3

I've answered the following question:

Initially it was removed as it had too many cites included.

I've improved answer as requested, but now moderators doesn't want to undelete it, because it's a shotgun approach (whatever it means).

Here is my answer:

According to Canadian Ophthalmological Society, there are an estimated 60 million people with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and an estimated 8.4 million people who are blind as the result of glaucoma and these numbers are set to increase to 80 million and 11.2 million by 2020 which makes glaucoma as the second leading cause of blindness globally.

I'm not sure exactly to which electronic devices you're referring to, but I'm sure some of them can be used with glaucoma as well.

So what kind of devices can help with glaucoma? Here are few:

  • implantable glaucoma devices (such as [US6471666][2], [US5127901][3], [US5178604][4], [US4521210][5], etc.),

  • [speech transcription devices or software][6]

    It allows people to operate their computer/devices by voice rather than a mouse/keyboard which is more convenient.

    You may read [article written by Paul Otterness][7] who has glaucoma and used Apple iPad successfully to write the article.

  • [a pressure monitoring system][8]

    Inserting artificial lens during cataract surgery is a common procedure helps millions people each year to remove their blurry vision.

    The technology goes further and researchers built a prototype that uses radio frequency for wireless power and data transfer. The chip communicates with a close-by receiver about any shifts in frequency, which signify a change in pressure.[JMM][9]

    Karl Böhringer, professor of electrical engineering at University of Washington comments:

    "No one has ever put electronics inside the lens of the eye, so this is a little more radical. We have shown this is possible in principle. If you can fit this sensor device into an intraocular lens implant during cataract surgery, it won’t require any further surgery for patients."

I've answered what was asked (based on my understanding), OP didn't complained, I've improved the answer what was requested by @michaelpri (less cites), but now I don't see why other moderators (@anongoodnurse specifically) don't want this answer to be undeleted. Only because of a shotgun approach? Can you clarify what does it mean and point me to the right rules? This is obviously not clear.

My answer explains what was asked (maybe it's not perfect, but it's doing its job). If someone thinks the question is too broad, then it should be flagged, but removing answer is not the solution. I didn't receive any single comment explaining what was wrong with my answer (apart from @michaelpri, which was corrected), just read rejecting message which was completely different from the reason why it was removed in the first place.

  • 2
    I don't understand why such meta questions get downvoted. – Franck Dernoncourt Apr 25 '15 at 14:55
10

I'm curious about your process for writing these...

Many of your answers appear to share the same characteristics:

  • Start with a general-purpose explanation of the question's topic, paraphrased from another site.
  • Follow with a list of references and excerpts that may be useful in answering the question
  • Close with some related commentary

The most distinctive aspect of these appears to be that, unlike most other answerers, you often forget to actually answer the question, or obscure your answer within tangential commentary. This tends to make your answers appear as though someone had posted the appendix to a longer article but forgotten to include the article itself...

I'm not sure if this is a personal style, if it is a side-effect of how you research these questions, or a side-effect of the nature of the questions you're answering; this particular question was quite unclear, as you yourself observed in both answer and comment. If it is indeed the latter, I would strongly encourage you to avoid answering such questions until they can be edited for clarity and focus, perhaps even editing them yourself before starting an answer.

  • I've asked OP for clarification, meanwhile I've posted the answer (based on the research which I did) including few devices which can help with glaucoma and I was awaiting from OP clarification. When OP would clarify his question, then I could easily improve my answer further more. Without that, it address the question in general. But I don't see the reason why it should be removed. It general it should be rather question which should be flagged for clarification (if it's not clear), not the answer. And I've answered what I could. – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 18:11
  • I'll try to improve my personal style. Whether the post should be improved, the votes and comments are for that reason which should give me the indication that I should work on my answer further more. Removing answer (sometimes even without leaving the comment), or keeping it deleted (which was removed for other reason which was already addressed), doesn't really help. – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 18:15
  • 6
    It's not even clear from your answer if the devices you listed can help glaucoma, @kenorb: you gave a list of patents (which may never have been built much less tested) a link to accessibility software (which is quite useful but is at best tangentially-related to the question) and a device that assists in monitoring glaucoma, along with an out-of-context quote. I'm serious though, how are you writing these? This is a very odd construct for an answer. – Shog9 Apr 24 '15 at 18:18
  • I didn't receive any comments regarding my answer, so I can't improve something that I'm not aware. This is the first comment (yours) which actually address anything regarding this answer specifically (apart of a shotgun approach, and removal of cites which I did). When the answer is removed for any reason and the problem is solved from my side, later on mods usually trying to find whatever reason to not undelete it addressing something else that isn't usually clear for me. And each time finding something else as excuse (which wasn't at the first place before removal). – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 18:24
  • I'll try to address your concern first then in my convenient time. – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 18:24
  • 7
    We're still feeling our way here as far as moderation goes; I just appointed community mods a bit over a day ago; figuring out the messaging will come with time. That said, answers must answer the question asked - that's pretty much a concrete rule on every Stack Exchange site, and one we've all been ignoring too often here. I touched on some of these issues in my post from a week ago - expect more enforcement of this as the new mods gear up. – Shog9 Apr 24 '15 at 19:03
  • 2
    @kenorb - Sorry for using jargon/idiom you didn't understand. In Medicine/English, a shotgun approach is to throw a lot of things (shot pellets) at a problem and hope one of them hits the target. As Shog9 commented, you have a very wide, somewhat scattered approach to answering, writing about many aspects without addressing (in the bulk of your post) the actual question asked. Some commentary is fine, but when the bulk of your answer is to something not even asked, it needs to be edited. If you are waiting on the OP to clarify so you can, then wait to answer until it's clear, not vs. versa. – anongoodnurse Apr 24 '15 at 23:22
  • So to summarize, my answer was removed for 'having too many cites' reason, and as it has been spotlighted now the reason has been changed and it's kept in removed state for 'a shotgun approach' and we're waiting for OP clarification? Is 'a shotgun approach' reason somewhere documented? I obviously won't update my answer if the question is 'on hold' now. So we're in stuck state. For me it's a ping-pong approach. – kenorb Apr 25 '15 at 17:35
6

As shown in the comments, the original poster has been asked to clarify what devices they are referring to. Until that happens, we don't know what to address.

In addition, you have this statement:

I'm not sure exactly to which electronic devices you're referring to, but I'm sure some of them can be used with glaucoma as well.

It is possible that some of the devices could be used with glaucoma, but you don't know that, and you don't know if they would actually help or not.

  • Thanks for answer. Is waiting for the OP clarification is necessary reason for answer removal? – kenorb Apr 24 '15 at 17:58
  • 3
    Necessary? No. However, the answer still must meet site standards. Blindly throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks does not make for a good answer. – JohnP Apr 24 '15 at 18:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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