9
$\begingroup$

Splitting off the first item from the main 6. Currently, the 'off-topic' reasons are:

  • This question does not appear to be about research level mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center.
  • This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network
  • Other (add a comment explaining what is wrong)

We can edit them (except the last two) and add more. What do you suggest?

$\endgroup$
16
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ "Drunken post full of nonsense" :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As a guideline, the suggested wording is Questions about X are off-topic because Y. For more information, see [Z](link to meta post). Feel free to change it, but it can be helpful to have as a starting point. $\endgroup$
    – David Fullerton
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note: The first one is the "default" off topic reason. It will disappear the moment you add another. You can have a total of three active custom reasons (see: meta.stackexchange.com/a/186042/178438) $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you guys get a lot of research level homework questions? $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth, graduate level homework questions are often acceptable. $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais "often" .. so are you picky about these? In that case you may want an "non-conceptual homework" close reason (or something like that). We have a homework policy and associated close reason on Physics, for example. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We've had tons of discussions about this in the old days. Closed homework questions are usually undergraduate level and therefore unsuitable for other reasons. $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A "do your research before posting" reason might be handy though. $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais ah, I see. So no need for a separate reason. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais Yeah, "do your research" sounds much more like it :) $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The homework issue is less important to me than "did you try hard first, using the skill-set and initiative that are necessary to do research in mathematcs" $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure if this is the right place but I think it would be good to bring back the no longer relevant closing option to close questions answered in comments or old big list questions getting spammy answers. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 13:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Old big-list questions should get the new historical lock treatment. $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 13:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @François, I think protect can sometimes be a better option for old big-list questions than locking, it would prevent spam answers, see for example this cstheory question. Locking with for historical reasons implies that similar questions are not welcome anymore. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Kaveh I'd be happy with that inference! (Speaking as someone who would find quite a few of my early questions being "locked".) $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Jul 5, 2013 at 8:50

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

We may want to have something like:

"Questions must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Tell us what you've tried to do, why it didn't work, and how it should work. See also: [good question checklist]"

For questions where the person asking the question doesn't seem to understand the basics or the person asking the question has not done their homework (e.g. the answer can be found on the Wikipedia article for the topic).

Based on one of custom close reasons for SO

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Please do your research before posting. We expect questions to have at least a minimal amount of work put into them on this site.

Or something along those lines.

Being a site for researchers, "insufficient research" may be taken the wrong way too, alternate wordings welcome.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Surely mathematicians will prefer to say "at least a minimal amount of work" or simply "some work". I wouldn't want to have to undo some of my work if it turned out to be more than minimal. $\endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass Psh. ;-) I'm not a mathematician. Anyway, edited, good catch. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:11
1
$\begingroup$

The "duplicate" closing text now says that "This question has been asked before and already has an answer." In many cases actually the reason for closing is that the same question is posted multiple times without an answer. Can we have a text that just states that the question is closed because it duplicates an existing question?

an example: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/134932/the-intuition-behind-a-matrix-of-a-hamiltonian

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You can't close a question as a dupe of another that has no upvoted or accepted answer unless you are a mod. In such cases, flag asking for a moderator to close or delete. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 13:50
1
$\begingroup$

Reposted from another thread at Anton's suggestion:

I just voted to close this question as off-topic.

On the old MathOverflow, I'd have voted to close as "Not a Real Question". But in the current version, the closest I can come to "Not a Real Question" is "Unclear What You're Asking", which requires me to invite the OP to "Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details". I do not want this poster to clarify his specific problem or add additional details. I just want his question closed.

This issue has arisen for me a few times since the transition, and I've dealt with it by always choosing "Off Topic". But I'd be much happier if we had the old "Not a Real Question" option.

Edited to add: The more general principle, it seems to me, is that the reasons for closing should not invite another round of participation from posters who are very unlikely to contribute anything other than an additional waste of time.

$\endgroup$
2
0
$\begingroup$

I agree with Andreas on both counts. It is enough to say that the mathematical level of a question should be sufficiently high to be interesting to professional research mathematicians.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ "Interesting" is a subjective matter, while you can have a close reason "Not about research level mathematics", this is a bit more confusing and won't help much imo. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 13:49
-3
$\begingroup$

If you get a fair number of pitches for crank theories, you may want the following close reason (we use it on the Physics site)

We deal with mainstream mathematics here. Posts on topics don't belong in reputable journals is not appropriate on this site.

(you may want to say "mainstream research level mathematics", too)

@Kaveh suggested this one:

Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see [our policy for questions about preprints].

However, it only applies to questions that ask for correctness. It may be necessary for the close reason to cover posts about crank theories as well.

The best word that describes such posts is "crank", It's accurate, and quite unambiguous. However, it's quite rude and unprofessional to use the term, for obvious reasons. I feel that giving an objective definition to mainstream may work:

We deal with mainstream mathematics here. Posts should be about topics that have been published in reputable journals. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see [our policy for questions about preprints].

$\endgroup$
18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The second sentence would have to be edited; "reputable journals" are taboo these days... $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais O_o Care to clarify? I'm not a mathematician and I'm not sure if you're joking :S $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:35
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Not kidding - thecostofknowledge.com $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I also wouldn't want people to read in: "your research is not fit for publication." We're not referees! $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais oh, the Elsevier business. Have any alternative wordings? It's got to be as clear and objective as possible. (And having the word "crank" may not be a good idea in a close reason) $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais that too. On Physics, we usually don't care much for kook theorists. These are the guys posting about perpetual motion machines and various other crap; so we don't mind if they think we told them it's unsuitable for publication. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since our user base consists mostly of high-level researchers, they have different sensitivities. (Though the underlying issues are often the same as elsewhere.) $\endgroup$
    – François G. Dorais
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I conjecture that none of the answers I've given on MO could be published in a reputable journal, and very few could be published in disreputable journals. MO questions and answers very rarely rise to the level of publications. $\endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass Oh, we're not talking about the posts being published, we're talking about topics. Is the question/answer about something mainstream and publishable? Then OK. I'll edit it. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ How about: "Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see [our policy for questions about preprints]." $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Kaveh you guys have that policy? Great! (I'll edit it in) However, this doesn't cover posts (especially answers) which are about a crank theory, clearly seeking to get attention. (Or do you not get that type on MO?) $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth, there is a policy about open problems, don't know if there was one about preprints. What I wrote in the comment above is what I have written for cstheory. It might be better to make the answer CW so others who are more familiar with the exact policies on MO can edit them. :) $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Kaveh ah, I see. Also, done. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 22:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Leaving open problems and preprint-checking to others, let me comment again on the problem of cranks. We certainly want to exclude them, as a matter of policy, but we (or at least most of us) are too polite to use the word "crank" or synonyms in the policy statement. "Publishable" and "mainstream" seem too restrictive. Having "publishable" refer to topics (rather than the post itself) seems not to work either; cranks like to work on topics where correct work would be publishable. (To be continued in another comment as I'm running out of space here.) $\endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 2:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Many people have a narrower idea of "mainstream" than I would like. For example, I think many people would consider ultrafinitism to be outside the mainstream, yet I can imagine a perfectly reasonable MO question about some aspect of Ed Nelson's work. (On the other hand, I'd want to exclude confused posts like those of WM and sock puppets.) $\endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 2:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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