# What do you see to upvote an answer?

Question is as in the title?

What makes you to up vote an answer?

Most of my answers are with $$0$$ upvotes. I am trying to understand the reason. One of the reasons could be that mathematics that I written there is wrong/incomplete. I am not asking for that, I am trying to improve my understanding of mathematics. This question is about something where mathematics is correct but you still do not want to even read it.

For example,

• I think people like answers which speak to their level of knowledge -- emphasizing what they want to know, and de-emphasizing what they already know. So people here sophisticated in algebraic geometry may find that your posts have too much notation; if you know less than them in this area, it may be hard for you to write in a way that appeals to them. Secondarily, yes, length can turn people off, and also posts like mathoverflow.net/a/322108/44143 seem to be missing words like "a", "the" and "that" which would make them easier to read for MathOverflow's largely American audience. – Matt F. Feb 11 at 17:13
• Thanks @MattF. I take "emphasizing what they want to know, and de-emphasizing what they already know" seriously and try to make my posts better... For "missing words like "a", "the" and "that" which would make them easier to read" I am trying to improve my English also... Just for this time, if you want, you can edit the post you mentioned so that I can keep in mind how to do next time.. – Praphulla Koushik Feb 11 at 17:52
• You know more algebraic geometry than I do, so I am not going to edit your posts, even for the English! – Matt F. Feb 11 at 18:02
• That is ok :) @MattF. Thanks for your comments :) – Praphulla Koushik Feb 11 at 18:08
• Let me take for an example your most recent answer, on a question with an accepted answer that already points to the Stacks Project for a proof. You have written out an outline of that proof in your answer. In principle, StackExchange answers are supposed to be somewhat self-contained, but MO is not standard SE, and any mathematician interested in this question would prefer a reference to a complete and carefully written source rather than deal with the average typesetting available here. Moreover, the Stacks Project is citable in papers, MO less so. – David Roberts Feb 12 at 11:45
• @DavidRoberts I think I understand... At least for that question, a reference is sufficient and so, an answer explaining details is of least importantance.. Is providing details not suitable for MO? You have seen most of my answers and they are lengthy and I like it that way... Is it the case that some users just want to cite a result so details are not that important (at that point of time) and so they do not show interest in details? – Praphulla Koushik Feb 12 at 11:57
• @PraphullaKoushik well, some people may prefer to read Johan de Jong's polished proof rather than a student's first pass at understanding the topic. But: are you after upvotes, or understanding the mathematics? Working this stuff out on your blog is a good exercise, and I strongly encourage that. But speaking for myself, I want a conceptual answer sometimes here on MO, rather than the details I can read elsewhere, typeset in a better way, presented by someone who can, from experience, know what to keep in and what to leave out. – David Roberts Feb 12 at 12:00
• @DavidRoberts "are you after upvotes, or understanding the mathematics?" :) :) Definitely mathematics :D :D I want to learn "what to keep in and what to leave out" simultaneously when learning mathematics... First user's comment is also along same lines... May be I should know how to emphasise something that is important and de-emphasise something that is not important.. I will keep in mind... – Praphulla Koushik Feb 12 at 12:06
• In plain English, people tend to upvote answers because they are easy. – Joseph Van Name Mar 21 at 13:30