Chiming in with thanks

@GilKalai: see note 8 of plato.stanford.edu/entries/statphys-Boltzmann/notes.html

The fact that a nonspecialist (yours truly) formed the "ergodic-theory" tag many months after MO started up is also pretty solid evidence that the field was underrepresented from the beginning. But I am very glad that it had some knowledgeable representatives who could answer my elementary questions!

@TimothyChow -- a causual glance suggests to me that the biases of PAMS, TAMS, and MO are significantly correlated. I would like to know what the numbers for SIAM journals do in comparison and in superposition.

@TimothyChow: There's my standard link!

Tangentially related: it would be really nice to have a "matherrata.org" that was searchable by book/article title.

I've always felt that the dividing line should be at the level of a strong graduate student entering the second year (and having the sense to know when a question is not one they can easily answer themselves). With this line, some GTMs would be totally off limits, while others would be totally acceptable.

mathoverflow.net/questions/6292

This is the sort of thing that tea.mathoverflow.net would be well suited for, if it were not derelict.

As an industry guy I think you have expressed my own experience perfectly.