3
$\begingroup$

The following question, using quantlib function in my c++ program, asks about the usage of a popular quantitative finance library, QuantLib, but the question itself does not relate to quantitative finance. Would such a question belong here or on Stack Overflow?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Five close votes is all you need. So if enough people agree with you, then the discussion would already be over.

I doubt it's off-topic for the same reason that @vonjd states:

It is about a specific problem with a specific quant lib.

Also, truely off-topic questions don't get any responses at all. The fact that two people would take the time to write any sort of answer means the question can't be that offensive.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Looking back over the history of closed questions, it's hard to find any which were closed by 5 non-moderators. I think the community has not yet reached critical mass to be able to make close decisions without moderators, hence the meta question to try to flesh things out and provide guidance for the future. $\endgroup$ – Tal Fishman Aug 26 '11 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps moderators could wait a few days before closing questions? That may allow or even prompt community members to vote to close. $\endgroup$ – Joshua Ulrich Aug 31 '11 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Joshua I'm puzzled. The question that sheegoan is referencing was never closed by a moderator. $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Aug 31 '11 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @sheegaon You mean like this? $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Aug 31 '11 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, glad to see perhaps we are nearing critical mass! I'm not sure @Joshua's suggestion is necessary, moderators are generally closing questions that deserve to be closed, but I'm still glad to see it happen for the first time in a while (ever?) without moderators. $\endgroup$ – Tal Fishman Aug 31 '11 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @chrisaycock: Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't referring to that specific question. I was speaking in general. $\endgroup$ – Joshua Ulrich Aug 31 '11 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ The other day, I voted to close a question but it told me something like 15 more votes were required. Cab we parametrize this to make the community able to act while there are still not too many proactive users? $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 26 '11 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ @SRKX It's supposed to be only five votes total. I've never seen 15 votes total. Flag for moderator attention if you ever see something like that again. $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Sep 27 '11 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ @chrisaycock: sorry I just saw I misunderstood the label, it was something like "24 votes remaining". It must mean something different. not sure what though. $\endgroup$ – SRKX Sep 27 '11 at 7:19
  • $\begingroup$ @SRKX You have a limited number of close votes. Ie, you can't vote to close a hundred questions in a day. (This is to prevent excessive or vindictive moderation.) $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Sep 27 '11 at 17:12
2
$\begingroup$

This question is not in scope. Although our community may contain knowledgeable individuals with the necessary familiarity and experience to answer this question, those community members are very likely also active Stack Overflow users. Furthermore, answering the question itself may not require specific knowledge of this library and definitely does not require specific knowledge of quantitative finance.

Thus far, the two answers posted have absolutely no quantitative finance content to them. They are purely programming-related advice. @DirkEddelbuettel even writes

This is really no different than linking to any other external library.

while @DmitriNesturuk writes

This is off-topic and maybe belongs to StackOverflow, but here goes.

If even the two answers admit that this is not a quant question but a programming question, we should close this as off-topic (or migrate).

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I see your point. On the other hand we shouldn't be more catholic than the pope. What I really like about our community is that we are not too aggressively closing and downvoting. I would like to keep it this way. All of this aggressive closing and downvoting is what happens in other stackexchange sites a lot and what drives knowledgeable people out - they get frustrated and leave. I want to keep the good people here (there are of course very clear cut cases were you have to downvote and close, don't get me wrong, but this is definitely not one of them). $\endgroup$ – vonjd Aug 28 '11 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ @vonjd fair point. $\endgroup$ – Tal Fishman Aug 31 '11 at 14:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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