2
$\begingroup$

It would help to know why a post was deleted, I believe in this case automatically by a MO monitoring robot. I am not judging the decision, but would like to know why, to avoid asking such questions in the future, that could also be deleted for unknown reasons.

The question I am referring to (not sure if anyone can still see it) is:

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/398151/some-stuff-related-to-the-twin-prime-conjecture

It's not the first time one of my questions is deleted, but have no idea what caused it, so I have no idea how to prevent it in the future.

This is not a criticism, I manage myself a community website and also delete posts without providing reasons (it usually falls in 4 categories: irrelevant, too basic, spam, or self-promotion / commercial post).

Any help is appreciated. As far as I know, I did not violate any MO rules, but I could be wrong.

Thank you for your help.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Re: "not sure if anyone can still see it". Users with 10k+ reputation can see deleted posts. The version from August 14 is visible in the Wayback Machine. At the moment, the content is available in SEDE - but only until the next update of the database. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ Surprised to see my question here got downvoted in the first few minutes. I am at a loss to understand why. If anyone can explain, this would be most welcome. Generally speaking, I am looking for better fit on StackExchange (or elsewhere, though Reddit is not friendly either -- maybe Quora?) to ask my questions, or what I should improve. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 0:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Go to mathoverflow.net/help/roomba and all will be explained. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 5:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry: I wish I knew what went wrong with my question. I still don't know why, and that is OK, but it does not help me create questions that are more likely to be better perceived by the community. Not that I care about votes, but I do care about not wasting people's time, including mine. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 6:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The 10th version of the question contains the admission, "There are still erroneous statements in this question." That's kind of a red flag, don't you think? $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 6:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: That's all I wanted to know. A reason why it happened. Your comment is the only useful explanation I got. So to improve in the future, it sounds that rather than saying "There are still erroneous statements in this question", I should have fixed them on MO, rather than posting an other article elsewhere where the known errors were fixed. Of course, posting fewer updates may help too, as you mention "10th update". In any case, that's my understanding at this point. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 7:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question has been automatically deleted by the "Community" robot because it has negative score, no answers and is more than one month old -- cf. here. $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl Mod
    Sep 4 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Stefan: Thanks. It did get a negative score right after I posted "There are still erroneous statements in this question". Prior to that, the score was zero, which obviously is an indication people are not interested in the question. So it seems that Gerry's comment also makes sense. I was asking this because I might be asking a new question related to this topic based on the corrected version, and was wondering if it would be a waste of time for everyone including myself. I know anything indirectly related to a conjecture is a very sensitive subject on MO. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 7:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The net score might have been zero, but that doesn't mean no one was interested. When I looked, it had three upvotes and four downvotes, for a net score of $-1$. You can look at mathoverflow.net/users/140356/vincent-granville?tab=reputation to see when you got upvotes and when you got downvotes on that post. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 9:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I wouldn't mind to see this undeleted; it is not spammy or offensive, and even wrong turns or dead ends can serve a purpose. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 13:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .