Timeline for Why do non-research and soft questions get closed if and only if the poster lacks high reputation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2019 at 0:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 6, 2019 at 8:14 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 11, 2014 at 10:55 | comment | added | Kaveh | a related question | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | *** Human nature *** | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 3:51 | comment | added | Peter Dukes | @ChristianRemling: True. I would like to believe, though, that identical words out of different mouths would get treated equally (should such an experiment be possible). | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 21:15 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | Peter, the history of interactions with that particular high-rep user has been fraught and contentious, and I suspect that some of the downvotes were not in the spirit of "no!" so much as "oh please; here we go again...". In other words, a particular form of "yuck", anticipating some emotional arguments to come. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 17:54 | answer | added | Joël | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 29, 2014 at 5:53 | comment | added | Will Jagy | @PeterDukes, it is fairly common for new users to try to prescribe how MO works. I did that, years ago. Eventually, you find that MO goes as MO goes, it is neither perfect nor horribly corrupt, and you can get help and harmless entertainment here. Hmmm. If not entirely harmless, at least legal in most countries. | |
| Mar 28, 2014 at 21:50 | history | edited | Peter Dukes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1021 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2014 at 12:55 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | The question with 155 was asked in the old days when soft questions were more tolerated. | |
| Mar 28, 2014 at 11:07 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Dear Peter, did you check your assertion by looking systematically at the say newest 200 soft questions? Of course, for technical and for soft questions we can expect positive correlation between the quality of the question (as perceived by the MO community) and the reputation of the poster, but it is quite possible that this effect is weaker for soft questions. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 21:46 | comment | added | Peter Dukes | I agree. On the other hand, mathematicians have been at the forefront of pushing back against publishers, and this gives some merit (mot much, I admit) to the first question. Our relationship with publishers is uniquely strained, in my view. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 21:31 | comment | added | user9072 | The assertion that refereeing is not specific to mathematics is in my opinion false. The way refereeing is done in mathematics is very different to the way it is done in other scientific disciplines (perhaps not all other disciplines, but I think math is rather an exception than a rule here). | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 21:28 | vote | accept | Peter Dukes | ||
| Mar 27, 2014 at 21:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 31, 2014 at 3:01 | |||||
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:55 | comment | added | Peter Dukes | Fair enough. It is not an example of reputation helping a question survive. I still sense inconsistency between the questions' treatment. Note, too, that high-reputation answers can "protect" an otherwise vulnerable question. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:50 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I'm looking at your second example. I don't think it really supports the claim: the OP was very new to the site (and hadn't acquired a lot of MO rep) when the question was raised, and the question still got a warm welcome. (The closure reason "no longer relevant" is no longer one of the recognized stock reasons for closure, but was applied on MO.1 when a question had outlived its usefulness, e.g., when it had begun attracting crap answers.) | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:30 | history | edited | Peter Dukes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 885 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:28 | answer | added | Todd TrimbleMod | timeline score: 21 | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:07 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I think "neutrality" is a pretty problematical concept here, despite what sociologists and politicians do. I'm pretty sure I don't care to defend something I don't put much stock in! But maybe I can get the ball rolling in an "answer" that gives one example that you might adduce for your position; there was some debate about it at the time. More examples can be added. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:03 | history | edited | Peter Dukes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 20:02 | comment | added | Peter Dukes | @MaskedAvenger: If I am honest, I think the goal is to vent/object. Todd's comment is accurate: I am a fool to ask that MO "change" somehow. Individuals will continue to take their own actions. You're right about the neutral tone, though. I did my best. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 19:59 | comment | added | Peter Dukes | @ToddTrimble: Isn't it possible to argue that an aggregate entity is not neutral? Sociologists and politicians do this all the time. Thank you for the link. As mentioned, though, I don't have a particular beef with any closed questions. It's the off-topic ones asked by hot-shots that I wonder why they survive. I interpret the role of MO rather strictly. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | Just a few points. (1) I think a clearer discussion might be had if you provide a few examples. (2) With regard to the question of whether "MO is neutral", the way I see it, there is no definite entity called MO to which one could apply the word "neutral"; it's spread across many, many users, who make their own individual decisions. (3) If there is ever a question as to whether a question is treated unfairly, then meta is always a good place to raise it. Do you know about this thread? meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/223/requests-for-reopen-votes | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | If the intent is to vent/object, consider it noted. If the intent is to raise an issue for consideration, I suggest changing to a more neutral tone, especially the last paragraph. Otherwise readers are likely to " get you wrong ". | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 19:27 | history | asked | Peter Dukes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |