NDQ assessment of laser interferometer question

Question

Currently, our community has come to agreement that Naive Design Questions (NDQ) are not in-scope for the site.

And quoting from that meta question:

I can't think of a rigorous definition for "naive design question;" like Justice Potter Stewart's obscenity test, "I know it when I see it." But it would be helpful to come up with one. I think "poorly researched" would be a primary characteristic.

And cherry-picking a quote from the currently top-voted answer:

While we are populated by engineers, we can't solve all levels of engineering problems, because broad questions require weeks or years of research, modeling, calculations, and analysis. They also require a lot of specific information about usage conditions, location, and service requirements. Questions about how to design a whole project whether it's a ladder, a bicycle, or a skyscraper are simply too broad.

Which brings us to a recently asked question

Is it possible to build interferometer, for linear displacement measurements, using old CD/DVD drive parts?
(upd)
I am talking about using parts such as beam-splitter, detector, laser and frame where it all mounted if possible…

Providing a brief timeline of the question of relevant events:

1. OP posts only the first sentence as the question
2. OP is requested to provide more detail by the community
3. OP adds the second sentence to the question
4. Moderator closes the question as Too Broad
5. Additional commentary from community occurs (See 1 and 2 for the gist)

I voted-to-close because it appears to be too broad and a poorly researched question (thus defining it as an NDQ). Subsequent commentary reinforced that perception, as evidenced by this comment.

Possibly worth noting is that both community members who commented have vote-to-reopen privileges, but there is only one reopen vote on the question as of writing this question.

---

Blah, blah, blah, what's the TL;DR?

Based upon my read of the question, it appeared to be an NDQ and I closed it in accordance with community consensus on NDQs.

Per their comments, at least two community members feel the question is not an NDQ.

1. Is the question an NDQ?
2. If it's not an NDQ, what aspect of the question prevents that categorization?

---

Moderator note: The answer to 1 & 2 will guide my vote to reopen or not.
Note for community: Vote to reopen the question (and others!) if you feel they should not have been closed. Likewise, open questions here in meta for discussions about questions.

Answer 1

I don't know if it is a NDQ or a "Low Quality Question".

The problem is that there isn't enough information to determine what it is. With only two sentences, there just isn't enough information. I'm sure that there will be exceptions, but there is almost a minimum question length requirement.

Answer 2

A major issue that I have is the utterly naive low quality responses we give to newcomers as we boot them down the stairs, having satisfied ourselves that we have maintained the elite status of the site. [We haven't in many cases - just managed to eliminate the English as second or other language speakers and/or less literate].

I am reasonably certain that most people have very little idea of how great a hurdle the "closed question" process represents to many people whose primary language is not English. When it seems like it may be worthwhile long term and I can spare the time (next lifetime?) I sometimes talk to new users offline and see if helping them continue with the process is liable to be worthwhile. In some cases this is not so, in others it is. Finding this out on-list is often about impossible. I have seen various people state that the procedures are clear and well documented. And I have been interested to see how unclear they are to those attempting to use them.

---

The answer given to the OP viz "There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs." misleads the user and gives them hope when in fact we don't like their face and are not going to take any notice of what they say.

IF there are guidelines they should be referred to.
If we think the question is naive we should say so (politely).
If we think the question is low quality we should say so and provide SIMPLE guidelines that are accessible to the OP.

---

The user may be less 'naive' than is at first apparent.

He started with:

Is it possible to build interferometer, for linear displacement measurements, using old CD/DVD drive parts?

which shows some clues but no research. BUT the addition of

I am talking about using parts such as beam-splitter, detector, laser and frame where it all mounted if possible…

While still not showing much research, shows more knowledge of what is or may be inside a CD/DVD drive than would be known by at least 50% of the population.
You'd probably get under 10% who got the lot. This does not show he knows what he is doing BUT suggests he may not be quite the blithering incompetent some may expect and it may be that his English is far better than your or my Farsi, Hindi or ... .

What I'd really like to see is (as mentioned on various occasions on various SE sites) newcomers given a very moderate and reasonable chance to work with any interested to improve their question, information, descriptions, language, whatever.

---

The LMGTFY suggestion is derided as impolite and unuseful but have found eg this version of immense power and well worth recommending to seekers in many fields. This example has much that does not relate. But a bit of experience in adding key words can produce awesome results. With each image worth 1000 words (they tell me) such a page can be worth much.

After adding a few more words - and removing some if it seems useful,
you end up with something like this

which may transform the life of a naive questioner.

Answer 3

I am not going to unilaterally reverse the decision of the five users who voted to reopen; however, users who want this question to remain open should put some serious thought into how they can improve the problem statement. Questions that inspire comments like this are not the sort of content that we want to invite or encourage, as a rule.

I disagree strongly with the thesis that "our community has come to agreement that Naive Design Questions (NDQ) are not in-scope;" rather, I think the community's intent has always been to continue evaluating questions for closure along the same axes as the rest of the Stack Exchange network:

1. Topicality
2. Clarity
3. Objectivity
4. Breadth

What's more, I think the label "Naive Design Question" is serving us very poorly here. As I've argued privately, the NDQ discussion on Meta is not about defining a type of question that we want to close. It's about offering guidance to users, organized around this defined category of "NDQ" simply because we have observed a set of issues that tend to show up at the same time.

So I think we'll be doing ourselves a big favor by forgetting about the "NDQ" label here and going back to basics. The question at hand was closed for failing to meet a minimum standard of breadth and I think that was a reasonable decision. We don't know what "old CD/DVD drive parts" the author actually has access to or what magnitude of linear displacement needs to be measured, for a start.

I appreciate that Russell has expertise in this area and wants to share it, but we don't close questions because we're elitist and don't like somebody's face. We close questions as a way of saying, "This doesn't make for good Q&A, it needs to be improved before being answered." Always remember what kind of resource we aspire to be:

Stack Exchange is primarily designed to service search engines and produce useful artifacts. For example, when searching for a programming problem, Stack Overflow is one of the first hits (often the first!); users click the link, read what people have to say, then go back to work. Write once, read thousands or millions of times.

We are not building a network of blog posts or editorials; we are building the next generation of engineering reference manuals. Always stay focused on the merits and value of the content for the silent majority of readers who are acting out the above workflow. The happiness of askers, answerers, commenters, moderators, etc. is all secondary.

Answer 4

That question as it is currently written is inappropriate here.

Perhaps after a number of back and forth iterations with the OP, the question can be turned into something interesting and useful. However that is not what we want on this site.

People who ask questions here have a certain set of responsibilities. The question must be clear, relevant to the site, reasonably answerable, etc. Sometimes we get questions that are close but require a important piece of information to answer. Other times the initial question is so broad or so vague that it is lacking a lot of important information. It is of course a judgement call, but asking for a small amount of well-defined clarification is OK, while going back and forth and revising the whole question is not OK.

Doing the latter, as would be required in this example, has three main drawbacks:

1. It noises up the site. The poor question will be repeatedly bumped to the top of the active list where everyone will see it repeatedly. This is not only annoying to regular visitors, but it presents a poor impression and sets a bad precedent (see point 3) for those new to the site.

2. It dissipates the limited and fixed amount of volunteer time. People aren't going to spend more time here because there are more bad questions. If anything, it's the opposite. So if we consider the volunteer time to answer questions here as a fixed resource, the choice is how to spend it wisely. It is simply bad economics to spend it going back and forth with a OP revising a poor question, as opposed to writing good answers to good questions.

   Good quality questions and answers are what the volunteers that provide the value of this site are here for. Lots of interactions to fix bad questions not only wastes the limited resources, but makes the site overall less attractive to those providing the value.

3. It tells bystanders that it's OK to post sloppy questions since others will fix it for you. This will only beget more bad questions.

Answer 5

Our assessment of users who have different but acceptable enough linguistic skills cause us to treat some of them as if they were naive. (I'll use the naive question / naive user concepts interchangeably as seems appropriate).

An examination of the material available to date for the "LASER interferometer" case shows that this is what has happened in this instanceAn 'asker' with non-trivial technical knowledge and access to some fairly high technology equipment that they wish to utilise. They now say:

• I have the XY stage on a microscope with piezo-motors. Interferometer should be the best linear encoder to be used as a feedback loop for proper driving of piezos. There are commercial linear encoders based on Michelson interferometer, but they are too expensive. Old CD/DVD drives appeared to be extremely cheap source of: lasers, laser drivers, 50/50 mirrors, detectors, detector drivers, maybe anything else

While it was already obvious from the complex terminology used by the OP in their second sentence that this was not a naive question in the "how do I build a ladder" sense, this may have been inobvious to casual observers, but this places it beyond doubt.

While the OP was obviously able to provide this level of detail if asked, they were first discouraged and then prevented from doing so for some while by the SE system. If those who wished to had been able to work with the OP for a few days we would have probably arrived at where we are now or been further ahead.

@nivag has answered the question with some brief but useful & practical technical commentary which is not especially easy to find elsewhere.

Despite the now obvious degree of understanding shown by the OP, they have been adjudged naive and unable to formulate a good question.
What they needed was some assistance in "dialling in" their interaction with the group.
What they got was rejection

Their initial question was substandard by almost any measure - due, almost certainly, to language factors. (They are in Ukraine).
A one sentence addition to the question showed the OP's likely technical capabilities. Their latest addition has put us on the path to a very useful addition to the SE information base.

Sometimes the language people use is beyond what is reasonable in an English language based group. But, in other cases the problem lies as much with the inability of otherwise very capable members to deal with language that is outside their experience set. Some people with extremely high technical competence purport to not be able to understand material that is "well within the range of normal". In such cases it is the "linguistic naivety" of technical experts causing them to dismiss input from newcomers.
There is a well worn "joke"which some may object to, but which makes a point.
Q: "What do you call a person who speaks one Language"?
A: "An American".
FWIW - I resemble that - I only speak one language fluently - I'm from NZ.
Not only is it often just "one language" but "English as we speak it" that seems to be required. Quite often I have seen questions that I find entirely understandable rejected and put on hold by others - notionally at least on the grounds that they are unable to be understood.

I wish now to indulge in what may to some extent be seen as an "ad hominem" address of related issues. While "ad hominem" approaches are almost always inappropriate in technical dealings, this is not the case here. What people say and do and think is what this is all about. Olin as "poster boy" for the 'do not tolerate their rubbish for a moment" camp is the main subject of my comments - and he has provided useful points to address. I also speak of him and I as if we are of some competence and reputation. In this group he and I have similar scores (1900, 1500ish) and in SE EE we are 'major contributors'. We are both "capable enough" engineers but with widely varying views on how to treat people to get the best from them. [I note that I have very considerable respect for Olin, his capabilities, his helpfulness (much of the time :-) ) and his contribution of valuable engineering resources to the community at no charge. We differ substantially on the areas covered here and I think (and hope) he has a 'thick enough skin' to separate my disagreement here from my more positive impressions of him in other areas.]

While as it stands the question could do with some tidying and further clarification it is on the way to becoming a useful question and answer by SE standards. This largely gives the lie to the several statements that Olin makes on this subject in a comment.

He talks about "what we want here" as if he is qualified and authorised to speak for SE.

He talks about "crappy askers" (not questions) which is an ad hominem attack and risks being the start of an excremental escalation of derisory language.

He says that "we don't want to welcome everyone" - and while that is true if taken at face value, it is a straw man in this context as what he really means is he does not want the list to welcome people that HE thinks should be excluded.

He dangerously talks about "Those that can't or won't think about a question logically", but he is naively (and presumably not disingenuously) turning a language difficulty into a judgement re logical thinking.

He then reasonably adds the requirement to " ... then present it clearly, ..."- which I have not seen anyone ever argue against being needed. BUT ...
His " for whatever reason - it doesn't matter" is his consistent policy in such matters over many years - it doesn't matter, he doesn't care, he accepts no excuses - you meet his standards and give him the respect he deserves or you are not a suitable new member.
He again purports to speak for SE as a whole and says " ... are more trouble than they are worth." He is perfectly at liberty to assist who he wishes, or not and to spend his time on those who he deems are worth his acknowledgement. And others may do the same. But he can no more speak for me than I can speak for him. If I see in the few short sentences for a man in the Ukraine an indication that he is technically competent and that a few exchanges may allow a good quality and "high technology" question to result (as is proving to be the case) then I am at liberty to spend my efforts that way as long as the list allows me to. It may be that in due course the list adopts Olins exclusivist policies of rejecting people who are not understood immediately, but until then he cannot speak for how people should use their resources. Nor then either, fwiw.

Olin's arguments for "question quality" is less meaningful than may at first be obvious. MANY of the questions that Olin provides excellent good quality answers for (and the same applies to me) are really very low value technically. He could answer them with, metaphorically, one arm tied behind his back. He (and I) may be educating people but we are less often adding to anything like the leading edge of knowledge. (Both of us do so sometimes). Many of the questions on SE repeat over and over variations on basic themes of electronics and the "rep" scores that Olin and I accrue are not necessarily indicators of the technical value of our answers as a whole. That comment may not make me popular but Olin and others of good technical competence know that it is essentially true.

Whereas, a questions with good answers on LASER interferometry is relatively rare here, not very well covered in the general internet material and needs some digging on web to get the sort of information that @nivag has provided in his short answer. More could be said on this subject and, if people who were interested, had been left to work with avi9526 for a few exchanges then even more than we have now may have been provided. As it was, I provided some links in a comment, as I was barred from providing an answer. If I had been able to provide an answer I MIGHT have got into one of my mini sagas and produced a mini reference on the subject. And others here could have done the same. As it is this is now less likely.

Olin says " ... They do the site more harm than good and degrade the experience that most came here for. Being able to articulate a good question is, while imperfect, a decent enough filter to block those we don't want here...."

NONE of us want low quality rubbish questions, lazy users who will not do their work and help themselves, people who will not think, and similar".
Over time Olin has insisted that quality can only be obtained by mercilessly driving off those who don't present well enough instantly. Others are arguing NOT for lack of quality, but for quality obtained with a different introductory process, Olin says "it just doesn't work that way". In fact reality does not side with any one hard and fast blinkered viewpoint. Reality is that people differ and more than one "method" may be appropriate depending on circumstance.

SO:

Some of us want to take the easy path and just drive off any who seem like they MAY be too much trouble.

Others of us would like to give new users a short but reasonable period to interact with us and sort out difficulties that may be overcomeable, to learn how the system works and to understand what is expected of them as a minimum standard. Those that cannot or will not do this after a reasonable period (probably a few weeks will be enough in most cases) can be handed over to Olin or punishment, beating and consignment to hell-fire, or whatever.

.____________________________

Notes:

NOBODY (including me) correctly spelt LASER as LASER.
"laser" is never correct. Does this matter? Maybe.
Olin has a "thing" about unit abbreviations being correct - Write "MW" when you mean "mW" and he'll go out of his way to deal with you. This has its place. But laser show that 'we all' do it.

Olin says: " Crappy askers generally don't become good askers. I just doesn't work that way." Such typos and some consistent mis-spellings are not unknown in his copy. Mine is (much) worse. Does it matter? Probably yes, to some extent, but it should help people realise that they are human.

______________________________________________________.

A relevant "case study:

About a year ago a new user came to SE EE and asked a technical question. It was somewhat obvious that English was not their primary language (although they are conversant in 5 languages). They were female. My observations have lead me to conclude that for whatever reasons, that being a non English primary speaker and a female is usually a prime target for less sympathetic than usual treatment (but, I may be wrong), and their treatment was consistent with this observation. They asked three questions. One at least was a very good one and well worth the group's time. All questions were treated with due derision and the good one was put on hold and because they had 3 low rep questions they were barred from asking more and did not understand the process and did not know how to proceed or how to ask.

In time with due eternal action things got fixed.
The system was not going to fix them by itself.

The information asked for in the first question related to the production of circuitry that the OP was developing for a man-made 'satellite'. It involved a specialised area of electronics which few would have had experience in. I was not involved in how the questions involved got answered, but they did get answered (presumably elsewhere). In due course the design produced by this person was accepted for use in a satellite with a duly lucrative contract awarded. [The people who accept such things know what they are doing and have achieved better success at achieving major targets than most other players* so presumably the design was deemed competent by suitably rigorous standards.]

I do not know if the question that related to the satellite project was deemed naive, low quality, too short or whatever. But the OP got closer to 'flinging stars into space' than almost any of us (including me) ever will.

We never know with certainty what a newcomer knows or can do. Not everyone is going to be brilliant or a great contributor. Some may be. Giving all people no more than a reasonable chance to sort out early issues and get accustomed to what is required seems, to me, logical. We seem to flee from such a pragmatic approach with a vengeance.

---

*. That may give some clue as to which country is involved.

**. I'm sure that will be challenged. Has anyone else actually looked to see if it's true? Or how much language capability affects perception by some?

Answer 6

This community lacks the patients to allow question to develop and appears over zealous when it come to voting to close a question. The close voting pattern give me the impression, "I don't know what OP is asking it must outside off topic or too broad". Let me vote to close the question. To me this false under the Naive category.

Lets not jump to close, instead work with the OP to develop the question

Next issue is in the eyes of a OP, it is not clearly and concisely defined what a entitles a good question. The only available link How do I ask a good question? and https://engineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ which really does't a first time poster or the current community.

Finally, lets work together to attract new question and avid community members.

Answer 7

Related:

I have not flung stars into space, nor do I expect to.
I have not even produced products or designs which will be used or have been used in man-made satellites. Nor do I now aspire to such, but once I did.
Few of us have either the opportunity or are trusted with the responsibility of doing such.

About a year ago a new user came to SE EE and asked a technical question. It was somewhat obvious that English was not their primary language (although they are conversant in 5 languages). It seemed likely that they were female (one can never be sure)(but they were). Non English primary speaker and a female is usually a prime target for hammering here** and they were treated accordingly. They asked two more questions. One at least was a very good one and well worth the group's time. All questions were treated with due derision and the good one was put on hold and because they had 3 low rep questions they were barred from asking more and did not understand the process and did not know how to proceed or how to ask.

In time with due eternal action things got fixed.
The system was not going to fix them by itself.

The information asked for in the first question related to the production of circuitry that the OP was developing for a man-made 'satellite'. It involved a specialised area of electronics which few would have had experience in. I was not involved in how the questions involved got answered, but they did (presumably elsewhere). In due course the design produced by this person was accepted for use in a satellite with a duly lucrative contract awarded. [The people who accept such things know what they are doing and have achieved better success at achieving major targets than most other players* so presumably the design was deemed competent by suitably rigorous standards.]

I do not know if the question that related to the satellite project was deemed naive, low quality, too short or whatever. But the OP got closer to flinging stars into space than almost any of us (including me) ever will.

We never know with certainty what a newcomer knows or can do. Not everyone is going to be brilliant or a great contributor. Some may be. Giving all people no more than a reasonable chance to sort out early issues and get accustomed to what is required seems, to me, logical. We seem to flee from such a pragmatic approach with a vengeance.

---

*. That may give some clue as to which country is involved.

**. I'm sure that will be challenged. Has anyone else actually looked to see if it's true? Or how much language capability affects perception by some?