7

This question is related to a previous question without accepted question. I hope that the argument provided below will help to take a decision.

Could you please tell me what's wrong with my post now that I have edited it.

  1. To my knowledge (if you look on the Web), there are less than ten books on photogrammetry. So the number of answers would never be as large as the other so-called shopping list questions.

  2. My question is precise: I don't have time to read all the books to find out if the chapter about UAV is documented enough, but there should be an objective answer to this.

  3. On meta, the most upvoted answer to the question is kind of "pro" shopping list if it is precise

  4. There are two tags about learning /learning ressources, and one tag about books. This is misleading to have tags if the most likely question to be asked with those tags are not welcome.

  5. Nothing personnal, but four out of five users who are against this post answered a "shopping list question" in the past. Therefore I am wondering why those were "good" questions and not mine. See gis.stackexchange.com/questions/44720/…, gis.stackexchange.com/questions/24/…, gis.stackexchange.com/questions/78700/… and gis.stackexchange.com/questions/36736/… to understand why they were accepted but not mine.

Remark : I got the answer I was looking for (a book that I didn't know), so I don't need to reopen the question. However, I originally had the same question about automated image registration, hence this post on meta.

4

I thank you for raising this as an area in which you want to hear our opinions (which are OK on Meta) and I'll respond against your numbered list to keep each point in a Q&A format:

  1. I think the Question needs to say something about the finding/understanding that there are less than 10 books on photogrammetry. Overall, I think the Question started and remains too short. However, I voted to close it as too broad when it was less focussed about what it was looking for in an Answer than it is now.
  2. I think the "question" is precise enough now (but it does need a question mark :-).
  3. Shopping list definitions and interpretations will remain a grey area. We are all free to vote how we like, and on something which to me looks like a "shopping list", I am likely to continue to vote for closure as too broad. That is notwithstanding the very useful Answers, Comments and Votes cast on my Meta Question to which you linked.
  4. I think you mean tags (not flags) but anybody with 300+ reputation can make a tag and many tags get little use. The (non)existence of , , does not imply that Questions using them are (un)welcome.
  5. I hope that I will not be bound to a personal policy based on an Answer I gave 3.5 years ago, less than a month after joining SO/SE :-)
  • 1
    +1. The following is the way I see bullet #3. 1 - The question needs to be very good worded to avoid "too broad" status. 2 - It can't be a duplicate (this is common in big list questions type). 3 - If it is not too broad and not a dupe, then, it should be community wiki (at least, in most cases). – Andre Silva Jan 30 '14 at 12:30
  • @ PolyGeo Thank you for your answer(s). This is very instructive. Concerning point 5, I didn't look at the dates. But my question was not "would you do it again?" but "what makes those questions different?". Anyway, the answer is in the previous questions. PS: yes, I meant tag (corrected now). – radouxju Jan 30 '14 at 13:51
  • 1
    @AndreSilva How do you ask a question for the community Wiki. I don't understand what this community wiki actually does (even though I've read the help) – radouxju Jan 30 '14 at 13:54
  • 1
    @radouxju, you can try to read this thread for more guidance on cw posts. If you want to turn your own post, just check the cw box in right lower corner of the answer/question box (in the edit mode). If you want to suggest somebody's else post to be cw, then, flag for moderator attention by selecting the "other" option and explain clearly why you think the post should be cw. – Andre Silva Jan 30 '14 at 14:20
  • +1 @Andre Silva, this thread is well written – radouxju Jan 31 '14 at 20:08
3

IMHO, you have done a good job formulating your question to make it clear, specific, and answerable. It shows some research (by referencing an existing text). It is not asking for a list (although multiple answers could reasonably be offered).

One way I would like to see it improved would be by providing objective ways in which you plan to evaluate and select one best answer among those you receive. Specifically, some indication of the desired level of the text would be useful: what background should it assume of the reader? How comprehensive, thorough, detailed, and rigorous should it be? That perhaps is implicit in the comparison to a previous text, but that requires readers to be familiar with that text, which may severely limit the set of possible qualified respondents.

  • thanks for your answer. Reading your first paragraph, I am a little bit embarassed now because I accepted an answer based on my original question (a great book on UAV that I had not fond in my search), but this answer is not so relevant to my updated question. I could unaccept it, but I feel that it is unfair. – radouxju Jan 31 '14 at 20:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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