2

This question has been closed (by three users and a moderator) as 'too broad'. The reason given was this:

This question has been closed because it appears to be asking about a very conceptual technology that isn't implemented in common hardware, thus reliable recommendations can't be made. For more information on question quality, please see our guidelines. If you can rework your question to fit the site better, it can be reopened. Thanks!

Personally (not officially - this is opinion), I don't think this is right. I can't say I remember seeing any posts or definitions that mean conceptual technology is off-topic; moreover, the requirements defined in the question narrow down the potential results to very few products. In contrast to the reason given, I think conceptual technologies even in the early stages of development are still on-topic - the fact that there aren't many implementations shouldn't make them off-topic. It does mean that the question is unlikely to get many answers (or even any at all), but that's a product of the narrow scope and is the same for any other question. Additionally, our normal quality guidelines should cover answers well enough - if it's just a one-Google result without much effort, we can delete it.

Let's have a discussion - is this closure correct or not?

|
2

We have had weird questions before. For example, there was a question about Faraday cages. This was deleted as unclear, because the OP rambled and sounded extremely paranoid, not because the question was bad.

That question spawned a meta discussion, in which both answers basically said (paraphrasing...):

If the requirements can be defined, even if they are for unusual equipment, the question should remain open.

I agree with this answer.


In this particular case, I don't have the knowledge needed to say if this is to broad or unclear. The OP has provided several background links, which is helpful though. I'm inclined to say "leave it open". If they don't receive answers, then I think that partially answers their question.

|
  • This. I refrained from closing it because (1) it hadn't received any answers in a few days, which is itself a (weak) indication that it isn't too broad, and (2) because it isn't anywhere near my field of expertise. – Undo Feb 28 '16 at 15:21
0

You're focusing on the wrong part of my close reason here. Maybe I could have used a slightly better word than conceptual, but the important part is how NISC "isn't implemented in common hardware, so reliable recommendations can't be made."

This technology is of course a very specific one no doubt; not too many products out there make use of it. But I'm not sold on that fact here. This technology is also something pretty much no one has experience with nowadays, and that's a big factor in fitting on the site. If no one will be able to provide a reliable recommendation (meaning a recommendation sourced from a person's prior experience), does it really belong on the site?

If so, I don't have a problem here. I'm not dead set on this decision and I could change my mind given a good argument.

|
  • 2
    Perhaps if that's the case, then a question doesn't belong on the site. The problem I'm seeing here is how can you tell? There could easily be someone who does have experience. I don't think we should close questions because of this; it feels like the wrong thing to use closure for. – ArtOfCode Feb 28 '16 at 14:38
  • That's fair enough to me. Though for some reason I remember seeing a question that was closed for a similar reason recently. Maybe not. Either way, I'm willing to reopen. – Adam Feb 28 '16 at 14:45
  • I don't recall that one... any idea what it was about? – ArtOfCode Feb 28 '16 at 14:49
  • I don't remember anything about it, but I was sure it happened before. – Adam Feb 28 '16 at 14:55
  • shrug Well if you want to reopen that question, I'll get to searching for the other. – ArtOfCode Feb 28 '16 at 14:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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