-4
$\begingroup$

I am trying to clean up my questions to reopen, but they are not showing up in the search or on my profile.

Can CO2 be cracked by electrolysis?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's in the reopen queue. Give it a little time. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Dec 29 '17 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by this? Your question can be found both via your profile and via site search. I just looked. Your edits also bumped it to the front page, where it is now the fourth-highest question. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 29 '17 at 23:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't how your edits were supposed to improve this post. $\endgroup$ – Mithoron Dec 30 '17 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ I think I started the reopen queue, and as @jonsca said, it might take a while; considering the amount of people you poked in the comments (I counted 8 so far) and meta-activity, you really want his one answered, don't you?:) $\endgroup$ – andselisk Dec 30 '17 at 1:59
4
$\begingroup$

The question is still unclear.

  1. Use the > character in Markdown to show that the first sentence/paragraph is taken from an exam/HW/somewhere, since you're quoting it and providing the answer.

  2. The question you ask in the next sentence (what form and temperature of $\ce{CO2}$ is best to crack with or without zirconium dioxide) is not the same as the question in the title (can $\ce{CO2}$ be cracked by hydrolysis).

  3. If the contents of the link you've provided are relevant, you should at least give a summary of the link and say how they're relevant. Even better would be to quote specific parts of it.

It is probably not a bad question, but it needs some clarification before it can be answered, and it sounds like two questions right now.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Your question was in the reopen queue. The result was three votes for ‘leave closed’, meaning that the edits did not address the critical issues that led to closure (unclearness in your case).

It has also gathered to reopen votes. One of these must have put it into the reopen queue; the second must have occurred before it entered the queue. However, since the review result was negative, they are of no effect since it needs five reopen votes to be reopened. Unfortunately, when reopen votes are given is not specified in the post’s timeline.

I cannot weigh in on whether it is a good or bad question because my understanding of the entire topic is rudimentary at best.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ One reopen before, one after the review. I am not sure why the latest reopen vote didn't trigger another review, might be too short after the first one. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jan 2 '18 at 23:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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