Martin Sleziak's room

« first day (689 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2749 days later) »

9:00 AM

I agree with Gerry that "beyond the level of Math.SE" is often not the right explanation -- there are plenty of high-level discussions there. But the traffic there is immense and questions get buried; my theory is that people more often go for the low-hanging fruit than for the stuff up high that takes more effort. If you are referring to a question of your own, consider applying a bounty. Do you have something specific you'd like to refer to here? — Todd Trimble ♦ Oct 16 at 13:54

arjafi: "However the focus of this site seems to be drifting ever further towards questions from elementary/introductory courses, so a question based on results from a research article is put at a great disadvantage. There are fewer users able to actually answer the question, and the time it spends on the front page is much less ...

... At the same time in the reputation economy of Math Stack Exchange there is little incentive to answer advanced questions: they generally take more time and effort to answer, and at the same time receive much less attention/votes."

Q: Concern about lesser attention towards relatively advanced questions

There have been some concerns regarding voting on m.se and as has been pointed out there, this may have to do with increasing number of questions, e.g. some statistics here. In this post I wish to discuss and ask for some suggestions which address these concerns (most answers on the question re...

Q: Proposal for promoting more interesting, deeper questions

There was recently a (now-locked) thread about the prevalence of "do my homework" questions on math.se. I want to set aside for now the question about what to do about people posting homework questions -- it's clear the topic is controversial and there are no easy answers. Instead I want to focus...

discussion feature-request

It seems that this issue has been discussed a few times.

1 hour later…

Martin Sleziak

10:21 AM

@quid I wonder whether you have forgotten about this or simply decided to do that later. Anyway, i went ahead and edited the post.

Now I wonder a bit whether the alternatives mentioned there are simply redundant, since checking timeline seems to be by far the easiest way.

But still, looking in the review history might get you to the review even if it is not over.

What do you think - should we keep the other possibilities there?

And, of course, feel free to edit the post or improve the wording. (After all, it was your suggestion to add this information.)

quid

11:16 AM

@MartinSleziak thanks! Somewhat it in the middle. I thought about it at times that were not good for doing it, and did not at times where I could've done it. Yes, it's not quite clear how much detail we should give on the reviews. I added a half-sentence on the relative merits of the review queue history.