Timeline for Why was my spam flag declined on an answer that does nothing but promote the answerer's book?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12 at 23:04 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @Andy oh, I agree. But in this case, the book was available on SpringerLink and had a doi. For those that know about such things, it's polite to supply the link. Or if one knows it's not available electronically, this can be mentioned, to save people time hunting around for it. The more information that helps downstream users find the resource with the least friction is my policy, and we as a community can supply it when lacking; but it's nicer when users put in the effort themselves, if they have time. | |
| Feb 12 at 23:02 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @FedericoPoloni sure, as a long-term thing, but I'm assuming good-faith here, and that the user name is actually the real name of the person who posted it, etc. Let's just say this is miles away from an example I saw yesterday where someone posted a ChatGPT paragraph void of real content, ended with a smiley emoji, and hyperlinked that smiley to some random website with a suspicious url. A professor new to the site helpfully pointing someone to their book and giving specific pages to look at is not a sin, and if said professor returns, maybe we can gently nudge for more info next time :-) | |
| Feb 12 at 22:29 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | I agree with everyone saying that this is not the best answer (because it is just a reference with no further information), but it is clearly not spam and flagging it as such is an inappropriate use of the flagging tools. | |
| Feb 12 at 21:51 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Feb 12 at 21:45 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @DavidRoberts Disclosure in a username or in a user's profile should not be sufficient, because those can be changed at any moment without bumping the answer. | |
| Feb 11 at 16:05 | vote | accept | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | ||
| Feb 11 at 14:31 | answer | added | Todd TrimbleMod | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 9 at 16:08 | answer | added | S. CarnahanMod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Feb 9 at 2:14 | comment | added | Andy Putman | (I also resist the idea that one should restrict one's self to references that are available on the internet. If it's available online that's helpful, but often times the clearest explanations are only available in the library.) | |
| Feb 9 at 2:08 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I think that references to the literature are perfectly good answers, and should be encouraged. It doesn't matter if the OP wrote the book/paper as long as it answers the question. If something has a short and snappy explanation it's good to give it, but for more complicated things a reference is often the most useful thing since it will presumably contain a lot of related material as well. | |
| Feb 8 at 20:52 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | Given that the username of the answerer matches exactly with an author of the book, and this is clear at a glance, this is not an undisclosed promotion. I personally would like it if people said things like "see my book", rather than "see the book", but this is a culturally-dependent idiom—it might not be acceptable for some to explicitly pronounce their own work so obviously. | |
| Feb 8 at 20:49 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | Looking at the book, equations (2.263) and (2.264) and the subsequent comment look to me (a non-expert) like what the OP of the question on main was asking for. And I am in the fortunate situation that I can get the book from the library, which I what I presume the OP on main did. | |
| Feb 8 at 20:44 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I think a "see this refrence" answers are not high-quality even when they aren't self-citations, and pointing to a book, no link, not available otherwise on the internet is the least-useful version of this. That it is the author's own is merely the bow on top. (I didn't decline the flag) | |
| Feb 8 at 20:44 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | It seems to me that the only ones who can answer your question, EJo, are the moderators, so I would recommend contacting them directly instead of posting here. | |
| Feb 8 at 19:43 | comment | added | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | @StefanKohl I can't verify whether it answers the question or not because the answer contains no information whatsoever other than "go read my $140 book". | |
| Feb 8 at 18:57 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | Have you checked that pages 141-147 of said book actually do not answer the question (in particular, as none of the regular MO users had flagged the answer so far, and as in your profile I do not see an indication that you are a mathematician)? -- The question owner has accepted the answer, and this happened 24 days after thanking the answerer in a comment. So, it seems to have happened not without taking some time to check. If you insist that the answer is spam (which is possible), then a bit more explanation is needed. Otherwise, the benefit of the doubt is with the poster of the answer. | |
| Feb 8 at 16:54 | history | asked | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |