I feel like I have good ideas on changes the world could make. I know questions asking people in invest in new research to answer cannot be answered. So I asked questions about existing research. I think all 9 of my currently existing questions are about already existing research. The first one I asked How ductile is C60? originally I was asking them to do calculations even thought I had used Stack Exchange lots before and knew I wasn't really supposed to ask people to do a lot of new hard research work to give an answer. I thought I'll try it. Just maybe they will be able to do that. Then it got edited to no longer be asking people to perform calculations. Then I did not ask another question on this Stack Exchange website that asks people to do calculations. I asked questions about whether there is already existing research. My question is

Why did the following questions of mine get a negative score?

Maybe they're too hard for any users of this website to answer but I don't know why. Could it be because of the way the research process works? I was going to ask another question about whether there is existing research on trying to produce a new high strength material that can keep being pulled thinner and thinner like gold if my question What are some materials known to be able to keep being pulled thinner and thinner like gold? had been well received and gotten a good answer because I would have felt like I had more room for experimentation with only 2 questions that were poorly received.

Also, after I get an answer to this question, if I get a certain type of answer, I might ask another question on Matter Modelling Meta Stack Exchange asking if others think it's possible to encourage more users to focus on one question at a time and take all the time they need to research an answer who focus on the questions that don't already have an excellent answer. If somebody had a question that was difficult to answer but didn't require new research to be conducted to answer and it took about a month to study it and answer it, the author of the question would get more good out of one user devoting a month to that question than 30 users each devoting a day to that question. However, I don't have the patience to focus on one question at a time myself on any Stack Exchange website.


1 Answer 1


I did not (yet) downvote any of your questions myself, but have supported closing some. I think a real issue with some of your questions (that has been mentioned in several comments) is that you're not asking about matter modeling, or topics close to it. In some cases (like here) it is possible to address the question using modeling results, but like many of your posts, the question is scoped much, much, much more broadly. In cases like this one, it's unlikely for a natural answer ("this happens in materialene") to engage with modeling. Yet the site is called Matter Modeling, not Materials Science (or similar).

If you browse questions by votes you'll find that well-received questions tend to have a direct or at least tangential relation with matter modeling topics. If you ask a question that doesn't engage with any aspect of matter modeling except in the sense that maybe it could be answered by modeling, then it is fairly likely to be considered out of scope. Do it once and you're probably fine. Do it multiple times and you'll start inviting downvotes from people who hope to discourage the behavior.

Further, if you hover over the downvote button it says

This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.

I have to say that your "has there been any research on X" questions don't signal much research effort. My answer here was written quickly after just browsing titles of papers citing the paper you linked in your question. Frankly, that is a minimal research effort that I would expect from anyone with basic familiarity of how scientific literature works. On the physics site, people are often asked to "show their work". I would encourage you to do the same here for this question type (and maybe others).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What does Matter Modelling actually mean? $\endgroup$
    – Timothy
    Mar 1, 2021 at 2:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Timothy I think this site doesn't have a particularly precisely defined scope yet, but personally I understand "matter" to encompass at least materials and molecules, and "modeling" to encompass at least theoretical, mathematical, and computational approaches to describe such "matter". So this would be bang in the middle of the site's scope, whereas questions purely about experimental aspects ofsay X-ray diffraction would be outside it. $\endgroup$
    – Anyon
    Mar 1, 2021 at 16:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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