The title says it all.

Don't get me wrong.  I have actually enjoyed my first few weeks on MO.  I am not writing out of personal vendetta.  That is, I have not had any of my own questions closed and I usually get positive feedback.  I have probably not asked any closable questions (well, until now, where I am in jeopardy of having this one closed).  

From a relative newcomer's vantage, it's clear that discrimination is applied when deciding whether to downvote or close such questions.  I have seen similar-style questions survive (and thrive) when asked by a hot-shot yet closed when asked by a newbie.

For example, consider the "journals" category.

[This][1] question
seems quite articulate to me, but it is the lowest score in the category and was closed (rightly) because it is too broad.  Its topic is not specific to mathematics.

[This][2] question
is also not math-specific, but generated a lot of interest and 155 upvotes.  It was eventually closed as no longer relevant after a good ride.

It is easy to find more examples.  Pick a softish category or search term and sort by votes.  

I fully admit that those on MO with high reputation have earned it by being good (sometimes *really* good) at asking and answering.  And many of the newcomers can't even form a sentence.  There are examples (like the one above, though) where I can't explain the discrepancy in attitude.  The reputation breaks as expected.

Does anyone take the view that MO is neutral in its treatment of off-topic questions?


  [1]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/118202/should-science-authors-discourage-boycott-the-recent-push-for-author-ids
  [2]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper