@DRF Not exactly, but you can open the question in a new tab and do what you want with it and the comments, before returning to the review queue to vote to close or keep open.
@DRF Note that if you vote on the question itself, you don't get a chance to do it through the review, so it won't count as a review. I don't care, but maybe if you want a badge or something you might haha..
Is there any way to sort/sift through my actions? It would be rather nice to go over the close votes I handed out in a day or so. Even better would be to only go over the ones that were actually edited.
@MartinSleziak It would be nice but is certainly not necessary. Don't they show up automagically in the reopen review queue or something? I know I noticed one that had some tiny edits and was in the reopen queue
For 2 I suppose you're right but I don't quite see the reason for closing. The OP does explain what he tried and the question is well posed. It's not very interesting and a little trivial but I don't think it's particularly missing context or work.
@Lord_Farin That to me sounds like a very good idea. Moreover in this particular case the OP got his answer (two of them and quite good ones) so there's not much loss. Neither of the answerers got any points off it either and even if they did their rep totals are such that it would hardly matter.
@DRF Exactly. For those cases where there is no more value likely to come from future reading because there's already five million similar questions anyway.
Also it is my understanding that after a certain amount of time the rep is frozen regardless if the post is deleted.
Sadly however I don't have the time right now to write such a proposal for a close reason on meta.
Anyone with good good algebraic knowledge want to check the first post queue? A very strange answer showed up in there to what seems a fairly simple question but my algebra is too weak to argue with it coherently. In particular I think he's in some strange way trying to argue for non-abelian groups but it just seems like lots of strange mumbo jumbo.
It might just be that my algebra is very weak though.
@user170039 I am not sure that I see why I should vote to undelete that question. It was automatically deleted as an abandoned question more than a year ago after having been on the site for a year with no votes or answers.
It also looks as though the question is part of a "series" of questions that you were asking at the time. In general, I (in my own personal opinion) don't think that such question series are a very good fit for MSE. If the question is not interesting enough to be asked on its own, then it probably isn't a great fit.
There are times when questions about questions are appropriate; e.g. when a good question inspires another (perhaps more general) question, or when a question gets a good answer but another person has some doubts about that answer. However, I don't see how the question you highlighted falls into either of those categories.
@Lord_Farin I voted to delete on three of four of the above. But with respect to the history of this site, and the changing ethos over time, I am reluctant to go back much earlier than 2015 to actively delete content. There is soooooo much content in need of closure, and/or deletion, just within the last two years, that at this point in time there is plenty to keep us busy with clean up, without going too far back in time to clean up content that at the time, wasn't highly objectionable.
I don't understand how certain items get duplicated in the queue. It is also interesting to me that there is one user is is almost always the "duplicator."
(though that may just be an effect of there being one user who is on that queue four times as often as anyone else---looking in more detail, it seems that seems that there are other "duplicators" in there).
@XanderHenderson I agree. I have brought the odd behavior and circumstances in the late answer review queue up, a couple of times, to @quid. But my impression was that "as long as reviews get handled" that's all that matters. At the time I brought this up last, I believe there was a lot other stuff going on on the site.
It is clear to me that there are browser extensions and specialized scripts being used by at least two users, to "retain" in holding, incoming posts in any number of review queues, depending on how much computing power then have. This may explain why some posts, already handled, are handled again. "Close calls" are going to happen, when two users click almost simultaneously and separately handle the same post. But serendipity doesn't explain all instances.
@XanderHenderson And now it looks like I just "rehandled" a dupe you already handled!
But that's crazyiness, because you handled it about eight minutes before me!
I see. I appreciate the point. Since you're spending much more time with these tasks than I am, you've probably optimised your strategy to maximum effect. I on the other hand am at volumes where I'm just happy to clean whatever I come across (whether "clean" means "improve" or "remove"). Actually I have more a preference for older posts (>3m in any case) because the activity has usually waned off.
For active users, though, @Lord_Farin, I think dealing with more contemporary "stuff" has more of an impact on influencing and educating current users: the sooner consequences, good or bad, are meted out, the greater their impact, so to speak. But you make a good point regarding the waning of activity in older posts.
I am tempted to vote to close this question for the custom reason "It seems like the problem was an error in computing a limit. With that error fixed, the question seems to be answered by the asker."
@Holo "Close" is an imperative, as in "Close the door". "Closed" described a completed action: "The question is "closed". So, we need, "Closed @XanderHenderson
@amWhy I think I had insisted on the fact that the quality of the reviews most be reasonable. It's not just that they get handled. But maybe you meant that anyway, but I still wanted to stress it.
The thing is I believe, but would need to double-check, that there is a grace period for (some?) reviews in order to prevent frustrations of the form: start reading the post to review...pop-up: "The item is no longer reviewable." Now, it seems plausible that if this mechanism exists somebody might abuse it (intentionally or otherwise) by somehow auto-starting to review. If somebody would do that intentionally I'd find it somewhere between a bit silly and in slightly bad taste.
However, it's not clear if there is a significant problem with the behavior and or how to go about establishing it with reasonable effort. It does not seem to be directly disruptive (though possibly indirectly). Presumably there is some precedent somewhere in the network but I did not yet try to find it since there were more pressing concerns on and off site.
What is easier to establish and does get acted on is robotic-reviewing and low-quality reviewing.
I am also a little unclear about how that answer addresses both the "if" and the "only if"
Oh, but the question says that one direction is handled.
Hrm...
But if the newer question is to be closed as a duplicate of the older question, then probably the answer to the older question should address both directions of the implication.
But I am also happy closing the newer version for lacking context, so closing it as a duplicate may get the job done just as well.
Is it possible to define the Cantor power series tuple-function of infinite degree $f_\omega:\Bbb N^{<\omega}\to \Bbb N$?
I suspect at the moment this is an open problem but I don't know that anybody has given it any thought. If it can't be defined yet, should we expect the solution to be un...
@MartinSleziak Yes that was the one. Unfortunately I had to run soon after asking. It seems to have been downvoted to oblivion and there is a comment pointing out it's gibberish.
@amWhy Honestly, I don't know the underlying theory well enough to feel like I can have an opinion about that question. I lack the expertise to feel comfortable voting to close or delete.
It tastes like nonsense to me, but I'm an analyst, and my first question is about the topology of the space in which convergence is sought. My feeling is that this is the wrong question, and that the limit is in terms of some kind of direct limit. But I don't know enough to ask an intelligible question, let alone vote.
That being said, assuming that the question continues to have a net score of zero and no answers, it will get Roomba'd eventually.
@DRF Hello! Just a quick tip, that's kind of nice. When you want to reply to a particular user's chat post, just immediately left of their first line of the comment you want to reply to, and you'll see an upside-down triangle. Click on that down-arrow, and you'll see the first option close to the top of the menu: "reply to this message". When you click on that, a brand new comment window will open up with the message id, after which you can type your reply.
That's what I just did to your last comment; What renders is a comment pinging the recipient, with the subsequent message. And if you click on the grey icon immediately to the left of your username, it will highlight the message one is replying to.
@JoséCarlosSantos I reply here to your last comment: "But I thought that this question was an acceptable question, since the OP made an effort to solve it. And what's the problem with making a mistake and then editing the answer?"
@JoséCarlosSantos The problem in my opinion is that you are playing the game in too many tables here. You are on the first line in closing and deleting questions like that, supporting who is against help students to learn also by simple hints and then come here to give a full answer, moreover wrong!
@JoséCarlosSantos Sorry, nothing personal really, I fully respect the position of many people who have ideas completely different form mine and also critique me but I can't accept such kind of behaviour. I hope you'll take into consideration my words.
@amWhy Yes of course! How is possible that a full member of CRUDE come to give full answer after that I'm under continuous attack from a year also only for good hints. It is a totally uncosistent wat to behave.
@gimusi I am not defending anyone. I'm just saying you are hardly in a position to judge anyone. You give plenty of full answers. It's hard not to notice that you are complaining about another answerer of a question you answered. That's a conflict of interest too.
@gimusi For that same reason, I think that you could have provided a full answer in this case. Besides, I told you that your answer is better than mine.
@JoséCarlosSantos What about that OP but it is only an example. I repeat, you are playing the game on too many tables and it is not a good way to act. You need to choose clearly in which side stay.
@gimusi I'm merely uncomfortable with this chatroom being by a user who answered, call it question A, asking for users to delete an answer from another user who answered question A. You are free to vote to delete, but it is not appropriate to ask others to delete another's answer from a post you answered, unless you answer it after bringing the issue to attention.
@amWhy I think that it is the right place since I read "For feedback/discussion/requests of Close/Reopen/Undelete/Delete/Edit for questions and answers on Math SE", it seems the case to me.
Please, can someone help me find the box dimension of $X= \{0, 1, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8}, \dots\}$?
Is it possible to define the Cantor power series tuple-function of infinite degree $f_\omega:\Bbb N^{<\omega}\to \Bbb N$?
I suspect at the moment this is an open problem but I don't know that anybody has given it any thought. If it can't be defined yet, should we expect the solution to be un...
