what does he mean "subharmonicity is not widely taught"?!

maybe undergrads don't see it that much, but it came up in several grad classes (PDE, harmonic analysis, real analysis...)

@XanderHenderson: people participating in mathematical contests and dealing with algebraic inequalities are usually in the 16-18 range and they are most certainly not aware of such fact. I have not checked but I do not believe the OP is a graduate student. Of course my statement does not apply in such a case.

by that reasoning, homological algebra and the principle of analytic continuation are rarely taught

true, but also tautological. What I really meant is that the subharmonicity trick should be taught earlier, because it applies really well in some contest (or contest-like) problems for young students.

I would like to share with this room the following blog post - sergworks.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-stackoverflow-sucks - and collect opinions later.

Openly speaking, I am mildly worried by the effects of a possible downvoting crusade / too strict quality-enforcement-agency, as I wrote to Did few moments ago.

Quoting @Widawensen , "such coordinated actions should be prohibited, a single person always will lose with the "organization". I am not sure about the first part, since this room/group acts in good faith (as a QEA, forging an acronym), but I cannot disagree on the second part. Maybe it's time to design a globally coordinated course of action.

Okay... great! the subharmonicity trick is useful in contest math. What context in the linked question indicates that it is a contest question? What about that question gives any indication of where it came from or what it is for at all?

As far as I can tell, it is someone's homework...

A wrong homework question? I honestly doubt it. It seemed something like "let us play with cyclic but not symmetric inequalities, like Pham Kim Hung".

It is a bare problem statement---there is nothing to distinguish it from an exercise given by an instructor or textbook

and, honestly, that doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that the questioner made no effort to explain why the problem is interesting, why they want an answer, or where the problem came from; they made no effort to explain why anyone other than themselves would be interested in it

if the goal of MSE is to be a collection or encyclopedia of QUESTIONS with high quality ANSWERS, then a question that is interesting to only one person seems antithetical to that goal

It only seldom occurred to me that an instructor or a textbook gave me an incorrect inequality to prove. It seemed like a free speculation to me, but I agree it completely lacks context, so it is pretty pointless to discuss it post-mortem.

lacking context, it is a terrible question

YES! It completely lacks context! That is the issue with the question!

Agreed, let us move on. chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/42994564#42994564

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected: Zauner's conjecture by anonymous on math.SE

@JackD'Aurizio I'm quite surprised you are suggesting that this site is dominated by "users enforcing quality control". My perception, and the perception of many users here, is that it is we who are being vilified, the answering of crap has increased, because the site is tilted now to an "anything goes" carelessness. Usually most energized by the answerers most likely to lose out if this site practiced a more rational approach of refamiliarizing users to "How to ask a good question", e.g.

@JackD'Aurizio Or more likely, the asker transcribed the assigned question incorrectly.

Hello everyone, I have just seen this chat for the first time. Is it alright if I ask you guys a question to get a better idea of what your views are?

Honestly, I don't care to adjudicate what is homework and what is a genuinely interesting question to the person asking the question. If a person has a problem with their homework, but they can explain why the question is interesting, they deserve an answer; if a person is working on research level mathematics, but all they have is the bare statement of a problem that they are working on, then their question deserves to be closed and deleted.

@bames Don't ask to ask; just ask.

Sure, you can ask, @bames, but we may not be in a position to answer with our views on some matters (politics, religion, etc.) ;)

@amWhy: wait, wait, wait. I am not suggesting anything. The extent of this group, in principle, is noble, and I agree that the overall question quality has dropped since a few. On the other hand, I understand people concerns about coordinated downvotes, and I would like a reply from this group, once some possible side-effects of too-strict-policies have been considered.

Suppose a high school student has a question about something basic (e.g., some basic trigonometry question), but they have provided evidence in their post that they've put in a good deal of effort in tackling the problem. Is this automatically a bad question due to how low its level is?

@bames: quality mostly depends on the provided context, more than the specific "level" of the question.

@bames That would be a great question! "level" of math isn't the issue on this site. If the student has shown effort and is responsive to a few questions asked in comments, they shouldn't have any problems.

@bames The quality of a question has nothing to do with the mathematical level of the question.

So a question like: prove the Pythagorean theorem, URGENT! is clearly bad, but a question like: I have to prove the Pythagorean theorem using these tools, I achieved this, this and this, but I am stuck and I would love some pointers. I am allowed to use (...) is fine.

the CONTEXT provided by evidence of research or effort is what makes it a good question

Ah I see. Thank you for clarifying that!

honestly, I can imagine interesting questions that are essentially kindergarten level: "Why can't we subtract 5 from 3?" is an interesting question, if there is enough context.

@JackD'Aurizio We all have our own minds here. While John Ma requests folks look into deleting questions from a year or more ago, I'm more interested in current incoming rubbish... I have never felt beholden to anyone's suggestion, and not everyone responds to my suggestions. Anyone is welcome here to suggest un-deletions, re-openings, as well as deletions and closing. It's a place where we can bounce ideas and suggestions off one another, and we do not always agree.

There is no "agenda"... there is no coordination ... there is statements of opinion, suggestions, but there is nothing in the way of some "unspoken pact" to do whatever so and so, or so and so, suggests. To suggest otherwise is insulting. We are all very very independent thinkers here.

I would like to cooperate and not always agree, too. Thanks for your explanation.

However, it is late and I really have to go now, so I guess we will see each other in the next few days. Have a good night/day according to your timezones.

@JackD'Aurizio Sleep well! I'm tired myself. Thanks for stopping in!

@JackD'Aurizio Feel free to take a good look at the history of this chat-room. There are a couple of important points that I want you to take note, since you appear to be a newcomer here. (1) We started using this room mainly to give transparency to our actions, where we give reasons for our actions concerning unclear cases, instead of just silently acting.

(2) Many times we have disagreed on one another's actions, and after some discussion one of us might change our mind, or we might still disagree and leave it at that. (We can't expect everyone to agree on everything.) This possibility of disagreement and discussion is facilitated by this room.

(3) If you look inside a public bathroom/washroom, frequently you will see cleaners in there who have similar ideas on how to keep the place clean. So it shouldn't be surprising that users who treasure this site have similar viewpoints on what is good or bad (yet disagree on some things), and hence often act together to keep the site clean. Users who want to get their work done by others or who answer PSQs will be miffed, but they are the ones bringing site quality down.

@amWhy Perhaps I should have used a better word than "argue". I didn't mean in any violent/nasty sense. How about "debate" or "dispute"?

@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson @ProfessorVector: These seem to be thoroughly misleading/false: 1, 2, 3, 4. The question isn't any better, but there are always people who insist that cleaners don't touch their dirt.

man, those are pretty dire

:\

Attached to the same question, this answer ain't great. And yes, the question is kind of useless and silly---I presume it was asked tongue in cheek originally.

@XanderHenderson I downvoted it, but didn't mention it here because it's not so objectively terrible.

bed time, g'night!

@user21820 The question is the problem, it attracts such answers. And there's the sad fact that there are people upvoting that kind of crap.

@ProfessorVector The question had been deleted before, but some users saw fit to undelete. If they insist on keeping the question, at least those stupid answers ought to vanish.

@ProfessorVector Your downvotes/delete-votes on what you consider crap are most welcome.

@user21820 Don't you worry, I always downvote what is unjustly upvoted (or upvote what is unjustly downvoted).

@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk: Since people want to give lousy questions time to fester, here are some old abandoned ones that can be cleaned up: 1, 2, 3, 4.

@Did I have read your message, unfortunately I have not too much time (other duties) to answer in detail at the moment. I rethought the situation and generally I have some new idea about transparency of the PSQ group, maybe the group should be widely known, because from my personal case I 'm not sure that many users don't even know about the existence of such group - I hope that ideas they are something more than whims, at least they are discussable..

@Widawensen No worries, take your time (generally speaking, I do not know how people on the site manage to answer on the spot, even about rather delicate management matters...). One point though: there is no such thing as a "PSQ group". I know that some users opposed to any closure started to portray CRUDE as such, that some even depicted it as "secret" (which is just laughable, and betrays the disqualifying intention at work), but repetition of a falsity should not make us ...

... believe it, right? Personally, as Groucho (and many others before him) famously declared, "I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”

@ProfessorVector And, im(ns)ho, you should not, these are called compensation votes and are bad... (To be explicit, this point is two or three levels subtler than the ones currently discussed here and on meta, but still.)

@JackD'Aurizio "I am not suggesting anything." Actually, you are "suggesting" some very strong (and inexact and unpleasant) "things", see the following. "The extent of this group, in principle, is noble" The phrase is absurd, is "extent" supposed to mean "existence"? If it is, you are applauding the existence of a nonexistent entity. For which purpose? "I agree that the overall question quality has dropped since a few". Excellent, only: ...

... what have you done as a mod to address this serious problem? And, would you say your own actions were on the side of correcting, or aggravating it? "On the other hand, I understand people concerns about coordinated downvotes" Again, no coordinated votes here, but a somewhat effective procedure to signal some posts to any user interested, who then can act, or not, as an adult and independent mind. By the way, the effectiveness might be the key explanation of the raucus raised ...

... by some on meta (what? people who actually do something? The horror...). "I would like a reply from this group" Absurd, and, again, a very misleading description.

@Did Let me make that more precise: I downvote only stuff deserving downvotes, no matter how others voted. I may upvote something I wouldn't have upvoted otherwise, if it was unfairly downvoted, so let's concentrate on that "sin": they shouldn't have downvoted it, according to the rules. So evil was done, and trying to compensate evil can not be more evil than the original evil.

@Did You can try to convince me otherwise, but that would require a lot of very fast typing, I'm afraid. Until that succeeds, I'll act "as an adult and independent mind" (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

@Widawensen Did you know that hardly a significant fraction of the Math SE users even know there is a Math Meta site? The site is directly accessible from the main site via numerous links strewn throughout the interface, including (ironically) the close-banner on every closed question. But yet nobody cares to peruse the Meta site (until their reputation drops and they want to complain).

@JackD'Aurizio OK, blog post "shared". And now what? This seems a rather mediocre rant, by a programmer disgruntled that one of their dear answers got deleted, but where are the arguments? The phrase "an army of Nazi retards" does not count as such. Is MSE supposed to adopt the guy's views? Then, sorry, but they should work harder.... For a short and effective ...

... placing in context, see pepo900's post there.

@Widawensen: CRUDE was initially set up not by us but previous users who cared about the site. When we started cleaning up junk, we started using this room to record our reasons, discussions and disagreements. We even tried to make the room publicly known:

So if it's not known, we cannot be blamed. Blame all those who don't care enough to read the policy guidelines before joining, and those who don't care to learn about a community before trying to impose their ideologies upon it.

@ProfessorVector Yes yes, somehow I was feeling it was ill-advised of me to mix this minor quip with the current debate... :-) Too late... My impression is that, in practice, we are probably describing with different words, some very similar positions.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in answer: I want to learn math! What should I read to advance my skill? by Mike on math.SE

@user21820 Yes, the room is not know very widely I suppose. By no means it is the most important one as its actions influence many users directly. I wonder whether it should not be somehow "legalized" as constitutional body with it's constitution and explicit rules for actions.

It could have a separate name for example "CRUDE room commission" designated for improving quality of the questions.. It's activity could be as transparent as it is only possible. Now it can be easily noticed that it has the structure of the court .. but every court acts openly.. So openness is the most important feature..

@Did My proposal is to improve quality of this body through giving it some widely accepted constitution reworked in the democratic process. Such important body should be widely known as it is only possible.. I suppose it is the only body inside this site which accumulated so much power..

@Did You have said that different POV are not important as they could contradict official site policy, but is this site not democratic? Some say that democracy doesn't act - let prove that however it acts.. maybe a bit too idealistic... who knows.. just personal view..

@user21820 @Did Now I have to leave the room, I'm sorry that I have so little time for these important issues...

@Widawensen You can't be serious, can you? You want a constitution and additional bureaucracy to do... what, exactly? Literally anyone who cares can come here and suggest that a given question is terrible and should be closed, or can nominate a question for reopening or undeletion. Yet there are only a handful of people who care enough to bother.

Now you want those people, who are working for the benefit of the site on their own time to submit to additional procedure? What is that actually going to accomplish?

@Widawensen Stop pushing your ideologies on us as if you know better how to run the site. And how ironic that you advocate a democracy when the SE rep system is so far from a democracy. Let me just say that your idea is utterly impractical from a logistical viewpoint, and utterly nonsensical from a mathematical point of view. Mathematics cannot depend on the votes of people subject to the Dunning Kruger effect, and there are a lot of them.

@user21820 only a handful of users who simply whine too much; we can let a few disgruntled users losing rep determine some arbitrary "wait period", especially when there is no consensus on whether to wait, and/or how long to wait.

oops, @user21820 I meant to say "we can't let a few disgruntled users who fear loss of rep to determine some arbitrary "wait" period ...

No effort PSQ, one more close vote needed to close.

@amWhy On hold.

@ProfessorVector o/ Thanks!

@amWhy o/? It's really a zero effort question: there can't have been any own thought, as the question is almost trivial.

@ProfessorVector I agree. I just learned this a year ago. o/ is shorthand for waving hello. Think of the o as the head, and the forward (or backward \o) slash as an arm, waving.

\o

o/

\o/

@XanderHenderson Hello!!

At least for that most recent answer, it seems that it was considered a bad question (put on hold), and pretty much every other answer was also downvoted

@bames That is true.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported question: Absbabababbanababa by anon1234 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user: Ahahahhahahahahahah by anon1234 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user: Sbsbsjshjshsjsjskdkdmmdmd by anon1234 on math.SE