« first day (3617 days earlier)      last day (49 days later) » 

12:10 AM
I'd encourage users to remember the following meta thread, where we can add review audits which we find problematic. I posted today, but the most recent post there was Jan. 11, 2021, before my post today.
If you find what you think is a good question or answer, but the audit tells you you failed; or if you come across what seems to be a very low quality post, or PSQ, e.g., but the audit tells you you failed the audit, please feel free to post in the linked thread above. Just a public service announcement! :-)
 
12:32 AM
It'd been a while since I posted there, but found it to be an outlet today, when I encountered what I believed to be a poor review audit question.
 
1:00 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): Bending a quarter circle into a line‭ by Linn1‭ on math.SE
 
1:14 AM
D1, D2, D3
D4, D5, D6
 
 
7 hours later…
8:04 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
10:12 AM
@TheSimpliFire Btw can't mods simply a close unilaterally? A single close from mods or gold tag batch holder have the ability to close the question at one go
 
@JitendraSingh I prefer being the fourth/final close voter to allow community users to vote
 
 
3 hours later…
1:04 PM
2 messages moved to ­Trash
 
1:40 PM
@JitendraSingh And gold badge users in a tag can only unilaterally close a post with said tag as a duplicate, and not for any other close reason. Similarly, a gold badge user in a tag used in a question closed as a dupe, can reopen unilaterally.
 
@amWhy It is worth noting that the SE overlords are, I think, toying with changing this behaviour. See, for example, meta.stackexchange.com/q/370373 .
Not quite giving gold badges more power, but a welcome change (I think).
 
@XanderHenderson Indeed; it would/will be? a welcome change (I think as well) :-)
 
I am looking forward to it.
 
It seems SE has put a lot of effort into testing out the idea, which is welcome, and quite promising.
 
There is also this, which led to the dupe hammer: meta.stackexchange.com/q/230865/436415
 
2:16 PM
Partial brute-force machine search output posted as an answer - should be a comment
 
Confusing question (as "inside" and "outside" are not defined), but has two answers, so unilateral closure seems ill-advised. Inside /outside test of the point on 2D plane‭ - Ponting‭ 2021-12-06 22:36:56Z
 
2:51 PM
Hi. I'm looking for some feedback. Here:
in Constructive Feedback, 1 min ago, by Shaun
The following question of mine was downvoted and I don't know why.
Please help :)
 
@Shaun I don't know that this is the right place for a conversation about your post (unless you are looking for advice on how to edit it...?). However, at first blush, and without reading any of the rest of the post, you start by asserting that you are looking for opinions. That makes your question explicitly off-topic.
And then you conclude with the statement that you don't know what a good answer would look like. That is problematic, too.
AND there are a lot of comments from folk who are experts in the area who are expressing confusion.
I can see a lot of reasons why someone might downvote.
 
Thank you, @XanderHenderson. I linked to the Constructive Feedback page. You've given me a lot to work with, so, again, thank you.
 
I also see that the question is old and has been inactive for months (modulo an upvote last week)... I wonder what prompts you to dig it up today?
And by bringing it up here, you seem to have put a massive target on it. :/
 
3:18 PM
C1 needs one more.
 
@TheSimpliFire Damn you for getting there first!
 
@XanderHenderson you can mod-reopen and mod-close again :p
 
@TheSimpliFire MAYBE I WILL!
*pouts*
 
Right, time to teach.
Centers of mass today.
 
4:11 PM
 
4:27 PM
@rschwieb Closed, and open for deletion.
 
4:58 PM
Seems pretty clear, for many users, the end of the Fall semester is looming..., given the number of posts in the close queue, and the increase of PSQ questions.
 
5:13 PM
 
 
3 hours later…
7:51 PM
How may I edit the following question to make it more palatable?
-4
Q: The legitimacy of topos theory and intuitionism.

ShaunThis is an exercise in critical thinking. I am not looking, therefore, for opinions on the matter; rather: I would like to know the evidence (whatever that might mean). Background: I have a longstanding interest in different types of logic (see earlier versions of this question for details). I ha...

I have adjusted it according to the advice above and in the Constructive Feedback room.
I believe the question is an important one.
 
 
1 hour later…
9:02 PM
@Shaun Show prior research.
However, considering you have marked an answer as accepted, there's good chance not many other answers will be coming in.
 
9:19 PM
@Mast I did in earlier versions of the question. I was advised against it recently.
 
Odd.
 
Indeed.
I don't believe the question deserves this many downvotes . . .
I have reintroduced the context, @Mast.
 
@XanderHenderson No, I start by saying I'm not looking for opinions.
 
@Shaun Quote from revision 6: "What is the mainstream opinion?"
 
9:36 PM
@Mast That was also a recent suggestion, now deleted. I'm quite taken aback about all the downvotes, so I'm trying a lot to fix the problem.
. . . without due thought, evidently
 
 
1 hour later…
 
@Peter I don't do this often, but that is not even remotely on-topic here.
Baleeted.
But this comment is worth framing: Like group theory is so bogroup, and field theory is so bofield.
 
Ah, now I understand this comment :)
D - also very off-topic.
 
11:18 PM
@Peter That isn't even true... or sensical. It is nonsense.
 
@XanderHenderson In fact. As written , it makes not even sense. I also think that the denominator should be "$n$".
 
@XanderHenderson I assume you are speaking about the question, which, after my downvote, will still take seven more downvotes, or else some time to delete? I'm on board with this. Just want to be clear.
 
@amWhy Yes, I think that the question should be deleted. The answer is wrong, and the question is really just "solve my multiple choice exam for me".
Arguably, this new version of the question is a better question.
 
@XanderHenderson I am in absolute agreement. Just wanted to check.
 
11:23 PM
thumbs up emoji
Now it is time for seminar...
 
@XanderHenderson Have fun. I was going to say, "that's a bit late", but alas, you are one, or two hours, behind me.
 
The seminar is in California.
So it is a bit late (starting at 4:30, my time), but not so late for most of the attendees.
 
@XanderHenderson Good. So you are one hour ahead of me, but during daylight savings time, because I go forward an hour, and you remain in your current timezone, that's when you're two hours "behind" me.
 
Yes. And I am really off now.
 
@XanderHenderson I take it it is virtual. Have fun!
 
11:36 PM
 
@Peter I'm so sorry. I had apparently already voted to delete, and did not read the dialogue carefully, and ended up undoing my delete vote. The "also very off topic" D is now gone. And the third D in that sequence needs one more delete vote. I'm going to have to work with @user21820 script, to avoid such errors.
 
@amWhy I wonder who had the idea for this destructive feature.
In particular that delete-voting again is not possible. How could this nonsense be established ?
 
@Peter I have no clue. I think this is being looked into, at least in a few cases, thanks to @Xander's meta post.
I just hate it when I fall in to that trap. For them to mimic the "confirmation of vote" pop up is reckless, after having trained us all to click "yes".
 

« first day (3617 days earlier)      last day (49 days later) »