For closure: PSQ1, PSQ2,PSQ3

Borderline PSQ?

C1, C2, C3, C4 for deletion

C6, C8, C9, C10, C11, C13, C14, C16 can be deleted

C15 still needs to be closed

D4, D8, C22, C17, C18, C19, C21 for deletion

C20 and C23 and C28 need a few more close votes

C25, C26, C27, C29, C30, C31, C32 for deletion

C33 through C38 (see pinned post) to be deleted too

Only one more duplicate close vote is missing on 3082922 Prove or disprove. Let $G$ be an abelian group. Let $N \triangleleft G$. Then, $ G\cong N \times G/N. $.

D15, D19, D20, D21, D22, D23 need one more delete vote

C39 through C44 (pinned post) are all available for deletion

@MartinSleziak It is now closed as a duplicate.

delete 1, 2, 3

I'm not sure that I understand why this question is on the HNQ. It is not much more than a problem statement, and it likely took more work to write it up than it would have taken to draw and label a couple of pictures and solve the problem. :\

@TheSimpliFire I disagree that C28 should be closed. It is interesting enough I would say.

@TheSimpliFire C1-C11 are gone.

I would suggest, since we have quite a few users now regularly posting lists of links to close or deleted, that each user posting such links limit themselves each day to a limit of 16 total links (combined close/delete total). Otherwise this room is becoming a bit unmanageable to keep on top of it.

@TheSimpliFire In the span of about 1/2 hour alone, you posted links to at least 36 separate posts. If 8 users, all of us interested in ridding this site of garbage, were to each do that, how productive would that be?

@amWhy Good to see you back. I don't know the nature of your "cool-down" but I hope it worked (insofar as there was anything to achieve).

@amWhy This is definitely getting an issue. We need more focus, and secondly more manpower.

@Lord_Farin Glad to be back. Actually, the mods violated wisdom of the expression "don't kill the messenger of bad news", failing to address the source of the bad news. But I'm used to it.

@Lord_Farin Yes, I agree. I'm all for your efforts, overall, to make the process most efficient, impactful, and productive.

@Lord_Farin Shirley you mean "personpower"? :P

@XanderHenderson Is there a "Shirley" in our midst? :P

I was attempting to make the "surely" - "Shirley" pun, but written language disambiguates the two phonetically similar words. :(

I believe that the correct response would have been "Don't call me surely!"

(or is it "Shirley"?)

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, potentially bad asn for hostname in answer (61): Probability of 3 Heads in 10 Coin Flips by Smurf on math.SE

Meh, I've tried with SEDE, with the moderator tools, with the 2018 moderation summary, but I don't find a way to get a grasp of the effectiveness of this room.

I do have the feeling that we manage to delete about 20-30 questions each day. I'd like to see that number increase. But for that we need more "surely-power", and more coordination I guess.

Thoughts?

Shirleypower*

I agree about the coordination, but it is a bit hard to get when not everyone are online at the same time

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, blacklisted user (70): Is the sequence of non repeating random numbers still random? by Smurf on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, blacklisted user (70): Is the sequence of non repeating random numbers still random? by Smurf on math.SE

For deletion: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8

For deletion: D9, D10, D11, D12

@RRL each of these needs only one more delete vote. Also note the following suggestion:

@amWhy @RRL (See the comment this is linking to.)

@amWhy may I ask why 16?

@Holo I like to post links to questions to be deleted, so does @user21820, so does RRL, so does TheSimplifier, so does Lord_Farin, so do many others. Flooding this chat with more suggestions/links than exist current users and the sum of all their delete votes and close votes (subtracting votes used up in the review queues) creates an increasing backlog of unaddressed questions that then remain. Please see @Lord_Farin's suggestions. We need a better strategies,

...and everyone flooding the site with thirty or more links to questions to be closed or posts to be deleted undermines efficiency and actual closures and deletions. At least users should guage how many links have already been posted in the SE day before adding another 20 to 30. I am trying to provide a way all interested users can suggest posts to address, such that they may better be addressed and handled here.

@amWhy nono, I understand the reason to set some bound, but why 16 of all numbers?

@RRL In all fairness, I note that you've only posted 12 today thus far, thanks.

@Holo To delete, three votes are needed. A person may cast at most 20 delete votes in a day, depending on how much XP they have. Many of the folk who are active here have fewer votes than that (I only have 9, for example). Thus the total number of delete votes that can be cast here is likely significantly less than 16 times the number of active users here.

A similar line of reasoning applies to close votes.

Though close votes are significantly less restrained.

@Holo I don't want to quell folks enthusiasm. I'm trying to be generous, and ideally, each user posting links will first check to ensure they are not dominating in number of links posted in a given day. 16 was just a rule of thumb, though perhaps somedays, with more users posting links, one should adjust this down; other days, adjust up perhaps. I'm simply trying to generate suggestions and discussions. I'm not invested in 16 exact, just some number to effectively work together.

Let's stick to 16 as a start. If it turns out to be too high, then we can adjust.

There's also the matter of manageability of checking the respective lists. Checking a list of 30 for any remaining candidates is a pain. Chipping it up in smaller pieces makes management of remaining tasks easier and therefore increases effectivity.

Thanks @amWhy @Xander @Lord_Farin

Well, even 4/5 lists of 16 combined is a lot to follow every day

close Unclear; already generating answers.

I was now shortly wondering if we could automate the checking part, so that it is easy to have an overview of what is still open. I was inspired by SmokeDetector posting here.

This however might require further standardisation, e.g. of using the [tag:...] constructs. The C## / D## variant of TheSimpliFire would also work, of course.

This would be great if it would be possible to automate it, and I think that every active user in this chat is willing to spend 5 more second to adept to the standards for this

To simplify things I'm going to bold and ask if the Charcoal-SE team (behind smokedetector) can help us out here.

Hmm, this question that user21820 linked has 4 reopen votes

@amWhy; I noted your suggestion earlier and I think it is a good one. I posted 12 for deletion and will add 4 more later. I think it also might be good if some of us focus in specific ways. I'm focused on calculus, real analysis, sequences, limits, integration, etc over a rolling 2-month window (where some of the most egregious activity has taken place).

@RRL I see that, and acknowledged that (initially I scrolled up and saw links you included yesterday, not realizing at first that they were linked yesterday). That's another good idea, to focus on various tags. Thanks for your input.

@RRL I too prefer to address more recent activity, one, maybe two months of the most recent posts. I think concerted effort on more or less current posts (within the last month, two months, or even three months) will provide for a more consistent statement of what is acceptable currently, or rather, what is NOT currently acceptable.

@Lord_Farin I'm going to explain what SOCVR uses here if that's ok?

Don't want to clutter up Charcoal too much

SOCVR have a two step process

First they use the Close Vote Generator

Found here github.com/SO-Close-Vote-Reviewers/UserScripts/blob/master/…

@Lord_Farin I'd be interested in knowing the tags with the most close/delete votes (wrt questions). No tag is immune to use in a poor post, but I'd say that much of elementary number theory (divisibility, modular arithmetic, etc), much in calculus, many sequences and series questions, a good number of inequality questions, and quite a few others have more representation in questions that are closed and/or deleted (or rather, over-representation among poor questions, closed/deleted, or not).

This adds one question per chat message, directly from the question page

The periodically, ROs use the Request Archiver

Found here github.com/SO-Close-Vote-Reviewers/UserScripts/blob/master/…

This checks all request messages in the room. If they are closed (as that's what SOCVR is after), moves the message to a separate room.

Like this:

Trust this all makes sense?

It's not as fancy as using a bot, but gets the job done without much fuss

@CalvT Yes, I'll take a look. We might need two variants, one for close and one for delete. But it'll do the job I guess.

Thanks!

Messages in SOCVR are like this

@CalvT Pretty much. Sounds like it could really be useful!

You could change the first userscript to give you the option to choose between cv and del

And the the second userscript checks for different states based on the tag

@CalvT Yeah, I guess we'd need small forks to adjust it to our needs, but taking this as a start is going to make the whole process a lot simpler. Thanks again!

No problem, glad I could help

According the the post listed at the top of the side-bar, linked by @user21820 on Jan 19th, this poor question formerly on the HNQ has now 4 reopen votes, but is also open for deletion (two more delete votes needed). It has received a ridiculously high vote count, and was likely voted to reopen by it's answerers, who also likely received ridiculously high vote counts.

@RRL Since deleted; unpinning from the side bar.

@TheSimpliFire All have long been closed. Time to unpin from the sidebar. I'm unpinning.

@amWhy: I voted for deletion on the Jan17 question. With +11 net score how many more delete votes are needed? Also my D1-D12 are all in need of 1 or 2 more votes -- so I will not post more until that gets done.

@RRL Aye, yes, I forget that higher vote counts require more delete votes. If it were 10 upvotes, I think only 4 delete votes are needed, or perhaps 5. I'm sure we have more than half needed delete votes. Thanks!

@JoséCarlosSantos, @Did, @user21820, @JyrkiLahtonen we need one or more delete votes on the question I posted in my my message posted before this and my last message: This close post, originally a HQN question receiving too many upvotes and too many overly upvoted answers needs one or two more delete votes, depending on whether or not it gets more downvotes. Please review and do as ye feel fit to do. Thanks!

@amWhy Sure, they were from the massive list I had ages ago. I think I'll post around 10 a day here.

Oh yes. I'm starting to get the hang of this.

@user21820 Can you have a look at this question? (any other logically minded folk should look, too). My naive understanding of Gödel is that he states that there are true statements which cannot be proved, which is not what is asserted by the asker (who states, essentially, that there are statements which are independent from the axioms).

I think that the question, as phrased, is "not even wrong", but I am not at all sure about that.

Having fun, @Lord_Farin? :P

@Xander Soon, the spammage will be real :)

Yes, but will it be Hormel brand Spam(tm), or a cheap knock-off?

(Okay, the thought of cheap, knock-off, generic "spam" just made my stomach turn a little.)

Question that is both lacking context, (posting of images of assigned questions), and too broad (7 questions in all), which somehow got 2 upvotes, nonetheless.

deleteFirst test run Prove sin2A1+cos2A=tan2Asin⁡2A1+cos⁡2A=tan⁡2A\frac{\sin2A}{1+\cos 2A} = \tan2A [closed]‭ - Emily‭ 2018-08-12 10:42:28Z

delete Second test Prove sin2A1+cos2A=tan2Asin⁡2A1+cos⁡2A=tan⁡2A\frac{\sin2A}{1+\cos 2A} = \tan2A [closed]‭ - Emily‭ 2018-08-12 10:42:28Z

delete Prove sin2A1+cos2A=tan2Asin⁡2A1+cos⁡2A=tan⁡2A\frac{\sin2A}{1+\cos 2A} = \tan2A [closed]‭ - Emily‭ 2018-08-12 10:42:28Z (Reason: Final format?)

close How do I find the maximum profit?‭ - Vladd‭ 2018-05-20 22:08:03Z (Reason: Test for close candidate)

@Xander @amWhy @Holo @RRL @TheSimpliFire How does the above look?

@amWhy When you asked me (and others) to vote to delete this post I had alredy done that. (you could not know it, of course.)

@JoséCarlosSantos Ahh, well thanks!

@JoséCarlosSantos: Also if you take a look at D1-D12 posted at 9:33. Thanks

I suppose that "non-standardized" messages can be still posted here, right? (For example, when there is a discussion whether a question is worth keeping or not. Or a discussion which question to choose as a duplicate target.)

Oh of course @Martin. It's just a two-step setup in which we can try out optimised closure and deletion by means of userscripts.

@Lord_Farin I don't think the exact times are too important and may be omitted? How about something like:

[tagged:close] Boolean expression simplified by Callum Smith as it is missing context or other details

the reason could be adapted from the list of closure options

@MartinSleziak absolutely yes.

It's a very minor point, but close seem (to me) easier on the eye than close.

@MartinSleziak I forgot, how do you enter that?

@TheSimpliFire Not every question I close should be put here. OTOH it is work to include the reasons exactly as formulated there.

I'm considering to drop the reason as well.

@MartinSleziak How do you format the white-background "close". I like that better too.

[meta-tag:close] close

@TheSimpliFire [meta-tag:close] vs. [tag:close] (The difference is also whether it links to main or to meta.) chat.stackexchange.com/messages/48655646/history

@Lord_Farin thanks

and @MartinSleziak

@MartinSleziak To me it is harder to see it is in a tag form

Don't know if this has been discussed before, but how about a feature request on that users with less than $x$k rep must follow a certain question format when asking, so they have two boxes: one for the question, and one for their thoughts/attempts with min $y$ chars?

Although there is the 'how to ask a question' section before they post a question, I don't think it dramatically brings down the influx of daily PSQs (I don't have the statistics for that) as users can easily press 'Got it' or 'Next'

@TheSimpliFire I don't like the sound of this. Mostly because it will be rep-bound. That means that the people that decide over it don't feel the pain. And I can tell you from my job that this is usually a recipe for disaster.

delete Prove sin2A1+cos2A=tan2Asin⁡2A1+cos⁡2A=tan⁡2A\frac{\sin2A}{1+\cos 2A} = \tan2A [closed]‭ by Emily‭

@Lord_Farin How about if users have had a history of posting, say, 5 PSQs, or that a large proportion of their questions are PSQs? Would that work?

@TheSimpliFire What qualifies as a PSQ? Who tracks?

@Lord_Farin When they are closed for a long time or deleted. I guess this would be not as bad as a question ban but it would be a hard thing to do

@Lord_Farin That's fine

@TheSimpliFire Ah, so a general quality measure. This might work. But I cannot assess if the effort required would be proportional. Do note that "context" is different on every SE site so that a generic solution seems unfeasible.

@Lord_Farin I meant for only math.SE. Other sites don't really care too much about quality like Puzzling, as this site does

(perhaps even Stack Overflow)

@TheSimpliFire I said this because SE devs don't have an encouraging history when it comes to site-specific feature requests.

Nor the one in power really like M.SE

In order to achieve the second part of the (semi-)automation, I have created "CRUDE Archive"

@Lord_Farin I noticed your discussion in Charcoal HQ about an interest in automation for the process of creating, monitoring, and retiring requests for people to evaluate questions and answers. I'm, currently, the primary maintainer for the userscripts which we use in SOCVR (and some of those in Charcoal HQ).

I am however not one of the owners of CRUDE itself so that I cannot test this stuff.

From what I've seen so far, much of what you are doing could be assisted by some of the scripts we use, with slight modification.

Thanks @TheSimpliFire

@Makyen This is what I've frantically spent the last 3 hours on :)

github.com/LordFarin/UserScripts/blob/master/…

I'm now looking into the archiver.

@Makyen Cool, thanks for stopping by!

@amWhy I left some queries about percentage of closed questions here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/19138/2019/1/22

@Lord_Farin OK. We also have an alpha version of that script, which adds support for sending all types of the requests that SOCVR supports (e.g. close, delete, review, some flags), and allows you to schedule automatic revisits to posts.

The primary limitation of the alpha version of that script is that it does not work under Greasemonkey 4 on Firefox.

@MartinSleziak Thanks for the work!

@Makyen I see. Would it work under Tampermonkey?

Yes, and Violentmonkey. Unfortunately, Greasemonkey 4 significantly changed the userscript APIs.

@Makyen I see. For now I'm happy I've got something working, and my next focus will be to finish the other half, the archiving.

There's also a beta version of our Unclosed Request Review Script, which provides semi-realtime in-chat status for each mention of a post. images/gifs of additional features.

@RRL D1–D8 are gone now. D9–D12 still need one vote each.

@Lord_Farin We shall see. Feel free to add any other details I've missed out.

@Lord_Farin It appears that a primary difference in rooms is that your room uses close and delete rather than cv-pls and del-pls. While it's certainly possible to maintain two sets of distinct code, it might be easier to use one. Currently, SOCVR and the SE Code Review Close Questions room use the xxx-pls format. Would your room be willing/interested to change to that format?

The scripts were re-written with the expectation that they would be able to be run in multiple rooms, with relatively minor changes. Not using consistent tags will make that harder to maintain, but having your own fork is certainly a possibility.

Currently, the Request Generator is fully able to be customized via parameters for arbitrary room/site combinations. The Archiver is mostly that way, but needs some additional work to make its full capabilities available in an arbitrary room/primary site combination. The beta Unclosed Request Review Script also needs some changes for that to be the case. The changes for both of those are planned, but have not yet been implemented.

@JoséCarlosSantos: Much appreciated.

@Makyen I think there won't be a lot of resistance given the extra features that we would get.

Although if I have to mention one thing it is primarily the problem that the usage of localStorage is not very forgiving when configuring the extension for the first time, seeing as localStorage is quite persistent and nontrivial to clear.

But admittedly this only happens for initial configuration.

@Lord_Farin Yes, the release version of the Request Generator has some significant issues in that regard. The alpha version moves to using userscript storage, primarily. However, both currently assume that something (i.e. to which chat room requests are sent) that's already been set by the user (implicitly by visiting the site) doesn't get changed/updated by the script, even if the script has a new default room for the site. That would be fine to change, with appropriate notification to the user.

I hope my answer to this meta question is not too harsh. I don't think it is; I think it's more of a matter of fact answer, but I welcome feedback on it.

@Lord_Farin As to making the changes to the alpha version of the Request Generator, I'll mirror the config changes that you've made to the release version and push an update for the alpha version of the Request Generator. I had actually already mostly made very similar changes prior to my first post here.

However, I do have a question wrt. the changes you've made. On this line and the next one you use 17 and 18 for the key to those properties. Those keys for those properties should match the value attribute for the <input> that corresponds to the off-topic close/flag reason on the close-/flag-dialog.

At least for the flag dialog (I don't have easy access to the close-vote dialog) the values are different than what you've entered. In the close-flag dialog the values are:

6: 'Not about mathematics',
8: 'Seeking personal advice',
9: 'Missing context or other details',

Are they different in the close-vote dialog? On the few sites to which I have access to both dialogs, I have not seen an example where they are different.

@Makyen We also have, (under "not about mathematics") 'Belongs on another site:' with an option of clicking on one of three sites. If appropriate, mods migrate them to the appropriate site. But the closure reasons are as you describe...

... with an additional "other" option: "This question should be closed as off topic because ____________________(free form fill in the blank)"

@amWhy Yes, sorry, I should have mentioned those. Those are standard across (almost) all sites. The blatantly off-topic reason is (optionally) only available in the close-flag dialog, depending on site. The normal values for those are:

1: 'Blatantly off-topic',
2: 'Belongs on another site',
3: 'custom',

In addition, some sites don't have the "belongs on another site" option.

Currently, the script will pick up that the user has selected "belongs on another site", but does not try to pick up which site was selected from the other-site pane in the dialog.