# Overzealous marking as duplicate

I think it is quite obvious (so long as you read it in its entirety) that this question has incorrectly been marked as duplicate. It is worth reading the comments too.

EDIT: Just to be clear, my question requests an answer that gives values of A,B and C explicitly rather than implicitly. Some readers may think that an implicit answer is just as good, but the implicit ones leave me with three simultaneous equations to solve. This is doable, but in practice its quite difficult to do without a chance of making a mistake.

• It is not obvious. People closing your question as a duplicate were acting in good faith (and note that in case of your second question three people voted to close it as a duplicate and none of them is a moderator). However, I agree with you that none of the answers in the linked questions provides an explicit answer to your question, and I would say that your question has the full right of staying open. This is an unfortunate but normal situation. If this happens, you should explain in the comments why the duplicates do not help you and edit your question accordingly. [cont.] – amoeba Feb 17 '16 at 11:25
• [cont]. If you feel that it still does not work, you can ask on meta (like you do now) or in chat. But please do not ever re-post your question again: this is very unhelpful and can only alienate other users. Now there are two almost identical questions, closed as duplicates of different threads, and the whole thing is a mess. – amoeba Feb 17 '16 at 11:27
• Re "mess": I don't know if anyone has the power to do this - but perhaps my first question could be zapped altogether? – Mick Feb 17 '16 at 11:29
• Hmm, can't you delete it yourself? – amoeba Feb 17 '16 at 11:29
• I just clicked delete... but I don't think its actually gone... maybe delete just gives a vote to delete and more are needed. – Mick Feb 17 '16 at 11:32
• It is gone. Thanks. Meanwhile, I have edited your second question, upvoted, and voted to reopen. An appropriate term (missing from your questions) is "an explicit solution". – amoeba Feb 17 '16 at 11:35
• People can make mistakes in good faith. But you don't change people's minds just by asserting that a decision was wrong, obviously or otherwise. The detailed, specific reasons why something else is not the same question are what are needed. – Nick Cox Feb 17 '16 at 13:46
• IMHO, the text after the word "EDIT" explains why the decision is wrong. I fail to see how the suggested duplicate answer satisfies the request made. – Mick Feb 17 '16 at 14:48
• Although it's unhelpfully alleged otherwise in the thread you cite, moderators and high-reputation users are not in my experience being difficult on purpose in voting to close. Note that if there is a duplicate, it's in your interests too to be told about it, as you can go straight there. – Nick Cox Feb 17 '16 at 15:48
• You have a fair point, but (1) as far as possible questions on Meta should be self-contained, i.e. they should not depend entirely on reading something else; (2) there is a grey area all the way to "I don't understand that answer because it is phrased in different terms". To be clear, I think you have a good case here, but it's best to be a little more diplomatic and not to (appear to) assume or assert that people are being high-handed in closing your question. No user has the ability or power "to stop people marking my question as duplicate", which were your words. – Nick Cox Feb 17 '16 at 15:51
• I have had similar issues in the past on related forums and my biggest frustration is not necessarily getting the question marked as duplicate, but more the time/effort needed to get the verdict changed. Even now the question is still marked as duplicate despite 39 views of this thread and at least three forum users agreeing that I have a good case. In future I suspect my best bet would be to delete my original post and then re-post with the words "please do not mark as duplicate because..." right at the top. – Mick Feb 17 '16 at 15:59
• I would recommend against any such flag "please do not mark as duplicate", which if anything raises a doubt about whether you are pushing against advice given in good faith. A question should stand on its own two feet; if a community isn't convinced, then no such wording will immunize it against downvoting. I can't comment on your experience elsewhere in other forums, which is in any case must run themselves. – Nick Cox Feb 17 '16 at 16:09
• I could put it more diplomatically, like "I have seen similar questions and answers, e.g here and here... but those answers are no good to me because...xyz". – Mick Feb 17 '16 at 16:13
• That's better. "no good to me" would be even better as "not precisely what I seek here". – Nick Cox Feb 17 '16 at 16:23

## 1 Answer

I think there may be some doubts about the question's suitability for CV insofar as it asks for something different from the suggested duplicate. In no particular order:

1. Deriving a solution for the equations in non-matrix form is more Maths than Statistics.

2. The desired form for the answer can be got by Googling or with a computer algebra system. (Lack of research effort.)

3. No-one needs to be able to calculate coefficient estimates by hand nowadays—& the numerical accuracy of results arrived at this way might well be an issue.

4. There doesn't seem much point in making of CV a compendium of results for particular cases.

5. Working out the answer would aid understanding more than looking at it. (Is it a homework question?)

Nonetheless, these considerations don't seem overwhelming, & I couldn't see any harm in re-opening it (when I did it already had two re-open votes).

• You make some valid points here. For the record, it is not a homework question. – Mick Feb 18 '16 at 15:31
• Re: "The desired form for the answer can easily be got by Googling" - I don't believe this to be true. I can find plenty of worked examples of solving 3 simultaneous equations, but they always use nice whole numbered constants which cancel neatly. I failed to find a link via google which gave an generalised answer. – Mick Feb 18 '16 at 15:44
• The search terms linear regression two independent variables give faculty.cas.usf.edu/mbrannick/regression/Reg2IV.html as the 2nd result, & this page contains algebraic expressions for each individual coefficient estimate. – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Feb 18 '16 at 15:52
• Touche - though in my defence, I did not know the right keywords to type in. I was typing variations of "solve three simultaneous equations". – Mick Feb 18 '16 at 16:00
• That's a good point - knowing the right search terms matters. I've removed "easily". – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Feb 18 '16 at 16:09