[This is my $3^{rd}$ question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/731736/why-2d-lvert-v-1-v-2-rvert-while-overtaking) being closed.

I don't know what "concepts" are any more! The basic concepts are available just about on any site and if one is not good at them then they should mostly revise their texts/notes, etc., but what mostly the issue is their application that is hard and one needs help in. The basics of Newtonian physics are its three laws. Is it really the case one won't ever get stuck after reading and understanding them? I don't think so.

Just marking every question as a "homework" question and then judging the users from that lens is utterly distasteful. None of my questions are homework questions per se and when someone responds while saying that "they expect you to do it this way", I'm asking myself who are "they" (and neither is anybody expecting anything) and though many questions come here might have that as their origin, not in my case and each case really must be looked at that way and trying to not err on the closing side, but the opposite.

I'm new here and in all the closed $3$ questions I've been pestered that my questions are not conceptual. Why have the questions been asked to be shaped according to the answers? It's really topsy-turvy and shouldn't be how the things should be.

My $3$ questions are related. First, I asked while mentioning my working related to it and where I was struggling. It was closed. Then I asked it as an open-ended question, so no one had to really bother with my working which I was anyway mentioning without being the focus (but that's how not it was being seen). Lastly, my recent post I added after I received an answer on another SE site and in that I was unable to understand something from a physics' perspective, but again it was closed!

If someone is not in the mood of helping, kindly don't spend your time instead of some other recreational activity than to in review queues; it's really not adding value. It's just too much curation, imho. Probably the view has shifted from instead of looking for dirt to now establishing some gold-standard which is too far and counterproductive from what the actual intention must be.

If you still think I'm wrong, kindly just tell me how to correct at all? And also if you think I came out harsh in the above, I was really not meaning to. If you think all the $3$ posts were correct to be closed or that the post can't be corrected and is simply irrelevant that would be fine as an answer too as I'll get the takeaway from the site and might rarely post anything which if I feel is really "conceptual" (and trivial).

It's just that there are a thousand users here and many I feel might be interested in helping users like me and even find the question itself interesting, but some users are too keen on doing a service to them which I think is a disservice or over-service at least.

Also, considering the following which is present in one of the links that is now above my question for which it got closed is:

[![Enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHb4R.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHb4R.png)

And that *is* my case, but feel free to just trying your best to trying to paint or prove that that's not the case. It would have been much better and constructive that even if that's the case if not 100% but 60% and so allowing and rather having a discussion on that!

***Edit:***  

Pleased to inform that the post is now opened. Kindly feel free to try and take a jab at it. It's really is mind-boggling. Special thanks to Jim, David Bailey, Jacopo Tissino, Kshitij Kumar and also thanks to all those who pay heed to my concerns. And last but not the least, thanks (and congrats) to PSE. :)
['https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14216', 'https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com', 'https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/347808/']
Why not take a deep breath here.

You have been member for all of three days, whereas the site has been around for 11+ years, yet you are comfortable in declaring that it "shouldn't how the things should be." and there are too many closures.

Have you considered an alternative scenario whereby people value the site precisely because "things are the way they are"?

Part of the difficulty with many new users is they see the purpose of the site as one where their *specific* questions are answered. Yet the purpose of the site is precisely NOT that: we strive instead to answer questions that are of interest to users beyond the original poster, i.e. to provide value *to the site* rather than merely to the OP.

I will admit that your specific question is not without conceptual interest but I respect the opinion of those who thought it was a homework-like or "do my work" question, especially as your two previous attempts with posting this question resulted in closure. I certainly *do not agree* with your statement that there is too much closing on this site.

A constructive approach to re-opening any closed question after it is closed the *first time* is not to repost it without improvements but instead to edit it and try to resolve the issue. It is not easy and it takes time to write good questions, and honestly after 3 helpings of the same question over slightly more than 48hrs it's difficult to believe you took time to write a good question or make useful edits. If you are in a rush, don't blame others for closing your question quickly: this is not an answering service.

In your case, you could consider digesting the answer from MSE, making your own graphs and try isolate from the graphs the origin of the disputed $\vert v\_1-v\_2\vert$ factor. Does this factor make sense if both velocities are the same? How would you see this graphically? You can always use chat to discuss how to best clarify your post.
Users here don't want to "brain-storm". They simply want to see questions that they can solve "easily" without taking any pains. "What is momentum?" or "What is the difference between momentum and kinetic energy?" - "Oh my! such a pitiful confusion, let me get my pillow, lie on the sofa and spread my legs... yup, so here the solution..." - while this might not be the case at all but that's how things came across to me.

It is indeed much more uncomfortable (relatively) when someone asks an application (which is not strictly that either in my case, but users here don't want to see the "concepts" in it) based question which seems in "your" opinion is devoid of any concepts. In my case, for example, the working I got from a user on MSE was all apparently correct but the physics wasn't fitting well. This should have been a really interesting problem here but I was disappointed to know the reality.

The pic attached in the question (in the OP's question above) says exactly that but NO! Once some 2 or 3 users have decided that the post must be closed, like sheep, all huddle together and support that decision in one voice. Note that it's not how your question is that matters, in the end, it is that:

1. whether you have spent enough time. (Minimum 24 hours just to frame a question though 48 would be apt)
2. whether site is having a tough time.
3. whether the user who posted the question has been around particularly on PSE (not on any other related site as we our just something else). Of course, we safely assume you never visited this site ever before for any post whatsoever.
4. whether the question cries of having some confusion in a "concept" and that too directly (indirectly is just too much pain to figure out).

Reviewers here don't have the attitude to search for which questions could be saved but the exact opposite.

Why did you (that is, me) come here again? Well I got a comment from a user which again lead me to ponder over this issue so ya in all likelihood this is not really worth it but anyways, most likely the last time.

Well, before we feel to start some discussion, why not take a deep breath here.