-4
$\begingroup$

There seems to be some interest in going over the infamous homework policy. Imho reviewing all of it in one go and coming up with something new is simply not feasible.

We should go about attacking it in small pieces.

Firstly change its name homework policy is a very very very very bad description of the most often used VTC option which includes lack of research, effort or simply used to cull any unwanted questions.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think this is probably cosmetic. I tend to think that deeper problems in enacting a site-wide closure policy comes first, but I agree with your answer as an improvement over "homework". $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 15:52
3
$\begingroup$

I am a firm believer that form should follow function first. Therefore I think that an appropriate name (or in lack thereof a summary) will present itself in due time once we have decided what and how to close questions, and if we want to close them at all.

As such, I think we shouldn't actually rework the policy, but start working in small steps defining the questions we would rather not keep, until we built a new policy which can immediately replace what is currently there.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, but when is "due time"? What is your timeline? What are your metrics? $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Good morning Mart. I'm glad, I thought you weren't going to participate in the discussion. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Jun 5 '19 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Buck My timeline regarding anything related to the currently in place homework policy has died so many times already, I am unable to give any reasonable look-ahead for that procedure. As such we need to take small steps, one at the time. I don't think "painting the boat" is a good idea, before checking out it can float; and once we have it in the water we'll find a name easily (as I'm sure it'll present itself). $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jun 5 '19 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ I added another question that asks how this would be done. I am not pressed for time, and don't mean to press you or anyone else. But... perhaps it is not so hard to add another close option with a somewhat broad if not arbitrary name. Then you have another propeller and can still wait with painting until a later date, but have already taken a useful tangible first step. chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4537/… $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin-マーチン I think this discussion would end as soon as a clear answer to the question "is there an alternate choice (other than the status quo) to changing the 'homework' label" is available. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 16:35
-4
$\begingroup$

I'm in favor of not having a title and work on Math SE's homework policy if it's not suitable as it is for chem.

This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Lacking context? Huh. How does that help justify closing "calculate the moles in the hole under the ground"? $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Jun 4 '19 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ your current progress $\endgroup$ – Avyansh Katiyar Jun 4 '19 at 17:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Avnish that sounds extremely obfuscated to me. (Regardless of my stance on the renaming thing) I believe it's bound to get us into more trouble, not less. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Jun 4 '19 at 21:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's great. One somewhat ambiguous wide net is better than many. But you still have to agree on what you want to catch. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ @M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ What trouble? Can you be more specific (maybe you are working on an answer)? $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 15:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Buck I count 49 words and only 3 of them relate to why we're really closing a homework question. I don't think that's an improvement. Plus, math.SE doesn't strike me as the most successful site in defining a scope for homework, because of the nature of mathematical problems (they usually sound homework-y) and that they seem pretty lax with moderation from afar (big site problems and stuff). $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Jun 5 '19 at 16:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ I think anything is an improvement over "Homework questions must demonstrate some effort to understand the underlying concepts." But this is likely to degenerate into a pointless argument. I think your approach to define the net that would capture non-homework questions might be more helpful. But you will still need a descriptor- $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Jun 5 '19 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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