« first day (3442 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) » 

12:07 AM
@XanderHenderson Would it be right to say that context is a good way of "advertising" your question to the MSE audience? In that case, I just wonder if questions like contest questions and integrals get relatively unfair head starts, often because apart from source, there's usually no motivation (at the beginning : if there's a proof technique it's only known afterwards) , there's a lesser chance of "similar questions seen" being possible, and attempts can be wild : so OPs need to
... fit in "arbitrary" pieces of information to make their question more marketable, which then creates a rather funny conundrum, because the question alone would have been more "marketable" than the context placed around it to satisfy site standards? I'm just wondering if the only way around this is to set very high standards for contest questions (not explicitly, but as a pattern of behaviour, like with self-answered questions).
What happens with contest questions is that OPs don't feel the need to provide context because any answerers (and there are enough!) are self-motivated enough to attempt the question. I'm just asking if we can set the bar higher so that we can get a better standard of contest question, rather than the localized variants we get day-by-day which keep getting up voted. I also see a lack of canonical posts in this section.
Is this answer wrong/complicated? The question asks for the best type of space in question , while the answer doesn't even mention it.
 
12:33 AM
@TeresaLisbon I am not sure that "advertising" is quite the right framework. But that might be a piece of it. An asker should be able to explain why a problem is interesting, or what motivates it.
The problem is that there are a lot of folk here who have taken or taught lower-division courses, so the context and motivation are "obvious" to them.
 
@XanderHenderson Good point. I feel that for questions that sort of "auto-motivate" people, like contest questions, we should start imposing slightly higher standards. In particular, I believe that a source should be near-enough mandatory.
 
@TeresaLisbon I agree. If nothing else, it makes things more searchable.
Someone asked a question today about some detail in one of Rudin's proofs. It was very easy to use Google to search the site, and come up with several earlier questions in which the same issue was raised.
Context matters. :\
 
@XanderHenderson Oh , it certainly does!
 
 
2 hours later…
2:27 AM
@RRL DA to DL are all gone.
 
2:41 AM
For closure: c-i, c-ii, c-iii, c-iv
For deletion: d-i, d-ii
 
 
1 hour later…
3:57 AM
This question is a duplicate of this question.
 
RRL
4:42 AM
@Saad: Thanks.
 
 
3 hours later…
7:32 AM
@MartinR Seems to be.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:33 AM
One delete vote is still needed on this RH proof verification question.
 
10:01 AM
@MartinR Gone
 
10:56 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
1:14 PM
@XanderHenderson @quid What's the duration of successive suspension periods that you employ? I'm asking because I see that it seems to be 1, then 3 days and then 7 days, and then I don't see what comes beyond that. Do EoQS-related violations take precedence over other violations, for example? I'm asking because I'm trying to see why no user I've seen for EoQS-related issues hasn't been suspended for longer than 7 days at once. Perhaps you are taking it slowly, to allow users to improve.
@amWhy Sent you a mail, I'll see you all at 4:00 IST tomorrow!
 
 
1 hour later…
2:17 PM
@Peter @amWhy @XanderHenderson: This answer is fatally flawed, as briefly pointed out by Shufflepants, but has gotten 5 upvotes probably from just being on the HNQ...
Not to say it is not even a mathematical answer, just one based on vague intuition and no actual mathematics...
 
@user21820 One more delete vote needed.
 
Thank you!
@Saad c-iv just needs one more downvote to delete.
It's up for deletion now.
 
2:54 PM
@TeresaLisbon Therre is not set rulle. Generalrly speaking, the prrogression is 7 ddays, 30 adys, 365 ddays. We have adoptedd an iniitiial 1 dday suspension forrr EoQS, but, again, nothing is set iin stone.
 
@XanderHenderson Oh,oh... The haunted keyboard!
It seems very sensitive to pressure, given most errors are double letters?
@user21820 It's Gone, @Saad.
 
3:32 PM
This is late for you, @TeresaLisbon! Thanks for the update, by the way!
 
@amWhy Welcome! I was wondering why the gap from 7 to 30 was so large : the problem is I feel it could be too difficult to breach that barrier, that's all, from a mod's point of view.
Anyway, until then, night all!
 
@TeresaLisbon Sleep well!
 
4:11 PM
This question has been asked several times in the last two or three days, always with a new account.
 
@vitamind Do you have a link to a similar post?
 
@amWhy No, they probably got deleted. Now this user thinks I'm stupid, see their comment
 
@vitamind They are just acting defensively, because you likely were spot on.
 
But I remember after this they posted it once again, where I wrote a long comment how they should improve it.
 
@vitamind Indeed, I understand. Clearly, they have multiple accounts, which explains the immediate up vote, the attempt to reopen.
The post is now deleted (most recent one). @Xander Without doubt, both the account of rama, and the account of akarth are related are owned by the same user.
 
4:51 PM
@vitamind BTW! Thanks for reporting this, and following up!
 
5:11 PM
@vitamind Here is the first one of that series: math.stackexchange.com/q/4172663/42969
 
 
1 hour later…
6:23 PM
@MartinR Thanks for finding that. It looks like one user with three accounts, methinks.
 
6:41 PM
o/ @soupless !
 
 
4 hours later…
Joe
10:13 PM
 
@Joe Just FYI, posts cannot be deleted until after they are closed. It is best practice to make an appropriate request.
 
10:40 PM
Is this question a duplicate of this question?
Seems to be , given that partial fraction decomposition is being used.
 
@TeresaLisbon I fixed ur borken link.
Yes, I think so.
 
@XanderHenderson Thanks, certainly you thought enough of it to link as a duplicate using mod privileges! That answer is brilliant from Arturo, the kind I'd love to give to a particular topic. I have one in mind (regarding identities for floor functions).
 
I would like to find more dupe targets. I am going to go look, now, but if you find more, please let me know.
 
@XanderHenderson Sure : the way I found this target was typing "partial fraction decomposition" into the MSE search box. Approach0 gave me no results.
 
Is it sufficiently clear that this is an opinion, and not official policy?
 
10:50 PM
@Joe Open for deletion.
 
Ugh... that search has left me in tears. :'(
@amWhy Oh, darn. I meant to close that question. Y'all got there while I was distracted. You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
 
@XanderHenderson Yes.
 
Oh, joy.
Tee why.
 
@XanderHenderson Hah!
@XanderHenderson why r double-vee.
 
@amWhy why are double vee?
Because.
 
10:57 PM
@XanderHenderson Yes, it is sufficiently clear. There's nothing in the help center about correctness of an answer, as far as I see, so I think it's an opinion, but a well warranted one. In practice (you may be better off asking a newer user, because I got lucky with some good first answers!) I believe what GEdgar mentioned still happens, though, because posters need to learn to contribute and they are going to stumble along the way.
I know answers can be judged merely on mathematical content, but it's also important to note that not everybody asks their first question perfectly, and therefore not everybody will answer their first perfectly as well. All I need that answer to promote is a bit more of a middle ground.
 
Joe
@XanderHenderson: Sorry, I meant to ask to close
 
11:22 PM
Peace out, y'all. Gotta go make the dough rise.
 

« first day (3442 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) »