Why is my this question not supported even when I'm facing a genuine problem and trying to explain genuinely?

Question

My this question has a lot, lots of edits.

The problem I've described there is genuine. Some users tried to fix it, but it changed the intention of the question.

Now I don't know how can I explain it better.

Is it worth 6 down votes even after so many edits? Is there any way to improve it without changing the subject and intention?

Answer 1

I haven't voted, commented, answered, or otherwise participated in your question, but it seems like you're hitting a couple themes that come up from time to time, in terms of questions getting a "bad" response even though the asker is trying their best to be genuine. I hope you don't take any of this personally, and these are just my observations:

• You spend a lot of time explaining background and setting the stage for your situation. It's clear that you're worked up about the issues you're facing, and I can understand why. But it seems like people on Workplace.SE sometimes get turned off by excessive details, because it leaves the question feeling more like storytelling than actually asking a question.
• Once you do get to your actual question, you're essentially asking "Is this normal?" That's a great thing to wonder about, but it's not really an actionable question, which seems to be more on-topic for Workplace.SE. People can say yes, or no, or whatever they want, and nothing will really change. There have occasionally been well-received "is this normal" questions, but most of them don't fare well.

If you browse highly-voted questions with lots of good answers, they tend to follow some slightly different trends:

• There may be context, but generally it's short and direct.
• The actual question tends to be actionable in the sense of, "I want to achieve X, how can I do that?" And the upvoted answers are typically actionable as well: "Do X, and expect Y. And here's why."
• The answers these questions attract tend to be verifiable - if not in the literal, reference-able sense, at least in the sense of aligning with typical workplace experiences.
• Importantly, popular questions will fit in a generic workplace context, versus being dependent on a specific employer or situation. Your question is very much mired in your employer's own quirks. Asking "does title X match what my employer is asking of me?" is really not going to have a broad application. Even if we answer based on the details in your question, that isn't really helpful to anyone else (unless someone in the exact same scenario stumbles upon it). People can't identify with questions that are too situationally-specific.

Ultimately, Stack Exchange sites are question and answer sites, and your question reads more like it's inviting discussion or "thoughts" than a concrete, verifiable, actionable answer. The Q&A format promotes a very mechanical sort of crowd moderation, where people will downvote or vote to close on questions that they don't feel are a good fit, even if they can't directly articulate a solution.

To bring this to a close, you've asked,

Is there any way to improve it without changing the subject and intention?

I think you have to answer that for yourself. What are you looking for, from the Stack Exchange community, in terms of a response to your question?

• Is there an action you need to take, to solve a problem? If so, edit and describe that.
• Are you trying to determine if you're a good designer? Workplace is probably not the best fit, but it does look like you've asked a question on the graphics design SE site.
• If you do feel you have a valid workplace question, sometimes it's helpful to start with the end in mind. If you can visualize what a "good" answer looks like to you, then work backwards and try to phrase your question such that it would elicit that sort of response.

On the other hand, if you really are just looking for "thoughts" or validation on how challenging your situation is, you may not be able to rescue your question after all.

Answer 2

Regarding the votes to close, when your question got put on hold a link to this should have appeared.

https://workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

There are specific rules regarding what justifies a closure on this site. The two that I think are relevant here are:

- Questions seeking company-specific advice on workplace regulations or policies, or legal advice

- Questions that lack a clear goal we can address or focus on ranting about problems rather than trying to solve them

The second reason was applicable to the early iteration of your question. It was difficult to understand what you were meaning with "do I have to deal with it, doesn't matter it's too bad for you and your self esteem? Or there's something else which can be improved, and which can improve whole situation?" in that all things need to be dealt with in some manner and all situations can be improved. It was unclear what the goal was here so met the reason for closure.

The first reason was more applicable to the improved iteration. When asking "do I have to take responsibilities of all things, doesn't matter it's more than your current role (i.e., Am I being used more than my role)? Or it is actually my role, handling everything?" specific definitions of what activities fall under what roles is company specific. As a company specific question it should be closed as off topic.

If your intention is to know what the responsibilities of this role are, the question is inherently off-topic for this site and is a better fit in "The Watercooler" or some forum that doesn't follow this rule set.

Answer 3

I've actually just read your question courtesy of this post - and in the process I've chucked an answer into the mix.

As to why the question appears to be attracting downvotes (it's been getting some upvotes as well FWIW) I'd have to say that while IMO there is a reasonable and answerable question in there (clearly I think so since I've tried to answer it!) I can see why people might be downvoting it:

1. It rambles quite a lot - some people aren't fans of long questions at all, others tend to dislike large amounts of backstory

2. It's borderline ranting in places - I don't think it crosses the line personally but there's definitely places it gets quite close to it.

3. It's a bit repetitive - you ask whether it's normal/acceptable for your employer to ask you to do more than "just" implementing the designs four times. They use different words and phrasings but they are fundamentally the same question. And that just makes it, ironically, harder to understand what you are getting at.

4. It's a little bit lacking in terms of an addressable goal - it's not the clearest what you're actually hoping to achieve with the question.

Just my thoughts - and for what it's worth I didn't down vote the question.