PSQ No effort, thought, context

@gimusi It also reeks of poor sportsmanship: attacking a fellow user who answered the same question you did.

@gimusi you are free to come here to report a poor post, but I'd suggest you not have any relation to that post you report: e.g., having also answered it. It doesn't look good to have two users answer the same question, of one of them trying to use this chat to get the other answer deleted, because such a request benefits the complainer (who seeks to be the only answerer).

@amWhy that's not exactly right though

a user should be allowed to report a post on the same question they answer

if for instance that other answer is nonsense or garbage

not the case here of course

If a person is reporting because a spambot posts something crazy as an answer on a question they also answered it might "benefit" the answeree to have it removed but it also just... needs to be removed.

The real issue is that users shouldn't attempt to play the moderation system towards benefiting themselves at the expense of users who are not doing anything wrong.

Being a hypocrite does not make anyone wrong. It just means they also should be treated the same.

i.e. if one post needs to go on the basis of answering a PSQ then both need to go

@amWhy indeed it saddens me that it stays immortalized as a duplicate rather than being deleted.

o/ @user21820

sorry

@amWhy Hi. Got to go soon, but was just looking to see what's up here.

I suppose closure here was inevitable but from time to time I answer questions of this type because of the difficulty and to illustrate some interesting principles.

@RRL answering PSQs is a violation of the site rules. Please refrain.

@The Great Duck: I had no reason to post this here other than to see what response it would elicit. So it is a "black and white" issue.

If this is an absolutely unambiguous policy I'm happy to abide.

@RRL a moderator has declared it such

whether or not the other mods agree is unknown

but i have gotten the impression that warns and/or bans will now be handed out for that

@The Great Duck: Thank you. I'm curious to see how that plays out. There are a few "high rep" users that push the limits -- providing essentially link-only answers with a few self-evident comments seems to be the latest ploy. I wonder about some of the other behaviors like coercing new askers to upvote and accept in comments, etc.

@amWhy "poor sportsmanship"...I'm totally disgusted, these are the right words but now move on.

@amWhy @AlexanderGruber @user21820 @user170039 Please reconsider to reopen the following OP. Indeed I've noticed that that user has improved his own question with the complete answer.

I think that we should be more tolerant with users that are really aimed to come here to learn and try to do their best to be a part of the community. Thanks

@RRL I got pinged :P

@TheGreatDuck It would probably better to support such statement with a source, otherwise this might lead to misinformation.

Did you mean the comments by quid posted here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/83225/2018/10/14 ? You may notice that they include several caveats there.

In particular, they explicitly say that: "That's not a consensus-opinion".

@gimusi I voted to reopen that question.

@TheGreatDuck Diamonds are unanimous that context is required. There is some grappling over some subtleties of the definition of context, but it is minor. It is not established at this moment that answering PSQs is officially against the rules, though it is frowned upon, and there may be movement in the direction of enforcing that in the future.

@gimusi I don't think the "improved edited question" (work shown by the OP) is anything but the work you showed (RREF), which the OP copies from your answer, and the cross product, which the OP more or less copies from @JoséCarlosSantos answer, and these copies of answers and work in answers came only after both answers were posted. An Op does not improve a post only by, after receiving answers, going back to edit in work others did, into their post.

@MartinSleziak It may not be a consensus opinion, just as the American public has no consensus about what the laws actually allow. But the groundwork, as @quid, explained, it already laid in terms of justification to penalize answerers of very low quality questions, since, if the questions don't belong on this site, their answers wouldn't be here were the very low quality questions not here. I'm just saying, quid argued that the rules already allow for holding answerers of low quality PSQs

...accountable for having answered the sorts of questions not welcome on this site. Whether people like that (public consensus) is a separage question).

@amWhy Actually, the OP did not copy from my answer. The edited version doesn't mention the cross-product.

@amWhy All I did was I added possible source to TheGreatDuck's comments. (From which everybody can make up their mind.)

@JoséCarlosSantos It's a poor post, and it was when you answered it. But you answered it; so of course it's in your interest to vote to reopen it, lest it gets deleted and you lose ten point. There was no effort shown by the OP prior to receiving answers, and since the only "revision" has consisted of copying and pasting your work and gimusi's work only after having their question answered.

The way TheGreatDuck stated this here - without saying where they are taking this information from - seems to me not very optimal.

@amWhy I will not insist upon the quality of the post, but would you please tell me why you are insisting that the OP copied from my answer, when the edited version doesn't mention the cross-product at all?

@MartinSleziak I understand that. I appreciate the links and your grounding the discussion in actual sources.

Duplicate post here. See post for suggested dupe target.

@amWhy I had already voted to close it as off-topic.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks! That works too!

@amWhy It is a poor post from a new contributor who is trying to do his/her best to improve the OP and learn something. I think we should consider also thesefacts when we decide to close an OP.

Hm, not sure how links in chat work

@jgon The syntax is [text](url) - the same as in comments. For example: [Show that $1/f$ has a pole at $z=0$](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3025225) gives: Show that $1/f$ has a pole at $z=0$.

@MartinSleziak Thanks, I hadn't figured out how to do that in the comments either xP

If you want links to work correctly also in transcript, it's better not to make multiline message.

In any case, even in the way you posted them, the links are still clickable (at least from chatroom - not from the transcript‌​), si I don't think it's much of a problem.

In that case, for the transcript: undelete candidate, later dup

Actually, apparently, second was not later, perhaps explaining the deletion, nonetheless, probably should still be undeleted

Perhaps it would make sense to merge the two questions?

Probably

I am skeptical what additional context would make this question better. The OP's level is clear and I don't see value in having some comment like "I thought of CP^2 but it doesn't work."

I think it's fine as it is. Maybe they could add some comments about the mapping torus case (cylinder seems to be a typo).

I think that this question is interesting and deserving of upvotes, but I don't think that the title is very suggestive. Any ideas for improvement?

"Why do the Borwein integrals stop being pi/2?"

@MikeMiller Yeah! That sounds good. I didn't know that these integrals had a name.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, mostly dots in answer (120): Given the factors of $N$, is there a method for computing the factors of $N-1$ or $N+1$? ✏️ by Mauricio Areiza on math.SE

@SmokeDetector I was just about to mention that answer here. The answerer has vandalized the answer twice now.

Open for deletion

delete 1, 2

delete 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Found these delete-candidates using closed:yes duplicate:no lastactive:..3m score:..-1, so a specialisation of the delete review queue.

@Lord_Farin A question for you here. Is the point of the additional context in this case so that answerers know that the OP is comfortable with things at the level of the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre sequence? That's useful, since it means spectral sequences are OK. Unfortunately this additional context is useless for actually answering the question, and I expect OP wouldn't see the correct tool.

I was thinking of answering it. I agree it would be nice if they had more words about their level, but that's now clear, and I don't think there's much more useful they could add.

In general if a question is opaque about the level of the question-asker but supports good answers anyway (for instance, I think that computation is intrinsically interesting and perhaps useful to random people looking for it), my instinct is that an answer operating at any level of generality is acceptable.

And then I applied the principle that the question itself should include all relevant context.

(It's already open; I am hesitant to answer something with 4 close votes, is all.)

I added the content of the comment ot hte question.

Another question (which I mentioned earlier) that deserves to be open is this. The OP just edited it to add some of that lovely context, too. It was what I predicted ("It doesn't work for these three I know, so...") :)

@Lord_Farin I voted on all, and pinned the post. Try to keep to no more than 4 posts listed for deletion (and or closure) in one comment. That's just been helpful for housekeeping, particularly when such comments are pinned on the right side-bar (I pinned them).

@amWhy I guess that makes sense, I'll keep it in mind. Btw, they've all been deleted now.

then I shall unpin ;-) Thanks.

Thanks for the reopen votes.

@MikeMiller ;D

@MikeMiller That's some comprehensive answer right there! Nice work!

Thanks, I like those questions. I thought it was untractable until I started doing it.

Can we move beyond the "love fest" here, @Mike and @Lord_Farin

We had until you asked!

:P

@amWhy I'm assuming you're joking here, because only the last two comments were actually not discussing reasons for closing/reopening/etc. which is the topic of this room...

@Lord_Farin Indeed. :P

@amWhy The wonders of reading meaning and intention into ephemeral black dots on a dimly lit flat object...

I like this use of moderator powers. Close the question, then immediately reopen it.

Good call, @AlexanderGruber

Thanks

@XanderHenderson @AlexanderGruber gaming Nothing had even been closed. Hence, Gaming, and by a moderator. Not good.

You're free to vote to close again if you like

My intent there was indeed to clear the votes since detailed context had been discussed in comments and added. I think it's rather unequivocally a good question now

many good questions in SE get closed just because it's really short and doesn't ramble beyond what the question is

its just a general phenomenon

Users can be guilty of gaming, just so can moderators. You could have, @AlexanderGruber, exercised your powers to reopen unilaterally IFFFFF, the question were closed; it never was, until you closed it. I'm tired of gaming on this site, and when it comes from a mod, it sickens me even more because it condones using ones powers, at whatever level or privilege one has, to circumvent the standard process to accomplish one's own goal. Congrats for condoning cutting corners and playing games.

→ 1 message moved to ­Trash

@AlexanderGruber It was an unequivocally good question before you felt the need to intervene. Hold your powers in check until, and only if, they are needed; okay?

I mean there is nothing to be gained from acting like a "big shot" unless you need to, in which case, the action should speak for itself. But pre-empting an action never having taken place is overkill.

A PSQ and a question for deletion.

@amWhy I'm not sure what you mean by gaming or playing games here

There is editorial benefit to removing questions from the queue that have been definitively fixed so that they aren't closed in error. Like Balarka said, it's easy to mistake something for a PSQ (particularly in review queue) when it's relatively short and a lot of the clarification lies in the comments.

@AlexanderGruber I just wish you'd use your magical mod powers only if and when needed, not trying to preempt what might happen but never did (like the closing of the question you closed and then immediately reopened.) Deal with issues as they come up.

Just don't play fortune teller in supposing why a question was voted closed, and how to prevent closure, even when that may never happen after its improvement ... there's no need to act ahead of time. What's done is done; I'm not asking you to undo anything, but sometimes I get the impression you are too eager to please certain parties, and boast about it.

:47896426 My identicon has been invaded "in the spirit of the season", pre-emptively wearing a hat!!!

@amWhy Ohhh-- very good. A hat is a good thing to have in an identicon.

@AlexanderGruber Perhaps, particularly during the upcoming Winter Bash 2018-19!

But the rest of my standard identicon keyboard is at a loss with the missing "?" character.

@amWhy you need a blank key icon to leave in your profile.

@AlexanderGruber ;)

@AlexanderGruber Your identicon is perfectly configured to wear winter-bash hats!!

So is yours, @JoséCarlosSantos !

Hmm how do you approach questions like this? It's essentially a PSQ but not a homework one and the answer is pretty nice even if both the question and the answers are very short. I think it's worth keeping.

I was having an identity crisis, so changed to back my tried-and-true identicon, though it may take time for the change to show up, especially in chat!!

@DRF I'm okay with it.

@amWhy I do intend to wear one such hat.

@JoséCarlosSantos I'm sure hats will look good on you!!

I'd like to see @AlexanderGruber, for once, without a hat!! :P

@amWhy oh, you must not remember before I got elected: i.sstatic.net/QdhzR.png i.sstatic.net/mEHIT.png i.sstatic.net/88nC5.jpg

(but then the sheriff badge got to my head i.sstatic.net/8Xuwf.png )

No. Hats. :(

@AlexanderGruber Hahahaha!

@amWhy Supporting great content isn't gaming, more of this please @AlexanderGruber

@RobertFrost I didn't say that the specific question at hand was not great content. But it was open and well received. I said that playing around to delete negative feedback that had not yet had any effect was gaming. There was no reason to intervene in this case.

@amWhy where do you get the energy to be so pissed off with so many people so much?

@RobertFrost I'm sorry, Robert, look in the mirror? How many times do you rant to meta, and how many times have I?

@amWhy imagine me doing it in good spirit and with a big smile on my face and you won't go far wrong

@RobertFrost You are rather mean spirited, and have plenty of rants on meta to document this. If there is a smile on your face while you try repeatedly to misrepresent others, that says all the more.

@amWhy beauty is in the eye of the beholder

@RobertFrost $\left(\ddot \smile\right)^{\Large /}$

$\left(\ddot \smile\right)$

Consider for closure.

@amWhy Done. What do you think about this old one? I think that it should be closed as off-topic.

@JoséCarlosSantos Yes, I'm inclined to close it, too. Reads like the asker is just guessing, having given no rationale for guessing the picks they guessed at.

@amWhy My thought, exactly.

Btw @amWhy , tomorrow the pin for Closed questions review queue for deletion is going to die, so I bookmark it, I will post it tomorrow to repin it

@amWhy heh