Timeline for Requests for reopen and undelete votes for closed and deleted questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 22, 2014 at 18:08 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Silly mistake! Sorry again, but at least I learned the expression "gilds the lily. :) | |
| Apr 22, 2014 at 17:53 | comment | added | Lucia | I agree with Todd Trimble on this. When a question is closed as unclear, and this one is admittedly so, then it makes sense to edit and clarify it before reopening (which may well be warranted here). I am a little surprised that no one has bothered to edit this question, and yet it has been reopened. | |
| Apr 22, 2014 at 17:35 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2014 at 17:34 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | My confusion guys, I thought that Frank Thorne is the OP. Sorry! | |
| Apr 22, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I agree with Tobias. Referring to the OP as a "professional mathematician" is unwarranted and gilds the lily. The form of the question leaves little doubt that the OP is a student ("recently studied algebra", etc.), and OP still hasn't bothered to clarify the question, and I still disagree with "it is unclear in a way where it is possible to understand what the author is thinking" -- one can only guess what he/she is thinking. Why this question is being given a pass is simply beyond me. | |
| Apr 22, 2014 at 15:54 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added statusnotice
|
| Apr 21, 2014 at 20:20 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Gil, it seems we are in general agreement. When (the community of) MathOverflow is robust enough to handle such questions, then a more lenient policy can be adopted. I think the current success is due to the fact that almost all of the unclosed questions are focused, ask for specific things, and require little or no discussion as to meaning (after the formulation has stabilized). I think overestimating the robustness of the community is a real danger: supplementing vague questions with answerable portions may be a solution. Gerhard "Wants Success Without A Doubt" Paseman, 2014.04.21 | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you for the detailed reply! To avoid all risk of misunderstanding, let me stress again that my question was not meant as indirect criticism of you posting here. As the thread exists, it is a reasonable usage of it. | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 17:19 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Right Gerhard, I certainly demand that the OP will make all possible effort to make his question clear before posing a vague question. But sometimes we encounter in our research/study questions which are (or seem to be) inherently vague. | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 17:07 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Gil, I think such a policy is contrary to the goals of MathOverflow. I think you should endorse a policy of encouraging a questioner to participate in improving their question. This policy might mean a 48-hour hold before a "soft-" close of a question, but to have a new user ask something that needs improvement and does not respond to requests for that improvement is a situation that does not bode well for the forum. Better to make a temporary edit on the new person's behalf, or close the question. Gerhard "Or Start A New Question" Paseman, 2014.04.21 | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 16:12 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Hi Quid, My post follows Frank Thorne's question (using similar wordings) and Todd's remark that mentioned this thread. I agree with Todd that the question is unclear (and not merely "slightly ambigious") but I think that the question reflects an issue which can be unclear to researchers in mathematics, and is thus research-level and should be welcome on MO. Of course, an endorsement to open not coming from the OP himself carries additional weight and I also want to endorse a policy of allowing umbigious questions of the kind a working mathematician occasionally have. | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 11:18 | comment | added | user9072 | In an effort to understand how people use this thread, and think it should be used, with an eye towards improving our procedures, I would like to know if you: a. did not know of meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1650/… or b. did know of it but still posted here. | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 6:36 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | Why do you expect the OP to be a professional mathematician? Also, he has been asked a quite specific question in the comments which might clarify what he means. Without an answer to that question I do not feel there is any good reason to reopen the question. | |
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 4:46 | history | answered | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 4:46 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Gil Kalai |