It sometimes hard to predict which questions will receive a lot of attention or will be answered quickly, or not. Perhaps four out of eight questions with low activity is a statistical fluke. Sometimes a question-writing style that works in one site appears foreign or off-beat in another site.

But if there is anything I can do to spice these questions up, or adjust the wording, or change the style, I would appreciate the advice, thanks!

  1. Have studies with high time granularity data on what people think about?
  2. What is the underlying mechanism of scintillating scotoma?
  3. What would be areas of ethical or safety concerns with a smartphone app interacting with people sleeping?
  4. Does the uncanny valley phenomenon apply to aural stimuli as well as visual? Addressed by research?
  • 1
    I looked at 3 of them, of which I spent serious time on two of them. Q2 has the disadvantage that it's anecdotal. Q1 is kind of broad. Q3 is dependent on the country and even institution (IRBs). Q4 is simply out of my comfort zone. But in all I think they are all 4 OK questions. Note that they are reasonably well upvoted. – AliceD Nov 30 '18 at 15:06
  • @AliceD thank you for taking a look! I'll give it a thought and many be try to refine. Certainly the anecdote can be extracted from Q2 with ease, I'll do that now. I also have to ask, is your comment about #4 (the uncanny valley being out of your comfort zone) a pun? ;-) – uhoh Nov 30 '18 at 15:09
  • 4
    I like your questions a lot, and time-permitting, may answer a couple of them (#1 and #4 in particular). This is a low activity site in general; I'm not sure that your questions are getting exceptionally low attention. – Arnon Weinberg Nov 30 '18 at 17:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .