@NikeDattani Maybe not that simple, but it shows that certain questions should be moved. If we are willing to take any physics question, then that implies physics should disappear and we become "Matter Modeling and Physics". I know thats an exaggeration, but unless the question had asked about the modeling aspect of that spectroscopy, it should have been migrated.

As a counterargument to my own argument though, if the question was about how to model the scattering that occurred instead, I think it would have been exactly what users here would want. I don't think we should answer "How does an NMR work for X compound" but "How can I model NMR for X compound" is a perfectly valid question.

Maybe that clarifies my stance a bit.

@TristanMaxson Do you have experience with Computer Science Stack Exchange and Theoretical Computer Science Stack Echange? Or Cross Validated vs Artificial Intelligence or Cross Validated vs Mathematics?

Some with CS vs CSTheory

@TristanMaxson A lot of questions at CS Theory SE are on topic at CS SE, but that's totally fine.

True, but that doesn't mean they aren't better served in one place or another. I simply think quality must come before quantity now that the site is out of beta

@TristanMaxson Can you point to some of the posts on MMSE that you think have the lowest quality?

@NikeDattani I mean I still think this is the lowest quality post on all of MSSE now.

1. mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/questions/8470/…

3. There is also this question I remember seeing a while back. I understand why we kept it, but its too general of a question to get a good answer in my opinion. mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/questions/6745/…

4. Here is another question that I don't think is inherently flawed but it should be edited for findability. The title is somewhat bad in particular. mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/questions/4573/…

@TristanMaxson 1. To me at least, while this question kind of got away from its original form (which wasn't helped by the OP still not having responded to any comments/suggestions/edits), I don't necessarily see any issues with the quality. Whether it fits within the scope of the site is another issue, but its well formatted, with a clear and narrow goal.

@TristanMaxson 2. I think this is a fair critique (though the question has only been up for a day) and I have asked to OP to translate the flow-chart into a list as well.

@TristanMaxson 3. This gets back somewhat to the discussion of us being the "Math or MathOverflow" of Matter Modeling. "Latex packages for code snippets" would probably be better handled on Tex SE (and I did point them to a very relevant existing post there). But the question focusing on how these packages are handled in chem/phys/modeling journals to me makes it much more answerable here than on Tex SE.

The formats that are accepted by these journals are something that people who have submitted to/edited for these journals would know a lot better than a general Latex user. The "right" answer on Tex SE might not work because, say, ACS journals don't accept it. So again, questions about Matter Modeling vs questions useful to Matter Modelers. We have never fully discussed the issue, but extrapolating from other discussions, the community here seems to lean more towards the latter view.

@TristanMaxson 4. This is another one where I think the scope is iffy and the question itself a little barebones, but the title seems okay. I would maybe say "Linux command to find string in a file", but I would rather not bump the question to the front page right now.

room topic changed to Ask a Moderator: For any questions you might have for the Mat Mod Mods (Matter Modeling Moderators) (no tags)

@Tyberius What was the room description before?

@NikeDattani There wasn't one, so I figured it might be good to have a simple one.

In terms of the "Workflow of VASP" question, we can discuss the quality, but do we agree that MMSE would be the right place for a high-quality version of that question, rather than Physics.SE or a different SE?

@NikeDattani Is that for Tristan or me? I think that question 100% fits in our scope and is a better fit here than any other SE.

In terms of the LaTeX tools for matter modeling journals question, I think Tyberius said it well when he said that the general LaTeX community won't be able to tell us specific things about the formatting that ACS journals require. The question would probably be closed there. Finally, you've mentioned a few times that you want to maintain high quality standards (which is good!) in order to retain experts.

I guess we can discuss what it means to be an "expert", but the author of the LaTeX question (David Swenson) got a PhD in 2011 from Berkeley under the supervision of Bill Miller who is one of the most famous theoretical chemists in the world. David is also the primary author of the Open Path Sampling software, and has consistently written some of the highest-quality answers on the site.

We have about 60 users with 1500+ rep on the site (roughly these are our 60 most active users) and I think we would all agree that if we ranked them in terms of expertise in matter modeling, David would easily fall within the top 10. There's many reasons why I don't want to move that question to TeX.SX, but one of them that you might agree with, is that we want to retain the experts we do have.

For the Array broadcasting and searching for a string in VASP questions: These are two out of four questions listed in "Category 1" of the recent Meta answer by Tyberius.

Tyberius said "I think very few questions fit in this category" and unless people can find others, I totally agree that it constitutes 0.2% of our open questions, and therefore I would like us to channel our energy and efforts on more important issues, such as getting our logo resized so that it fits the new requirements for our site to be featured on other SE sites, making the banner-style logo for our site to feature at the top of SE sites,

reducing the size of our unanswered queue, etc.