« first day (2885 days earlier)      last day (47 days later) » 

1:54 AM
(Apparently the “New Post Notices” affect also the auto-generated comments for duplicates: It is now “Does this answer your question? ...” instead of “Possible duplicate of ...”)
 
 
2 hours later…
4:16 AM
Yet another example of a very lazy FGITW answer. Shockingly, the author attempts to argue in comments that "an answer exists" qualifies as an answer! I think we should do all we can to discourage such laziness. We should have much higher standards for answers.
 
 
7 hours later…
 
2 hours later…
1:44 PM
I could not find an exact duplicate of How to solve complex number equation? yet, but there are many “essentially identical” questions about the complex equation conj(z) = z^n for other exponents. The approach is always the same. Should this be closed as a duplicate or not? Perhaps someone finds a better duplicate target?
 
1:56 PM
I played around a bit with search, but I only found this question about the same equation with exponent 5: Equation in complex numbers, equivalence issue. However, it is not the duplicate - in this question the OP writes a solution and asks about some steps which they have doubts about (whether some extraneous solutions haven't been added in the process).
 
 
2 hours later…
3:36 PM
That solution could be the basis for a more fleshed out answer, but there isn't anything especially worth deleting it. Since the OP has commented that they found it useful to them, it is already an indicator that perhaps it shouldn't be.

Also, it is quite unseemly to work to eliminate competing answers on questions you have answered yourself, and even canvass for more help eliminating them without disclosing. If you can't bear recusing yourself, at least disclose.
 
3:55 PM
@rschwieb The critique was posted before I answered. Whether or not an answer is useful is completely independent of anyone else's answer. Please don't get caught up in the evil gamification aspects of the platform. Lazy FGITW answers are one of the biggest problems of the platform so we should do all we can to discourage such - including deleting them.
It's very sad to see that "answer" is now receiving pity upvotes (likely having nothing to do with its quality but rather with ugly politics).
 
@BillDubuque Is that how you rationalize it to yourself? Please don't continue. If only by association with this room, it will lower the standard of conduct.
 
@rschwieb Your prior comment makes no sense - just like the one your posted before it.
This is a site for mathematics. Please strive to post well-founded rational arguments.
 
4:17 PM
@BillDubuque I have complete confidence in the next user (one who is, how you are fond of putting it, "anyone with a functioning neuron") understanding all three comments. I will not be party to these feigning ignorance antics, and won't respond to further baiting (but will if there is something on-topic to the discussion.)
My point has already been made: at least disclose when you work to delete answers on questions you've answered, or better yet recuse yourself in some way. There's already precedent for that in this room, and it seems like a good precedent.
 
For full disclosure I think it is worth mention that rschwieb has disagreed with my political views perhaps more than anyone else on this site. So it comes as no surprise that I have much higher quality standard for questions than does he.
 
@rschwieb Please stop posting your wild guesses about the motivations of other users ("feigning ignorance" etc). It is clear after all these years that you have very little understanding of some of your political opponents. Basing personal attacks on these grave misunderstandings is neither wise nor constructive.
 
4:34 PM
PS above should read "higher quality standards for answers" (not questions). Anyway, let's agree to disagree since the past hundreds of discussion doesn't seem to have helped you understand better those whose views differ from yours.
 
@BillDubuque What are those "higher standards" you suggest?
 
Btw, for the record the OP agreed with my assessment, writing "I do agree with Bill Dubuque in that it isn't exactly an answer" so it is not at all clear why rschwieb is making such a big fuss and attempting to claim otherwise.
 
@BillDubuque I searched before in meta before what are good answers and did not find anything useful. Maybe you could write an answer to my question (it is now closed though) about it in meta.
 
@Jack Do you think that ETs "answer" should be a comment or an answer?
 
@BillDubuque I think the details you provide in your answer are great. But I'm not familiar with the topic and I'm not sure how much information "... content of the polynomial" in Eric's answer contains. I did not vote btw.
@BillDubuque Similar thing happened before to a question you answered about 9 years ago:) math.stackexchange.com/q/2855 Although this one is a bit different.
 
4:50 PM
@Jack Do you think that supplying a common name for c(f) constitutes an answer to the question "are there any nontrivial theorems on or realtionships between" c(f) and f? Do you think that "they exist" counts as a (high-quality) answer, as ET argues in comments?
Frankly I am shocked that anyone upvoted that poor excuse for an answer. I never thought that my view of answer quality was unusually high, but apparently it is much higher than that of some users (or maybe most of those upvotes are pity based). I try to be more lenient for new users, but very experienced users should know better. Not to mention the claim about existential answers "they exist" adds insult to injury.
I agree with Jeff Atwood's arguments about "broken windows". If we leave stand very low quality answers like that then it will only serve to encourage more such answers, which will greatly exacerbate creation of low quality content, e.g. by FGITW cherry-picking - one of the largest problems the site faces.
 
5:23 PM
@Jack The only similarity I see there is that someone posted a very low quality answer in a question that I answered too. Given that I posted over 6K answers there are likely many such threads.
 
5:46 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive title detected (53): (potentially offensive title -- see MS for details) by User123 on math.SE
 
6:38 PM
@Jack ... and that answer in 2010 was posted an hour after mine, so likely I did not even see it before.
 
 
2 hours later…
RRL
9:06 PM
Delete: DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH
 
RRL
9:17 PM
Delete: DI, DJ, DK, DL, DM, DN, DO, DP
 

« first day (2885 days earlier)      last day (47 days later) »