This time I took severe care regarding the notations. Not even a single person is leaving a comment on the answer to point out my mistake.

answer someone downvoted without mentioning my error, downvotes are made so that person get to know his mistake and is able to rectify it and learn from it.

what should I do? This never happened with me on Physics SE

I am trying to help the chemistry SE community to grow as promised to Orthocresol

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You misunderstood OP's point, Maurice got it right, that's about it. Don't fret about it - this question should be closed before anyone answered, because of its terrible wording. So, a bit of advice, if other users interpret a question differently, you better flag it as unclear then answer. $\endgroup$ – Mithoron Dec 24 '20 at 20:56

I'm afraid I can't serve as a personal consultant for every post, so this will be my last. However, I suspect that some of the issues brought up in my previous comment, as well as the ones here, are relevant to a few of your posts – so that may give you something to work on more generally, even after this particular post.

  1. Grammar. There are small grammatical mistakes peppered throughout your post; you may want to consider getting somebody to review it if English isn't your first language. "Thus increasing the stability.", for example, isn't a proper sentence. It's not your fault for not writing English fluently, it doesn't make you any lesser of a person, but on SE answer quality a critical consideration and consequently people pay attention to it when voting.

  2. Clarity of writing. For a simple example, you write the "electrons tend to be closer": but closer to what? I know you mean the nucleus, but not everybody might. When you explain a concept, it also greatly helps to bring in examples that support and illustrate your point. Good textbooks (and teachers) don't just state facts; they show them.

  3. Technical errors. You claim that the overlap between $\mathrm{sp^3}$ orbitals and other orbitals is greater, but (generally) a $\ce{C_{sp^3}-H}$ bond is in fact weaker than a $\ce{C_{sp^2}-H}$ bond. This table from Wikipedia shows that the $\ce{C-H}$ bond dissociation energy in ethane is $\pu{101 kcal/mol}$, whereas that in ethene is $\pu{111 kcal/mol}$. As the table notes, this is the reason why vinyl radicals are so uncommon. Yes, π bonds are weaker than σ bonds, but that has nothing to do with hybridisation: it is because the sideways overlap between p-orbitals is poorer than the direct overlap between $\mathrm{sp}^n$ orbitals.

    Your last paragraph unfortunately also doesn't make much sense to me. I have never seen electronegativity given as a reason for the comparative reactivities of alkanes vs alkenes, or whatever the OP might mean by "reactivity". (The reason why alkenes are generally more reactive is because the π bonds are easier to break than σ bonds.)

  4. The question just isn't that good to begin with. As I noted a couple of times, the phrasing is unclear, and there are many different conceivable interpretations. For example, when claiming that $\mathrm{sp^2}$ is "more reactive" than $\mathrm{sp^3}$, do they mean alkenes versus alkanes? Or do they mean benzene versus cyclohexane, or perhaps even $\mathrm{sp^2}$ carbanions versus $\mathrm{sp^3}$ carbanions? A proper answer would have to consider every possible case. In such cases, as Mithoron suggests, a better approach would be to close the question and prompt OP to clarify their question, rather than attempting to put together an answer which you might think is suitable, but others not.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I think there are some instances of unfriendliness, but we do try to take care of them via mod flags. I don't really consider downvotes to be one of them. Yes, it's not nice to get downvotes, but that's the way SE has been set up: it is somewhat businesslike, and your answer is judged solely based on merit, instead of how hard you tried or how you feel. Please do not consider downvotes as a judgement of you as a person, but rather your answer according to the (desired) standards of the site - for reasons which I've explained. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 25 '20 at 10:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ [...] It would not be very nice if you asked and nobody told you what you were doing wrong (and some people do sadly get that experience), but I'd like to believe that I've tried to help, really. Anyway, there are many other websites which operate with a different model, where "points" or "votes" are given out according to different criteria, and you may find that contributing to one of them is more enjoyable for you, which is fine! All the best. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 25 '20 at 10:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll humour you for one or two comments more, but I would rather not spend more time than necessary discussing the original question. Same issue as before: what example do you have that illustrates the p-p overlap being stronger than s-s overlap? You telling me that this is the case isn't doing much to convince me, you see. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 25 '20 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Also I am open to thoughts and even criticism if my points are invalid and always learn something new like poutnik told me How to add a new line for the purpose of typing in comment, $sp^3$ hybridization is written like $sp^3$ and not SP3 and the looks of answers matter from you.SE is really good platform but i am adding these type of comments because i have also contributed on physics SE and never faced any difficulty of this type on Physscs SE and thus I was able to compare members on Physics and Chemistry SE. The way i contribute on chemistry SE is similar to the way i contribute on Physics $\endgroup$ – user99515 Dec 25 '20 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ [....] SE and never felt discouraged there $\endgroup$ – user99515 Dec 25 '20 at 11:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I actually think the conclusions drawn in that Q&A are slightly tenuous without a well-defined example which illustrates it. Nevertheless, if you closely read both the image in the question, as well as the comments on the answer, they show that it is not a linear increase going from pure s to pure p; instead, the $\mathrm{sp}^n$ hybrids overlap better than both pure s and pure p orbitals, so the comparison of pure s versus pure p is irrelevant to the question. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 25 '20 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. I sorted out my confusion. Now you have full right to downvote my answer $\endgroup$ – user99515 Dec 25 '20 at 11:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ A note for posterity: there are some comments which the user (now called user99515) deleted. My comments which are now lacking context are replies to those. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Dec 27 '20 at 0:20

You must log in to answer this question.