Even if you don't mean silent when you write "silent", it still conveys something not quite good enough for the intent. "Low profile" or "quiet" would be better; "less obtrusive" is what is wanted.

Perhaps a comment on one of his answers might get quicker results? Hey, @Pietro! Slow down please!

It might be good to list birthday statistics, as well as those events that were considered major policy changes, e.g. when the content was being steered away from soft questions and those that are considered by some to be not research level questions.

The effect could also be a tool, as the less competent could generate ideas. A central problem to this will still be managing communication.

Say the collaboration finds a proof of the classification of finite simple groups that is under 50 pages long. Who benefits? I dare say only professional mathematicians and few others. Suppose now that CFSG is viewed in several different ways, one of which leads to experiment design protocols that speed up and certify medicinal drug development. Who benefits? Mathematicians AND their families AND their friends, to start. You might consider holding this discussion in chat.

I would say that solving open problems per se is little more than self gratification. If instead efforts are put forth to understand, reorganize and reframe knowledge from many differing perspectives, that instead might be more socially useful, and may have the side effect of making harder problems easier to crack.

I sense that solving the great open problems is a poor use of such collective power.

I am experiencing a semantic disconnect: I do not see your remarks as having anything to do with my second point, quid. I will be hanging out in a chat room soon. We can attempt clarity and mutual understanding there.

I think it important to acknowledge the efforts of others with something more than a number. Thank you for clarifying the intent of your post, and for your response to my question. Please note we are still grateful for the service MathOverflow (and StackExchange) provides.

How much has the scale for MathOverflow grown since migration? Also, I understand and appreciate several points you make, and also disagree with almost all of them. Even though I do not administer dozens of forums, may I suggest that a preferred goal be to "help future visitors differently well from current visitors"?

I have suggested an edit which may place the question more properly in the realm of mathoverflow.stackexchange. It is still on the naive side, although one can find answers on the lines of finding mostly equational bases for theories which include or may be included by the definition theory.

It is more challenging, as what I perceive seems lighter than in a few comments above. I approximate (after zooming in) it as "Y(lighter |)es! No?" Again I am reporting, not doing copy-paste.

At this writing, (on a mobile phone browser), I see "Y|es!", "Yep.", and "-". Not exactly, but I want to indicate that quid's rendition does not look as clean as The User's rendition.