Post History

<blockquote>I have boycotted the SE and neither asked or answered any questions so am happy to have a new home here.</blockquote>

I'm glad you're here.  You might also want to mention this in your SE profile, and point people here.  For example, see <a href="https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/4512/olin-lathrop">my profile</a> on SE.

<blockquote>Also I believe that my and many others who have called for less closes and deletions may not have been fully heard</blockquote>

No, we heard, just don't agree.  We are not going to make the mistake that SE made, and forget where the real value of the site comes from.  People asking questions are necessary, but they wouldn't be here at all if it weren't a good place to get answers.  The real value of a site is its ability to provide good answers.  That comes down to the experts willing to spend their free time doing the answering.

After a while, SE saw clicks as the only value, probably because that's where their revenue came from.  Regardless of how much the masses bitch and moan when you enforce quality, they are still ultimately there for that quality.

The experts that provide the quality want good questions with high content to drivel ratio.  When you don't enforce that, and don't let the core users enforce it, the experts will curtail activity or leave altogether.  This is already happening on SE.

Let me be really clear.  This site will be managed as a place that the core group of experts will find rewarding to hang out in.  Once word gets out that good content is to be had, the questions will come.  And they'll keep coming because we'll keep it a rewarding place for the core group to be.  We are early in this process, but it is ramping up.

I suppose you could call that elitist.  So be it.  In the end, though, the result is a site where good answers can be had.

<blockquote>select people deciding for everyone</blockquote>

Those "select people" will be those that have provided lots of high quality content, as judged by the users.  This is necessary.  The masses are their own worst enemy.

It is to every individual user's advantage to get their question answered regardless of the effect on the site.  However, it is in everyone's overall interest to protect the site first.  We simply can't be listening to the moans and groans of individual users who have contributed little, because what they say they want is not good for the site, and not good for themselves long term.

Put another way, this is NOT a democracy where everyone is equal.  It can't be.  Such a system would collapse due to the clamor of short-term demands from the many, in opposition to the long-term requirements of the site.  Those consistently providing the content are and will continue to be more equal than others.

<blockquote>question that was closed as being too "broad with multiple questions" in the space of less than two hours.  https://electrical.codidact.com/questions/278522</blockquote>

Yup it was, because it was too broad and with multiple questions.  Not all reasonable questions that come up due to legitimate electrical engineering efforts are suitable for this site.  It was closed not because it was a bad EE question, but because it just doesn't fit with the mechanics of <i>this site</i>.  It might be appropriate for a discussion forum, but that's not what we are here.

<blockquote>closing of a question should be a last resort</blockquote>

No.  Questions need to be closed swiftly when they don't fit the site parameters.  The longer a bad (for this site) question is open, the more it gives a false impression of what is acceptable here.  Quality needs to be visibly and ruthlessly upheld, else we'll lose control of quality altogether.

Another point is that it <i>should</i> be somewhat inconvenient to post unsuitable questions.  If people can post bad questions and then get the desired result, they're going to be back doing the same thing again.  Why shouldn't they?  It worked and there were no negative consequences.  (In this particular case, it wasn't a user being sloppy or trying to get away with something.  This user has posted other good questions and answers.  This particular one wasn't even a bad question, just one that didn't fit this site.  It was closed, and we moved on.  It wasn't a big deal.)

<blockquote>Having an open question provides VALUE and the close must somehow offer greater value</blockquote>

You are ignoring the strong negative value to the site by having inappropriate questions persist.  That's a lot more important than any information in any one question and its answers.

<blockquote>Hiding a question from power users or anyone who cares</blockquote>

is no solution since it only covers up the problem instead of directly addressing it.  Inappropriate questions are a problem on their own, whether  hidden from some users or not.  Someone still posted a bad question and got the desired result without any consequences.  That not only teaches the OP a damaging lesson, but also everyone else that happened to watch.

<blockquote>it still looks like favouritism in the end result.
https://electrical.codidact.com/questions/276105</blockquote>

We deliberately seeded the site with a few canonical questions and answers.  From experience elsewhere, we have found that certain questions come up often.  When that happens here, we can close them and point them to one of these canonical questions as a duplicate.  A very similar question on SE was quite handy and heavily used for exactly that purpose.

To be fair, there are several questions within one, but they are closely related.  If you look closely, you can see that each sub-question was quite answerable without opinions, as demonstrated by the actual answers.

<blockquote>both questions are valid and have VALUE and closing one and answering the other is not the spirit of Codidact.</blockquote>

The two are quite different.  The one that got closed was largely soliciting opinions, whereas the second was answerable with theory and facts.

<blockquote>When a total stranger can ruin your day when you are vulnerable and in need of answers it is not nice.</blockquote>

You make it sound like you are blameless.  The rules about what's on topic and the kind of questions we accept are fairly well spelled out.  If you run afoul of those, it's on <i>you</i>.  Don't try to play the victim.  Your day got ruined because you wrote a bad question, probably because you didn't read the rules before posting.  Instead of complaining about how the world is so unfair, read the rules, understand why your question got closed, and come back with a proper question.  If you can't or aren't willing to do that, then this is not the site for you.  We have no intention of being everything to everyone.

<blockquote>make Closure a rare event only for damaging questions with no VALUE.</blockquote>

First, all inappropriate questions are damaging by definition, far beyond any positive value they might contribute if they were more appropriate.

Second, closure is actually a rare event here, at least so far.  I haven't counted, but maybe around 3 questions or so have been closed in the history of this site.  I think you'll find the percentage far less than on SE.  It's hard to know for sure, but being clear about the site rules, then ruthlessly enforcing them probably has a lot to do with it.

<blockquote>the simple ACT of posting a question on a open source public spirited Q&A platform may have been a profound achievement for the OP</blockquote>

Which is of no relevance whatsoever.  We're not here to hand out gold stars or "atta-boys".  How easily or not someone posts a good question is immaterial.  It only matters that they do.