Timeline for Answering not research level questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2014 at 19:48 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | @Tobias Kildetoft: I basically agree with you. Again, my point is that MO should tolerate trivial questions, unless a user floods the site with them. It is not MO's business to tell people that research isn't their cup of tea. By asking trivial questions people damage their reputation, and this is enough punishment; MO should not get involved. Too often I see people say "this is homework", and I bet many of them would not be able to do that homework. | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | I disagree that any question can be research-level just because the stated definition includes questions that show up in your research. Any question that can be answered by all undergraduate students is not of research-level (spirit of the law versus letter of the law and all that). If someone is doing research and in that context asks a trivial question here, then that is ok, but the question should not get more than a passing reference to the triviality as an answer. If a user repeatedly has such questions, then they might want to consider whether research is really their cup of tea. | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 16:28 | comment | added | user9072 | Thanks and sorry for the misunderstading; to me it looked as if this comment/answer distinction is your main point, especially since what other point you want to make that answers this meta-question is unclear to me. But perhaps little is to be gained from continuing this debate. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 22:29 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | I never meant to stress "in comments" in the answer-this is just how I prefer to answer trivial questions. In retrospect it was a distraction from my main point. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 21:36 | comment | added | user9072 | Why did you bring it up in the first place if it is irrelevant?! | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 21:26 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | @quid: 2 is irrelevant to the original question (by Christian Stump) hence this is no place to discuss it. Closing the question without any answer is much more unwelcoming than answering in in comments. I see how some can find answering in comments condensating, but in my opinion they should get a grip. Condensating answers are common even when you buy someone's expertise (lawyer's, doctor's etc). On MO those who answer DONATE their time and expertise, so as long as the answer in comments is polite, I see no issue. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 21:01 | comment | added | user9072 | It is fine if you are not interested in discussing it. However you should take notice that you declared something as "perfectly acceptable" that was criticised by others on various occasions (this is just about the answer or comment distinction, there was a meta thread just about how to deal with the problematic situation the creation of which you declare here as "perfectly acceptable".) Anyway, it is beyond my comprehension how you can consider it as irrelevant to create an unwelcoming atmosphere via answering via comments instead of answers in view of the other things you say. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 19:11 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | I am not interested in discussing 2, which I only mentioned for clarification. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 18:49 | comment | added | user9072 | Thanks for the clarification. Your point 1 is a complex subject, let me focus on 2 what I was asking about. On a practical note, if you want to avoid getting points I recommend giving the answer in CW mode instead. But still I find such things worse than not answering. To stay in the real world analogy, I can envision various scenarios were not answering a question can happen without causing bad feelings, while for answering a question in an arrogant/condescending way this is more difficult. Answering in a comment can be perceived (sometimes rightly so) as the latter. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 17:04 | history | edited | Igor Belegradek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1124 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | user9072 | Could you please clarify what is the meaning of 'in comments' in your answer. BTW, answering only via a comments is also (in some people's opinion at least) a way of being discouraging towards a question. To me it thus seems your position is self-contradictory (except if your goal is to make MO less attractive for yourself). | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 0:45 | comment | added | Niemi | @Igor Yes, quid is right. I wanted to stress the difference between questions that I would personally answer and questions that might better be not answered here. If a colleague asked me why the neutral element of a group is unique, I would be rather surprised, but I would of course answer him. I would, however, not expect this kind of question to be answered on this site. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 23:58 | comment | added | user9072 | I am not sure what we are discussing now. If the question meets the criteria for on-topic it should be answered, via an answer and not only a comment. What is the point in not using an answer but a comment in stead? I do not know which (type of) question OP had in mind exactly. But Christian Stump wrote "obviously not research level" (my emph) which to me does not include questions that came up in a research context (with that context being mentioned) that turn out to be easy. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 23:48 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | Let me quote: "MO's primary goal is for users to ask and answer research level math questions, the sorts of questions you come across when you're writing or reading articles or graduate level books". By this definition all questions I asked on this site are research level. In retrospect some of them turned out to be trivial (i.e. a suitable expert could answer them without thinking). If we discourage trivial research level questions, the MO will become less attractive to me (and I suspect to many others). | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 23:10 | comment | added | user9072 | I strongly assume @Niemi's comment is motivated by the fact that the expressed purpose for the existence of the site MO is research-level questions. By contrast the users of this site (presumably) do not have such a declaration attached to them (or on their door). | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 23:05 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | @Niemi: sorry I do not understand your comment. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 23:01 | comment | added | user9072 | I answered things in comments sometimes, too. Yet I think it should really be an exception or have a clear point. Say, if somebody were to comment: "This is off-topic, just note [some terse answer/hint] If you need details ask on math.SE." I could consider this as alright. Yet if somebody just answers in a comment (instead of an answer) without clear explanation why they do so, this causes issues, and in particular raises the question why only a comment. I think there is some danger in having some middle-ground of comment-answer. (semi-OT I did not even read OP as asking about comm ans) | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 19:00 | comment | added | Niemi | But then, I assume you would also not say about yourself that the purpose of your existence is for discussing research level mathematics. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 17:25 | history | edited | Igor Belegradek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 30, 2013 at 17:16 | history | answered | Igor Belegradek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |