9
$\begingroup$

I asked this question: How does envelope protection work in Airbus vs. Boeing aircraft? and it was quickly marked as "duplicate of What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft?"

Hell NO. It is NOT.

Mine is a VERY specific question about a comparison of the different level of computer control over the the pilots` input in different flight modes in Airbus and Boeing and how/when those modes are initiated.

Yes it is a very specific question about a modern liner aircraft's control loops

Yes, it is a very complicate question.

Yes, it probably is too complicate/out of the interest of a lot of aviation enthusiasts.

NO, it is NOT a duplicate of a general "curiosity" question about the main piloting differences between the liners from the two leading manufacturers as the other is.

So WHY mark it as a duplicate?

It could look so to the non nerds, who are not interested/have no idea of the level of finesse involved in aircrafts` control laws (and this is totally OK) and to condescending users "very smartly" policing this SE in "Yarrrronguard!" style (and this is NOT ok).

I honestly hope it got marked as a duplicate because of people from the first group and therefore there should be no problem for everybody to read the GREAT answer kindly provided to my question by a very competent and knowledgeable use, realize that such answer is quite different from the answer to the other question since well it is a different question and not a duplicate and remove the duplicate tag from it. It is, in my opinion, very un-smart to have such a great and unique answer sunk behind an inappropriate "duplicate" tag, the antitheses of what a SE site should be.

Furthermore, SE itself says

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

And this is exactly what I did after reading the other question, asking a question going deeply in detail of a specific, single, interesting, aspect of the difference between the two.

May we please unmark it or shall we shut down aviation.SE and put big sign saying that everything is a duplicate of wikipedia.org/aircraft ?

Cheers, and take it easy ;)

EDIT: I'm very happy to see the question has been reopened! And even with a bounty, wow!!! :-) ASAP (1/2 days max) I'll edit it to make it clearer Thanks.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ "Cheers, and take it easy ;)" eh, I'd review you post here, starting with "hell NO" does not sound extremely relaxed to me :| $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 16:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ That said, you can always make a slight edit to explain your point in your question mentioning in the question that you have reviewed the other one, and pointing out that you are asking something different. (and maybe make the title an actual question). This will put the post in the reopen queue. $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Oct 10, 2017 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FWIW, it's a question on a very interesting (and complicated) thing that attracted a good answer. $\endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    Commented Oct 12, 2017 at 23:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I sympathize with you. On this list there are a couple individuals that consistently flag something as a duplicate - but do it after someone gives an answer that they can search for the duplicate. Before that, the question and answer appeared unique. Often a person does not know the terminology to do a proper search for prior info. It also seems to me that many subjects are worth revisiting after 2-3 years. i.e. a "Whats this picture..." and they don't know the device is a "outlet valve", "gear trunion", "stabulator", or some radial engines call a carburetor a "servo ", etc. $\endgroup$
    – jwzumwalt
    Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 9:52

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

A voted duplicate can always be reopened. Which it has. 🎉

A simple note like the one I added should suffice and make it clearer for the voters:

Related post What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft? does not answer the question.

You can also expand on the why, the more information the question has, the better. But sometimes less is more. IMO the question title and body can be improved to reflect the objective in a clearer manner. So there's no harm in taking in any edit suggestions.

The way I see it, you are asking about how each system can be overridden (or how they compare in that regard), which I think is not clear from the old/new titles.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I've been in a similar situation on one of the more, erm... hair-splitting (to be polite) Stack Exchanges so I understand your frustration. However my history also made me understand some of the particulars of how this site works and how to prevent your situation.

First, let's go over the basics of duplicates. The whole point is to not answer the same questions twice, which keeps the site much more manageable. This is a good thing in moderation, but it can backfire if zealously applied. Having a hundred variations on the different aspects and nuances of how lift works is a good thing, having a hundred very similar questions on how lift works is not.

Where it really starts to get tricky is cases like yours where questions A is answered in part of the answers to general question B. This has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The word "duplicate" here is a little misleading because the questions aren't the same as they have different scopes. If it's a real duplicate the scope difference is minor, or the majority of the more general question addresses the more specific one's concerns.. We're not redirecting users to a long, canonical question where one paragraph addresses their concern. If we wanted to do that we'd close half our questions with redirections to a Wikipedia page, as you stated.

For example, Why do modern aircraft have a slope on top of the airfoil? was closed as a duplicate of How do wings generate lift because although the first question was more specific, the question is basically answered entirely by the second question, and the answers to the second question are almost all useful to the second question's asker. This was good. The second question was very relevant to the first question, even if the scopes were slightly different.

So my recommendations are twofold. First, understand what I should have known earlier: If you already know another question covers some of the same material, explain as soon and clearly as possible exactly why that question is insufficient. Understand that some people overuse the duplication feature as a well-intentioned "here's a great question for you to read". Anticipate their behavior and you'll have fewer problems.

Second to the general user base, some partial duplication is good. You don't have to be fussy about duplicates as most cases of borderline duplication are fine to leave alone. We're not trying to eliminate any but one or two canonical questions on each subject, and closing a user's post because "they can find the answer in paragraph three of the second answer to this question, so it's a dupe" is a horrible way to answer a question. When any doubt exists err on the side of caution and post a comment like "Does this other question answer your question?".

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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