@russianbot if you don't like the site you can definitely leave it or mark your account anoymous or stop visiting the site. Also showing your work in a question does not make it a blog.
@russianbot Also this question was closed because the OP didn't showed any of his works. When he showed his works the question was reopened. You can see here for more info here
@russianbot if you tell 5 such questions which were unnecessary closed I would agree this is not a good site (however not necessary if I find example not too good)
@russianbot See the point here is that I agree the site is too strict with its rules but the thing you are forgetting here is that this is a free site. Hardly you will get such quality answers in a site for free of cost as we give. But the problem comes that people may spam the free site so we have to make such strict rules
@russianbot are you now happy with the site or do you have any problem? I will try my best to help you with all your problems
Until you reply RussianBot I have been facing a lot in my new laptop while using MathJax. The problem is that sometimes when I use mathjax and see the result simulatenously the result can't kind of move in a strange way and then works. Here is what I want to convey . Even its speed is so fast that I can't even pick screenshot. Can you guys have a look at the drive link and tell what is the fault?
Also in the video the speed of the result moving in strange way is quite slow however in real it is fast. Please help me with this issue. Sometimes it disturbs my eye a lot. So if anyone has idea please help @amWhy @TeresaLisbon @Peter and others
“@Ramtin, I apologise for the negative attitude of José and Shrike. Actually it is not necessary you give further information or context, indeed our duty is give to help to all the users who need help.” – Angelo
Could someone have a look at the answer to “Upper bound on Trigamma function”? It is from an experienced user, but I do see how the derivation of the inequality is justified. My request for clarification was not answered.
I suggest to (dv and) delete this question about the alleged RH proof. It is too broad (“check this proof for me”) and a duplicate. I had already cast one delete vote when the score was at -3.
@RRL I'm not surprised. This user has been known to be a little stubborn. If anyone remembers the "magic" proof that Bill had pinned to be visible separately for deletion, it was by this user. It took me precisely 47 comments to even mellow the user down.
@lila Hello!
And even after mellowing the user down, they were all like : my proof is correct, my proof is useful, my proof is correct, a lot of proofs come from nowhere, my proof is correct, so many things in math are unmotivated, my proof is correct, your assumptions are wrong, my proof is correct : if you are irritated reading this, that's how the conversation from their side went.
I recall quid telling me that people could extrapolate the "Be Nice" policy to answer PSQs and say they are being nice. I never believed that an example of such a phenomena could exist : until today , that is.
@MikeEarnest You seem to have the idea that context is required in order to prevent cheating. This is not the case.
2
Context is required because context matters. It matters that a question is related to some larger problem, or that it is practice exercise for someone just learning a field. Relevant definitions matter.
These things help answerers to address things at the correct level, and to make questions more searchable. Context also helps both answerers and potential future asker orient themselves.
2
A link, with no description of what is behind that link, is not context. A single paragraph explaining the linked problem and the relation between the new question and the linked question would be a vast improvement. But the original asker, after being asked to provide that context, chose not to.
2
@russianbot Yes, and? There should be nothing surprising about the fact that the majority of questions are closed.
If anybody sees a comment : "Please, try to help who needs an answer and do not apply strictly any guidelines" this is coming from the user referred to by me and RRL above, and is coming underneath every EoQS-related link. Please flag these for mod attention : it is beyond clear that the said user is not responding to replies and/or keeps repeating a version of "help everybody".
This question is quite a duplicate. However, the OP asks for hints, and I wondered if I did the right choice when putting the link to an already existing answer?
@Axel You can give hints, or if you have a solution that is different for these in the duplicates just additional. Still, I think the OP should know that there is a duplicate with answers which may help the OP. I don't consider closing a duplicate as a "punishment", but a way to inform that there is something already out there that maybe helpful.
@amWhy Sorry but I don't feel it should be closed. Op did prove quite less but context in form of his attempts in the solving column so why should this be closed? I know that "But, how do I mathematically step-by-step correctly document how I arrived to such proof/solution." makes the question prone to closure but what I believe is that it should not be closed.
@amWhy Sorry are you like trying to say that I don't want to close this because John Smith is my friend. If so then John Smith is a normal user for me just like others
@amWhy sorry if you feel if I am being unfair with some by not closing their question but I would like to once hear your opinion why this question should be closed even if it includes his attempts? Is it due to low quality which I do believe makes it prone for closure? Is it due to missing additional content?
@JitendraSingh It seems you judging the question because it you don't undestand it. If that is the case, skip it and move on. Otherwise, suggest something to the OP to improve his/her question. Better yet, if you know what the problem is about, try to solve it and claim your bounty!
@OliverDiaz Ya first one is the case. I don't understand it but reading makes me feel that whatever OP has mentioned in last paragraph he is familiar with he should have shown how he used it. But as you suggested I have posted it here and have now moved on
@JitendraSingh It is already closed. But perhaps you are asking about a different question. The post I requested for closure was not the Bountied post. My comment preceded that comment.
Btw if you click on Show activity on this post it shows the one who closed the post a option visible only to users with >3k rep. Is it a feature of site or bug?
@JitendraSingh Please stop referring repeatedly to "this post"; I have no clue what post you refer to. When you refer to a post, include it's link. Or reply to a message with the link. I have no idea to whom you were just speaking.
@amWhy this message "Btw if you click on Show activity on this post it shows the one who closed the post a option visible only to users with >3k rep. Is it a feature of site or bug?" I am referring to any general closed post not the trignometry one. I already stopped talking about it.
@amWhy Sorry for lack of details. I was referring it to all. For example take this Anyone can see who closed the question however that must only be visible to user with >3k rep
@XanderHenderson @MikeEarnest Just a side comment: perhaps "not required expressly to prevent cheating." If the goal of cheating is to avoid thinking about the problem, I would say that generating good context compels the writer to think about the problem, and in that way "discourages cheating." But yeah, it's not the ONLY reason we ask for context.
@rschwieb As a matter of policy, we cannot police cheating---cheating and cheating prevention are orthogonal to the goals of Math SE and beyond the reach of the tools we have for moderating the site. The very same PSQ could easily be asked by a self-studying student or by a cheater. As such, I prefer to avoid the loaded accusations of cheating, and focus on what can be objectively discerned.
It is true that a lot of cheaters will ask low quality questions, and that by enforcing quality standards, we likely prevent a lot of cheating, but that isn't really the goal of those standards.
@rschwieb I know. I was just trying to make a point for the peanut gallery: we really don't have the tools to police cheating, and I am uncomfortable when put in a position of having to adjudicate claims of cheating (since, again, I really don't have to tools to investigate such claims, nor to issue sanction in light of valid accusations).
@JitendraSingh This is a feature of the site, not a bug. The current format of the post notices was implemented around 1.5 years ago, you can read up about it by starting here and following the links there.
I like that formulation of it: we're not going to prosecute cheating, but we can have guidelines in place to make the worst cheating hard to accomplish.
There is a very vocal group which insists that we cannot demand context from folks who ask questions at a low level, because they lack the mathematical maturity to ask a good question. Hence the context standards should not apply to those kinds of questions. They are just doing their best, after all.
2
There is another vocal group which insists that we cannot demand context from folks who ask questions at a high level, because anyone capable of understanding the question will already understand the context, and anyone who doesn't immediately grok it doesn't matter.
2
So... where should the context standards be applied?
