3
$\begingroup$

As of this posting (9/1/2015), there are six unanswered questions on Worldbuilding Stack Exchange:

All six have been unanswered for at least two days, three have been unanswered for at least one week, and the oldest has been unanswered for two weeks. None have any answers (even deleted ones).

First, I'd like us to try to answer these, because I think that all six are answerable and on topic (I do think that the sixth is borderline, though). However, I'd like to put forth another point: Why are they unanswered?

One week is a long time for a question to stay unanswered on Worldbuilding. The balance of probability is against it. Yet here we have three questions that have been unanswered for at least that long, and three others that have been quiet for a while.

Why is this happening, is this indicative of these particular questions (or is it just luck?), and should be do something about it (besides answering them)?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I would add that a search of stellar density on google yielded this (among other greek writings that mean virtually nothing to me) which may give people an idea of why it hasn't been answered. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/… $\endgroup$ – James Sep 1 '15 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ I already more or less answered the last question in the comments.There is not much else to say and there is another answer. $\endgroup$ – Vincent Sep 1 '15 at 20:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ HDE, as to your question on circumstellar disks, I would like to point out that you are the tag expert on both its tags. If you can't answer it, then it's a safe bet others will have a hard time answering it too. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Sep 1 '15 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ The Circumstellar disk I've looked at a couple of times and I could answer, but not within hard-science which is why I've left it...I see you've removed that requirement now so I expect I'll write an answer fairly soon. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Sep 2 '15 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ @TimB Yes, after a bit of thinking I decided to remove the tag, as the question was a bit speculative for that hard-science tag. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Sep 2 '15 at 12:40
8
$\begingroup$

Several of those questions are marked as which greatly increases the bar for anyone who cares to answer, particularly the "Map of the Stars" question. The Karyotypes question feels like hard-science, even if it isn't.

I believe those questions have gone unanswered generally because they are difficult to answer. The sixth question just struck me wrong and I wasn't inclined to answer it.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I was going to mention that hard science plays a part as well. On a positive note I would say that means we have set the hard-science expectation and people understand it...so that's good. $\endgroup$ – James Sep 1 '15 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ @James Good point. $\endgroup$ – Green Sep 1 '15 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ This is probably a large part of the reason, at least for some of the questions linked to in the question. "hard-science" questions are, in a sense, supposed to be hard to answer because we (or rather the asker) place/s very high requirements on the answers posted to such questions. This is a good thing, IMO; let's make sure that the hard-science tag does not deteriorate in meaning. If the asker doesn't need hard-science level answers, then science-based with its somewhat laxer requirements is probably a better tag to use. $\endgroup$ – user Sep 2 '15 at 11:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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