20
$\begingroup$

MathOverflow is a nice high-level communitiy with a good collegial academic atmosphere.

I'd like to know about how this can be achieved; for example how does MathOverflow keep up the good qualitiy of the content of the site and what is important to successfully retain the good contributors and researchers?

What measures does MathOverflow take, or what do people here think, is most imporant to maintain a high-level site with such a good academic atmosphere?

$\endgroup$
  • 24
    $\begingroup$ Continued attention to cordiality should remain a high priority, to maintain that "good collegial academic atmosphere." $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 1 '13 at 23:39
21
$\begingroup$

The main things that are quite irritating now and can easily drive people away (IMHO) is the not always applicable assumption that everything is either a research level question or not, a very questionable assumption that the guys who vote to close always know the difference themselves, and a completely wrong assumption that if something is commonplace/uninteresting/easy/etc. for you, then it is so for everybody else, especially for the person who came to seek help.

It is ironic that it is I who is saying it because my answer to the first of two Paul's semi-rhetoric questions

Do you behave in this way towards your own advisees when you meet them face-to-face in your own universities?

is "Yes", though my answer to

Do you not have the imagination to turn naive questions into teaching opportunities?

is the same.

So, if I feel that something is wrong here, it means we are, probably, quite far overboard in this respect. I would prefer the practice of complete closing restricted to obvious spam and trolling only with the move to MSE as a standard for repelling the question from MO from now on. Compared to most of what is normally there on the front page, almost all the questions that were closed here with scolding or contemptuous remarks are pearls.

The other thing (which is the common problem of all fora with few separate streams) is that the questions flow into oblivion way too fast for more than a few persons who visit frequently and get interested enough in some of them to keep track of what's going on. The MSE is literally overflown by now and MO is coming close to justifying the second word in its name too. We need either to increase the number of streams, or to design some user friendly tools for keeping track of what they want to watch closely. So far, we have just favorites (which, as you can easily see if you bother to look at my profile, stretch for 24 pages for me as of the time of this writing, so I wouldn't call that heap "easily manageable" plus I always have some moral discomfort when removing the question from the favorites not because I don't like it any more but just because it is completely solved and I learned everything I wanted to learn from it) and notifications (and no, thanks, I do not want more e-mails than I have already). Of course, I'm literate enough in computer programming to write my own bookkeeping tools but first, I'm lazy and overwhelmed with other stuff, and second, I would prefer an integrated tool which would show when new answers appear, etc. rather than just allow me to have the links organized in a minimally decent way.

Other than that, we seem to be doing reasonably well :-).

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the "research-level" mantra is somewhat overdone and somewhat misleading, especially when applied to questions that could come up in graduate school classrooms. (I think it's more understandable when applied to questions about grammar school mathematics). $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 13:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For disagreements about close question, I though this request for reopen votes is rather useful and efficient, from what I observed how it works on Math SE? Concerning the flooding and flowing down of questions, maybe trying to devise and agree on a system of additional filter tags to categorize and partition the questions into a higher order structure than tags could help? $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 2 '13 at 13:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dilaton: requests for reopens is semi-efficient IMO (it is indeed useful). Maybe people like Paul Taylor should be using it more?: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/223/requests-for-reopen-votes As for the other question: I'm not quite sure what you have in mind, but it might be worth posting as a separate question. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ This looks rather a clumsy mechanism to me and does not answer my example of inviting outsiders to answer questions. $\endgroup$ – Paul Taylor Nov 2 '13 at 13:58
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @PaulTaylor (1) Please go right ahead and invite outsiders to answer questions! (BTW, I was a little sad that the question about Bourbaki and category theory was closed, although there were some issues people had with the formulation (arguably not deal-breakers, IMO). (2) I wish you would at least be willing to try the mechanism, rather than reject it out of hand. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 14:24
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "MO is coming close to justifying the second word in its name" :-). So true! At the moment there are six [on hold] or [migrated] questions taking up space on the Active front page. It would help a bit if these were not shown. $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 2 '13 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ I have only just been told of this reopening mechanism and I will have forgotten the link by the next time I want it. If Andree Ehresmann had come here on my invitation to answer the Bourbaki/category question, how could she be expected to know about this obscure link? $\endgroup$ – Paul Taylor Nov 2 '13 at 14:32
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @PaulTaylor if the community considers the reopen meta list important and usefull enough, it could be tagged with a red "featured" moderator tag, so it would then appear in the right side bar on the main page and people who usually do not visit meta could see it too from the main page. I guess this would make this reopen mechanism more efficient (for questions that deserve it) by being more visible if needed. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 2 '13 at 14:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That's a great idea, Dilaton! $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ IMHO, the oblivion issue can be somewhat ameliorated by allowing tag-based email notifications, or tag-based views: e. g., I want to be notified of all "symmetric-functions" questions and all "young-tableaux" questions, and everything tagged both "rt.representation-theory" and "ac.commutative-algebra" I also want to see. At the moment I can just see the tagged questions as a list, but that's not very efficient. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Nov 3 '13 at 17:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ With regard to the practice of completely closing questions versus migrating them (primarily to MSE): I am generally sympathetic to what fedja suggests, except that some questions are just so badly written that I'd feel guilty just dumping such trash on MSE, which is already overrun (I like fedja's "overflown"!). I really don't feel much remorse if the poster can't take some minimal care writing something coherent; consign it to the ashes. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 4 '13 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ I am not enthusiastic about the migration option, because, as previously pointed out by Mark Sapir on another thread, it should require OP consent, given that the sites are entirely different. I think that, until the migration system is "repaired", we should close instead of migrate, but giving more weight to people who want to see specific questions remain open. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Moskovich Nov 4 '13 at 5:32
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @DanielMoskovich In the vast majority of cases, it seems posters who post those questions that MO rejects are not too fussy about the website, as they make absolutely no attempt to find out what MO is and if it's right for them; really they just want someone to answer the question. Abstractly I guess I see Mark's point, but in practice this is IMO way too fussy a procedure. The small number of people who object to having their question migrated to another site could just delete the question; heck, it's going to be closed anyway on MO. Usually migration is a favor and convenience; saves time. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 4 '13 at 14:47
15
$\begingroup$

I'd hoped other people would opine before me, but just to get the ball rolling...

Partly I think it has to do with mathematical culture generally: mathematicians are exceedingly fortunate to have a criterion of certainty that allows us in most cases to come to agreement quickly. I'd think that the situation might be quite different in other sciences, or in philosophy, etc., where coming to agreement on the right answer is inherently thornier and more contentious.

We're also lucky in that MO was so thoughtfully and carefully founded by some energetic and talented young people like Anton Geraschenko. (I hope no one minds my singling him out; I don't imagine anyone will.) Imagining Anton as a kind of hub for this activity, I think he and the people around him didn't just go at this casually, but developed a vision about what it would take to make this work. They must have talked and written each other back and forth a lot, and had the moxie to invest the requisite time and energy. I have no doubt they were aided by the vibrancy of the department at UC Berkeley (like their 20 questions seminar, now writ large by MO) and also by word-of-mouth and advance notice, e.g. through the influential blog Secret Blogging Seminar (founded mostly by grad students and past grad students at UC Berkeley). The fact that some really big names entered the arena (for example, blogging Fields Medalists!) also made a huge difference. Is this somehow peculiar to the world of mathematics? I don't know. But anyway, by now we really have a stellar array of mathematical power.

So preconditions for success were excellent from the beginning, and as we all know, MO made a big splash on its inauguration. A lot of people then got a sense of how MO could benefit them as professionals, and wanted to keep it going (aided by the SE model where greater "reputation" means a greater share in moderation). (Again, you know all that.)

The continued success of MO is of course another question, and cannot be taken for granted by anyone. One thing it takes is a small army of watchful eyes who take the time to tend to the garden; it requires a lot of careful pruning and nurturing. Just to name a few (and with regrets for not naming others also deserving of mention): Andres Caicedo and Ricardo Andrade and quid are three examples of people who really help keep tabs on the site. All the people who invest time and energy to help run a tight ship deserve thanks.

But feedback about how we can do even better is always welcome.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As for ideas on doing better, there are a number of good suggestions in this thread on helping to improve the quality of questions asked by new users meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1084/… $\endgroup$ – j.c. Nov 2 '13 at 12:26
15
$\begingroup$

Let me chain together some weak syllogisms.

MO is such a success because it has many excellent mathematicians reading it.

They read it, because the ratio of interesting mathematics to uninteresting is high.

For a great many of them, non-research level questions count as uninteresting.*

I think at this point the existence of MSE, and the strong impetus to push questions there if they would lower this ratio, is helping to keep around a lot of excellent mathematicians.

*And for a great many others, they don't. Some of those mathematicians read MSE also.

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

I would like to answer on the closing policy, which in my opinion is a crucial point. I truly feel we are too permissive to allow MO to truly fulfill what I believe is its main goal: have a place where as many mathematicians as possible are available to answer research-level question, more or less in the same way we are available to answer our lab neighbors questions.

Often, I feel that a borderline question deserves to be closed because it does not follow the guidelines of "how to ask". Sure, it happens that a question be closed as homework while it is in fact intrinsically legitimate, but it is up to the OP to clearly state the background and its motivation, not up to the people that might have the answer. Also, some questions are asked before the OP has thought them through; since asking a question is asking for busy people to help, it deserves a great deal of care.

Maybe we should seek a way to make closing less humiliating, if indeed it is felt that way. The goal of closing is only to keep the focus of MO, which is different from MSE; it can happen to everyone to ask a question that turns out to be considered inappropriate, there is no need for it to be such a big deal.

I know some colleagues that have stopped using MO because the front page contains too little relevant questions; and I might end up the same way. Getting good answers may become difficult, but more certainly this trend prevents MO to attract more people and develop significantly.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "the front page contains too little relevant questions": This suggests either an alternate front page, or an easily installed front-page filter. Some ideas were discussed in an earlier best-of question $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 3 '13 at 15:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JosephO'Rourke: you're right that there may be a middle ground that would allow several very different usages of MO. For example, having the subset of question that are judged "research level" to be marked up, and to make it possible for a user to see only those questions. However, it looks a bit like drawing inside MO the same line than between MO and MSE, so I do not know whether it is truly the best answer to the issue. $\endgroup$ – Benoît Kloeckner Nov 3 '13 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ "drawing inside MO the same line": Good point! I am attracted to design-your-own front page, although I have no idea how that might be implemented. $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 3 '13 at 15:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People can filter by tags and searches currently. There was also a suggestion on tea.mathoverflow that amounted to some of the community sorting the questions into two or three broad categories, something like "research" , "reference request", and "other". I imagine there are enough people of high rep who are willing to do this categorizing. $\endgroup$ – The Masked Avenger Nov 3 '13 at 16:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @TheMaskedAvenger: It seems quite an art to compose an appropriate search filter. E.g., to exclude votes<0, exclude votes=0 if views>25, exclude those [on hold], etc. $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 3 '13 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, as it is with graphic display. Also as with graphic display, such search artists can share their output with the rest of us. $\endgroup$ – The Masked Avenger Nov 4 '13 at 7:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Maybe we should seek a way to make closing less humiliating[...]" in my opinion it could help if those in favor of a closed question could approach voicing their repsective opinion in a more constructive and moderate way, namely via highlighting what is good about the question while at the same time perhaps acknowledging what is not optimal (and possibly suggesting improvements), as opposed to just shouting at those that dared to close/put on hold the question causing/reemphasizing the impression that this is a huge problem. Some do the former, but I feel the latter is more wide spread. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 4 '13 at 17:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "I know some colleagues that have stopped using MO because the front page contains too little relevant questions..." Yes, I also know a bunch. They look at garbage on the front page and ask me why I waste my time on MO. $\endgroup$ – Bill Johnson Nov 6 '13 at 0:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hm, maybe not enough high-rep users are not asking many questions themselves (these days)? I'm curious to know. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 6 '13 at 3:14
  • $\begingroup$ I find it a little unfortunate that the issue of closing questions have been a main subject of discussion for this question. $\endgroup$ – Gil Kalai Nov 8 '13 at 14:19
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Dear Todd, one of the best usage of MO, in my opinion, is a place for experienced mathematicians to ask questions not in their area of expertise. $\endgroup$ – Gil Kalai Nov 8 '13 at 14:21
10
$\begingroup$

Overall, MO is doing well as a research level site and community and has become a very good research tool bringing together junior and senior mathematicians in different places of the world and different areas. The coverage in terms of areas of mathematics has improved substantially especially as very good mathematician from new areas entered the scene. (It is remarkable to see what a difference a single of a few mathematicians can make.)

There are still areas of mathematics which are not well covered, and it can be useful to make some effort in expanding the scope of MO. One concrete suggestion would be to devote some time to specifically encourage questions in a "featured" area. (of course, while maintaining the regular activity) Like "MO Applied Mathematics special months May-June 2015". (If this will become routine we can even devote special concentrated time to well-represented areas, as well.)

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Is there a poll feature on this platform? Perhaps a version of this question could be taken to the main site. One could have a short main poll which would present two or three basic questions (is the level good for you? Are the right questions being closed?) along with a text response (what would you like to see to improve this site?). In addition, a longer poll with more specific issues could be offered, with the idea that the corporation MathOverflow Inc. is using the information to help determine the direction MathOverflow is going.

I imagine most lurkers would not participate in a poll on meta. (Indeed, I was surprised at the total vote count for the recent moderator election.) They may not even like to fill out the short poll, but they probably would if they thought it would determine the immediate future of this forum. One could use the longer poll data in relation to the short poll data to see the level of committment (size of core group vs size of participating group) of the community.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2013.11.05

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I am strictly against taking any meta-question whatsoever to the main page as a question (and the discussion is visible on main via community bulletin). Also, how relevant is the opinion of pure lurkers? (That btw could not even vote on q/a.) It is fine if people read the site, but as long as they do not contribute anything what actual good do they do for the site? And I do not buy that much the idea people would contribute if it only where for this or that change (in either direction). $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 6 '13 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, indeed, that's why I suggested a poll, not a question format. Lurkers also become contributors. Perhaps it's just me, but if I wanted to know what made this site successful, I'd ask ALL the people reading it why they do so, not just the ones who contribute to meta. Further, one of them might have a good idea about retention/community growth. Of course, if the folks at Stackexchange have a better idea, let's use that instead. Gerhard "Pretend It Is Customer Feedback" Paseman, 2013.11.10 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Nov 11 '13 at 0:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would not have an actual objection against some dedicated poll. Yet I also think one would have to be very careful in interpreting the result. (I am not sure why you bring up the folks at stackexchange. This discussion has nothing to do with SE in a narrow sense.) $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 13 '13 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I bring up Stackexchange because they might have an answer to the original question regarding retention. Or, if not an answer, a way to answer it, say a poll. Gerhard "They Have Some Relevant Experience" Paseman, 2013.11.14 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Nov 14 '13 at 19:12
-8
$\begingroup$

I would like to thank Todd (whom I know to some extent) for telling us how MathOverflow came to be set up and also the people he mentions (whom I don't know) for doing it.

I see it as an extremely valuable site because it is the only place so far as I am aware where mathematicians of all disciplines congregate. However, it is precisely for that reason that I think it worth expressing a dissenting view.

I would like to see an end to the practice of closing questions (unless they are actually spam, offensive, etc).

Painfully frequently I see the high reputation users closing questions that plainly come from beginning graduate students, thereby humiliating them. Remember that these are your future colleagues and Fields Medalists. Do you behave in this way towards your own advisees when you meet them face-to-face in your own universities? Do you not have the imagination to turn naive questions into teaching opportunities?

Closing questions on the grounds that they are textbook ones is necessarily inconsistent. Quite difficult points of say number theory get closed when outsiders might have appreciated some explanation. Questions in logic that are comparatively easier (in my opinion) don't get closed; rather we have users like Joel David Hamkins who take the trouble to explain things, and it's a good thing they do.

Then there are the extra-mathematical questions, such as those about history and methodology.

Rhett Butler gave some excellent factual answers to numerous historical questions but somehow he no longer participates, probably on account of the (in my view hostile) reception he's gotten.

There was a question about Bourbaki and categories where I could have found people outside the site to give authoritative answers. But, had I done so, they would have arrived to find the question closed, which is insulting to them.

Amir Asghari asked a question about rigour that led to a flamestorm. However, it was only after that was over that I myself read his profile carefully and saw that he was trying to understand the cognitive processes behind doing and learning mathematics.

The value of this site is as I say that it encompasses many disciplines. Its participants should recognise that and value the role of people from outside the old core areas.

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Paul has asked me to reply. I hate these little comment boxes, and may request porting the discussion over to tea.mathoverflow.net which in my view carries some advantages over this set-up. Anyway, I think Mathematics StackExchange might better fit the bill for Paul's desiderata: there too mathematicians from a wide variety of areas congregate, and accept questions from basically all levels. (They close in case of spam or offensive posts, or duplicate posts, and there are some others.) The atmosphere there is markedly different from the one here: it's much more heavily (cont.) $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 12:45
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ trafficked, and it's fast: as soon as a question appears, a swarm of mathematicians comes in (often with essentially identical answers). It's actually a very nice site, but I think we're trying to establish a different sort of functionality here. Many mathematicians like it here for the stimulation of the relatively high level, and don't want to wade through a bunch of relatively elementary questions to pan for the nuggets of the good stuff. Indeed, attrition of the high-level mathematicians we seek to attract is a recurrent worry (especially since the merger with SE). While MO is (cont.) $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 12:51
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ still very much an ongoing experiment (and we welcome dissenting voices), I think "we" definitely don't want to go the unmoderated route of math.sci. So some careful oversight and moderation seems to be a good idea. Granted, it's a tricky balancing act, because we also want to attract good people from outside the old "core areas" as well, and we don't want to turn off the graduate students who are our future colleagues. Still, I disagree with Paul's suggestion that all but the outright obnoxious questions stay open (and recommend visiting MSE if that's what you think you want). $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 12:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I hate the little comment boxes too, especially as they are the only way of answering questions that have been closed. $\endgroup$ – Paul Taylor Nov 2 '13 at 13:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I, and more particularly the people whom I want to see on the site with me, do not want to have to log in to numerous other websites (stack exchange, sci.math etc). That defeats exactly the thing that I see as the value of this one. If there is a historical or philosophical question about mathematics then I want to hear answers from mathematicians, not historians or philosophers. $\endgroup$ – Paul Taylor Nov 2 '13 at 13:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hey Paul, do you mind if I repost your 'answer' here to tea.mathoverflow.net ? Comments can also be moved. (Yes, it is another site to log into, unfortunately -- and one does need to register and sign in -- but I think it's more or less instantaneous, and it's a damned sight (or 'damned site') better than these comment boxes; I think it would be easier to have a civilized discussion there. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 2 '13 at 15:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Tea" looks like a boring list of admin quibbles, whereas the points that I have made above are relevant to the whole community. I have wanted to say this for a long time and this thread appeared to be the appropriate place to do so. $\endgroup$ – Paul Taylor Nov 2 '13 at 15:22
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ Paul, although I am sympathetic with your main point, I am put off by your remarks about logic. I understand that your philosophical disposition is often against logic, as traditionally understood, but how does it support your point here to insult the MO logic community? My perspective is that logic on MO is robust, including substantive questions from every part of the subject and its interaction with the rest of mathematics. We close the "completely trivial" questions, just as elsewhere in MO, and I answer questions only that I personally find interesting. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 2 '13 at 18:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ re reopening and inviting outsiders: that you did not know this one dedicated thread is one thing, but if it escaped your attention that it is common that questions also get reopened after discussion on meta (this one or the old one now called 'tea') then I must say you did not pay much attention, IMO too little for discussing policy. (If you knew it is not clear what you complain about.) So, if you want something reopened start a disc on meta. If it gets reopened and not quickly reclosed you can be quite confident it stays and you then can invite people. This is a bit of work, but feasible. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 2 '13 at 23:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ re Rhett Butler: the question of on-topicness of historical questions really has extremely little not to say nothing to do with them 'leaving' the site; you could start at tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1592/trollery but really this is just the tip of an iceberg and various things got deleted and not everything is even documented. But don't worry they or maybe their 'colleagues' already returned to the site in the iterim. Again, if you did not know this you know not really enough about the site, if you did but choose not to mention it this is a strange way of discussing. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 2 '13 at 23:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ re scope and 'one site': if you search for a Q&A site about mathematics that is more permissive you can got to math.stackexchange.com It is quite a good site I am sometimes there as are many other MO users. It is now even trivial to use both in parallel. If you should not like that site, or should like it less, why? re " Nobody could possibly read all of the traffic on MathOverflow anyway:" I did not read each and every answer (though a fair share) but I read the overwhelming majority of all questions during continued periods of time (though not now), it is really not even that much. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Nov 3 '13 at 0:03
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ " If you really feel you must name-call, do it on meta " What? No, absolutely not! Neither here, nor there. If one is not to act professionally, better not to participate at all. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Nov 3 '13 at 22:45
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @AndresCaicedo Yes, you're right. I know Paul a little and I think I understand a little of where he is coming from and his sense of justice. While censoring posts might seem like an act of "political suppression", it's really not; it's just that we have a policy of removing offensive posts. I trust Paul will understand and will in the future exercise his skills as a writer to get his points across without name-calling. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 4 '13 at 1:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ +1 for expressing an interesting dissenting opinion, even if I disagree! $\endgroup$ – Scott Morrison Nov 4 '13 at 22:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I would like to reiterate and emphasis the point made by quid: there is already a site (Mathematics) that does not close question based on their level! MO being more selective is a good thing because it helps attract mathematicians (and there are quite a few of them) who do not want to go through hundreds of undergraduate textbook exercise level questions to find an interesting question. If you feel some particular question is interesting and should be reopned the way to go is to suggest reopening on meta. $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Nov 5 '13 at 8:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .