The posting How to find a gap in knowledge, for my PhD? asks "How to find the gap of knowledge" (denoted by
Q in the following). The posting (denoted by
R in the following) says, essentially, "don't do it, at least not now".
R is not an answer to
A, at least logically or linguistically speaking. However,
R has apparently been so helpful to the author of
Q (denoted by
A in the following) such that
R as an accepted solution. I guess, this is because
R is an answer to a different question, namely, how to start the PhD studies properly, and this different question is, probably, much more important to
A. As an answer to "how to start the PhD studies properly", I like
R, and do like it a lot. But as an answer to
Q, the posting
The particular case is exacerbated by the fact that
A has shown no wish to reformulate the question such that it actually fits his or her real question (here: how to start working towards a PhD) rather than the issue formally written in
There is an inadequacy of the pair "question - answer" here. I am sure that such inadequacies pop up every once in a while. Not sure how the community should address these pairs exactly, but being aware of these issues or addressing them would probably raise the quality of the site.