CURED - 2018-05-04

« first day (2304 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2191 days later) »

3:09 AM

@amWhy I respect your opinion. That being said (and I'm not trying to convince you, just trying to lay out my own line of thinking), the basic problem with that question was that it lacked context, and (it turns out) the question was really an XY problem which is addressed in the edit.

I think that the real problem is that people jumped on a poor question an answered it before waiting for context

Honestly, I think that this particular question exemplifies much of my current frustration with answering machines. If the original question had been closed before it got any answers, then the original questioner could have made their edits, and I would have little reservation about reopening the question.

@amWhy Let me ask this question: if there were only comments, but no answers, how would you have felt about reopening?

SmokeDetector

3:55 AM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected, toxic body detected: THE HOSTILITY OF THIS SITE by JR S. on math.SE

5 hours later…

GNU Supporter

9:01 AM

@XanderHenderson Finally see a reopen request in this room

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] No whitespace in body, offensive title detected, potentially bad keyword in title: who the fuck are you.......you asshole motherfucker by Kuldeep Choudhary on math.SE

user21820

9:37 AM

@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson This comment sounds like a typical you-know-what, even though for all we know the millenium prizes will start disappearing soon.

(Fear of the name is fear of the thing itself, but I don't want my comments to accidentally result in frightened rabbits.)

1 hour later…

user21820

10:43 AM

@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson: Duplicate exponential misconception (but not a bad question).

user21820

11:37 AM

And this question about Collatz is questionable.

3 hours later…

Xander Henderson

2:54 PM

@GNUSupporter I try to put reopen requests here when they seem reasonable. However, most of the questions that I see that I feel need reopening come from the reopen queue; I don't typically seek out things to reopen.

Hence I typically only put reopen requests here when I see them in the queue, and there are diminishingly few questions that come through that queue that I feel should be reopened :\

SmokeDetector

3:33 PM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body: Element in a tensor product by mona123 on math.SE

2 hours later…

Martin R

5:57 PM

This answer was deleted from review because of low quality. I just wonder what else to expect from an answer to this particular question. OP cites a theorem and then asks "Does that mean that XXX?" – and that is exactly what it means.

amWhy

@MartinR Unfortunately, that happens, (downvotes/deletions for such answers, especially from not well known users, but sometimes even with well known answerers). Not appropriate, IMHO, at least not here.

Martin R

Shortness can be an indicator for low quality, but in this case I fail to think of anything non-trivial that could be added here to make it more substantial.

amWhy

@MartinR I agree. (I meant, in my comment above, that I think that the deletion wasn't appropriate, or warranted).

Martin R

6:14 PM

Yes, that's how I understood it.

amWhy

6:27 PM

@MartinR I've voted to undelete, in any case.

quid

@MartinR ths type of answer needs to be expanded. It is not an acceptable answer.

An post-answer needs to provide some substantial information. Everybody could write that answer.

amWhy

oops, sorry, @MartinR. Seems perhaps my thoughts on this are/were wrong, in this case. Sorry if I misled anyone. Just I've too often seen answers like: "Yes, you're correct, because, as you note, "repeats exactly what the asker already has explained as their reason why they think the answer is as such"

quid

Q: 'Yes' and 'No' answers to questions without explanations, acceptable?

Are 'Yes' and 'No' answers to questions (that ask only for a yes or no answer, even if that's a bad type of questions according to the SE model) without any explanations acceptable?

First I agree with your final parenthetical remark. Still, I think also a pure "yes!" is not a good answer (it might be reasonable as a quick comment). The point is the answer does in itself not add anything whatsoever. Really the only value of it seems who wrote it and the trust we might have into their judgement. Granted, this can be actually useful in some case, but it still does not really qualify as an answer. Even if the argument is correct and there is no specific question it is typically possible to say something meaningful beyond yes. And, this better should be done. — quid ♦ Jan 26 '15 at 17:43

amWhy

@quid First comment: No ${}{}{}{}$. Second comment, "Yes, if you think it is helpful". Both upvoted >10 times, second from a mod.

Clearly, this issue isn't one worth my getting into any sort of unpleasant argument. But sometimes I'd rather an honest "yes you're correct" or "your proof is exemplary" without the pseudo-elaboration of "let me repeat every reason you just gave me, (1)......, (2) .............., and (3), and in the same order, appealing to the same theorems (by Theorem xyz), that you did, and concluding just as you did, so it looks like I'm saying more than, "You're correct, you're spot on, etc. etc..""

quid

@amWhy both answers make the same point. The comments were not an actual poll. I would not give much weight to this. That said, mostly I repeated my opinion on the subject. Whether it is consensus; maybe I should leave it to others. I agree that the examples you give are essentially only formally better;

But usually it should be possible to write something that is actually better. :-)

I expand my opinion to the type of answer you highlighted.

amWhy

6:45 PM

@quid I agree that there is usually something one can add. But to be honest, in too many verification answers, they never get around to confirming that the asker is correct, if they are, or they manufacture an answer similar to the formulaic response I offer above. Believe me, if there is anything more that can be said, I've sided on the side of rejecting an answer far more often than accepting it. But I don't think there can be any hard and fast "rule" to apply. in such cases.

@quid I was referring to the first two comments, not answers.

quid

@amWhy yes I understood that. Both answers make the same point. And I would not give much weight to the comments, since they were somewhat playful.

Let me also highlight that I said the answer needs to be expanded. I might prefer a comment first over a deletion. In other words I agree that the situation there is not ideal.

I mean first an answer was posted, then deleted, then sombody else posts the same thing as a comment. That's a waste of time.

amWhy

Well, again. This is hardly a high-priority issue I have with answers, or issue in general on MSE. As I said, I'm as skeptical as anyone on such answers. I should not have even entered the conversation, as I have been a bit of a softie this (my current) afternoon.

quid

The "somebody else" could not even have seen it.

@amWhy by contrast I am especially strict today. :-) Sorry for the abrupt interjection into the conversation.

amWhy

@quid No problem; as I read the question again, more carefully, I'm not convinced the answer (nor the comment, ditto) is as clarifying as the asker was hoping. I think the asker is in need of an expanded answer.

@quid No problem! Always good to have diverse persectives, and astute challenges, and in this case, I think I was wrong to disagree with the deletion of the particular answer @MartinR linked to.

amWhy

7:18 PM

@SmokeDetector @quid One thing I'm really confused about is, for example, this post, which indicates that the user responsible for the post had their question deleted, but remains a member? Perhaps posting an obscene post isn't grounds for suspension, or account deletion? Just curious, 'cuz there were two examples earlier today, in which Smokey, our hero, found some rather nasty posts.

@SmokeDetector @quid This is the other I referred to. Perhaps with early users, they're cut slack? Or perhaps they fall under "post bans" in which case, there is no indication of such a state in the user's profile?

2 hours later…

amWhy

9:17 PM

Of course, @quid, re: the two above comments to you (referencing Smokey's posts), I realize it may be NOMB, so no problem!

I'm guessing there's an acronym for "none of my business!" :-)

quid

@amWhy no it's fine. I just looked into it. The thing is these posts were deleted via flags. This is then considered "done" in the sense that it is not, or at least not prominently, signaled to moderators.

amWhy

@quid Ahh, okay. Interesting. Given both were pretty darn profane! But, at least flags handled them.

quid

Yes it's not quite consistent. One thing to consider though is that some people just do random stuff "for fun." For those once it is deleted it's fine. There is not that much point in suspending or deleting a throw-away account. The one case is different, I am not sure. If the user just lost their temper, I'd be inclined to leave them alone. They asked for an arXiv endorsement, which is of course off-topic, but were also told their paper is no good.

So they started to vent loudly.

If it's a "one of" maybe the point penalty suffices. If they persist of course action will follow.

amWhy

That all makes sense. I wasn't clear on this. Thanks for the elucidation!

« first day (2304 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2191 days later) »

all rooms