:46.533", "Body": "Until very recently (maybe less than a couple of days ago) if I voted to close a question, I could re-open the close box and find a hyper-link to a page that explained why shopping questions get closed (for instance). I could then copy that hyper-link and add a comment to the original question such as: -
\n\n[Reason why shopping questions get closed](hyper-link)\nI did this to be a little helpful to the person raising the question.
\n\nI can't easily find that hyper link any more so can anyone direct me?
\n\nThis is the link I'm referring to.
\n", "Title": "Can't access \"reasons for\" links in closure box", "Tags": "|bug|close-reasons|", "Answer": "I was being dumb - it can be found here: -
\n\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/pgwZb.png\")
I've bought an FPGA, written some verilog to blink an LED, I've flashed the FPGA and it \"doesn't work\".
\n\nSo my question is basically \"why don't I see any blinking? Where is the bug and how do I fix it\"
\n\nNow, if I describe what I've tried to debug my work, explain how my source is built, etc, how I'm flashing it, is the question on-topic here?
\n\nThis is the question I ended up posting.
\n", "Title": "Is \"why isn't my fpga blinking an LED\" on topic here?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "FPGA, Verilog (or any other HDL) and LEDs are all on-topic here, as are questions about trouble-shooting electronics.
\n\nYou are however assumed to have sufficient electronics knowledge to perform some basic trouble-shooting yourself when prompted. At least basic stuff like hooking up a multimeter to measure supply voltage, pin output voltage and LED polarity.
\n\nThe more details and trouble-shooting efforts you can put in the question, the better. Include source code and/or schematic and/or links to datasheets in the question, if they are relevant.
\n" }, { "Id": "7183", "CreationDate": "2020-05-08T15:32:29.787", "Body": "I received an email today informing I have something in my inbox, when I clicked the link, it opened a page showing suggested edits to my closed question, on the page I'm shown on that users winny and JYelton have rejected the edits, to far right of this information is an Approve button.
\n\nWhat does this approve button do, does it approve those users' rejection of the edit or does it approve suggested edit.
\n", "Title": "What does approve button in suggested edits do?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "If you click approve on this edit, it will approve the suggested edit and override the decision of the two other reviewers. This is relatively new functionality.
\nNote that there is a gray banner between the navigation bar and the Approve button (only visible for you). It states exactly what happens when you click 'Approve':
\n\n\nThis suggested edit to your post has already been handled and your action is no longer required.
\nIf you disagree with this edit being rejected, you can apply it to your post using the Approve button below.
\n
But it looks like the user wanted to write an answer to your question, so they're completely changing the meaning of your post. They could probably better ask and answer a question themselves, though I can't comment on the validity of what they're writing.
\n" }, { "Id": "7208", "CreationDate": "2020-05-30T16:20:43.867", "Body": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#latex is plain wrong, $x$ doesn't work on EE.SE, \\$x\\$ does (which, honestly, is super annoying, because we're dealing with far more math than finances).
Could someone fix that page?
\n", "Title": "Help page about embedding LaTeX is wrong, needs fixin'", "Tags": "|support|mathjax|", "Answer": "Thank you for raising the issue, I see it's been escalated and I hope the help will be fixed.
\n\nAs per why we use the escaped dollar sign, here's the explanation.
\n" }, { "Id": "7214", "CreationDate": "2020-06-02T16:23:02.197", "Body": "The question How to fully discharge supercapacitor? was answered by showing the user that they had made a calculation error.
\n\nShould there be a \"caused by a typo or calculation error\" close reason?
\n", "Title": "Close reason for a calco (like a typo)?", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|", "Answer": "It's common that there incorrect items or statements in the question, they are asking a question because they aren't certain. There is no need to close questions because they are technically incorrect, unless the error is something very trivial and localized, with no interest to future readers. For example, Stack Overflow closes questions that can be answered by fixing a simple typo, like a stray semicolon in source code.
\n\nI think a question based on typos or silly misunderstandings should be closed here on EE as well. Like for example: \"What is the current flowing through R1 in this schematic? It burned up - see picture - and I'm trying to figure out why\". Then someone notes: \"That's not R1, the silk screen says R10\". Such a question can't be answered but needs clarification by the OP - close as unclear until fixed.
\n" }, { "Id": "7219", "CreationDate": "2020-06-03T09:31:20.033", "Body": "I noticed that there is a tag project-management. This should be explicitly off-topic and there is even a dedicated site for such questions, https://pm.stackexchange.com/. Notably, almost no question using the tag is actually about project management.
\n\nIt's just 25 questions so I can clean this up myself with edits, but posting here before I go ahead. I'd do this according to the SO tag removal process which (TL;DR) basically means not just blindly removing the tag from every post, but also reviewing each post to see if it should be edited, closed or if other tags needs changing while at it. I trust that the same method is sensible to follow on EE as well.
\n", "Title": "Why is there a project management tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Almost all of the questions that had the project-management tags are from the EE.SE 1.0 days and are 8-10 years old. The questions still have value,so they need not be deleted (also, it is not necessary to go back and find old questions to be closed, if there are problems with old questions (like people posting bad answers, then they should be closed). The questions cannot be moved, as only questions up to 1 month old can be moved to a different site. The questions will need to be retagged, do you best on the retagging.
\n" }, { "Id": "7229", "CreationDate": "2020-06-15T16:59:26.173", "Body": "My tag score for [digital-logic] is 1 instead of 2. Why?
\n", "Title": "I have answered 2 questions with a score of 1 each on the tag digital-logic. Yet my tag score is only 1 for digital-logic. Why?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Tag scores are updated once every 24 hours. You got two upvotes the last hour, but it may take a while for your tag score to be updated.
\n" }, { "Id": "7231", "CreationDate": "2020-06-16T09:03:47.250", "Body": "I'm using a touch-screen device (a smartphone or a tablet) to access this site.
\nHence, the built-in circuit lab won't work for me. What do I do to add a schematic to my question?
\n", "Title": "How to add a schematic if my mobile device can't run the schematics editor?", "Tags": "|support|schematic|", "Answer": "I once had a boss with lots of experience and a PhD but did not know how to use a computer, but he knew the power of a pencil.
\nMeaning: you don't need computer skills or even a schematic editor to be a great engineer.
\nThis was filtered from @MarcusM\u00fcller 's last photo.
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/eWHxi.png\")
But you need some computer skills to make a readable photo.
\n" }, { "Id": "7236", "CreationDate": "2020-07-11T07:32:59.367", "Body": "This question was migrated to Motor vehicle maintenanace and repair:
\nhttps://mechanics.stackexchange.com/q/77787/10976
\nWhy? It is clearly not about a motor vehicle and is about the use of power supplies, which means it is surely more relevant on this stack.
\n", "Title": "Migrating questions when and why", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "When I read the question I thought it was about modifying a car or motor cycles 12 cigarette lighter so I moved it. I apologise, it shouldn't have been moved, I am human and I do make mistakes every once in a while (I review 100s of questions on the site each week)
\n" }, { "Id": "7249", "CreationDate": "2020-08-27T16:17:47.070", "Body": "![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/DvhGG.png\")
The line spacing on Q&A text has opened up making each line look like a separate paragraph. This is the same on Chrome / IE and on Android Chrome.
\nAre some of the guys in the basement twiddling with the knobs?
\n", "Title": "Has there been a body text CSS change on EE.SE?", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "You're right, line spacing has been increased as mentioned here on Meta Stack Exchange: New post formatting
\nMany people don't like the change, and posts like Please revert the line-height change! and this answer are very popular right now.
\n" }, { "Id": "7261", "CreationDate": "2020-09-13T03:32:39.680", "Body": "After checking the stats on custom closing messages, homework seems to come up at least 30% to 50% of the time. Because of this, creating a custom closing message would be beneficial.
\nHomework questions are allowed on this site if there has been a solution attempted, without a solution the question should be closed (there are unscrupulous posters that post questions straight from a text book without attempting or even post cell phone pics straight from exams).
\nA suggestion on a message would be this:
\n\n\nI\u2019m voting to close this question because homework needs an attempt at\na solution. Provide the solution, edit the question and reopen your question
\n
If you have any suggestions on a message post below
\nEdit:
\nFor anyone looking at this for the status review, we need the question count to be increased on the site so we can add more close reasons. I think ours is suck at 3, we'd like 4 or possibly 5.
\n", "Title": "Adding a community specific close message for homework", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|homework|", "Answer": "Right now y'all are using the three slots allowed for a site by default - it's not a matter of them being stuck, that's just the default for everyone. We can expand the slots to four or five - five is the max - but we tend to do so thoughtfully to ensure that there's a strong need for it.
\nMany of the requests we get for this come from sites that have used the three slots but one of the close reasons they have active currently gets very little usage and so we recommend that they retire an unused reason rather than having a fourth one. This is important because the close UI can already be somewhat confusing and muddying the system with superfluous close reasons exacerbates that issue. We're doing a lot to improve that experience so hopefully that won't be as big of an issue moving forward.
\nThe first thing that I do when I get a request like this is to review the 10k user tools that show the close stats for the site over the last period of time if you have 10k reputation here, you can view the last 90 days by clicking this link. If you don't have 10k, I'll show you what it looks like here:
\n![\"Screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/BbAUe.png\")
Here you can see the usage of the different close reasons the big ones in the first five rows are the ones on the "community specific" page of reasons, so the three custom ones for EE along with the catch-all "other" and the migration option (belongs on another site). Of the three custom ones, your repair reason is used the least, only used on 5.23% of questions overall - now, this is a small percentage but since y'all close quite a few questions, it's still 70 questions, or about one per day. The other two are nearly triple that, around 13.5% each.
\nConsidering this, I'm willing to increase the number of slots to four but I'd really like y'all to think about your close reason more carefully - not because I think the reason you want to add is bad - you're already using it as the most-created reason for the "other" option:
\n![\"Screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/NT4QX.png\")
There were 70 questions over the last 90 days closed with some variation of the homework close reason and - well, I'm supporting making this a close reason for the minimal reason that some of the messages that have been created weren't necessarily very kind:
\n\n\nI\u2019m voting to close this question because this is homework, dumped on us, without any own effort and without even asking a question of one's own understanding.
\n
\n\nI\u2019m voting to close this question because stack exchange isn't a homework solved on demand service.
\n
I understand that it can be frustrating to see these questions over and over and even to have a request like this one in place to get it made an official reason makes you hopeful and looking forward to a time you don't have to recreate the text over and over.
\nSo, what I'm asking is that y'all come up with a few things - close reasons are much more complex now than they were when your last reason was added. Now, rather than only needing one piece of text that did all the work, you can now target the text to different audiences. So, rather than one, you need five elements:
\n\n\nThis question is about a homework problem but is missing additional details such as the asker's attempt at a solution and an explanation of what they do not understand.
\n
\n\nThis question was closed because it is about a homework problem but doesn't provide sufficient information to be answered. It is not currently accepting answers.
\n
\n\nWhile we will not provide the answers to your homework, we can help you understand how to get to the correct answer. To do this, we need you to edit the question to include more details including what work you have already done and the solution you came up with and specific information about where you are stuck on solving this problem.
\n
\n\nPlease guide the user with specifics on how they can improve their homework question - if some of the details are in the comments, consider editing the question to include them. If the necessary information is added to the question, please vote to reopen it.
\n
Y'all have a ton more context than I do, so I assume you can do a better job of crafting these elements than I can but I do hope that this gives you some help in how to do this. You have 500 characters to work with for the last four of these. The first is much shorter (100 characters). Please let me know if you have any questions. Once you've completed this, ping me and I'll get a developer to increase the number of close reasons for you.
\nAdditionally, if y'all would like to follow this format for your existing close reasons, please do drafts for them here on EE Meta and a CM can edit the existing reasons to follow this pattern (have a mod tag the discussion status-review once you've settled on the text). Since moderators can not edit the close reasons, you'll need a CM to help with that but we're happy to do it if you wish.
\n" }, { "Id": "7262", "CreationDate": "2020-09-13T09:15:42.847", "Body": "Is there a rationale for the texas-instruments tag?
\nI don't see how that's a sensible category for engineering questions \u2013 if you want to talk about something like msp430, there's a tag for that, and it really doesn't matter who produces the buck converter controller you have a question about, does it?
\nDidn't want to this "tag-cleanup" right away, because maybe I'm just missing something.
\n", "Title": "Is there a reason for [tag:texas-instruments]?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "This is the sort of case where we should be able to ban a meaningless tag from future use, but where retroactively touching questions to remove it would create unjustified churn cluttering up the main page.
\n" }, { "Id": "7268", "CreationDate": "2020-09-20T19:12:23.397", "Body": "While reviewing our close dialogs, I noticed that as of now, only migration to
\nis possible.
\nI'd propose we add multiple:
\nOf course, suggestion to migrate are not to be taken lightly, but I see them as the preferrable alternative to "denyingly" closing, of course given that we're not dumping our garbage on another community, but I think "if it's too unclear to be answered, close it for that and comment that OP should improve the question and ask it somewhere specific" isn't that hard a guideline to implement.
\nSo, what're the thought about adding these three options?
\nAlex just pointed to the last 90 days' migration stats:
\n![\"Migration](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/WRU1u.png\")
My analysis:
\nThis is fine if...
\nOne problem I see is people forwarding questions wrongly to another site, a mod is less likely to do so, just my two cents.
\n" }, { "Id": "7288", "CreationDate": "2020-10-23T20:28:33.680", "Body": "A question of mine about ground has received three requests to be closed and has received like two downvotes. The three requests say that my answer is a duplicate, probably of this other question.
\nWhat my question is about: a specific definition of ground used by some people. Such definition is "ground is the point/node defined as 0 V". I want to know if this definition is correct or not:
\nOn the other hand, the question that has been linked to my question is about:
\nClearly my question is not the same as the linked question. If you think it is, please explain why. My question is about ground defined as "the point defined as 0 V", while the linked question is about ground defined as "reference node".
\nThe user Chris Stratton said in a comment to my question description that "The question of which this is an obvious duplicate is not about simulation but about general concepts. It is absolutely a duplicte." Assuming he is right, how would I know beforehand the definition of ground used in the linked question is a general definition? In the linked question, people were talking about circuit analysis, while my question was about circuits in homes, power systems, distribution systems, etc. My reply to him was that I didn't know the definition of ground used in the linked question, is also used in the context I was talking about (assuming he is right). I further said that if I hadn't asked my question, I wouldn't have known that in the first place. Then, he didn't reply me more. How do I know if he at the end agreed with me? Of if he still thinks my question is a duplicate?
\nThe users The Photon, Neil_UK and jonk in a way said I was overthinking (click the links to read their comments). Is this a reason for downvotes? If yes, I think that would be a stupid reason.
\nAn example: It's like telling a physicist he is overthinking when he's trying to explain a phenomena, don't you think? It's like telling Einstein "You're wrong trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics, you're overthiking, you're complicating this", yet in the end, Einstein was correct.
\nAnother example: You may have heard of the beer analogy for explaining reactive power. This analogy is good only at explaining that apparent power is never less than active power or reactive power. But this analogy is wrong, because if you look at the image people use, it gives the illusion that apparent power (the whole beer) is the sum of active power (the liquid) plus reactive power (the foam), when in reality it's the square root of the sum of active power squared plus reactive power squared. Now imagine that I explain this truth to someone, i.e. why the beer analogy is wrong, and I receive downvotes just because I overthought the analogy. Seriously?
\nI'm asking my question because I want to know if the definition of ground I said was correct. And if it wasn't, I asked for a more precise definition.
\n", "Title": "Why has my question received downvotes and has been considered as duplicate?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The question has been voted to be closed as a duplicate, but had only received three votes. I don't think it should be closed, but it doesn't matter as the question has been answered (the main thing closing does it's prevent new answers) As far as down votes the community is free to choose how they vote on questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "7291", "CreationDate": "2020-10-24T13:03:04.530", "Body": "Reccently I came across this phenomenon: In some questions, the mistake that led to the question was pointed out by other users due to either someone answering the question or pointing out the mistake in the comments. The Original Poster then edited the question to hide the mistake. This removed the purpose of the question, making it difficult to understand the answers or made it difficult to answer the question. What is the best thing to do in these situations?
\nFor example:
\nWhy should we not change inputs to a sequential circuit (Moore machine) at the clock edge?\nHere the original poster edited the question to make the problem less obvious. Only when looking at the previous version in the edit history, the problem becomes obvious.
\nAsynchronous reset within always block - BLOCKING vs NON-BLOCKING assignment\nIn this case, the question was edited after it was answered, making the answer look confusing to other readers.
\nI have 2 suggestions:
\nPlease give more suggestions or shed light on the policy of the community on these situations, so we can know what has to be done in such a situation.
\n", "Title": "Poster edited the question in such a manner that it became hard to identify the original problem", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "It is already easy to roll back edits. Here is what it looks like for me when I look at the edit history for your second question. The first revision has a dedicated rollback button.
\n\n\n\n
Any user with a reputation score of at least 2000 should see it, but it may be hidden for peons new users.
However, I really don't see the problem with either of these questions. The edit history for the first one does not show anything other than typo and grammar corrections, and the second one didn't seem to change the meat of the answer.
\n" }, { "Id": "7294", "CreationDate": "2020-11-28T14:57:02.643", "Body": "Can I use the Meta site to discuss technically incorrect answers so that the the community could reach a consensus that the answer was incorrect and appropriate action can be taken?
\n", "Title": "How should technically incorrect answers be dealt with?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "There are a few things one can do on technically incorrect posts:
\nKeep in mind that technically incorrect means different things to different people. The first thing to do would be to use the comment system and try to correct the post that way.
\nIf you do wish do discuss questions on the meta realize that it's a slower process than the steps above
\n" }, { "Id": "7298", "CreationDate": "2020-12-02T14:02:54.657", "Body": "I believe that this answer which got 22 upvotes is wrong for the following reason:
\nThe author's claim that "s_out is only going to change once - to the value it was when the loop ended, which in this case is s_in shifted by 4" is wrong since it has been proven wrong by observing the simulation result. The technical reason is that signal values get updated at the end of the delta cycle.
\nThe author uses a Finite State machine that copies a parallel value to the shift register after n shifts, instead of storing the value.
\nI also commented on the author's answer why I felt it was wrong.
\nAs none of the other suggestions mentioned worked for me, I have decided to take the last alternative and discuss about this answer on Meta.
\nUpdate: The issue got resolved after I added a comment informing the author about this discussion. The author then fixed the mistake in their answer.
\n", "Title": "Discussion about voting of answers to a question on VHDL", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I suppose I should weigh in on this, since my answer is under scrutiny here.
\nI'll point out that this answer was written by myself 7 years ago, and has amassed 37 thousand views over that time. In all that time, it is expected that someone would have found issue with the answer if it was factually incorrect. There are several other highly reputable HDL coders on this site, several of which I interacted with regularly years ago, and they did not say anything about this answer.
\nAdditionally, the OPs question actually was regarding the for loop working: "I don't think the for loop is working,... Where am I going wrong?"
\nSo I did answer the question, and the OP even commented saying my answer was useful to them.
\nThere is no obligation on this site to supply complete code, and this is not a tutorial site where you google "Shift register" and get a complete example. I'm under no obligation to even put code in my answer.
\nIndeed, I even commented in response to you the following,
\n\n\nI wrote this answer 7 years ago with the intention of demonstrating\nthe thinking behind using a state machine to solve problems like this.\nThe intention is to demonstrate a general concept. The OP is welcome\nto modify it to his needs. My coding practices have changed since then\nand I'm sure there are multiple things anyone could fine wrong with\nthis, since I wrote it in my free time and not as a rigorous academic\nexercise. You are welcome to write an answer if you think mine is\ninadequate.
\n
Additionally, there are regional and industry differences in how terms are used, depending on how people are trained and their educational background.
\nAnyway, regarding your actual complaints. I am under no obligation to address these but will link to relevant resources for you to take a look at.
\n#1, please see https://vhdlwhiz.com/for-loop/\nWhere it demonstrates the behaviour of a for loop, note that this code:
\n![\"illustration](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/u583A.png\")
entity T04_ForLoopTb is\nend entity;\n \narchitecture sim of T04_ForLoopTb is\nbegin\n \n process is\n begin\n \n for i in 1 to 10 loop\n report "i=" & integer'image(i);\n end loop;\n wait;\n \n end process;\n \nend architecture;\nProduces this:
\n# ** Note: i=1\n# Time: 0 ns Iteration: 0 Instance: /t04_forlooptb\n# ** Note: i=2\n# Time: 0 ns Iteration: 0 Instance: /t04_forlooptb\n# ** Note: i=3\n# Time: 0 ns Iteration: 0 Instance: /t04_forlooptb\n# ** Note: i=4\n# Time: 0 ns Iteration: 0 Instance: /t04_forlooptb\n# ** Note: i=5\nAnd secondly:
\n\n\n\nparallel_in supplies the reset value of the internal shift register.\nSo I kept it with the same name and function. It is otherwise unused,\nOP must explain what it was originally intended for. I agree that a\nSISO register should be otherwise strictly serial.
\n
Or in other words, I kept as closely as possible to the OPs code so that they can understand what changes I made that are relevant to their application. Again, I was under no obligation to write an actual shift register, if the OP wanted a parallel-serial monstrosity, then that's what they got!
\n" }, { "Id": "7307", "CreationDate": "2020-12-15T10:15:53.997", "Body": "Math SE has got a cite button to give citations on homeworks or etc. Can we have it here too?
\nDo we want a cite button? What are the advantages\\disadvantages?
\nA quote from math stack exchange to answer why do we need cite button under every post by @David E Speyer
\n\n\nI am a big fan of the cite button, because it reminds people that they\nare supposed to cite things they learned here on math.SE. Citations\nare the currency of academia -- if I write a good answer here, I want\nto be able to say five years later that this answer was cited so many\ntimes in so many papers. Indeed, I get a little annoyed when I see\npapers that use ideas they learned on MO or math.SE and don't cite\nthem. I know that math.SE is more oriented towards students than\nresearch, but it is also important to teach students that they need to\ncite where they learned things! If you are allowing your students to\nuse math.SE as a reference, then you should be requiring that they\ncite it just like any other source they use, and the cite button\nreminds them of this.
\nIt seems that people are complaining because they have trained their\nmuscle memory on other SE sites, or on this site before the button was\nthere. The easy solution to this is to move the cite button to the far\nright.
\nI support moving the cite button to the far right, but keeping it\nvisible on the main post.
\n
In this link you can find out the discussion
\nAlso as I mentioned on below comments once we have cite button it will attract attention of people from universities who are studying electronics therefore we will have academical questions regarding research on electronics.
\nI believe this will create a kind of a good diversity here. People will see some people asking about their current electronics research and we will both learn more.
\n", "Title": "Can we have cite button?", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|status-completed|", "Answer": "Thank you @Nabla for asking this, the community team has reviewed and we've made the change to the site.
\nThe citation tool has been turned on by the team and you can find it below every post as you see in the screenshot below:
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkTEx.png\")
I am interested in posting some questions on EE.SE on the topic of wholesale electricity markets as opposed to Economics.SE
\nThis topic is taught in many 400-level undergrad EE degrees that have a concentration in large scale power distribution. If this is acceptable would anyone support the creation of an energy-markets tag to better categorize these kinds of questions? Posting these questions in the Economics.SE while logical isolates much of the EE community's knowledge that would be extremely useful at arriving at accurate answers.
You can post any question as long as it follows these guidelines:
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
Also don't ask for help finding resources or information
\nhttps://stackoverflow.blog/2010/11/23/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/
Another thing to consult would be this meta for other guidelines
\nHowever, YMMV on the subject matter, while the site says electrical engineering, most people here follow the circuits branch of electrical engineering. Questions on the price of electricity is off topic, asking about how an aspect of the grid or a power generation facility works is not off topic but there are few with expertise in that area. I'd say that 80%-90% are circuits engineers or digital engineers.
\n" }, { "Id": "7313", "CreationDate": "2020-12-22T15:41:13.600", "Body": "Four questions from this person have been answered by the same member and appear to contravene what is said here: -
\nHow do I ask and answer homework questions?. In particular, this advice is given: -
\n\n\nProviding an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the\nstudent's own best interest. Therefore you might choose to treat\nhomework questions differently than other questions.
\n
The member making those answers has been previously informed about making this type of answer a couple of times to my recollection. Many of us are guilty of this (including me); it's easy enough to slip into making an answer that can be used almost verbatim for homework purposes but, a stern word or two usually prevents recurrence.
\nWhat should be done about this?
\nDo we do anything about it?
\nI've downvoted said questions and answers but I'm not really sure that this is effective or desirable.
\n", "Title": "Homework answers on demand", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|off-topic|homework|", "Answer": "We have decided in the past to allow homework questions with an attempt at a solution.
\nFor those that don't: Close the questions, in a nice way. Ask the OP to provide a solution for the question.
\nUnfortunately sometimes the site (moderators and ques) can't respond fast enough to questions being answered.
\nThe moderation team can send serial offenders a warning and suspend them from the site if it becomes a problem, most of the time people don't know what the site policy is and will correct their action when they are informed of the site policies.
\n" }, { "Id": "7317", "CreationDate": "2020-12-27T04:28:37.017", "Body": "There has been a tag small-electronics on this site, and I have no idea what it means. Is there such a thing as small and big electronics? I suggest to delete the tag small-electronics
\n", "Title": "Time to burninate [small-electronics]?", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "There isn't a need for this tag and I don't see a need for the tag, it doesn't follow the recommendation on tags because it's to 'meta'. If nobody else has a problem with removal, remove the tags from each question and I'll delete it.
\nEdit:
\nThe tag has be blacklisted
\n" }, { "Id": "7318", "CreationDate": "2020-12-27T14:30:16.417", "Body": "I have used the Stack Exchange APP for Android before and found it useful (a bit limited). I don't see it in the Play Store for Android. Also, I don't anymore see a reference to the APP here on Stack Exchange.
\nI can't get the original from my old phone (drowned phone). Is the App still available, and if so where can it be found?
\nTag : "notifications" is the best tag I could find.
\n", "Title": "Is the Stack Exchange APP for Android still available?", "Tags": "|support|notifications|", "Answer": "No, it's not available. See Why did the Stack Exchange Android app disappear from the Play Store? on Meta Stack Exchange. The company has stopped supporting the mobile apps altogether: How can I report bugs with or request features for the Stack Exchange mobile apps?
\n" }, { "Id": "7332", "CreationDate": "2021-01-30T08:00:58.580", "Body": "So I found this Stack Exchange site and I have problems with the left earbud of my wired headphones, and after overdoing such instructions here, I decided to ask about my problem with my earphones so I can try and fix it on my own. But the sort of questions of being "off-topic" stopped me from asking.
\nI looked at the tour page and it says:
\n![\"Tour](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/riYD6.png\")
The specified "electronics design" could be a sign, but I wasn't sure, so I also checked the tags, and there doesn't seem to be a tag like headphones or earphones
\nSo are questions on earphones off-topic?
\n", "Title": "Are problems regarding headphones off-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|asking-questions|off-topic|", "Answer": "\n\nand it is not about \u2026
\n\n
\n- a shopping or buying recommendation.
\n- consumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones, except when designing these products or modifying their\nelectronics for other uses.
\n- Programming software for a PC
\n
This is the page to check on on-topicness
\nHeadphones are not on topic because it's a consumer electronic repair or modification question
\nIf your question is on a headphone circuit question, by all means post it.
\n" }, { "Id": "7336", "CreationDate": "2021-02-02T10:09:52.260", "Body": "We have quite a lot questions that basically state
\n\n\nI need a datasheet for XYZ, but haven't been able to locate one.
\n
I'm assuming the search for "datasheet for" is:question isn't quite an exhaustive list, as things that can be found with a few seconds of google probably were downvoted due to being underresearched, and then potentially deleted by the asker.
I wonder whether there's a guideline for how to deal with these
\nShould such questions be closed? If yes, how?
\n", "Title": "How to deal with datasheet requests", "Tags": "|discussion|on-topic|", "Answer": "To put it in Andy's words:
\n\n\nQuestions seeking recommendations for specific products or places to purchase them are off-topic as they are rarely useful to others and quickly obsolete. - unfortunately, this includes "can't find, can you help" questions.
\n
And I agree: such questions ask for a resource that may or may not exist and fulfills the needs of the asker, which is the reason why we don't allow product recommendation questions (we don't generally dislike choosing components!). There's simply no expertise to be contributed here \u2013 we're simply shouldn't be aiming for a transformation to a "super-search engine for hard to find documents".
\n" }, { "Id": "7347", "CreationDate": "2021-02-13T14:45:05.767", "Body": "I don't see the usefulness of the [small] tag. There are only 4 questions tagged with small.\nI suggest to burninate it.
\n", "Title": "Burninate [small] tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "The tag [small] has been burninated.
\n" }, { "Id": "7359", "CreationDate": "2021-02-18T11:00:14.553", "Body": "We'll need to retag 89 questions with transimpedence. Is there a script that can automate that?
\nAlso, can we please blacklist transimpedence?
\n", "Title": "Typo: [transimpedence] is wrong, [transimpedance] is right, but far less popular", "Tags": "|support|tag-cleanup|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "The tags have been merged, enjoy.
\n" }, { "Id": "7360", "CreationDate": "2021-02-19T14:02:37.357", "Body": "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/278965
\nThis was the question: Why does decreasing the voltage also decrease the circuit frequency?
\nIt's a good question but was closed because "This question needs details or clarity". So I added details. My edit was rejected because "This edit deviates from the original intent of the post".
\nThis is not true. I just added more details and context to make the question clear and save it. All I did was added the definitions of terms which were already present in the question. Without my edit, the post lacks context. All it states is
\n\n\nKeeping the same clock frequency becomes unsustainable as Vdd is continuously reduced, because the rise and fall times of signals stop meeting the noise margin of the gate.
\n
Other users who are not familiar with this field will have no idea what voltage Vdd refers to here.
\nSo I added
\n\n\nHere, Vdd is the supply voltage of the CMOS gate. Noise margin of the gate is the allowable noise voltage on the inputs of the gate such that the output will not get corrupted. Rise time is the time taken for the output signal of the gate to rise from 10% to 90% of its final voltage value of logic High level. Fall time is the time taken for the output signal to fall from 90% to 10% of its final voltage value for logic Low level.
\n
And slightly modified the last statement to
\n\n\n", "Title": "Why did my suggested edit to improve a good question get rejected?", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "I don't understand why rise time and fall time increases as voltage Vdd decreases.
\n
I'm one of the reviewers who rejected the edit. I thought the edited title and the last statement were improvements but, unless I was and still am missing something, the information in the paragraph you added is not present in the question. Granted, the paragraph consists entirely of things which can be inferred (e.g. VDD is the supply voltage) or are true by definition (e.g. rise/fall time), but it's not something the question author added. The question author may not know these definitions so your edit could give the appearance that the question author has provided more details and is more knowledgeable about the topic than is the case.
\nUltimately this is not a good question and should be closed until the author adds details (I'm also one of the close voters). You said yourself in a comment on the question that
\n\n\nAdding the name of the textbook you referred to would be a good idea.
\n
I would want to see a citation of the textbook and a bit more context from the textbook before voting to re-open this question.
\n" }, { "Id": "7362", "CreationDate": "2021-02-19T14:17:12.533", "Body": "I have created a question on Meta Stack Overflow to request blacklisting of our favorite tags like fpga, analog-to-digital-converter, asic etc. on Stack Overflow so that questions on those topics would be asked here, where they rightfully belong. Then we won't have to look at two Stack Exchange sites for questions and answers.
\n[question deleted]https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/405365/should-not-stack-overflow-be-exclusively-for-programming-questions
\nWhat do you think?
\nEdit: The question I asked on Meta Stack Overflow got deleted and unfortunately I did not take a screenshot of it or archive it or print it.
\n", "Title": "Do you want the electronics questions from Stack Overflow to be moved to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Unfortunately, embedded systems programming has always been on-topic at SO. It's a scope overlap with this site. As one of the few who actively user-moderate the embedded tag there, I believe this was a big mistake.
\nBecause embedded systems questions - particularly trouble-shooting ones - could either be about software or hardware. And as soon as you discover that your problem is in hardware, the question suddenly turns off-topic. Very awkward situation. Those questions would be in a much better place on this site. And then of course on SO you always get the occasional clueless PC programmer showing up to answer embedded systems questions, with post quality ranging from mildly useless to blatantly incorrect.
\nAnd then of course we have the random clueless people who ask pure electronics hardware questions on SO thinking it is ok somehow. Because of this I recently pushed to have the electronics tag purged and the community agreed. So that should hopefully be a little bit of on-topic traffic coming this way instead.
\nBut it's too late to fix SO now, it is what it is - embedded systems questions are on-topic there, including microcontroller programming and HDL languages. And therefore that site needs ADC, FPGA, ASIC etc tags too. At any rate, such things should be discussed at SO.
\nI think it takes a new site to fix this: when we launched the software development & electrical engineering communities at Codidact, I insisted to keep embedded systems on the software site and have those asked at the EE site instead, with no scope overlap. Though if that separation of topics will work out better is too early to tell, since the site is still young. If it works well, then that's evidence that SE could benefit from the same - time will tell.
\n" }, { "Id": "7365", "CreationDate": "2021-02-19T15:11:52.770", "Body": "Yesterday I created programmable-gain-amplifier (and added the tag info for it) after I answered a question yesterday about such an amplifier which used pga. There are a few questions which use the shorter tag and which could/should be tagged with the new, longer one. I could edit these questions individually in order to change the tags on all of them, but since "PGA" is a common acronym it seems likely that users will continue to tag questions about PGAs with pga. Therefore it seems like a good idea to make pga a synonym of programmable-gain-amplifier. However, I cannot suggest this synonym (I don't have a score of 5 on the tag), and in my experience tag synonym suggestions tend not to be reviewed for a long time (if ever) since they are on a separate page.
\nWould a moderator kindly merge the tags and make them synonyms, with programmable-gain-amplifier the master tag?
\n", "Title": "Make pga tag a synonym of programmable-gain-amplifier tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|", "Answer": "Good idea, The tags are now merged
\n" }, { "Id": "7367", "CreationDate": "2021-02-20T12:10:26.547", "Body": "Lots of digital electronics, FPGA Design, Register Transfer Level (RTL) Design questions have been asked and continue to be asked on Stack Overflow, a site for programmers.
\nTake a look at this one, for instance: Two ways to write pipelines in Verilog. It was asked in 2020. This question is a very good fit for Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange. Currently there are many good questions related to EE topics which get asked there and some are closed since they have no code. See this one: Latches are transparent to half of the clock cycle. Means? One long time Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange user who also uses Stack Overflow has written in a comment on the question:
\n\n\nIt is perfectly clear to me what he is asking. However the question should have been on the electronics exchange
\n
This problem is because some users claim FPGA Programming and RTL Design is programming since an HDL looks a little like a programming language.
\nThis issue has been raised on Meta Stack Overflow 3 years back: Is digital design on-topic without HDL code?
\nThis issue was not fixed and has now grown bigger.
\nI am posting it here since it is very relevant to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange.
\nI would like to know the opinion of the Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange Community on this question. The problem is if good digital design, FPGA programming questions continue to go there, we won't get them here. Some users participate on both Stack Overflow and Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange, since they are interested in these topics. However, many who are interested in these topics remain only on Stack Overflow.
\nWe have to recognise that there are experts on every Stack Exchange site, and these sites flourish because of the experts.
\nWhich site should experts in FPGA, RTL design, digital design and related fields use?
\nIdeally, the answer should be Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange alone. If the answer is both Stack Overflow and Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange, then there is a possibility that experts in these topics would be divided into 2 sites. This has already happened.
\nOne user has mentioned overlap is allowed. But I don't think overlap is always a good thing. Stack Overflow should be for programming questions, and Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange should be for Electronics design questions, as their respective tours state.
\nIf someone has a question related to these topics should they ask on Stack Overflow or Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange?
\n", "Title": "Does Digital Design fall into our realm or Stack Overflows realm?", "Tags": "|discussion|support|", "Answer": "Please look in the help center to learn how this site works, and please do research before posting (it is wasting my time and others to post on issues that could be worked out by learning how the site works):\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help
\nThis would be of value for you to read:
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/why-vote
The answer that was posted on SO is off topic and it is also a comment, which is why it received downvotes.
\nVoting is a way to flag and remove bad content, and a way to get feedback. It is a tool. if it were a mod on that site, I would have that content deleted because it is not useful and half of the post should have been comments (answers should almost always not have discussion in them, that is what the comment system is for). Normally answers are not deleted but that one does not follow the guidelines. When posts get downvoted, usually its because there is improper use of the site.
\nSecondly we don't concern ourselves here with things that are happening on SO, so please don't post about problems on SO on this meta, no one here can do anything for problems there.
\nAny future meta posts regarding SO on this meta will be deleted. I'll leave this one for educational purposes.
\n" }, { "Id": "7377", "CreationDate": "2021-02-28T08:05:34.687", "Body": "T-flip-flop without using a clock - This is a perfectly reasonable question in my opinion, and there is also a datasheet from Analog Devices of a T Flip-Flop that does not use a separate clock, that is, the input is the clock. The accepted answer is correct, but I don't think the question should have been closed. Also it seems to me that people did not understand the question, so they closed it.\nDatasheet: https://www.digikey.be/htmldatasheets/production/1228052/0/0/1/hmc749lc3c.html
\n", "Title": "Why was this question on T Flip-Flops closed? Can we reopen it?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "To use a meta post to ask for reopening is improper, please use the voting system for that (when you get enough rep). The moderation ques allow people to vote on these questions.
\nThe question is off topic and should remain closed because
\nIf you do see a question that was closed then help the user edit thier question to make it on topic, after this process is done you could post a comment indicating that the post should be reopened or use a moderator flag and we could look at it
\nThe post indicates that it was closed and five people voted on it.
\n" }, { "Id": "7390", "CreationDate": "2021-03-04T12:39:34.290", "Body": "![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fvri9.png\")
If it is not allowed, then why is it an option to have?
\n", "Title": "Why do we have an electricity tag if one can't use it?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "The tags electrical and electricity were already banned back in 2015 because they not useful in the context of this site. Every question asked in this Q&A is about electricity/electronics, so since these tags would apply to everything they are not useful in this context.
\nMeta discussion was here:\nThe "electrical" tag
\nThe tag has been 'blacklisted', it cannot be applied to new questions... however the moderators cannot finally delete the tag itself as long as there are still old questions that have that tag.
\nThere are still hundreds of old questions that still have these tags. Unfortunately when a question is edited to remove a tag, the question then bumps to the top of the 'active questions' list. Bulk retagging of questions is disruptive to the community, so we try to handle those edits just 3-4 questions at a time, to avoid overwhelming the active questions list.
\nA lot of those questions also have only the electrical/electricity tag, so in each of those cases a judgement call is required to select a new tag if the question is worth keeping, or vote to close/delete the question if it is not worth keeping. Each of these questions need attention on a case-by-case basis, and with only volunteer effort there is really no timeline for implementation.
\nI had noticed this recently when doing the retagging for the 'small-electronics' questions that a few of those also had 'electrical', but when I edited such questions the system would not let me submit the edit unless I also removed 'electrical' from the question. So any edits to existing questions tagged 'electrical' require removing that tag, and no new questions with that tag can be created.
\nPerhaps the tag meta description for electrical / electricity should be edited to say 'do not use this tag'?
\n" }, { "Id": "7394", "CreationDate": "2021-03-10T03:19:54.453", "Body": "I don't post many questions, but the few that I have --- somebody is coming in and making VERY MINOR edits.
\nI mean like picayune grammatical or punctuation changes. Trivial stuff. Example -- I put 3 "???" at the end of sentence, for dramatic effect I guess. Big deal. This was edited to a single "?". Seriously???? WHY???????????????? Is the server charging by the byte these days?
\nFrankly - it's SUPER INSULTING that my words are being changed. I write what I write with intent. I proofread several times to make sure things are clear and understandable. I am not a bad speller, and I don't have poor grammar. Nothing that was edited does diddly to improve intelligibility. This is like the editor saying "I'm better spoken than you". Either that, or he/she is a closet English professor.
\nI realize this message will probably be deleted, or 'thumbed' down a million times. That's OK
\nEDIT
\nSome great points given - Thank you. And yes, this belonged in EE META. I'll admit now, I didn't realize 'EE meta' existed... I only ever saw Meta for the whole SE site (and I didn't think anywhere near right for 'whole site'). I did not know there was a Meta for EE only.
\nAlso quickly - I've had this happen more than twice as suggested. I had to think about that for a bit, but I recall now I was so off-put by the arcaneness of the edits I'd been subjected to before I rolled them back a couple times. Heck, my post earlier today was edited twice... that's what I wrote this!
\nI guess my problem is I'M HUMAN and I want to converse with humans. Every single question & every single answer here is written & read by humans, so why are we writing like bots? I reply to questions because I like helping people.\nI imagine everybody who contributes here does the same. Why else would you?\nThe prose does not need to be parsed to machine-readable form for that.
\nThx for the passive-aggressive insults in the comments. Not gonna lie, I drank way too much coffee today and I deserved it #thumbsup I edited out a bit of my own original passive aggressiveness
\nThx more to the folks who chose not to #2thumbsup
\n", "Title": "Why is somebody editing my questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "Stack Exchange encourages editing, there are a few badges that encourage this behavior and is welcome as long as it is improving the post. Secondly they are not really "your posts" once you post they are released under the creative commons license. Also you should use standard grammar and understand that technical speech is likely to be the norm here. Text speech is not as welcome, please don't use it
\n" }, { "Id": "7400", "CreationDate": "2021-03-10T22:40:45.717", "Body": "There have been a few users that have continually posted answers to homework questions. This has been discussed here. I think the best course of action is to allow the community to downvote these types of answers. What should we do with users that repeatedly post answers to homework questions?
\nI don't feel it best to delete the answers (or any answers but answers that are not answers), but is this the type of behavior acceptable on this community?
\n", "Title": "What does the community think about homework answers?", "Tags": "|discussion|homework|", "Answer": "It doesn't seem like the close/vote system really adequately can deal with this situation, and the delete queue is next to worthless.
\nPerhaps the most effective workaround would be to flag such posts as spam??
\nBy way of explanation, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that repeated spam flags lock and hide the posts without moderator intervention, which is perhaps the desired outcome here.
\n" }, { "Id": "7405", "CreationDate": "2021-03-11T21:26:14.940", "Body": "The transfer tag currently has no wiki guidance and is generally used on questions for one of two purposes:
\nThe tag should eventually be replaced with transfer-function for questions of type (1) but should we keep it for questions of type (2) or phase it out completely?
\n", "Title": "What should the [transfer] tag be used for?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Done, the tags have been merged
\n" }, { "Id": "7411", "CreationDate": "2021-03-15T13:11:46.643", "Body": "I noticed the other day that there is a operational-amplifer tag which has "amplifier" misspelled (it is missing an "i'). I've been slowly replacing it on the posts which use it with the correct operational-amplifier tag, but there is one locked post with the misspelled tag that I cannot edit. Would a moderator please fix the tag so the misspelled tag will be removed from the system?
\nAdditionally, it might be a good idea to remove the "content dispute" lock on it since the user who asked the question no longer has an account on the site.
\n", "Title": "Would a moderator remove the misspelled [operational-amplifer] tag from a locked post?", "Tags": "|support|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "All done, exactly as you suggested. I've put the correctly-spelled tag on that question and deleted the wrongly-spelled tag (so I don't believe it exists any more).
\nThanks for the tidy up.
\n" }, { "Id": "7433", "CreationDate": "2021-04-13T09:07:32.303", "Body": "Does it make sense to buy this voltage stabilizer for this air conditioner?
\nI really don't think it's not about electrical engineering. I can't find any other suitable website to know scientific reasons for it.
\n", "Title": "Why this question is off topic and how to make it on topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "You did not ask about general requirements or uses of voltage stabilizers. Your question was very clearly focused on one specific consumer product that you were considering: should I "buy this voltage stabilizer".
\nAny time a question asks about whether a specific item is "suitable" or "the best choice" then the question becomes a product recommendation.
\nFurthermore, questions about the use of consumer appliances are off topic. Your question was off-topic for both reasons.
\n" }, { "Id": "7437", "CreationDate": "2021-04-22T03:07:27.193", "Body": "The channel tag is a useless meta-tag: this tag does not add any useful meaning by itself, it requires other tags to provide context. That's not how our tags are supposed to be used.
\nchannel has 0 watchers.
\nThere is no channel tag wiki to define what a "channel" is. In fact the word channel has different technical meanings in several different contexts, as can be seen from the wide variety of questions tagged channel
\nJust quickly scrolling through the (currently 60) questions tagged channel, I didn't see any questions where channel was the only tag. So it should be safe to bulk delete the tag.
\nAs usual for mass tag edits, we should edit only a few at a time to avoid spamming the "active questions" feed. I'll hold off doing anything until I get some feedback from the meta channel...
\n", "Title": "block the [channel] tag", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "As far as I can tell, there aren't any new questions with this tag in the months since it was removed - if that's not the case, please let me know. Considering that, I don't see a reason for this tag to be blocked from re-creation. In general, we only block tags that have been burninated and returned more than once.
\nAs such, I'm removing the status tag. Please feel free to retag this as status review in the future if the tag gets created again - hopefully the requirement to have 300 reputation before creating tags will reduce the likelihood of that happening.
\n" }, { "Id": "7453", "CreationDate": "2021-05-05T15:59:19.750", "Body": "I often feel that questions linger too long before being closed, collecting answers making it difficult to edit a closed question. I would like EE.SE to take part in the recent site-wide "three-vote close" experiment. The main meta post can explain it better than I can:
\nTesting three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites
\nI believe that closing a "questionable question" quickly will lead to better quality over all. Closing a question is not a punishment, nor is it the same as deleting it. A question is closed because it has problems that should be fixed before answers start to arrive. As soon as an answer is posted, editing the question is more complicated.
\nAs far as I understand it, it will also be easier to reopen a closed question \u2014 something I also approve of.
\n", "Title": "I'd like us to participate in the three-vote close experiment", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|status-completed|vote-to-close|", "Answer": "This is live.
\nI've reviewed the request and your recent history and I can definitely see that this will likely benefit the site. Thanks for your patience while we got to the place we could make this change.
\nTo determine whether to make this change, I used a few queries - firstly, I like to see what percentage of questions that get at least one flag or vote to close get handled - either closed or marked "leave open".
\n\n![\"Graph](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/1RJCM.png\")
The first thing I like to note is that the graph vertical axis is 0-90%, so it can look a bit higher than it is. In general, y'all aren't usually able to get most of the questions handled. While this has changed over time, it seems that you're generally sitting around 50% handled, which means a lot of them are aging out of review. The end result of this is that the site can have a lot of content that should have been closed that sits around cluttering things up.
\nI'll also note that you have a pretty decent "leave open" result (~10% at times) - many sites don't seem to have such a high percentage (generally closer to 1-5%) - it's not bad but it could indicate there's some disagreement amongst voters about what's close-worthy. As such, it's possible that if more reviews were completed, those questions might actually be left open - it's difficult to know.
\nThe other thing I check for is whether the moderators are doing an outsized volume of the close reviewing - this can indicate that they're doing more than they're necessarily expected to do. While there are many things mods need to handle, reviewing isn't one that we generally include in that. They're certainly welcome to participate but - because of their unilateral close privileges, it means that reopening questions can be significantly harder without moderator participation.
\nThat said, it looks like, in general, the moderators aren't usually doing the bulk of the closures here, so it's not a concern. Over the last year, it looks like they're participating in about a quarter of the closures on average.
\n\n![\"Graph](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJryx.png\")
If you're interested in which votes are being cast by mods, you can see that below - I made it for a shorter period of time because it makes it a bit easier to see the lines.
\n\n![\"Graph](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/bO8Wd.png\")
As this shows, mods don't seem to be more likely to cast fifth votes over any other and, in some cases, have cast many first votes - which is understandable! All-in-all, it seems pretty even.
\nSo, the end result is, we'd love to see the percentage of reviews handled increase here and it looks like reducing the votes needed to close and reopen from 5 to 3 will help with that. Because the tests on other sites went generally well, y'all can consider this permanent - at least until you ask us to change it again. I'll check back in a few months but, unless there's something huge to report, I probably won't update things. If you have any questions or want to see how things are going, feel free to let me know.
\n" }, { "Id": "7458", "CreationDate": "2021-05-08T03:49:54.527", "Body": "There is strange voting activity going on on my answers on EESE. Yesterday in a short span of time, I got about 150 points due to upvotes on a variety of answers, many of which were not very new.
\nThen today, the serial voting was reversed, taking away 150 points. Now again today it seems that I have another burst of upvotes.
\nI guess my main concern is that I don't want anyone to think I am somehow behind this. My second concern is just to satisfy my curiosity about what might be going on.
\n", "Title": "Strange voting activity on my answers", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "\n\nI guess my main concern is that I don't want anyone to think I am somehow behind this.
\n
I will be offline soon as it's past end of day here. I just wanted to put your mind at rest: I've done a quick review of your account and I am 100% sure that you are not doing anything to cause this. There is no "adverse mark" on your account as a result of this.
\nWhat you are seeing is described in this page from the Help Center.
\nYou don't need to take any action.
\nThere is actually a bit more going on, which should be kept private, and I will discuss that with the other mods. You may see further such voting "bursts" and subsequent corrections, but again, please don't take any action.
\nHope that helps.
\n" }, { "Id": "7482", "CreationDate": "2021-06-10T14:52:58.730", "Body": "Good morning.
\nCould you give some clues so I can improve my questions, to get off my EE.SE ban? I've read some articles in help further I am trying my best.
\n", "Title": "Some clues to improve my EE.SE questions?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "There is no ban on the meta account, there is on you EE.SE account. You'll have to improve the quality of your existing questions or wait until the ban wears off.
\nYou can post questions on the main site, make sure they are on-topic:
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
And many others:\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help
\n" }, { "Id": "7484", "CreationDate": "2021-06-13T14:01:00.390", "Body": "In hardware engineering, there are many roles: for example PCB Design engineer, FPGA engineer etc.
\nCan we ask questions like:
\non Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange?
\nIf not, is there any other Stack Exchange site to ask such questions?
I'd try on chat. I don't think it would be well-received on the main site. For example, searching for engineer skill is:question will show a few similar questions, all of which are closed.
There also was a question about how to ask for career advices here, posted 10 years ago, and the answer was the same: chat.
\nOf course, chat drags much less people.
\nI also tried to check if there are other sites on the SE network where this kind of questions would be appropriate. The workplace is dedicated to career-related topics, but it seems asking about skills required for a specific job is off-topic according to this answer (written by an ex-mod of the workplace site). There is also a specific close-reason on this site that confirms it is off-topic: "Questions asking for advice on a specific choice, such as what job to take or what skills to learn, are difficult to answer objectively and are rarely useful for anyone else. [...]"
\nSo, apart from chat, I don't think it can be asked anywhere on Stack Exchange. But I'm pretty sure there are discussion forums outside of SE where you could ask this.
\n" }, { "Id": "7492", "CreationDate": "2021-07-03T06:07:35.903", "Body": "Analog Is Digital?\nSeems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and I can't see what is opinion based about it. It might be true that it may not have an accurate answer at the moment.
\nThe idea of the question is representing an analog signal as a sum of impulse responses of the analog signal, such that the spacing between 2 impulses is infinitesimal.
\nIt is a good question, what is opinion based about it?
\n", "Title": "How is this question \"Analog is Digital \" opinion based?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It's just a pointless philosophical question that has nothing to do with designing electronics and has absolutely no practical value. You even write in your own answer:
\n\n\nThe question you ask is beyond electrical engineering and even beyond Physics. It falls into Metaphysics and philosophy.
\n
The close reason is less important, but opinion based seems like the closest one. No one can answer this based on practical experience, other than possibly a quantum physicist with a minor in linguistics seeing how both analog and digital are highly overused.
\n" }, { "Id": "7513", "CreationDate": "2021-07-22T12:51:18.290", "Body": "I would like to ask a question on what binary compatibility means, and if there is any definition for that .
\nWill this question be on-topic?
\n", "Title": "Can I ask a question on binary compatibility?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "My view is no, such a question would not be on-topic here.
\nIMHO that is a general computer science question and too far from the core on-topic subjects for this site. It would be better suited to Computer Science.SE or Stack Overflow. In fact, I just checked and see that you have already asked the question on Computer Science.SE.
\nSo even though you have mentioned this topic in comments on an answer to one of your recent questions on this site, that doesn't make it on-topic as a question itself here.
\nSorry if that is not the answer that you wanted.
\n" }, { "Id": "7520", "CreationDate": "2021-07-28T07:48:38.367", "Body": "I've just VTC a 'homework with no attempt' question, and another user has added a link to the Tour, perhaps thinking it was helpful. On reading it, it offers no guidance to our policy.
\nThese are the lists from the 'do and don't ask' section of the Tour as it stands at 2021/07/28
\n\n\nAsk about...
\n\n
\n- a specific electronics design problem
\n- the theory and simulation of electromagnetic forces
\n- a communication scheme
\n- the writing of firmware for bare-metal or RTOS applications
\nDon't ask about...
\n\n
\n- Shopping or buying recommendations
\n- Consumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones, except when designing these products or modifying their electronics for other uses
\n- Programming software for a PC
\n- Anything else not directly related to electronics design
\n- Questions that are primarily opinion-based
\n- Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer
\n
I'd like to add to these something along the lines of
\ndon't ask for homework answers when you have made no attempt at a solution
\ndo ask for help with homework when you have tried to solve it, you show your working, and indicate where you are stuck
\n... if of course this still sums up our current policy on homework.
\n", "Title": "Homework questions, and the Tour guidance", "Tags": "|discussion|feature-request|homework|guidelines|", "Answer": "For everyone raising a new question I'd add a "gate" to getting the question posted on the site. That "gate" would be something like this: -
\n\n\n"Is your question about homework?"
\n"Have you fully described where you are stuck?"
\n
And, if the poster says "yes" and "no", then the whole question text is deleted automatically (before posting) and the good folk on stack exchange never see it.
\nIf the poster says it isn't homework then, the question is allowed to be posted. Of course some folk will lie and there will be a trickle through but it should be less of a serious problem.
\nKill the problem at source. Prevention is better than cure.
\n" }, { "Id": "8522", "CreationDate": "2021-07-29T06:57:12.747", "Body": "I had this doubt from the start. When I try to tag some people in my comment , their name is suggested to me on the top left. But occasionally this is not the case, they dont get suggested. And in that situation I just type the first name , do they get notified if I do that ?
\n", "Title": "At times I am unable to see the name of the person I am tagging but then I just type his name. Is he/she actually getting tagged?", "Tags": "|support|tagging|", "Answer": "If you comment on a question the OP is always automatically notified and the OP's name is NOT added as a link in your comment.
\nThe same applies if you add a comment to an answer and attempt to notify the answer's writer.
\nIf you comment on a question or answer and cite a person who is involved in the conversation who is NOT the person who wrote the question or answer then the name should "autocomplete".
\nYou can usually check if a notification has occurred by clicking on the cited name (or shift-click for new tab in Windows). This should take you to the profile of the person converned. If this works they have been notified.
\nAdding comments from others:
\nYou can only 'ping' one person in a comment. (Memory says that this needs to be at the start of the comment).
\nIt is not possible to 'ping' users who are not already active in the comment thread immediately associated with the post being commented on. [eg in commenting on an answer you cannot ping a person who has commented on the question (and vice versa)].
\n" }, { "Id": "8537", "CreationDate": "2021-09-01T00:18:11.947", "Body": "To what extent is editing answers allowable? There is an answer to a question that is almost a link-only answer, but it is a pretty good link.
\nWould it be OK for me to expand the answer by incorporating more information from the link? If so, how long should I wait after commenting on the answer before making the edit myself?
\nSolid Faraday cage with a hole for a wire
\n", "Title": "Editing Answers", "Tags": "|discussion|editing|", "Answer": "Somewhat contrary to what Sam advises, I have on occasion improved an answer that was mainly link only when it was clear that the link was extremely useful and the answer was in danger of being VTC'd. This usually involves precising some material from the linked site with maybe some added comment.
\nThis usually results in a positive user comment or no comment.
\nI believe that doing this is within the site guidelines, but is something I'd do on only limited occasions.
I am looking for an IC with a very specific set of requirements; can I ask about it here?
\nTechnically it's a product recommendation question and, while I don't know this site well, I'm just assuming it's got a similar policy to other SE sites (i.e.: nope).
\nHowever, assuming that's the case, I feel like there might be some compelling cases for making exceptions specifically in the case of integrated circuits? Specifically:
\nAnyways, can I ask about an IC here? What do y'all think?
\n", "Title": "Looking for ICs; can I ask here?", "Tags": "|discussion|asking-questions|on-topic|", "Answer": "If you can phrase it as a design question it's acceptable.
\nI personally find the restriction on asking genuine design questions which have good technical content and instructional value to be an excessive limitation on what could be useful questions. The aim is to avoid generic "where can I buy an xxx" type questions but in the process I consider we drive away a substantial amount of useful material.
However, my concerns do not alter what the rules are :-) :-(.
\nIf you cannot reframe the question adequately for this site then you will almost get a good answer from the following forum that supports discussion - I suggest that you look at http://www.piclist.com (don't be put off by the presentation or the PIC in the name). Then visit http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist and join the mailing list & say hello. Provide as much detail of your requirements and problems as possible.
\nJust like here, there are people there who know almost everything (collectively), and you are allowed to discuss anything conversationally. Some members of this group are also PICList members (myself included). It's a very useful complement to this site for questions of this sort.
\n" }, { "Id": "8542", "CreationDate": "2021-09-06T08:54:29.650", "Body": "I've just noticed that pads
\n\n\nPADS is a CAD PCB editor produced by Mentor Graphics
\n
and mentor-pads
\n\n\nPADS is a software package from Mentor Graphics used for schematic capture, PCB layout, and circuit simulation.
\n
exist and aren't aliasies of each other.
\nSince pads is highly ambiguous, but still has only 68 questions to date, I'd like to replace it with mentor-pads on all the question about Mentor PADS, and with pad on all question about a PCB contact in SMT technology (and fix the pad description).
\nAfterwards, I'd like to ask for pads to be blacklisted \u2013 with pad and mentor-pads as the things an asker would immediately recognize as correct tags while typing.
\nIs that a desirable mode of operation?
\n", "Title": "tags: PADS and mentor-pads: same tag, not linked", "Tags": "|discussion|support|tags|", "Answer": "I stumbled across this same situation and found this discussion, so for the past few days I've been retagging questions using pads. This is now complete so we can block pads now.
\n" }, { "Id": "8549", "CreationDate": "2021-09-15T22:56:24.513", "Body": "Please add the same syntax highlighting as the verilog tag to the system-verilog tag for consistency. Currently, verilog has syntax highlighting, but system-verilog does not. The system-verilog tag info aptly states that it "is a backwards-compatible superset of verilog". Thus, it makes sense for both to use the same highlighting.
Several questions are tagged with both, and the highlighting looks fine. For example,\nthis question.
\n", "Title": "Add syntax highlighting for the system-verilog tag", "Tags": "|feature-request|syntax-highlighting|", "Answer": "Sorry for the delay on this one.
\nTo answer your question, yes, I have found where I could change the syntax highlighter for the system-verilog tag (currently none), to match the verilog tag highlighting.
However as kindly explained in this answer from MarkU, the syntax highlighting module being used for the verilog tag is called "lang-vhdl". There is no syntax highlighter specifically for Verilog (or System Verilog) available for me to choose. (The SE decision not to include Verilog & System Verilog highlighting in the SE-specific highlight.js is stated here.)
Before my upvote for usefulness, that answer from MarkU had 1 downvote and 0 upvotes (and no explanatory comment for the downvote) - so was the original downvote to that answer, because there is some big negative consequence to the proposed change which no-one else has mentioned?
\nSummary:
\nI believe I can make the change you requested, but the downvote on that answer pointing out that it will invoke the lang-vhdl highlighting, is puzzling. Further feedback would be helpful.
I just got my first "Teacher" medal on EE. It's displayed in my profile overview under newest badges. If I click on it, it says it was awared for. Arduino Stepper Motor
\n![\"Img\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/DrxZq.png\")
So apparently the correct question ID is not set here and it defaults to 1 or something like that.
\n", "Title": "Medal bug: Linking to wrong question", "Tags": "|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "This has been fixed. More details (and haiku) on MSE.
\n" }, { "Id": "8558", "CreationDate": "2021-10-14T14:40:49.867", "Body": "I recently fixed the tags on a question about common source vs. common drain topologies, and I created common-drain since the question used that term. However, common drain is also known as a source follower, which already has a tag: source-follower. Since these terms are synonymous it seems obvious that these tags should be synonyms.
\nSimilarly, we already have common-collector and emitter-follower even though these are the same topology.
\nHowever, there are a couple of questions about how we'd want to handle these synonyms:
\nTo summarize, I propose six master tags: common-emitter, common-collector, common-base, common-source, common-drain, and common-gate. All these already exist. I further propose marking variants as synonyms for now, and leaving the decision to merge for a later date after there is a greater chance for discussion.
\nConcerning which tag should be the master, I personally prefer leaving discussions like that for English Wikipedia where there has typically already been significant global discussion. I see that there, source-follower and emitter-follower redirect to common-drain and common-collector, respectively. In fact, Wikipedia provides six separate articles for single transistor amplifiers:
\nConcerning merging versus merely synonyms, per your link on main meta:
\n\n\nAll good tag synonyms should eventually be merged (source)... As merging is not (easily) reversible, it should be done with caution... Merging, by itself, does not create a synonym... In most cases, you will want to create or ensure that a synonym exists, so that future attempts to use the merged tag will replace it with the canonical tag instead.
\n
So, making synonyms is reversible and a mod doesn't have to worry about making a "bad" synonym as it can be rectified after the fact. Imo making a "bad" synonym is reasonable way to generate more community feedback. However, merging requires more caution, which to me means requiring more community feedback.
\nTherefore, merging can wait awhile in case implementing the synonym causes dissenting opinions to come out, and reversing or modifying the synonyms is deemed necessary. If no dissent appears after an appropriate amount of time, then they should be merged.
\n" }, { "Id": "8585", "CreationDate": "2021-11-26T11:46:15.510", "Body": "Would a Moderator please delete the misspelled verliog tag?
\nThere is only one question with this tag: Basic Verilog Assignment
\nThe question title has the correct spelling of "Verilog". I can't tell when the "verliog" tag was created, but I assume it was today when this question was posted.
\nThe correct verilog tag should be added to the question.
\nI see no need to keep the misspelled version. Please delete and blocklist it.
\n", "Title": "Would a Moderator delete the misspelled [verliog] tag?", "Tags": "|feature-request|tags|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "Thanks for spotting this. As you said, it's clearly just a misspelling and not something that we need to consider with a full discussion, waiting for voting etc. I've replaced it with the correctly-spelled version of verilog on that question, as you suggested.
My reading of the mod documents on this, says that the misspelled verliog tag will automatically be deleted from the system, when a once-a-day job runs and sees that there are no questions with that tag.
We could get SE staff involved to add it to the blocklist (that is a staff-only function, mods can't add to the tag blocklist), but since this doesn't happen often, can I suggest that we don't add to the SE staff workload unless we really need to?
\nIf you agree, then we would leave the work on this at confirming that the tag has been deleted by the same time tomorrow at the latest (I don't know the exact time each 24hrs that the empty tag delete function runs - I have seen a mention of 8-9 am UTC, but not 100% sure of that).
\nIf this becomes a regular event then, yes, we can get SE staff to add it to the blocklist.
\n" }, { "Id": "8589", "CreationDate": "2021-12-12T04:39:43.503", "Body": "I placed an order from a major brand-name electronics component supplier for spare parts and accessories from their online store (not a reseller) and it's been almost a month and it is still "processing".
\nI can call them and certainly ask for the status of my order but what I don't know is how common it is for such a long lead time on spare parts that I thought would have been readily available.
\nIs Stack Exchange an appropriate forum to ask whether this kind of lead time is normal for a specific parts supplier?
\n", "Title": "Is it appropriate to ask a question regarding processing time for a major electronics component supplier?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "\n\nIs Stack Exchange an appropriate forum to ask whether this kind of lead time is normal for a specific parts supplier?
\n
Hi, Thanks for asking. However, I would say no, that question wouldn't be on-topic here.
\nAny issues with your specific order might apply just to those parts and their manufacturer, so I would first ask the supplier for an update, as you thought.
\nIf you wanted to discuss that supplier (even though the delay in your case might be specific to the manufacturer instead) I immediately think of the EEVBlog forums as somewhere that I would consider asking, because I have seen questions about particular companies asked there before.
\nSorry that's probably not the response you wanted.
\n" }, { "Id": "8591", "CreationDate": "2021-12-13T23:38:11.733", "Body": "According to the help center: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\n\n\n\u2026 if your question \u2026
\n
\n\n\u2026 is not about \u2026
\n
\n\nconsumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones,
\n
\n\nexcept when \u2026 modifying their electronics for other uses
\n
\n\n\u2026 then you\u2019re in the right place to ask your question!
\n
Why then am I getting my question about adding to the feature of a PCB rejected with
\n\n\nQuestions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site is intended specifically for questions on electronics design.
\n
Does this only count if I am modifying a water heater for keeping gl\u00fchwine warm and stirring it at the same time?
\nIn this question\nSmarting up a water heater I am asking how to add some other sensors to this, modifying it to interface with other systems than those it was designed for. Is it really only on-topic if I was designing a new PCB for it?
\n", "Title": "Clarification of question topic - Am I reading the on-topic help page wrong?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The question was closed for the wrong reason. It is on-topic here, but should be closed because of the following problems:
\n\n\nthe temperature is monitored by a 2-wire thermistor as far as I can tell...
\nI considered monitoring it in parallel, adding my own micro controller, and a 433MHz transmitter to be able to monitor the temperature, But I am worried that doing so will interfere with the measurement of the temperature.
\n
It is not clear what you mean with monitoring in parallel, why you think this would interfere with the thermistor or how you plan to connect it. We don't even know if this is a PTC or NTC. A simple schematic would be helpful here. Also, it isn't clear if "it will interfere" means the temperature measurement or if you are talking about EMC and the 433MHz radio.
\n\n\nsends the same signal on to the main circuit board using PWM, but besides potential voltage differences, I can't figure out if that is feasible.
\n
What main circuit board? It is unclear how many circuit boards there are, which ones you are modifying and which ones you are designing/adding. Also there is no way to determine if PWM is feasible with such little information given.
\nSo overall the question should have been closed as unclear. It is also too broad, which is another reason for closure - open-ended big picture discussions are not suitable for these kind of Q&A sites. Questions should not ask for opinions, but specific technical solutions given a specific technical question.
\n" }, { "Id": "9601", "CreationDate": "2022-01-05T03:19:24.557", "Body": "Previously, I and my workmate have a hard time to recreate board schematic on Electronics Stack Exchange because it can't simply import our schematic from Autodesk Eagle. Then we ditched it and upload as screenshot from Eagle because it won't work as we expected.
\nWe wonder if it technically possible to import schematic from any schematic maker software on the market. Pretty sure there are a lot of electronic engineers have the same problem.
\n", "Title": "Feature Request: Import Board Schematic from Software like Eagle to Electronics Stack Exchange", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "I'm not a moderator, just a "concerned citizen". The problem with your schematic has nothing to do with formats, but that it was poorly drawn by a novice who is unaware of industry standards and conventions for how to draw proper schematics. The link I gave you, Rules and guidelines for drawing good schematics, is not rules for this site, but best practices used by all electrical engineers out there in the real world. An important part of an engineer's job is to follow established international standards and not invent some local one on project basis.
\nIt is a well-known convention that MOSFETs, BJTs, OP amps, digital logic and many other common components should always be drawn with the gate/base/input etc to the left, supplies facing upwards and ground downwards. Overall, using common sense will get you very far: the ground is downwards.
\nAn N-MOSFET is drawn with an arrow from source at the bottom of the symbol to the gate. A P-MOSFET is drawn with an arrow from the gate to the source at the top. So when you draw your MOSFET mirrored or upside down, you will confuse everyone reading the schematic needlessly and distracting from understanding the actual question.
\nAn IC with signals written on it should naturally be placed so that it can be read by humans without turning the paper/screen 90 degrees. This goes for all designators in the schematic too.
\nSimilarly, there exist no schematics where SMD codes are written for components, the actual values are what's written. You wouldn't write "Brown Black Black" when designing a schematic for through-hole resistors, now would you.
\n" }, { "Id": "9605", "CreationDate": "2022-01-20T00:30:53.067", "Body": "We have both differential-amplifier and diff-amp, with the latter having far more questions than the former (> 100 questions). However, the former is the full, proper name.
\nWould a moderator kindly merge the two tags and make them synonyms, with differential-amplifier the master tag?
\n", "Title": "Make [diff-amp] a synonym of [differential-amplifier]?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-cleanup|tag-synonyms|", "Answer": "As requested and discussed in comments, I've merged [diff-amp] into the master tag [differential-amplifier] with [diff-amp] being a synonym.
\n" }, { "Id": "9622", "CreationDate": "2022-03-14T10:18:57.917", "Body": "First of all, if this is already asked or mentioned somewhere in EE.SE Meta please forgive me, and notify me with the original link so that I can delete this.
\nThis is one really strange and, sort of annoying thing that I noticed. Here's the thing:
\nA new question appears. And a member with lower reputation (can be either a new member with 1 rep or an active member with 50k rep. Doesn't matter.) puts the first answer to this question. The answer is technically correct and it sufficiently answers the OP's question. But the OP does not accept it. Then, a few minutes (or even hours) later, another member with higher reputation (i.e. higher than that of the member who put the first correct answer) puts exactly the same answer (maybe with only a few unrelated additions just to make their answer a little "different") and the OP accepts this answer, not the first one. Just because the new answer came from a high-rep member?
\nI really can't understand the motivation behind this. Maybe the OP wants to be sure about the 1st answer by seeing the same thing (in other words, verification) from a higher-rep member. What's the point of upvote/downvote system then? If the answer is technically wrong or needs some additions/corrections then the comment section can be used for that purpose.
\nPS: I can't give any "real" examples at the moment but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who noticed this before. And I have to say that I'm not the subject of any of those questions. So please don't even try to smell a "jealousy" here :)
\n", "Title": "Accepting an answer based on the reputation of its sender/poster", "Tags": "|discussion|reputation|accepted-answer|", "Answer": "Summary: Trying to understand why an OP does X or Y can't be answered with certainty, unless we ask that OP (and we might not be able to believe their reply - they might tell us what they think we want to hear, not their actual reasons).
\nI agree that answers should not be accepted based only based on the reputation of the answer writer. However I think there are a few things going on...
\n\n\nThe [first] answer is technically correct and it sufficiently answers the OP's question. But the OP does not accept it.
\n
Something I see quite often is an OP who asks a question, then goes offline for some hours (perhaps they go offline overnight their time, or perhaps they go offline until they get home at the end of the day, their time - things like that).
\nThat means the OP may not see that first answer before others have been added, and so they didn't have a chance to see that only the first one was "enough".
\n\n\nThen, a few minutes (or even hours) later, another member with higher reputation (i.e. higher than that of the member who put the first correct answer) puts exactly the same answer (maybe with only a few unrelated additions just to make their answer a little "different")
\n
I try not to underestimate the value of those additions you mention. Adding extra information / quoting (and linking to) specific sources, or specific experience, can definitely add value.
\nAlso saying the same thing a different way might be be easier to understand for that OP. I know that when teaching classes of engineers, I sometimes had to explain the same thing with different examples & different starting assumptions, due to the wide variation of backgrounds and previous experiences of the engineers in my classes.
\n\n\nand the OP accepts this answer, not the first one. Just because the new answer came from a high-rep member?
\nI really can't understand the motivation behind this. Maybe the OP wants to be sure about the 1st answer by seeing the same thing (in other words, verification) from a higher-rep member.
\n
Yes, I do think that waiting for verification is a real effect, especially if the person asking is unsure (or unable) to verify on their own, whether the first answer given is correct.
\nI see something similar in medicine as well. For example: A junior doctor diagnoses that the patient has condition X. Later, the patient sees a consultant (i.e. a more senior doctor) who confirms the diagnosis of X - and perhaps explains more and gives more details, due to them having more experience of patients with condition X. Patients tend to believe the later diagnosis from the (senior) consultant more, even though it is the same diagnosis given earlier by the junior doctor. This is a variation of "getting a second opinion".
\nGetting back to Stack Exchange: Even if (due to the added info), the later answer has a greater chance of being accepted by an OP, all correct (and therefore useful) answers should be worthy of upvotes, as long as they are not clearly duplicates of each other.
\n\n\nWhat's the point of upvote/downvote system then?
\n
Remember that really new OPs cannot yet upvote (15 points needed) or downvote (125 points needed).
\nIf an OP isn't sure whether an answer is correct, then it's understandable that they cannot judge enough to vote, even if they do have the required points to be able to do so.
\nUpvotes / downvotes should be for whether that answer is useful, even if it doesn't include everything needed to completely solve the OP's problem. However for new OPs who cannot yet upvote (or don't understand the difference between upvoting and accepting) I would not be surprised to see useful-but-not-quite-complete answers that have not been upvoted by an OP (because they can't) and not accepted (because the answer may not give them all the info they need, and/or because they don't understand the concept of "accepting").
\nPersonally I would like more people to vote here overall. I know that we all have limited time and different skill-sets & things we want to do - some people do more reviews, others do more editing, and yet others do more answering (all of which we need and thank you to all the active site members here!).
\nHowever while doing all those things, it would help if site members also considered voting. For example, we have some active members who rarely vote. Please don't judge only at your expertise level; consider what would be useful for others, who don't know everything that you do.
\nFinally: Here is a (long but useful) Meta.SE topic which suggests criteria for voting on Q and A:
\nWhen should I vote?
While I don't agree with every single point in that topic, I think that it's a good starting point especially for people who are unsure what to consider when voting.
\n\n\nIf the answer is technically wrong or needs some additions/corrections then the comment section can be used for that purpose.
\n
Agreed. Unfortunately some OPs don't use comments to request clarification (I have learned that there can be a cultural element to this behaviour, as I have experienced junior engineers who just said "yes" when I told them something. Only later did I discover that they hadn't understood me, but they eventually explained that in their culture, it would have been rude for them to question what someone as senior as me had said). So there might be an element of "conflict avoidance" by those who don't raise points in comments.
\nDue to the differences between comments and answers on Stack Exchange, I also think that new OPs in particular (but also some longer-term site members) do not fully understand some of the details about the correct use of comments. For them, this is a useful Meta.SE topic: How do comments work?
\nI don't have a fix for what you describe, partly because we don't know the reason(s) why some OPs behave like that. I have explained my guesses. Overall, I am not surprised that a (perhaps shorter) first answer from a lower-rep site member, isn't trusted as much (especially by an OP who doesn't know enough to quickly judge a correct answer) as a later (perhaps longer) answer from a higher-rep user, especially if that later answer explains why it is correct.
\n" }, { "Id": "9625", "CreationDate": "2022-03-26T12:39:56.787", "Body": "Reference this question: Op-amp based virtual ground with BJT buffer.
\nThis Q and A session has been locked for 7 days: -
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/4C3ox.png\")
It has been locked due to repeated (warned and reported) behavioural traits made by a specific person offering an answer.
\nThis means that the OP cannot get answers for 7 days because nobody can offer a new answer during that time period.
\nThis doesn't sound very reasonable to me. After all, it's not his fault that the session has become closed.
\nIf he were needing an answer fairly quickly, he's not going to get one. This seems all wrong to me.
\nNote to other site members: There was excessive disruption, argument and rudeness in comments that have since been deleted (and elsewhere) i.e. you cannot now see the whole picture.
\nI knew that my actions in this case were quite likely to result in a question on Meta, and you have done that, so thanks for raising this and for the opportunity to explain.
\n\n\nIs it the OP's fault his question is "locked-out" for 7 days due to arguments in answers
\n
No, it's definitely not the OP's fault, but in a fast-moving situation, a mod's responsibility includes stabilising the situation by any means, to prevent things getting worse. That is why locking posts is given to us as an tool we can use, when we believe it is appropriate.
\nLocking the topic was not my first action, and was not done lightly. However leaving any part of that topic unlocked last night, would have allowed the arguments to continue in that part (comments or answers). Therefore I make no apology for doing what I believed was necessary, at that time and in the best interests of the site, to prevent the thread from becoming even more argumentative. In that situation, I would do the same again, while working on other measures behind the scenes..
\nOf course it is very regrettable that any moderator actions have side-effects on innocent site members like the OP, and I am acutely aware of that.
\nSometimes situations need time to resolve. Just because site members don't see things happening, does not mean that nothing is happening. Sometimes we need time to research, consult our notes, consult with other moderators, consult with Stack Exchange staff, write messages etc. (also to drive, sleep, eat...).
\nNote that the time that a mod locks post(s) is not "set in stone" - it can be modified (either extended or shortened). In this case, my plan was never to leave the topic locked for a week, but there are limited options that we can choose from (1 hour / 1 day / 1 week / permanently) and I had reasons for choosing that one. Again, the responsibility of a mod is to stabilise the situation first, using any and all available tools.
\nAs I explained in a comment:
\n\n\nI'm locking the whole Q&A while considering the next actions and to give time for people to calm down.
\n
I have been working "behind the scenes" and things have moved on since I locked that topic. My plan was always to leave the topic locked for shortest time, but which was consistent with dealing with the cause of the (now deleted) disruption. I have now re-opened the topic.
\nHowever, if comments or answers become argumentative again, then a moderator will take action. There have been many comments on the question, perhaps too many. Moving them to a chatroom would have the advantage of them not being "in the face" of visitors to the page (which is one of the reasons that we can move comments to chat) but doing that also makes it more difficult for mods in some ways. So comments have not been moved to a chatroom, yet, but they might be in future.
\n" }, { "Id": "9650", "CreationDate": "2022-05-09T20:36:27.970", "Body": "I went to ask a new question on the main EE site, but SE gave me the standard warning, "You have reached your question limit. It looks like you might need a break - take a breather and come back soon!" that it gives before a question ban.
\nIt says that my recent questions were poorly received, but from what I can see they weren't. My most recent question currently has 3 upvotes and a few well received answers, and my question before that has an upvote and was quite useful.
\nWhy am I at a question limit?
\n", "Title": "Why am I getting a \"You've reached your question limit. [...] you might need a break\" message, when my questions have been well-received?", "Tags": "|support|status-bydesign|asking-questions|", "Answer": "The message you got points you to this post that explains how this block works, and why it exists. You can also read more about it here:
\n\n\nThis block is only temporary, but much longer blocks exist in the system. We're trying to slow you down and provide you with more guidance now, in hopes that you avoid a much longer period where the system won't accept questions from your account. Please take some time to revisit and improve your previous questions wherever possible.
\n
As the message noted, it is taking into account the last 4 questions you asked, which, as Voltage Spike noted, takes into account a deleted and downvoted question you asked back in January.
\nThere is no way to manually lift this temporary block, but the upside is that it is only gonna last a single day \u2014 like noted in the quote above, the point is not to prevent you from asking question altogether, but instead to have you take a break between asking questions.
\n" }, { "Id": "9657", "CreationDate": "2022-05-12T01:19:12.833", "Body": "Since the medium length question was apparently too complex and the short question wasn't apparently clear enough, I will try to rewrite the question about the closing in a more answerable form, motivating my choices.\nThe part about why it was deleted was mostly cleared by Russel McMahon.
\nReason to rewrite the question
\nIt appears that on this Meta, when someone asks "why was question X closed with reason Y" all they really want to know is "because three users with N points decided it had to be closed with reason Y". I didn't expect to receive this answer twice (the other is an answer since deleted because I was 'not nice'), considering the information carried by such an answer, in the light of the second screenshot I posted, is basically zero (and I also guess that the tag 'discussion' means something else from what I and my dictionaries think).
Answering "because three users with N points decided to close it" is nothing but a tautology, and if the answer to the most logic (at least in my world, but YMMV) follow-up question "then why three users decided to close it" would be "we don't know, we cannot know, you should ask them", the logic conclusion to draw is that on EESE, simple questions that should be answerable by any electronics practitioner are closed for reason that are imperscrutable to everyone except the users who chose to close them.\nAnd that such a arbitrariness and lack of transparency is okay with the top brass here.
\nThe purpose of this question on Meta
\nWhat I am asking here is "how is it possible for a question (as elementary as this) to be closed without that it is possible to find a common agreement on why it was closed?" to the point that the only answer I have got so far is basically "it was closed because someone decided to close it". I find this lack of transparency disturbing and contrary to the purpose of aiding users ask better questions.
So, in order to avoid further tautologies, I am forced to analyze the question one step at the time, sentence after sentence. It's short and simple enough to make this possible. This is not some fringe topic that requires experts in the field. Any EE or even any technician should know how a transistor work. Let's see if the community can agree on a reason for closing the question, with the motivation given, as if it were asked today.
\nSince the original question I had asked in this post wasn't clear enough (except for user @dim, it appears, but their comments are now buried into a deleted answer), I had to split my question in many explicitly worded bits that are - I hope - tautology-proof.
\nThe answers required are mostly in the form of Yes/No, except for the last one.
\nConsider this an educative post, for new users that are beginners and want to ask good question. Show them why the question was not focused, so that they can learn how to ask focused questions. So far, nobody has given a reason for that. Feel free to contact the original close-voters, if you wish. My question(s) is (are) directed at the community. In the spirit of the community, the answer that better explains why the OP question is not focused and deserving to be closed should come up on top with the most votes.
\nA word on notations
\nIn the following the original question from the OP is in italics (if I can make it in italics - the buttons no longer works on my laptop and PC, and it is not possible to correctly indent the text as a quote) - but the screenshot of the question is in a link at the bottom.\nMore notation: I will write my questions in capital letters to highlight them. This is a convention: it's not intended as shouting; it's writing a sentence in CAPITAL LETTERS to make it stand out from the rest of the text that is not a question (normal text), headings or highlighted text (bold face), and the original question (italics.) The purpose is to make all questions easily spotted at a glance, without having to sift through the rest of the text (for those who are in a hurry to get to the gist. I still maintain that the question in the title alone should suffice but, here we are.)
Splitting my original question in several - hopefully less prone to tautology - questions:
\nFirst we start with the picture. It shows a PNP transistor with the emitter junction directly biased by a small battery and the collector junction reverse biased by a larger battery. Granted, the picture is ugly, but not everybody can afford a pen tablet, and drawing with the mouse can lead to such uncertain drawings. Are users supposed to be discriminated on the base of their computing gear?
\nMoreover, this is the picture that can be found in several introductory electronics and physics textbooks when they explain the principles of transistor working (a couple of examples: David A. Bell, "Electronic Devices and Circuits" 2nd edition, fig. 4-4, p. 69 and fig. 4.5 p. 70; Millman, Halkias, "Electronic Devices and Circuits", fig. 9.3 p. 223)
\nQ1) IS THE UGLY PICTURE THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Now let's get to the body of text.
\nA few comments noted that the question was not properly formatted and user Eugen Sh. TeXified it correctly, apart from some missing spaces and lack of linefeeds (explained by the way this site renders two separate sentences when there is not a double space at the end of the first one.)
\nQ2) IS THE BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
The question opens with this preamble, where the OP sets up the stage with what the picture represents and what they have learned so far:
\nQuote from OP
\nIn the above transistor, we know that due to forward biasing, the resistance is low in the p\u2212n part and high in n\u2212p part due to reverse biasing. And i learnt that voltage drop in p\u2212n part is low due to the low resistance and voltage drop in n\u2212p part is high due to the high resistance.
It is anticipated here what will be the only one question they are about to ask: they know (more or less, they are a beginner by their own admission) that if you forward bias a pn junction (from P to N) you get a small voltage across it and an appreciable current through it, and if you reverse bias it (from N to P) you can get a large voltage across it and a small current through it. They are about to ask (their one and only question) why one voltage is small and the other is large.
\nQ3) IS THIS 'PREVIEW' OF WHAT WOULD BE THE ONLY QUESTION THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED (because it's not focused, of all reasons)?
They go on stating the one and only question they ask (why is the voltage across the reverse biased junction greater than the voltage across the forward biased junction if IE > IC), after explaining what they found confusing, i.e. the fact that even if the 'resistance' of a direct biased junction is low and the 'resistance' of a reverse biased junction is high, since IE>IC, it would still be mathematically possible (in their view) to have IEVEB > ICVCB (sign conventions might apply.)
\nQuote from OP
\nBut in p\u2212n junction, the current which passes is IE which is a high current and the voltage,let's say, Rpn is low, so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is V1=VE\u2212VB = IE Rpn. Similarly V2 = VE\u2212VB = IC Rnp. Now how do we conclude V2 > V1? Even though Rpn < Rnp,we have IE > IC. So there is the possibility of being V1 and V2 equal even.
Q4) IS THE REFERENCE TO THE NONLINEAR RESISTANCE OF THE JUNCTION (AND NOT TO AN UNNECESSARY DYNAMIC RESISTANCE) THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
\nQ5) IS THE MENTION OF OTHER VARIABLES (NAMELY, CURRENT AND RESISTANCE) OTHER THAN VOLTAGE THE REASON THIS QUESTION IS NOT FOCUSED AND SHOULD BE CLOSED?
\nI noticed that there is still a small formatting error, namely "and the voltage,let's say,Rpn is low,so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..." should read, instead, "and the voltage - let's say Rpn is low - so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..."
\nQ6) IS THIS PART OF BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Finally, after having asked the same question two times already, the OP summarized what the one and only question they are asking is, and by declaring their level of expertise so that a question could be given accordingly:
\nQuote from OP\nThen how is it plausible to deduce V2>V1 and not the other way around? I am sorry for having misconceptions but i am saying this from a beginner's point of view.
\nQ7) IS THE REPETITION OF THE ONE AND ONLY QUESTION ASKED THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED? (Of all reasons because it is not focused?)
\nQ8) IF Q1-Q7 DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY: WHAT MAKES THE QUESTION NOT FOCUSED TO THE POINT IT HAS TO BE CLOSED?
\nI hope it is clear what I am asking, now.
\nPrevious versions of the question
\nWhy was this question closed and what were the "reason of moderation" for which it was deleted?
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/617839/voltage-drop-in-transistor
\nEDIT: to clarify: I asked this question about ten days after the question was closed, and maybe one or two day after if was deleted. The reason for closing and deleting it, therefore are independent of what I am writing here post-facto.\nIf the remaining additional information is too confusing, just ignore it. The question I am asking is:
\n"Why was this question deleted and why was it closed?"
\nThe question was in topic and clearly stated, just not well formatted (it had an ugly picture but not everybody owns a drawing pad). Here is the text of the question
\nhttps://i.postimg.cc//JnfK3Gsv/screenshot-3.png
\nAnd here is the reason given for closing it.
\nhttps://i.postimg.cc//nh3kRdsv/screenshot-2.png
\nThere was no point in editing the question because it was clear what was asked (the focus is quite clear: why is one voltage bigger than the other) so once closed it was impossible to reopen it by editing it without asking a different question.
\n( Incidentally it was also an interesting question because the answer could be used to explain the core of transistor action and how a transistor can be seen as a way to match impedances. For those who think it was unanswerable, here is a possible answer to complement the other information I had given in the comments: https://i.postimg.cc//1tfFPWp6/LOL.png )\n3d8098c310eb3583a51c95f338b340c5
\nBut my question is only partly about why it was closed.\nIt is also about why it was deleted. What were the "moderation purposes"?
\n", "Title": "Why was this question closed (and then deleted)?", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|deleted-answers|", "Answer": "After four months and more that 250 views, I find it very telling that NOBODY on this META has found a specific reason good enough for that question to be closed.\nIt's not that the people in here have reached the conclusion that, no maybe it was an error of judgement and it shouldn't have been closed. It seems to me, from the downvotes as well, that people here believe it deserved to be closed. So, what is the specific reason, I have been asking? (I am giving here my answer to the question)
\nWas it closed out of spite for posting a hastily drawn picture? There are tons of questions with bad pictures.\nWas it closed because it lacked a space here and there? There are tons of questions with bad formatting.\nWas it closed because there was a typo in one of the formulas? (not sure if it was introduced by the user who formatted it, anyway there are heaps of questions with bad pictures, a typo here and there that do not get closed for any or all of the trivial matters above.)\nOr was it closed because those who voted to close it do not understand how transistors work and thought it was the OP to be confused to the point of asking an incoherent question? This last part does not make much sense, either. Should questions only be asked by people who already know the answer?\nAnd regarding the 'focus', it was laser sharp. But I understand it is customary to give bogus reason for closing, once one has made up his mind a question does not make sense.
\nOne of the people who voted to close chose not to make a proper answer and instead answered in the comments, against the site's rule. So many times I have seen "comments are not for extended discussion", "comments are not for answering", "comments prevent content from being searchable", "comments prevents voting"... The impression given here is that rules are not for everybody and some users are 'more equal' than others.\nClaiming "I have given up providing reasons now because it seems inevitably I get suspended", is not a tenable justification on Meta. You are not asked to give the reason for closing in the comments section of the answer on EESE. (Also, is the mechanism that gets users suspended wrong, then?)\nThis is Meta: share your reasoning so that it can be evaluated by your peers. The vague reason given in the comments above is "I probably voted to close as needing more focus because the question asserts things that I regard as wrong".\nSo, are these 'things that [are] regard[ed] as wrong" a secret?\nThis is an elementary circuit: it should be easy to explain what was so wrong with the answer to the point of closing it. Why are the users who voted to close avoiding discussion - which should be the purpose of Meta?
\nI chose this particular question because the topic is so basic that any engineer worth its salt should be able to form an opinion about its 'answerability' and its 'focus'. And yet it seems that a question as simple as this can create problems even in seasoned engineers.\nI posted it on another forum, just to get a reality check, and while nobody had problems in understanding what the OP was asking, it exposed certain misconceptions some had.\nTo be more specific: it is perfectly fine to have batteries without current limiting resistors directly attached to the transistor (when the voltages are less than the maximum allowed values, of course); the transistor is essentially a multiterminal nonlinear resistor; and the concept of resistance as ratio of the total voltage and total current (as opposed to the incremental or differential resistance of small signal analysis) does have a meaning; finally, the transistor does not only amplify small signals about the biasing point: amplification can be referred to large signals as well.
\nSo, here is my answer to the question I posed:\nFrom the interaction in this Meta I have reached the conclusion that the people who voted to close this question have a problem with at least one of the simple concepts above.
\nThere's nothing to be ashamed of, of course, we all have a blind spot here and there; what is wrong, though, and what I am trying to bring the attention to is that people should not vote to close questions on topics they do not fully understand. But most importantly, it's the ensuing "we are right, no matter what, but we won't tell you what was wrong in the question and so there is nothing to discuss here" attitude of certain (several? most?) curators - or whatever is the title they give themselves - that is disappointing to say the least. And I am not even bringing up the selective deletion of comments.
\nIn one of the comments someone asks why didn't I do anything.
\nBTW, this is the text that generated the md5 code, right after "I hope it's clear what I am asking, now" at the end of my question:
\n\n\nIt's about the "we don't know, we cannot know" part. But let's see if\nmy crystal ball is working: I forecast downvotes that will have the\neffect to hide this Meta question and no real explanation about why\nthe OP question was closed. Except mabye a vague and unsubstantiated\n"it's low quality" 'reason'. I would not be surprised to see some\nexcuse not to answer the questions posed.
\n
(Nice try with the image hosting website question.)\nSo, i guess that if it is possible I will accept my own answer, because the other ones did not address the real core of my question (apart from the mechanism of automatic deletion by a bot due to the negative score).
\n" }, { "Id": "9664", "CreationDate": "2022-05-24T20:25:36.480", "Body": "How can I reach e.g. page 348 of this endless list with less than 50 clicks?\nWhen I read these things some pages per day, I can't seek to the last page or range I left some days before.
\n", "Title": "Browsing unanswered questions, how to scroll efficiently", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "To specifically reach page 348:
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?page=348&tab=votes
Simply replace the number following page= in the URL.
\n" }, { "Id": "9688", "CreationDate": "2022-06-28T05:38:00.183", "Body": "Sometimes I want to use two or more circuit diagrams in one post, which are only slight variations of each other.
\nIs it possible to "continue" an existing schematic and then insert it as a new separate schematic ?
\n", "Title": "How to use several similar CircuitLab schematics in one post without redrawing the whole diagram?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Here is a way:
\nCreate the initial schematic the usual way. Do you stuff on CircuitLab, and when the first version is done, click "Save and Insert". That makes you go back to EE.SE, and there is now some markup in your answer text that looks like this:
\n<!-- Begin schematic: In order to preserve an editable schematic, please\n don't edit this section directly.\n Click the "edit" link below the image in the preview instead. -->\n\n\n\n<!-- End schematic -->\nCopy this entire part as many times you want in your post. This will make as many instances of your schematic in your post. For each instance, you'll have a "edit the above schematic" link. If you click it, you can modify the instances you want individually. When you "Save and Insert" from CircuitLab for a given instance, the corresponding link (the *****.png) part will change for the modified instance, but it will not update the other instances, and the original schematic will be preserved.
You can even use the same technique to reuse, possibly with some modifications, a schematic from another post. Go to the source post that contains the schematic, click "Edit" as if you wanted to modify the post: that will show you the markup text. From there, copy the schematic block as shown above, cancel the post edit, and paste the block in your destination post. You can use the schematic as is, or modify it (the original schematic, of course, won't change).
\n" }, { "Id": "9690", "CreationDate": "2022-07-05T05:40:37.957", "Body": "I wanted to join the Statistics Stack Exchange, so I did join the community, but as soon as I did, I was put in the penalty box there. Of course, once in the penalty box, I'm a non-citizen and can't even ask the Meta there what's going on. Since I have put in the most work here, I hope that posting here is not a problem. Having only 1 point is very constraining!
\nI have been experimenting with keeping JavaScript off by default. Many of the web sites that I go to are just searches for information, and I get the info without all the flashing lights, in-your-face email sign-ups, and other internet trash. So perhaps there is a subtle bug having to do with that.
\nOtherwise, I have a general complaint with the process of being put in the penalty box without being shown exactly why I am in the penalty box. Maybe there is, after all, some valid reason. But all I'm told is that I'm in the box.
\nAlso, there should be some button that you can press that says that I think this happened accidentally, and that I should not be in the penalty box. To not do this assumes that our web site programmers are perfect, and being a Senior Developer of many years now, I am daily confronted with just how imperfect I am, and how limited is the capacity of my own grey matter (as renowned Dijkstra is famous for explaining).
\nThe "Penalty Box by Mistake" button only makes sense if the user is given a reason why they are in the box. Either the reason makes sense to them or it doesn't.
\nBut it definitely doesn't make sense that I am automatically penalty-boxed as soon as I join a community.
\nI don't want you to just fix what's wrong with my account. Let's make this place a better place to play and work! Thanks.
\nTo see my Penalty-Boxed account you can click here and see that I have only 1 point (I should have 101 points):\nhttps://stats.stackexchange.com/users/362318/microservicesonddd.
\nThank you for your time, understanding, and all the work you do for StackExchange!
\n", "Title": "Why am I in the Penalty Box when I just joined (sorry posting here, temp. non-citizen can't post where it's needed)", "Tags": "|bug|", "Answer": "As commented, there is nothing we can do directly here. Each SE site has its own mods and even as a mod here, I cannot see any details over there.
\nI have contacted the mods over there and they are currently investigating.
\nUpdate:
\nThe suspension has kindly been removed by the mods over there. No sign of a bug, but I'm not going to disclose more details publicly.
\nThey have asked me to pass on a recommendation that you change your passwords on your SE account and your email.
\nIf you have more questions, please ask over there, not here.
\nRegarding your wider point:
\n\n\nI have a general complaint with the process of being put in the penalty box without being shown exactly why I am in the penalty box. Maybe there is, after all, some valid reason. But all I'm told is that I'm in the box.
\n
I appreciate your concern, however there is some history in your case. Usually there would have been a prior message.
\n\n\nAlso, there should be some button that you can press that says that I think this happened accidentally, and that I should not be in the penalty box.
\n
There are only a tiny number of situations like yours. From what I understand, a specific series of manual actions happened in the past, (which usually don't happen unless the account is a spammer) leading to your situation today.
\n\n\nit definitely doesn't make sense that I am automatically penalty-boxed as soon as I join a community.
\n
I understand it doesn't make sense to you, but there was a reason and it was functioning as designed.
\nGetting "Penalty Box by Mistake" functionality added to the site, just for those tiny number of situations, will be so far down the SE priorities list that I doubt it would happen.
\nThe slower-but-preferred way to address your situation, would have been for you to use the contact form at the bottom of the page on the Stats site. Your workaround of asking here caused some extra work, but it was probably a quicker resolution than using the contact form.
\n" }, { "Id": "9705", "CreationDate": "2022-07-19T23:56:02.343", "Body": "In, DC-DC boost converter theory / principle / testing, I had a comment about something OP mentioned that I found concerning, regarding operating with a live battery; at least, I think I did?! But without an edit history it seems it's as much hearsay, as gaslighting myself at this point.
\nIf this was moderated, could a moderator indicate why this action was taken?
\nOn a related note, I suppose the conversation never should've gone so far anyway, closed for poor focus; is that a fair assessment?
\n", "Title": "Comments edited regarding safety?", "Tags": "|discussion|moderation|comments|", "Answer": "\n\nIf this was moderated, could a moderator indicate why this action was taken?
\n
I've checked your comments on that question. As of now, no comments on that topic (by anyone) were deleted, by a moderator or by its author. A few were edited by their authors, within the usual 5-minute window. That's all!
\n\n\nclosed for poor focus
\n
The question has never been closed. Perhaps you are thinking of a different question? Or a different site? That would explain why you can't find a comment here that you believe you wrote. That seems a likely explanation, and the exact same situation has happened to me.
\n" }, { "Id": "9722", "CreationDate": "2022-09-21T13:34:30.890", "Body": "My question has been closed on the grounds of "Questions on the use of electronic devices are off-topic as this site is intended specifically for questions on electronics design." Whoever closed my question, didn't seem to have read it, as it was not about the use of the devices. It seems quite obvious that both devices (a UPS and a portable power station) are intended for different uses (heck, it's in the name), I've never questioned that. Yet, from a technical perspective they are very similar, which is the premise to my question. It is a question not about use, but about specifications, which is relevant for any design.
\nIf the question for whatever other reason does not fit in electrical engineering, migrate it to some other place.
\n", "Title": "Reason for question closure unfounded", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|", "Answer": "If JJM and dim voted to reopen that would be a step in the right direction. So far it has only one reopen vote.
\nAs a moderator I'd consider reopening it but as another moderator was one of the two VTCs I'll leave it for now.
\nI understand both sides of this - possibly editing to somewhat more emphasise the design aspect of the question. 3 votes to open and some editing as above would probably do it. The aim is to make it a technical question of ongoing value to others. I'd say it managed that already BUT you can improve it.
\nFlag for moderator attention if the above is done and nothing happens.
\n" }, { "Id": "9724", "CreationDate": "2022-09-21T14:55:53.607", "Body": "Please add syntax highlighting to the matlab tag.
\nFrom What is syntax highlighting and how does it work? :
\n\n\nOnly moderators can change the highlighting language for a tag.
\n
lang-matlab is one of the supported languages for syntax highlighting.
I manually added the matlab language hint to the code block when I edited this question. However, it would be much more convenient to have the syntax highlighting automatically applied to code blocks for this tag.
This is a good idea. I've set the language for the tag.
\n" }, { "Id": "9729", "CreationDate": "2022-10-06T18:00:06.720", "Body": "cell-battery appears on 285 questions but has no tag wiki. batteries also appears on 138 of those questions and its tag wiki indicates that its use is for "one or more electrochemical cells", so it seems to me that cell-battery should be merged with batteries (with the latter as the master tag).
\nAny objections to this? If there's a reason not to merge them then we should provide a tag wiki for cell-battery.
\n", "Title": "Merge [batteries] and [cell-battery] tags?", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "Since no one has objected, I've merged "cell-battery" into batteries.
\n" }, { "Id": "9733", "CreationDate": "2022-10-12T15:38:00.770", "Body": "We had a tag called "mesh" but it had no tag wiki. I reviewed all 80 questions it was on and found that 75 of them referred to mesh analysis. Consequently, I removed "mesh" from the 5 questions that were not about mesh analysis, renamed the tag to mesh-analysis, and added a tag wiki.
\nSince users who type "mesh" in the list of tags almost always use it in the context of mesh analysis, should we make "mesh" a synonym of mesh-analysis so that the question would be automatically tagged correctly in those cases? On the other hand, it's possible that someone might be referring to "mesh" in a different context as in the 5 questions from which I removed "mesh".
\nOf the 5 questions which were tagged with "mesh" but were not about mesh analysis, 3 were about mesh networking:
\n\nand 2 were about mesh wires:
\nShould new "mesh-network" (or "mesh-networking") and/or "mesh-wire" tags be created and added to these questions, or are they not necessary? If we decide not to create any of these new tags then it would definitely make sense to make "mesh" a synonym of mesh-analysis since only mesh analysis questions would require a tag with "mesh" in the name.
\n", "Title": "Make \"mesh\" a synonym of the \"mesh-analysis\" tag?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|", "Answer": "There has been no response other than a positive score to the question so I've made "mesh" a synonym of mesh-analysis. I have not created any other tags.
\n" }, { "Id": "9736", "CreationDate": "2022-10-18T17:57:48.767", "Body": "I understand that open-ended design review questions are generally discouraged.
\nHowever, I'm designing my first mains powered device and was wondering if constrained design review questions such as "Are there any glaring safety issues with this circuit" on topic?
\nAssuming the circuit in question is fairly simple.
\n", "Title": "Are \"Is My Circuit Safe\" questions on-topic?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I guess a question formulated like this can still a bit too open-ended, unless the circuit is very simple (like no more than 4-5 components, and a single, very simple task).
\nAs soon as the circuits is a bit more complex than this, it would certainly make it easier to guide the readers and formulate the question such as "Are there any safety issues with having the R1 resistor here, and are there particular precautions to take regarding the C2 capacitor ratings". You can still end the question with an invitation to check the rest ("Any advice on the safety of this ciruit is welcome"), but providing a list of specific things you're not sure about will certainly make the experience better for both you and the answerer.
\nIf you don't do that, the job is actually more difficult for the answerers, so you might get less answers, and the answers may be less interesting: you risk having answers basically just saying "Everything looks good to me.". Then, you did not learn much, and what confidence can you have in such an answer, even if the person saying this is right?
\n" }, { "Id": "9754", "CreationDate": "2022-11-05T15:26:01.657", "Body": "On occasion, I have questions about generating electricity, which would clearly make these sort of questions applicable for this SE. On the other hand, some of the questions I have involve generating electricity using fuel cells, which may make questions more applicable for the chemistry SE. Which site would be more appropriate for fuel cell-related questions, around the electrical design/electricity generation aspects?
\n", "Title": "Is this SE an appropriate site to ask questions about fuel cells?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I consider that either may be appropriate depending on which aspects are being asked about. For example Lithium Ion battery questions are common on this site, with the cell largely (but not totally) being treated as a black-box with certain defined characteristics. If the question related to chemistry, anode or cathode materials, intercalation, electrolytes and similar then chemistry SE would be better.
\nSo too with fuel cells, which are similar to secondary batteries in the manner which they straddle the EE and chemical divide.
\n" }, { "Id": "9762", "CreationDate": "2022-11-25T18:22:18.357", "Body": "Please could the tag differiential-pair have its spelling corrected to differential-pair.
\n(There are currently only five questions using that tag.)
\n", "Title": "Request for tag spelling correction: [differiential-pair] [sic]", "Tags": "|support|status-completed|tags|", "Answer": "Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
\nI merged the tag into differential-amplifier so it is gone now.
\n" }, { "Id": "9765", "CreationDate": "2022-11-30T17:28:27.617", "Body": "I want to suggest to add a Discussion Tab in the side panel of each question. I think it will help users to discuss about the topic with out interfering with in the comments and share their thought about the topic. As it is Electrical Engineering forum such tab might be helpful for multiple reason. Beginners would get chance to raise thought without disturbing the main purpose of the question, experts can give suggestion and help improve the context about the topic.
\n", "Title": "Discussion Tab in the side panel of each question", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "The site already has a comments section, and so having two areas to have discussion would be redundant. This would need to be site wide and site wide features are decided by stack exchange.
\n" }, { "Id": "9774", "CreationDate": "2022-12-16T02:06:09.617", "Body": "If a user is suspended for plagiarism, is it possible for non-moderators to view the plagiarism? If not should it be possible? It seems that this would be a good idea from the perspective of transparency. As far as reputational damage goes, it seems that being suspended for plagiarism already constitutes reputational damage. Allowing inspection would simply allow any interested party to verify the plagiarism.
\n", "Title": "Suspension for Plagiarism", "Tags": "|discussion|moderation|", "Answer": "If the issue is supposed to be between a user and a mod, then wouldn't specifying that a suspension is because of plagiarism on the user's profile be a violation of that idea??
\n" }, { "Id": "9782", "CreationDate": "2022-12-28T23:44:40.477", "Body": "I'm not sure if this is intended behaviour or a bug, but this notification has come up three times this week. I've definitely only earned 200 reputation in one calendar year (or, at best, in two separate 365-day periods, one of which just began).
\nIt seems to just award me this badge, both on the main SE and on meta, every time my reputation crosses a multiple of 200.
\nSeems kind of weird. Does anyone know what's going on here?
\n![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Uvsd.png\")
Because your reputation has recently shot up this month from 111 to 666 (as of now) that's expected because you have over 3 x 200 reputation so you've become eligible for three badges. You've now been a member six years so you could get another three fairly quickly if it increases to 1200. The following answer explains it further:
\nHow does the Yearling badge now work over multi years?
\nBut I've seen the same thing asked a few times before and had the same myself on other sites so it's expected behaviour not a bug.
\n" }, { "Id": "9790", "CreationDate": "2023-01-06T17:13:52.463", "Body": "Title has my question:
\nIs this the right group to ask questions about uninterruptible power supplies?
\nI found " https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5279/is-a-question-asking-for-specific-power-consumption-okay", but itdidn't answer my question.
\nIf not, what is the StackExchange group to use to ask UPS questions questions?
\n", "Title": "Is this the right group to ask questions about uninterruptible power supplies?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "This site isn't for asking questions about consumer devices, this site is more geared toward questions that are about the design of such devices. I'm not sure which site would be best, you can go to any site and then help and on topic
\nhttps://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\n" }, { "Id": "9800", "CreationDate": "2023-01-11T20:41:20.977", "Body": "I know this topic has been oft repeated, but I find it silly that there exist only options to migrate questions to Meta or SuperUser. Really?! The vast majority of questions I see migrated seem to go to diy.stackexchange.com or mechanics.stackexchange.com Of course I'm aware there are stacks for Arduino and Raspberry Pi and a myriad of other applicable sites as well.
\nI'm usually told that the pushback for adding these options is due to the target site rejecting migrated questions for whatever reason... Or some sort of hell where questions go when nobody wants them.
\nThe reason I bring this up is a new user recently posted a question which was about home mains wiring, which I thought a better fit on DIY. Without the option to migrate, I voted to close with the reason being that it should be migrated. Subsequent users agreed with the vote and the question was closed. This led the user to be confused and post a new (deleted) question which specifically called me out for effectively shutting them down.
\nWhile I'm not surprised the question got closed (due to the current sub-par mechanism), I am annoyed at the fact there does not appear to be a way to suggest a proper migration, and even more irritated that I have no way to help the user understand what the closure vote comment was actually trying to do.
\nWhen a question is voted as belonging to another site as a migration candidate, what actually happens? Do moderators see it and decide whether it should be migrated or closed? If so, then what is the [expletive redacted] problem with having a couple more options to migrate?
\n", "Title": "Can we add the option to migrate questions to DIY?", "Tags": "|discussion|migration|", "Answer": "A quick look at the list of questions migrated to DIY (not available to all users) suggests that it is a decent migration candidate: DIY is the migration target a significant number of the questions migrated from this site, and they seem to be generally accepted by DIY. It might be a good idea to add DIY as a migration target for this site, though I'd have to look into it more to be sure.
\nThe main reason why the company is reluctant to add options to migrate is that inappropriate migrations are an annoyance both on the original site and the target site. To mitigate this, moderators are able to migrate to any site on the network even if there is not a dedicated migration path.
\nThe correct way for a non-moderator to suggest a migration to a site that doesn't have a dedicated migration path is to flag for a moderator's attention with a request to migrate to a specific site. In this case, you simply voted to close as off-topic on this site (albeit with a custom close reason) and none of your fellow close-voters raised a moderator flag to have it migrated. No one raised a moderator flag and no moderator saw the question before it was closed, so no moderator had a chance to decide whether or not to migrate it.
\n" }, { "Id": "9804", "CreationDate": "2023-01-23T16:54:56.263", "Body": "Question in question: Powering home thermostat using standard four-wire connection
\nThis is a question about building a thermostat to work with a standard home HVAC communication protocol. It was closed (IMO, incorrectly) as
\n\n\nThis question does not appear to be about electronics design within the scope defined in the help center.
\n
IMO, it is quite clearly a question that covers:
\n\n\n\n
\n- a specific electronics design problem
\n
and
\n\n\n\n
\n- a communication scheme
\n
and most certainly is not
\n\n\n\n
\n- a shopping or buying recommendation
\n- consumer electronics such as media players, cell phones or smart phones, except when designing these products or modifying their electronics for other uses
\n- Programming software for a PC
\n
Nonetheless, I submitted some suggested edits based on comments in the answer, to correct some factual errors that were causing confusion in the original post. Even after that, though, the only feedback from that edit and reopen request is:
\n\n\nOriginal close reason(s) were not resolved
\n
Which doesn't make sense to me, since the original close reason didn't apply.
\nI left a comment on the post itself, but unfortunately nobody responded to it explaining why. What am I missing about this question that makes it inappropriate? FWIW, this is the second question I've seen closed in the past few days that was worthy of an answer -- in neither case was the reason for closure explained.
\n", "Title": "Unclear why question about thermostats remains closed", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I have not seen this until now.
\nLong experience has led me to (strongly :-) ) believe that I am better than most people at understanding technical questions which are obscurely put and / or which contain inadequate information.
I have not met systems as described in the question.
\nThe terms are meaningless to me.
\neg " ... Rc/G/W/Y, ..." seems likely to refer to the wire designations / applications, but would not allow me to start to answer the question well.
\nAs edited the question is tailored only for a person experienced and proficient in the art. If you can find such people to answer the question then it may succeed, BUT if it was well described it's quite possible that I could provide a useful answer.
Your (Matt S's) answer provides excellent explanatory information.
\nIf appropriate parts of this were in the question it may be answerable by eg me.
\nI'm generally resistant to closing questions.
\nAs it stands I agree with the decision made - although the reasons given is, as often, probably inappropriate. .\nNB: Reasons for closing are very limited and often do not well reflect the close reason. In this case I'd say that "substantially lacking in detail" would be much closer.
+1 on Matt S's answer :-)
\n" }, { "Id": "9807", "CreationDate": "2023-01-26T16:05:22.447", "Body": "This Question: "Can a 50mm2 cable handle 350 amps?" has been locked for 7 days.
\n\n\n\n
Why?
\nIt doesn't appear to be particularly controversial, and considering that it's only been viewed 13 times it hardly seems likely to have engendered a flame-war in the comments ...
There are (unusual) reasons which I cannot discuss publicly, sorry. (Moderator work is ongoing in the background...)
\n" }, { "Id": "9810", "CreationDate": "2023-01-29T10:40:25.707", "Body": "I posted a question about a CPU transistor and finally a member has answered it, but in the comment section. I asked him to put that in an answer so that every one can benefit from the information, but he/she didn't reply. Can I screenshot his/her comment with his/her pseudo and put it in the answer?
\n", "Title": "Can I answer my question with a comment screenshot?", "Tags": "|support|answers|comments|", "Answer": "In general what you're proposing is OK but don't do it as a screenshot, instead copy the comment(s) as text to the answer and give credit to the person that wrote it with a link to their profile. It's always better to post anything that can be text that way so that search engines index it.
\nI'm not sure exactly which comment you're referring to, but it's also worth checking it's a fairly complete and correct answer to the question. Sometimes people post partial answers as comments because they don't feel it's complete enough to post as an answer
\n" }, { "Id": "9812", "CreationDate": "2023-01-30T14:07:21.203", "Body": "Two days ago I posted a question and today I am surprised that I can't post again.
\nIn this five years, only one question was downvoted, but its ok.
\nSo I am asking you to help me out to put things right, you can visit my questions and tell me what must be edited thank you.
I didn't down vote any of your questions (or answers,) but I can see why you might not have gotten any upvotes:
\nMuch of the difficulties seem to stem from the language problems. I understand how that goes. I am an American, but I've lived in Germany for over thirty years. I speak and write German fairly well (now) but in earlier times I tended to write in German like you do now in English - the minimum needed to get the point across. Writing in a foreign language is difficult, so you write as little as possible to avoid mistakes and to reduce the difficulty in phrasing so many things.
\nPoints 2,4, and 6 are probably direct results of point 1 - the language hampers you, so you don't put any background into the questions and then your responses are snippish because it is hard to be polite when writing very simple responses.
\nI've covered point 1.
\nYou can see point 2 in this question about heating in a short circuit. Your question asks how much power is needed to calculate the temperature of a conductor. In the comments, it becomes clear that you understand that you need more parameters than just the current and the material but that wasn't clear in the question. Your edit says that you would like a formula to calculate the power needed to heat a conductor to its melting temperature. That should have been there to begin with. It also makes it seem as if you don't understand the problem at all since you speak of power when it should be energy.
\nPoint 3 comes up in this question. You are trying to figure out how a tiny transistor could handle 360 amperes of current. The 360 amperes appears to come from the thermal design power (TDP) and the operating voltage of the CPU you were looking at. That confusion lead to a lot of comments that have nothing to do with an answer. To top it off, you selected an answer from the comments that doesn't actually answer the question at all. "How much power can a 6nm transistor handle" answered by "...processors have two main mechanisms of heating. One is static power loss (caused by leakage through transistor gates) and the other is dynamic power loss..." does not compute. It seems to have answered something that was unclear in your mind, but it is certainly not the answer to the question you asked - that goes back to point 2 again.
\nFor point 5, you argued against the (correct) answers to this question. The answers are all correct, but you keep poking because you don't see that they are correct. That is irritating to the people who wrote the answers as well as to people who read the question and the answers. It is obvious that you had trouble understanding the concept, but you also had trouble expressing which part of it you didn't "get."
\nPoint 6 shows up in the same question and the comments to the answers. You probably didn't intend it that way, but your comments to the answers are rather snippish - short, direct, unfriendly.
\nPoint 4 shows up in this question about radio signals. You basically state the correct answer in the question (even showing diagrams that prove it,) but you don't explain why you think you might be wrong or why you think there might be (which there is) more to a radio signal than a sine wave. It leaves people wondering just what it is you meant to ask about. Something is missing, but no one knows what.
\nIt all boils down to difficulties expressing yourself and explaining what it is you want to know. It all starts with the language barrier. Trust me, you will not fix that in a short time frame (been there, spent years getting better at expressing myself in a foreign language.)
\nWhat you can do is to explain yourself more fully - even if you don't use the language correctly. There's several people here (myself among them) who make a hobby of cleaning up questions and answers to fix language problems. Do your best with the language, but don't sweat it. It is more important for your questions to be complete than that the language be perfect. We can (usually) guess what you mean from a sentence even when the grammar is bad. We can't guess what thoughts you have in your head.
\nI think you need to expand your questions so that others can see why you are asking.
\nA few specific recommendations:
\nA final hint:
\nYou haven't accepted an answer to several of your questions, even when to all appearances the question was correctly answered.
\nIf the answers don't tell you what you wanted to know, then you need to fix the question so that you will get that answer rather than the answers already there. That is, you got answers to the question as written, but you didn't accept them because they don't answer what ever it was that cause you to ask. That means you asked the wrong question. You need to ask the right question.
\nIf the answers do tell you what you needed to know, then accept one so that the question is done.
\nNot accepting an answer leaves a bad impression and makes people disinclined to upvote the question.
\nAccepting answers will not have any effect on the question ban, but it might be a reason why you haven't gotten many upvotes in the past.
\nThe bans are based on the number of votes (up and down) your questions get. The system can't tell if your edits are good or not - an edit itself won't help.
\nThe system can only tell if you have improved your questions by the upvotes they get.
\nYour goal is to make your questions interesting enough for other people to upvote them. Upvotes go towards getting you unbanned.
\nMake your questions complete and interesting and useful to other people. They will then vote for you and eventually get you out of the ban.
\n" }, { "Id": "9814", "CreationDate": "2023-01-31T17:02:10.623", "Body": "Why is this question closed?
\nI think the question could be better worded, sure. But the gist is asking about what areas of EE might overlap with Quantum computing.
\nI don't see how answering to that will be opinion based, the research in EE that helps QC progress is useful, and should be talked about.
\nI don't see how opinion fits into a potential answer to this question.
\nCan anyone explain how's this so?
\n", "Title": "I disagree that this question is opinion based", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "I agree that it isn't opinion-based, but part of it is off-topic.
\nOn-topic: a question similar to "what areas of EE overlap with quantum computing?" This is for sure a question about electrical engineering.
\nOff-topic: a question similar to "is anyone doing research on topic x?" Which isn't a question about EE but a question about what on-going research programs that might exist across the world.
\nHowever, it is not uncommon that on-topic questions contain various derailing into off-topic matters. Like a schematic design review question (on-topic) also containing part recommendations (off-topic). Generally these can be edited into shape or we can just ignore the off-topic part of it, as long as most of the question is on-topic.
\nIn this specific case I think it's on-topic enough for us to leave it alone. I've cast a re-open vote. However, big picture questions that are cross-disciplinary (Like EE, chemistry, physics all at once etc) might be more suitable for https://engineering.stackexchange.com. One could ask on their meta if they think questions like this are more suited there.
\n" }, { "Id": "9816", "CreationDate": "2023-02-09T08:27:38.467", "Body": "There are four questions tagged [group], used in three different contexts:
\nI don't think the [group] tag adds value to any of these questions. Should this tag be removed?
\n", "Title": "Should the 'group' tag be removed?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "Yes, this tag adds no value so it should be removed. The other tags on the existing questions are sufficient.
\n" }, { "Id": "9825", "CreationDate": "2023-03-05T23:23:13.660", "Body": "There is no usage for the custom tag, and it doesn't seem to add anything but noise.
\nCurrently it is applied to 33 questions, a few recent ones, mostly quite old questions. All of them appear to have other useful tags and do not appear as if they would care having this tag removed.
\nCleanup time?
\n", "Title": "Remove all [tag:custom]-isation", "Tags": "|discussion|tag-cleanup|", "Answer": "I agree, this tag serves no purpose and should be cleaned up.
\n" }, { "Id": "9829", "CreationDate": "2023-03-23T10:03:46.767", "Body": "I'm referring to my own question:
\nIs there any scientific proof that passive cell balancing can improve the life of a battery pack?
\nasking about the effect of balancing on the battery life or state of health.
\nThis is clearly a technical inquiry asking for an explanation. Therefore I cannot agree to the closure reason saying:
\n\n\nQuestions seeking recommendations for specific products or places to purchase them are off-topic as they are rarely useful to others and quickly obsolete. Instead, describe your situation and the specific problem you're trying to solve.
\n
In opposite I think this is a valid and valuable question, it can certainly be improved and be better formulated, but it is a concern for anybody in the field who maybe confronted by questions asking how and whether cell balancing really has an effect on the life span of a battery pack. As a pack highly depends on the weakest cell.
\nI'm neither recommending products nor looking for a recommendation nor for places to buy them this is clearly not the topic nor intent of my question. I rather want to get a more profound insight in the benefits of cell balancing on the life span of a lithium Ion battery pack each of these topics (balancing, lithium ion batteries, and battery-lifespan are clearly on-topic here) is on-topic (else why would related tags exist) on this site. So if I can't ask this here then where should I ask?
Therefore I'd be pleased to understand how this question can be off-topic.
\n", "Title": "Closure reason doesn't make any sense to me", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "In this Meta question, what you said about your question on the main site is: "This is clearly a technical inquiry asking for an explanation"
\nBut your question on the main site did not read like a technical inquiry. What you actually said in the question on the main site is:
\n\n\nMy question is as follows: are there any studies that can show that passive balancing can improve the lifespan of a lithium-ion battery pack? (Please cite and explain!)
\nOr could you at least confirm or correct the above logic as I understand it?
\n
(My bold)
\nThat can be (and probably was) interpreted as you asking people to find existing research (studies) for you, rather than a technical question.
\nThat type of question tends to be poorly received here, since people could waste lots of time checking the same places that you have already checked and, presumably, didn't find what you are looking for. Out of the limited available closure reasons for those site members who believe it is off-topic, the shopping/recommendation reason is the one usually chosen for questions which ask for other sources of information.
\nIf you are looking to understand about cell-balancing then asking a question about that, instead of asking for other people's studies, is likely to be much better received by the site members here.
\n" }, { "Id": "9833", "CreationDate": "2023-04-01T11:12:26.943", "Body": "In general, I agree that chatbot content should be forbidden.
\nI am also aware that detecting chatbot content isn't always easy - there are bound to be false positives and false negatives.
\nAs I have flagged several posts as chatbot content myself, I hope that I haven't gotten any innocent parties suspended. I try to be certain before I flag such content, and I'm sure the moderators do their best to verify it before they hit "suspend," but we are all fallible human beings.
\nWhat recourse does an innocent user have if they receive this message in error:
\n\n\nYou have recently been detected as posting AI-generated (e.g.\nChatGPT) content on Stack Exchange. This is neither good community\ncitizenship, nor is it what we expect of our users.
\nConsidering there have been warnings about the disruptiveness of this\nbehavior all over the Stack Exchange Metas, we feel there's sufficient\nwarnings about the inappropriateness of this.
\nAlso this behavior counts as plagiarism since you did not (and\ncannot) cite & reference the original sources used by the AI to\ngenerate that content.
\nDo not post AI-generated content again.\nYour account has been temporarily suspended for 30 days.
\n
I have the impression (from looking around other Meta sites) that there is supposed to be a link in (or with) that message that should lead to a place to request a review of the suspension, but I have not seen the message itself, nor do I know what it looks like when it pops up. I also do not know if the message is somehow linked into the user profile so that the user can review it and take needed actions.
\nI ask this question because I am in personal contact with a user who received the above message. This person swears to have never posted a chatbot based answer.
\nOne possibility that I see is that this person is not a native English speaking person. The somewhat stilted translation from that person's native language (German) to English may have resulted in a text that "looks" somewhat "chatbotish."
\nWhile the available chatbot detectors seem to work, I know that they also make mistakes.
\nI've fed some of my own answers to a few of the chatbot detectors. They usually come back as more than 90 percent certain that they were written by a human, but they have flagged individual passages as "chatbot output" - and I know that I wrote that text. Such "chatbot" passages are usually where I stop the explanations and make a simple blanket statement that summarizes the explanation.
\n", "Title": "How can users who were suspended for posting alleged ChatGPT answers appeal the suspension?", "Tags": "|discussion|moderation|", "Answer": "You've asked an important question. Given more time, I could probably write a more detailed & polished answer, but that would delay things. On the basis that "something is better than nothing", here is a bit of a "brain dump" (as this is something I'm already actively thinking about) so you can see that your question is not being ignored:
\nIMHO ChatGPT and similar tools & technology pose a significant threat to Stack Exchange, in various different ways.
\nOne obvious concern is their ability to provide often plausible-sounding apparently authoritative answers, but containing various amounts of wrongness which can sometimes only be detected by subject matter experts (SME) in that specific area.
\nThat leads to difficult-to-detect wrong answers being left on the site to mislead people, until spotted by an SME in that area (and sometimes accumulating upvotes in the meantime due to the answer's plausible-but-wrong contents, leading to even more people believing the answer).
\nStack Exchange overall is (again IMHO) still catching-up on processes and policies in this area. It's not a great situation. We have more work to do (e.g. guess what I had planned for this weekend? :) ) but it will take time.
\nDue to ChatGPT flags and detections, I know that my mod workload has increased significantly. That's partly due to the amount of work that goes into background checks on each one. As you have seen from the flags you submit, we do take action.
\nFrom personal experience, I have occasionally seen the site being swamped with ChatGPT-generated answers quicker than I can review them. And that's part of the problem - it takes almost no effort for a "bad actor" to copy a question from this site into ChatGPT, get an "answer", and post it here. This happened on Stack Overflow (only much worse).
\nWe are going to get things wrong in moderating this issue: Partly because processes & policies are still being developed; partly because the detection tools aren't perfect as you said; partly because people do try to evade being detected when posting ChatGPT content, and partly because we're fallible humans as you also said.
\nWe've been thrown into a new moderation situation that we didn't ask for, but somehow we have to navigate though it, as best we can, with the tools we have and while we are also learning.
\nDue to some clues you have included, I suspect I know which user is in contact with you. As usual, I have to be cautious about revealing specifics. However (if I guessed correctly) I will say that they are in the queue for a response, as they have used the usual reply mechanism for a suspension (which is the answer to part of your question - yes, there is a way for a user to reply to a suspension). But, as I said, workload (including all the usual flags) and even writing this, mean that the queue is taking a while to get through.
\nIf you are in contact with that user, please reassure them that they will get a private response, after their reply message and the original flags / detection results have been thoroughly reviewed.
\n" }, { "Id": "9842", "CreationDate": "2023-04-19T04:57:08.593", "Body": "I am always reluctant to move comments to chat, if they contain MathJax, because the chat interface doesn't support it. All math expressions are displayed as plain text, with the \\$ delimiters, and no attempt to render what's in between.
\nSome users will move comments to chat "on my behalf", the reasons for which I understand. I know what chat is for, and I know what comments are for. But the consequence is that all the math becomes illegible, and further comments in chat can't employ MathJax either.
\nIs there any way to overcome this, or is there a chance that SE developers will enable MathJax rendering in chat?
\n", "Title": "MathJax in chat", "Tags": "|feature-request|comments|mathjax|chat|", "Answer": "One thing to know is that comments are treated like post-it notes and they can be thrown away by SE. Their attitude is that relevant information should be posted in an answer, and not in comments. So it might be good to simply post the information in an answer, I know it's not always possible.
\n" }, { "Id": "9862", "CreationDate": "2023-05-26T15:05:21.850", "Body": "If a "question" post does not actually contain a question, is it appropriate to flag an "answer" to that post as "not an answer"?
\n", "Title": "Flag as not an \"Answer\" when \"Question\" does not contain a question", "Tags": "|discussion|flagging|not-an-answer|", "Answer": "Re: Flag or not an "Answer" when "Question" does not contain a question
\nSummary: I think the part about the question is the primary issue in that situation.
\nUnclear (vague, insufficiently defined etc.) questions can lead to problems, when people try (usually with good intentions) to answer them.
\nTherefore for a situation where:
\n\n\na "question" post does not actually contain a question
\n
I suggest on the question:
\nand/or
\nvote to close it as "Needs details or clarity" and (optional, but recommended if not done in the point above) explain in a polite & constructive comment what specifically is wrong/needed.
\nAdding that explanation makes it easier for the OP to understand how specifically they are being asked to improve the question. Also it helps other site members to see when the missing material has been added, and then they can vote to reopen it (and those helping in the reopen review queue can see whether the requested information has been added to the question).
\nRegarding the answering of unclear questions. Generally, unclear questions shouldn't be answered, as explained here (especially the first bullet point):
\n\n\nAnswer well-asked questions
\nNot all questions can or should be answered here. Save yourself some frustration and avoid trying to answer questions which...
\n\n
\n- ...are unclear or lacking specific details that can uniquely identify the problem.
\n- ...solicit opinions rather than facts.
\n- ...have already been asked and answered many times before.
\n- ...require too much guidance for you to answer in full, or request answers to multiple questions.
\n- ...are not about electronics design as defined in the help center.
\nDon't forget that you can edit the question you're answering to improve the clarity and focus \u2013 this can reduce the chances of the question being closed or deleted.
\n
The use of the "Not An Answer" (NAA) flag should be limited to really clear cases where a post is not an answer, and that would apply irrespective of the quality of the question e.g. when an "answer" is really someone new asking a related question, or just a rant about the topic etc.
\nMore details and examples of when to use the NAA flag here:
\nAs you see in those linked Meta article, a genuine attempt to answer a poor question shouldn't be flagged as NAA. That user might be misguided and perhaps is unable to resist attempting to answer a question which they really shouldn't do (see above), but that doesn't make it NAA. (However it might be a valid NAA for other reasons, unrelated to the question.)
\n" }, { "Id": "9876", "CreationDate": "2023-06-15T04:29:58.903", "Body": "I would like to ask one of your contributors if they are for hire as a consultant, is that allowed?
\nIf so, how should I contact them? Should I post my interest in their services under their answer?
\nI don't want to break any rules and could not find this subject in a search.
\nThanks in advance for the correct protocol in this regard.
\n", "Title": "Is it allowed to ask if a contributor is for hire as a consultant?", "Tags": "|support|", "Answer": "Posters that would welcome such an offer likely:
\nFor others, it should be assumed that they wish to remain anonymous.
\nRegardless, asking them in a comment to one of their contributions, whether they would agree to a private exchange is not forbidden, I think.
\n" }, { "Id": "9892", "CreationDate": "2023-08-05T06:18:15.460", "Body": "I have noticed that I can't edit my old schematics because the EDIT button under the schematic doesn't appear after I go into edit mode on my answer. What could be the reason?
\n![\"Missing](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/JAQc2.png\")
tl;dr: The fix should be out in production now. Please let me know if you're still seeing issues with schematic-related links.
\nBig thanks to Math Keeps Me Busy for the HTTP vs HTTPS pointer. I'm not entirely sure how we're ending up with http for newly created schematics (I looked a bit through the image upload code, but nothing jumped out at me), but either way, when we process the post markdown, we convert http to https. It looks like at that point the post revision has one thing and the rendered HTML has another. My guess is that in past we did a mass edit of posts to rewrite existing image urls to https, but parts of the code that makes the schematic editor work didn't get the memo.
In researching to respond to a question, I tried to find the site tour and couldn't find it. Is it gone? I hope not -- it was a good resource, even for experienced users.
\nUpdate: Found it here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/tour -- but it really belongs in the drop down help list.
\n", "Title": "Was the \"Tour\" removed?", "Tags": "|support|bug|status-completed|", "Answer": "The tour is now back in the top bar drop-down menu.
\nSee the earlier version of my answer below, where SE said this was an unintentional change which they were fixing. It has now been fixed (at least on our site).
\nAs dim kindly commented, this has been recognised as a regression on Meta.SE:
\n"The tour link has disappeared from the help menu in the top bar"
\nI'll make that information more visible by posting it as this answer.
\nThe SE staff member (actually VP) Philippe said on that page:
\n\n\nThis was an unintentional regression. We're working on getting a fix pushed out right now. Will update when completed.
\n
Here's a screenshot of that Meta.SE page currently (click for the full size version):
\n![\"screenshot\"](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/XDpGy.png\")
(A bad pun or play on words in the title of such requests is expected by tradition.)
\nRemembering I'm not electrified by the existence of the blanket [electrical] and [electricity] tags, let's remove them, or at least blacklist them, of course people have found a new spelling to work around our burnination: electric, as of now 133 questions, of which 81 have a score of less than 1. (The average electric question score is 0.826, the average question score on EE.SE is 1.67, so twice as good.)
\nCan we get rid of that tag? And ideally, really get rid of it, not just blacklist it, as right now, the number of questions that works need work is manageable.
\n", "Title": "implicit tag: can we cut out the [electric]ity?", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tag-cleanup|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "I agree. What is doubly bad about this one is that it tends to be mistakenly added when someone is trying to use a tag that has multiple words -- a space between words is interpreted by the system as a tag separator, and we use a "-" to connect words that are part of the same tag. For example, this question was tagged "electric" and "field" rather than electric-field.
\nWe can't just make this a synonym of electric-field, either, as a user could also try to apply "electric" to, say, "motor".
\nI've replaced the tag with more appropriate tag(s) on all questions for which it was the only tag so it can also be "burninated" (deleted from all questions) without leaving any questions untagged.
\n" }, { "Id": "9932", "CreationDate": "2023-10-27T17:47:51.057", "Body": "While cleaning up electric, I noticed that there are an engineering tag. On a website whose title is "Electrical Engineering", that's a strong candidate for an intrinsic tag, i.e., one that carries no information, because every question could carry it.
\nCurrent state is 116 questions, of which 20 are currently closed, non-deleted. That's not a great quota, and is as it seems a result of that tag to have a high likelihood to be used when people actually ask off-topic, non-technical questions.
\nSo: let's blacklist that tag!
\n", "Title": "Let's not over-engineer questions: blacklist [engineering]", "Tags": "|discussion|status-completed|tag-blacklist-request|", "Answer": "Yes, this is another intrinsic tag which needs to be blocklisted. As with "electric", at least some of the time it is only used when a user is trying to tag the question as "electrical engineering", which results in tagging the question with not just one intrinsic tag ("electrical-engineering") but two ("electrical" and "engineering").
\nI've removed it from all questions for which it is the only tag so that it can be "burninated" (i.e. deleted from all questions) without leaving any question untagged.
\n" }, { "Id": "9936", "CreationDate": "2023-11-08T12:24:26.707", "Body": "I have almost no knowledge in electronics. For the past few days, I have been learning what I believe to be all the basics required for assembling sort of a DIY solar battery project, using solar panels, a solar charge controller, a 12V LiFePO4 battery and a 12V 220V converter.
\nI think I made the necessary calculations to pick the correct solar charge controller and the sizing of the cables. That being said, I am not a professional, and since all I've learned are the basics, I'm not safe from the Dunning-Kruger effect. So, before I start wiring stuff and potentially burn down my house (or worse), I was thinking it might be a good idea to ask.
\nWould it be on topic to ask whether or not I picked the right charge controller and wire sizes, based on the calculations I made?
\nI'll probably have another question about how to proceed to connect the solar charge controller along with the battery, the inverter, and a socket charger, based on what I initially intended to do too (to know whether or not what I had in mind was the correct approach). I would be asking 2 separates questions if both are on topic (or none if both are off topic).
\n", "Title": "Can I ask questions about a DIY solar battery project to know whether or not my calculations are off?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "\n\nWould it be on topic to ask whether or not I picked the right charge\ncontroller and wire sizes, based on the calculations I made?
\n
Design questions are fine, shopping questions are not fine. Please keep it to a design question, use block diagrams and make sure you link datasheets (make sure the product you buy has documentation, we can't answer questions on undocumented products, a retail page is not sufficient). Screenshots of hand calcs drawings are hard to read. We can check calculations, make sure the question is well documented, if equations are used latex is preferable.
\n" }, { "Id": "9941", "CreationDate": "2023-11-18T09:21:59.157", "Body": "The main Stack Overflow site has the following reminder in the Your Answer box:
\n\n\nReminder: Answers generated by Artificial Intelligence tools are not allowed on Stack Overflow. Learn more
\n
Whereas on the Electrical Engineering site the above reminder doesn't appear in the Your Answer box (checked when both logged in and when an anonymous user).
\nCurrently I have no desire to use Artificial Intelligence tools to get information, but just wondering if there is a deliberate reason for why the above reminder isn't shown on the Electrical Engineering site.
\n", "Title": "Is the reminder that \"Answers generated by Artificial Intelligence tools are not allowed on Stack Overflow\" supposed to appear on all sites?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "The Stack Exchange site has features that the sub sites don't have, it's the most-used site and gets the most attention. There isn't a deliberate reason. My guess is they don't have the analytics to detect AI questions on this site or haven't implemented it yet.
\n" }, { "Id": "9962", "CreationDate": "2023-12-07T16:52:04.727", "Body": ""You don't need to know everything. You merely need to know where to look it up."
\nOften a time, when trying to remember a specific solution to a problem, I don't remember the solution exactly, but I do remember that I had researched one and made an answer about it at EE.SE. I then usually manage to find the answer containing the details using the user:me keywords search term. This is exactly what StackExchange tries to provide: a Q&A repository.
Can it be that if a question has been deleted, I can't find my answers to it? (I know how I can find my own deleted answers.)
\n", "Title": "How can I search for an old answer of mine when the question is seemingly deleted?", "Tags": "|support|deleted-questions|", "Answer": "If you have over 10k rep you can see deleted answers, otherwise have a mod search it for you.
\nHow to find my deleted answer?
\n" }, { "Id": "9966", "CreationDate": "2023-12-08T17:06:30.940", "Body": "For the question What is this DFN 8-pin package? which originally used QFN instead of DFN, I added the tag DFN.
\nThe tag QFN already exists, but the tag DFN did not. Neither does the tag "Flat no-leads package".
\nWas I correct to add that tag, or is there something else I should have used?
\n", "Title": "Added tag DFN - do we want it?", "Tags": "|discussion|tags|", "Answer": "I think tags like DFN, QFN, DIP, etc. are too specific. Questions should use packages instead.
\nThe purpose of tags is to help users find/identify questions that are interesting to them. Packaging experts would likely want use tags like packages to find packaging questions, but are unlikely to want to look for questions about specific packages. It would be odd to be interested specifically in, say, DIP packages, but not other packages. Furthermore, each of the specific package tags have so few questions (despite the maturity of EE.SE) that they don't seem to have proven themselves useful: I can only find a single tag for a specific package that has more than 100 questions (BGA, but not DFN, QFN, DIP, TO220, SOIC, or SOP). It's not obvious why some package-specific tags exist but others don't, or what to do with related packages (e.g. SSOP, TSOP, TSSOP, etc. -- should they each have their own tag or be subsumed under a common tag?).
\nWorse, the edits to the linked main site question exhibit a problem caused by the use of specific tags like "DFN": it's easy to add the specific tag while forgetting to add the more important general tag: packages. The more general tag wasn't added until revision 9 despite multiple tag edits. That means that a packaging expert who is watching packages would not be notified of this DFN package question unless he's specifically watching the "DFN" tag (which I think is unlikely). This problem would be worth it if the specific tag was popular enough on its own, but these package-specific tags are not popular.
\nContra Lundin's answer, I think specific package tags would be a problem for identification questions: do you tag the question with the specific package if the OP doesn't even know what package it is? If you do, and it's a question like "What package is this?" then you end up with the awkward situation in which the OP is supposed to self-answer the question by adding the correct tag. This issue comes up on other sites with identification questions, and I've generally seen that tags which answer the question are not added to the question either before or after the answer is determined (e.g., see here).
\nI think the best thing to do would be to merge all the existing package-specific tags with packages and make them synonyms so that anyone attempting to use one of those package-specific tags will end up tagging the question with packages, which it should be tagged with anyway. You can just as easily find package-specific questions like the linked main site question by searching [packages] DFN, and we only need to maintain one tag wiki. Moderators can easily do this, and I would be happy to make it happen if the community wanted to do it.
I am accustomed to inline-math with MathJax support on many Stack Exchange sites. For electrical engineering, equations are a really big part of circuit modeling. $I_{DS}$ for instance is used to describe the Drain-Source current in a n-channel MOSFET transistors on other Stack Exchange sites, and new users can get confused. Other sites have this inline use of math work perfectly, which is widely documented on these other sites. I appreciate it if this could be an added feature as the raw MathJax code inline looks very ugly currently. \\$I_{DS}\\$ seems to work thankfully.
\nI saw this link Why does our inline syntax for Mathjax different from say, the Math SE only after writing this question, and now I am handling it like referenced. But I think it would be best if there is not this inconsistency among the various Stack Exchange sites to make it more direct for newer users to write equations, who are more familiar with the extensive equation formatting documentation for the other sites. Maybe an inline-math link could be added to make it easier for authors to be more aware of this difference.
\nThank you for your help and consideration.
\nP.S. I am also testing the not-inline math:
\n$$V_{be}=V_{b}-V_{e}$$
\nIt seems to work the usual way using $$ to start and finish the equation.
\nBe careful though about using twice $$ on a single line.
\nHere is an example: $$V_1+V_2=V_3$$ It automatically starts a stand-alone equation on a new line.
\nWhen editing text there is also a link to Advanced Help which includes the unique formatting:
\n![\"Math](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LYNGt.png\")
That information is everything needed to insert an inline math equation and also to insert a stand-alone equation. The extra link "MathJax Help" should not then be needed.
\n", "Title": "Is it possible to add inline-mathjax support like the other StackExchange sites document?", "Tags": "|feature-request|", "Answer": "In addition to what Sam says about the reason, also consider that changing it, at this point, would require mass editing thousands if not millions of questions and answers, which, besides being a lot of work, would be a heavy load on the database.
\nAnd it would require that all of our best answerers would need to break the habit of typing \\$ built up over years of answering questions.
Every question that is both old and not with an accepted answer will be bumped sooner or later by the Community bot into the recently active questions.
\nHowever, a fair portion of them are obviously abandoned questions, for example if they were answered in comments. Some even have satisfactory answers, but they weren't accepted.
\nAs we want to keep the noise level low, wouldn't it be logical to prevent the bot from bumping these questions? (I have already accepted that stopping bumping entirely won't happen.)
\nOne way I see to do this would be closing these questions. The simplest way IMO would be to add a close reason to the list that should be chosen in the case of abandoned questions.
\n", "Title": "Should abandonment be a \"community-specific\" close reason?", "Tags": "|discussion|close-reasons|", "Answer": "According to the appropriate meta post, auto bump can be triggered on non-negatively scored, open questions that have at least one answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that.
\nTherefore, questions that have no answers will not be bumped. Only questions that have answers are bumped. Accepted answers have no effect on the auto bump, contrary to what you seem to believe. And using closing to remove them from the auto bump candidates is a twist of the system, there is no reason to prevent other persons to answer a correct question even though it's old.
\nSince it is hard to remember the conditions for bumping, if you click on the "Timeline" clock icon under the question vote buttons, then click on the "bumped" link, you will land on the Meta link above.
\nHere are other solutions you have, to make a question excluded from the auto bump:
\nThere. Applying this reciepe will remove all questions from the auto bump candidates list at some point, and improve the overall site quality. In fact, this is why the auto bump exists.
\nSure, it's gonna take more time than just closing them.
\nSide note: I'm just explaining how the system works, and the solutions available for this problem. I'm not defending the system. I hate auto bump too.
\n" }, { "Id": "9979", "CreationDate": "2023-12-31T07:42:41.700", "Body": "I asked this question about replacing a Darlington transistor in a power amplifier with something else. It was closed with the reason:
\n\n\nQuestions seeking recommendations for specific products or places to purchase them are off-topic as they are rarely useful to others and quickly obsolete. Instead, describe your situation and the specific problem you're trying to solve.
\n
Well, I sort of disagree with that characterization of the original question, but nevertheless I edited the question to make it as generic as I could while still retaining the concrete example.
\n"Describe your situation": I want to create a high power precision voltage power supply from a low power precision voltage source. I have a schematic for one that uses a Darlington transistor.
\n"The specific problem you're trying to solve": it seems Darlingtons have gone out of favor. At the very least, the one in the schematic is deemed obsolete and there is no obvious replacement for it. That suggests to me that Darlingtons as a class have been replaced by a better kind of component. So 1) what is that component and 2) how do I use it in this application.
\nThese edits failed to reopen the post. "Original close reason(s) were not resolved".
\nI'm pretty much at a loss about how to move forward and resolve the close reason. I am not asking for a part number or vendor, I am asking about how to update an apparently obsolete amplifier design. (Thanks to a commenter, I've already found a source for the obsolete component in the schematic, but that still leaves me with all these other questions.)
\nI mean, I suppose I could remove all references to specific components and ask "How do I build a high power precision voltage power supply?" but that is awfully vague and would likely be closed for needing details, clarity, and/or focus.
\nThe answer to my revised question would not be quickly obsolete and would be helpful to anyone looking to build a highly regulated low-noise power supply, and especially anyone looking to replace a Darlington pair in an existing circuit design given that they are now harder to find. Additionally, it would be helpful to many people to know why Darlingtons are obsolete and what they have been supplanted by.
\nPlease help me understand how to make my question appropriate for the site.
\n", "Title": "What more can I do to fix this question?", "Tags": "|support|asking-questions|", "Answer": "I can't speak for those that voted to close, of course, but I would offer my perception of the situation:
\nReaders don't like presuppositions or unchecked (esp. mistaken) assumptions in questions. It's generally better to ask a question neutrally, rather than asking why some given (shaky) position is right or wrong -- most often, it's neither and both, simultaneously! It makes more effort to answer, and tends to make a mess that's both confusing for the asker and readers, while diluting what could've been a more concise point.
\nWhether this is a correct, right and good use of the Close function, or reflected by the reason selected, is another matter. I tend to agree, at least the wrong reason was selected here. I would not have closed it myself.
\nTo be perfectly honest, I don't have a great substitute to offer for this strategy. I tend to do it a lot myself; the intent is usually to provide context around the question, and to illustrate what basic level of competency one has on the subject (for example, to anticipate trivial / oversimplified "did you turn it off and back on again?" sorts of comments/answers). There's also the intended good will of "see I did the 'homework', could you at least check my results?" (Which can also be, perhaps one isn't aware of, or expecting, what degree of answer may come, and being overly humble, when a more comprehensive answer would indeed be gladly given.) Of course, when ones' state of knowledge is meager on a topic, it... well yeah, it sure does serve its purpose: those assumptions tend to reveal, probably more ignorance, or more mistaken conclusions, than was likely intended. So you can see why it can cause problems.
\n(Also, to note: a close action isn't negative, at least in and of itself. It serves the purpose of, I would say, setting a minimum threshold for clarity and quality of a question. It can tend to be used "in anger" so to speak, though. Voters can vote to close for any reasons they see fit, so it can be a bit arbitrary at times I'm afraid.)
\nAnyway. Here are some alternative questions that, I think, would likely go over better (or have already been asked; of course, one should search first):
\n"How to substitute a Darlington?" A sufficiently comprehensive answer to which, I think, is likely to check their own assumptions by going shopping and checking that such parts are, in fact, available; at least presently (bonus points for checking life cycle so that the answer is likely to remain valid some years into the future). Supplier links might even be provided! This can be a sneaky way the right way to ask "where to buy--?" questions. (Mind, if its "where to buy"-ness is too obvious, it's still likely to get closed.)
Regarding closed-ness, I think the crux of the reaction here was: looking at just the top two paragraphs, and the title, one can reasonably deduce it's either a "repair" ("oh they're just trying to substitute some existing part") or "where to buy" question without having to read the rest of the post. Is this hasty? Unfair? Yes; but one can also view it as a lesson to be concise. Not a great lesson, granted, but there are negatives and positives to pretty much everything, and it's up to ourselves which ones we focus on.
\n"How to design a precision fixed power supply?" Sometimes, a more general question is better. But be careful: there are dozens of specifications needed before a small enough set of circuits can be selected for answers. In this case, grounding it by providing your application would suffice (ordinary lab use, DC only, undefined parameters can most likely be ignored e.g. AC noise, compliance range, efficiency, cost, etc.).
\nWell, I don't know about that last one, cost. Given you're scrounging appnotes for schematics here, one might guess simplicity is desired, and with it, low cost. I don't know how that compares with the labor/time spent, say, reading this answer alone... but, keep that in mind, too. Lab equipment is expensive because, well, it does its job well for one, but also, you only need one (well, per instance that you do..), and the time spent worrying about, let alone building, testing and qualifying an alternative, adds up really fast.
\nAvoid X-Y problems: don't ask about proposed solution Y to problem X. Instead, just ask about problem X. Often, proposed solutions are driven by mistaken assumptions, and just get in the way (see above!).
\nFor example here, it's not obvious if you would be at all interested in, or served by, solutions to your "precision 10V 4A supply" application directly -- solutions which would likely completely and utterly ignore what seems to be the bulk of your question (substitution). Either subject would seem to be a viable answer to the question -- and potential grounds for a "Needs more focus" close.
\nCheck your assumptions. Is a fixed voltage really what you need here? If you're calibrating ammeters, surely you need a fixed current instead? True, a resistor converts that voltage to a current, but how are you ensuring the resistance remains fixed (it has a tempco!), and that the voltage measured is across the resistance as intended (Kelvin connections are not shown in your schematic)? Have you accounted for all sources of error in the measurement? And how you will deal with them?
\nAlong similar lines, be careful whether goals are aligned between your question and your actual need.[1] To wit: presenting it as a power supply question has me asking: what about startup or transient-load conditions? Short circuit handling? (The circuit shown will blow up if overloaded, or overheated.) Drawing from application notes can be a dubious prospect; application notes are generally, at best, jumping-off points for further development or refinement, and should rarely if ever be used verbatim. (For this one, I would at least want to see better development of compensation, stability, a worked example of operating area, and current limiting added, preferably temperature limit too. But, you see -- these are all features that might simply not be at all important to your application.)
\nA more interesting focus is likely to pay off. Comparing and contrasting BJTs (plain or Darlington) with P-channel MOSFETs, in linear service, is an interesting topic; I might even ponder an answer to such a question myself. Most answer-ers have their depth of knowledge in at least narrow fields of expertise; this is a sufficiently deep topic that is likely to draw in multiple answers (perhaps even some controversy engagement between them, too!). The downside for you, of course, is: a question on a deep enough matter, may be too abstract for you to turn into your worked problem. (Keeping it focused, and grounded, with an application (say, V/I input/output range, bandwidth, precision), helps with this.)
Also, try to avoid -- ehh, I don't want to say gimmicky language, but, let me put it this way: I know what you were going for with the "your challenge, if you choose to accept it" sort of stuff, but, that particular line is a bit cliche, and, just keeping it clear, professional and matter-of-fact is most likely for the best. Certain catchy questions may indeed drive engagement, but overdoing it can also drive eye-rolling, and can add fluff to what could be a more concise question.
\nAnd, yeah, as you can see, I'm hardly one to talk about conciseness. It's a lot easier to see conciseness from a distance, but a lot harder to cut to the heart of a point when there are a dozen side-points whose importance isn't immediately obvious while one is taking a stroll through all of them. On the other hand, there are those who relish the long-form answer, and I guess you could say I tend to cater to that audience. Whether you are among it, alas, I'm not sure, and if not I apologize. Put another way: all of these points seem interesting and helpful to me, and maybe not all of them are to you, but I don't know which ones to cull so I'd rather leave them all in just in case; it's casting a wide net and hoping something sticks.
\n[1] Again, this can be hard to know without knowledge of what all is going on with these things. And, alas, this isn't really a good place to ask about them; SE is not a one-stop shop for all your information needs. Much knowledge is gained by everything from textbooks and class time, to practical books (some on power supply and amplifier design would be relevant here), to just plain old word-of-mouth and on-the-job experience. Obviously, quick question-answer posts cannot possibly substitute years of experience. So, I understand if there's some frustration here.
\n" }, { "Id": "10001", "CreationDate": "2024-02-02T21:35:35.827", "Body": "My recent question about my buck regulator output was closed for "needs detail or clarity" but I don't know what details I should add to this question to fix that. I have a specific problem/question so it shouldn't be about clarity, and I tried to list all of the details that one would need to help. Can anyone provide me with some idea as to what else I can add to reopen this question?
Also, I don't really get why this was closed. I had already responded to one person who asked for additional info and edited my question to include said info, so clearly I was willing to engage with comments and provide more details. Why VTC instead of asking me for the details that would have made it a better question? And what can I do different next time so this doesn't happen?
\n", "Title": "How can I improve my question?", "Tags": "|discussion|closed-questions|", "Answer": "![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/C81oy.png\")
The question is not specific enough, please be more speicfic on what you need help with. It looks more like "here is my buck design help me with the problem" It would be nice to see a specific question on where your understanding is falling short or an aspect of the design that you need help with.
\n" }, { "Id": "10006", "CreationDate": "2024-02-23T13:27:21.117", "Body": "Fix for Horrible Hissing from a SANWU HF41 TPA3116 bluetooth 5.0 2.1CH Amplifier/BT Module
\nNot sure why this one was closed.
\nMy question is about how to modify a board to solve a problem it is experiencing. It isn't about "use of an electronic device" (which was the reason given) nor is it about the other two reasons given at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
\nIt is about a "specific electronics design problem" (in my case a combined bluetooth and amp board), and according to https://electronics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic, "pecific electronics design problems" are on-topic.
\nCan I improve the question in some way?
\n", "Title": "Confused about why closed?", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "I voted to close the question. This had the symptoms of "cheap product gives cheap results". No shame in trying to save a buck or two but, as @SamGibson says, you are rolling the dice and sometimes you end up with a dud. For instance, I just bought a horrible HDMI adapter that's going back to Amazon.
\nYour question was, in my opinion, unanswerable. Or at least it was unanswerable in a way that would satisfy you. It's a new product, so the chances of any component breaking on it are pretty slim and the fix for that would be RMAing it (which, good luck) and the hissing only on Bluetooth meant that it was probably either an implementation problem which is not fixable without redesigning the board or a software problem which is not fixable without immense effort - not realistic for a $22 part.
\n" }, { "Id": "10021", "CreationDate": "2024-03-23T23:25:03.207", "Body": "I was in a chat with user @Mast on the Code Review Stack Exchange site (CR). @Mast, who is a Moderator there, then had a chat with our Moderator @SamGibson, and recommended I post this question for discussion.
\nI occasionally post comments on verilog/system-verilog questions here, suggesting that the OP consider posting the Verilog code also on the Code Review site. I do so under the following circumstances:
\nMy comments are of the style: "If you are interested in a review of your code..."
\nCode reviews can often be verbose and stray far from the immediate problem reported by the OP. As such, I think supplementing an answer here with a review would be counter-productive because the solution could easily be buried in a lot of tangential review content. This is precisely the reason for the Code Review SE site (a site which is under-utilized in my opinion). People routinely refer questions from Stack Overflow to CR using comments.
\nTo be clear, I am not referring to migrating the question. That is a different topic. I am referring to the OP posting a working version of the code on Code Review (as required on that site).
\nThis isn't limited to just Verilog code, it's just that I happen to answer a lot of Verilog questions here. Code in any language would also apply.
\n@Mast saw one of my comments on an SO question, thereby leading to our chat. I mentioned that I thought most Verilog questions on SO and EE would benefit by a follow-up question on CR. This led @Mast to contact @Sam. And here we are. One question @Mast had for me was whether CR could handle any increase in Verilog questions. Given the small number of such questions here and on SO, it would be no problem even for a single person. It is worth mentioning that many people do not post a follow-up question on CR even if they like the idea.
\nIf nothing comes of this discussion, I will continue posting the occasional comment. My referral comments are either well-received or ignored. So far, I have not had a negative response to one.
\n", "Title": "Suggest posting a follow-up question on Code Review site", "Tags": "|discussion|", "Answer": "It's hard not to notice that there are a limited number of questions on the relevant tags at the code review site, and for most of those, there is only one answer provided, and it's provided by you.
\nI have zero problems with a comment showing that there are valuable code-review services available at Code Review, that reviews at the level you'd find there are much more rigorous than what you'd be likely to find here, along with a guideline on how to post a good question there.
\nThat said, I don't think people who ask verilog questions here are looking for that level of review.
\n" } ]![\"enter](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/1Cyuhm.png\")
![see the \"How to Format\" window](\"http://www.tyblu.ca/misc/ER_2010-12-28.png\"){kind=link}
![screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/IbC2g.png\"){kind=link}
![screenshot](\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0TbL.png\"){kind=link}
![https://i.postimg.cc//JnfK3Gsv/screenshot-3.png](\"https://i.postimg.cc//JnfK3Gsv/screenshot-3.png\"){kind=link}
![https://i.postimg.cc//nh3kRdsv/screenshot-2.png](\"https://i.postimg.cc//nh3kRdsv/screenshot-2.png\"){kind=link}
![https://i.postimg.cc//1tfFPWp6/LOL.png](\"https://i.postimg.cc//1tfFPWp6/LOL.png\"){kind=link}