cv-pls proof-writing Not about mathematics Do people force it when they write a proof with bulletpoints, where every bulletpoint contains almost the same amount of information?‭ - SteezO-‭ 2020-04-02 00:57:32Z

@amWhy Wow the question was blue in the face! Now no more face!

@user21820 I think we should consider building a Wall of Shame (with a running list of uber-poor posts). Perhaps devote a chatroom to it!!

In some ways, I guess, we're doing that here! It'd be great, though, if on the main site itself, posts inducted into the wall of shame would be so marked.

@amWhy Heh, I don't think explicitly naming them like that is allowed on SE.

Of course, I'm half joking about the last suggestion...

@user21820 I know, consider it battle humor -- It'd be nice to have right about now... >:[

This is not an answer. The answerer didn't even bother to read the question.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

@user21820 I voted on all the D's...but I'm down to three CV's, which I'll need to reserve for the worst the rest of today's worst.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected (78): Is there an equation that will graph a line segment? by user766996 on math.SE

@user21820, @rschwieb, @XanderHenderson, @RRL, @MartinR, @BillDubuque and to anyone interested: Note Asaf's post on meta about creating additional auto-filters for filtering out candidates for HNQ from math.se. It's a chance to help identify words used in titles that often are indicators of problematic posts.

@amWhy That's a very dangerous proposal to censor questions shown to the general (SE) world based only on keywords - esp. keywords that often occur in mathematical questions - both good and bad. Imo the only keyword in that list that might be worthwhile is "urgent". Such filtering should be done by humans, not by software based only on keywords.

@BillDubuque I understand that, but what you're suggesting would require, likely, a seventh review queue to review potential HNQ, or to review those just making it to HNQ. I spend a lot of time in the review queues. I never see you there. Would you be willing to spend time reviewing math HNQ's regularly, since you advocate humans reviewing? Else, who would you expect to do the reviewing?

We can all "bit*h and moan" about our preferences, but if we aren't willing to take responsibility for the features we want (more human beings reviewing), then I'm not terribly sympathetic to the b&m-ing.

I should say, @Bill, that I don't at all often see in in the review q's. I have seen you there. So I overstepped in my last comment when I said "I never see you there." Apologies.

@amWhy I have much more efficient means than review queues to moderate content in my tags (and I am likely the most prolific moderator in my top tags).

@BillDubuque That's fine. But since you want humans to review HNQs, who do you expect to do so, if you're not willing to do so?

@amWhy But I never said I wasn't willing to do so. And whether or not any one user does so has little to do with general policy decisions on the matter.

@BillDubuque Don't demand anything of anyone that you wouldn't be willing to do.

@amWhy I don't recall "demanding" anything, And, again, I never wrote that I was "unwilling to do" anything.

@BillDubuque Don't expect anything of anyone that you wouldn't be willing to do.

@BillDubuque Indeed, that's why I followed up your opinion by pointing out that human reviewers require humans, and enough of them to review properly. And given your poor overall record of reviewing on this site, save for your favorite tag, I asked whether you'd be willing to devote time to reviewing math HNQ, not just those in your tag.

For the third time, I never said that I was "unwilling to do" it. That is a figment of your imagination.

@amWhy fyi: I "review" almost all the questions in my tags. Your assumptions that I don't do so are unfounded. I don't need the review queus to do that (they would greatly slow me down).

@BillDubuque I did not say that you do not review posts in your favorite tags. I said in fact, that you do review those, and pretty much only those. So you leave the review queues, so that it will slowdown other users? Sometimes site quality isn't only about doing only what you care about, but pitching in to the site, as well. You've answered my question.

Anyway, Bill, I really do respect the amount of time and effort you put into this site, which is a lot, and more than most. In no way am I saying to don't do enough. I have no problem with you spending your time here doing what you love most. We all need to love, at least, a lot of what we do here, or else we'd likely burn out. The only problem I have is when users expect some feature or process, and assume there is the manpower to make it happen That's all.

Please keep in mind that we have different opinions on "reviewing". I believe one should only moderate content on which one has significant expertise - both mathematically and pedagogically. Generally this leads to much higher quality moderation. The review queues don't work efficiently for such so I use other methods.

@BillDubuque That's a good point. And the review queues have nearly become a playground for a lot of gamification, too, which leaves me feeling disgusted some times. I noticed that before my recent year off, and it seems worse now.

@amWhy Yes, I can understand the frustration with the gamification-induced problems in the queues. I am often frustrated by robovote reviewing. I've left many comments asking users to please be more careful when reviewing.