Return to Answer

I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/9058#9058.

Duplicates : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8974/).

I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to Generalizing the homework policy.

Duplicates : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see Re-asking a Duplicate Question).

Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely close questions to which the "homework" tag applies, even when they show considerable effort, because they don't "ask about a specific concept". Yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated ("I was just wondering..."). The site is advertised as being "for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy" but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.

Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely demand that "homework-like" questions must "show effort to work through the problem," yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated ("I read somewhere... Is this true?" "While I was in the bath I had a thought..." "I was just wondering..."). The site is advertised as being "for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy" but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.