@Jack No; I am not talking about "rules of this site".

@XanderHenderson Some of the sources are: (1) review queues; (2) questions I come across; (3) previous close requests in this room; (4) a search for very short posts; (5) a search for recently closed questions.

@user21820 thanks

(4) also turns up vandalism where askers erase much of their question, but that is easily fixed by rolling back.

Probable Poor Questions Query

Closed Recent Questions

I should also note that PPQQ catches some very short questions that are nevetheless acceptable to me as they are clearly not homework and are driven by curiosity. Typically the lousy ones are in the middle or at the bottom of that list.

@XanderHenderson: I once pinned these searches but they disappear from the star board after 2 weeks so I got lazy. I can repeat pinning them if anyone finds them useful.

@Jack Heh heh, got a couple.

Thanks again for the suggestion. Feel free to let me know if you see any other good ones (same goes to anyone else listening)

@MartinR To the best of my knowledge, nothing has changed and closing question as duplicates (if they really are duplicates) is the right thing to do. As both you and Xander Henderson said in the other room.

@MartinR Sorry but today I don’t have much time to dedicate to these important discussion. For now note that I’m not claiming that closing duplicates is a bad thing I’m claiming that closing duplicates suddenly is a bad thing, but we’ll return on that in details. I’m really interested to explain my point and to know your better. Bye

@BillDubuque From my side, as I’ve already said somewhere else, I would deserve deletion only for very bad questions and answers, where with bad I mean really poor or wrong content, downvoted from the community, etc. I can understand that my standards can be different from those of other users and I can accept that but sometimes I can’t. We can continue the discussion tomorrow, I’ll be happy to exchange some more ideas on that. Thanks

@MartinSleziak I agree, closing duplicates, when they are really duplicates is the good thing to do. What I claim is the timing for closure. The present way for closing suddenly to not prevent the proliferation for duplicates, on the other hand this stimulate more and more low quality questions to be raised. I’ll discuss this issu tomorrow with @MartinR in more details. Thanks

@user I thing that this is probably problem that neither of us is a native English speaker, but I am not really sure what you mean by the word suddenly.

Do you mean "soon after they were posted" or something similar? I.e., are you saying that close voters should wait and not cast the duplicate close vote immediately after the question is posted?

I meant to say "I think" rather than "I thing". Sorry for the typo.

@MartinSleziak Yes sorry, I mean exactly “soon after they were posted”. Thanks, I’ll return on that. Bye

Just one more suggestion and I leave it alone.

@user As far as I know, suggestion like yours ("don't cast duplicate close votes immediately - wait some time after the question was posted before casting the first duplicate close vote") wasn't discussed on meta before.

So if you have some arguments which can show why consider this a better option, it might be reasonable to make a post on this on meta.

In such post on meta, you might be able to lay out your arguments in a more clear manner and it is also easier to discuss things there.

@MartinSleziak Obviously, it's just a way to try to get people to give enough time for certain users to earn rep before the question gets closed. If this continues, we're going to get Yahoo Answers 2.0. The long-established consensus on meta is to close questions that deserve closure as fast as possible. Criteria for closure has been debated, but not the attempt to close quickly.

I think that such post is likely to be downvoted quite a lot - but I might be wrong. (But regardless whether it gets positive or negative score, it might be still considered useful. Voting will show where the community stands on this. And there will be a post on meta with clear explanation of your position.)

I think that this is different from some other issues you have mentioned recently - since it does not make much sense to make a new post about something that have been discussed many times before. But this "wait before the first duplicate vote" is new, as far as I can tell.

@user21820 Well, that's possible. I prefer that to give gimusi benefit of the doubt - or at least to give them oportunity to formulate they arguments why they think that it is better to do it this way.

It seems that gimusi read the same posts on meta as you an me, yet they draw completely different conclusions from them.

Answers to such post on meta might show that the community indeed considers duplicate question to be quickly closed as the right course of action. (Or - possibly - it might prove both of us wrong.)

And the question on meta might also explain why gimusi thinks this way specifically about duplicate close votes. (Or at least in these recent messages there were not object to close votes for missing context cast soon after the question is posted.)

TL:DR; You might be right, but discussion on meta might made this clearer.

@MartinSleziak Anyone can draw any 'conclusion' they like, whether logical or not. I suppose there is no benefit to discuss what we think one specific user thinks or does not think, so I'll not say anything though I think some things are clear to everyone who knows what has been happening.

Well, but it's beneficial if the user clearly says what they arguments for this are. And it's probably better on meta. (You might have seen several messages by this particular user in several chatrooms promising that they'll get to back. It's better if there is something in one place than scattered in some isolated messages over several chatrooms.)

Of course, this was merely a suggestion - whether or not gimusi decides to make a post on meta is entirely up to him.

Yes of course it's better on meta; I agree with that, but it's just as clear that the SE rep system is broken and open to abuse, and that's all there is to it here (in my opinion).

Jyrki Lahtonen also recently mentioned that they plan to make a post on meta related to some of the stuff which was discussed here recently. We'll see what comes out from that discussion.

Yup.

As a side note, gimusi asked a few times for links to discussions on meta (when I said that some things he raised were discussed before). I have collected at least some links which I was able to find quickly here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/19138/2019/12/7 If there are some posts I should have included, feel free to let me know. (Probably better in that room - we digressed from the primary purpose of this room anyway.)

Originally I came here just to comment on Martin R's question whether closing duplicates is now considered bad. (Since nobody responded to that.) I ended up in much longer exchange than I expected - but that happens in chat quite often.

In any case, sorry for the interruption of the normal activity of the room.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

D13, D14, D15.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

C13, C14, C15.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer (80): How to determine gradient of vector in cylindrical coordinates? by user732918 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer (80): How to determine gradient of vector in cylindrical coordinates? ✏️ by user732918 on math.SE

@Jack Why do you insist on drawing inferences where none are warranted? The question was simple: Do you approve of facilitating dishonesty?

@Jack I simply asked you a question. Can you just answer it? Based on your answer, we can continue.

For the record, @user21820 and I have discussed this in the past, and we come down on slightly different sides of the issue (I don't approve of facilitating dishonesty, but I also don't want to arbitrate what is honest or dishonest, hence we have slightly different approaches to PSQs).

But, in answer to the simple question asked, my answer would be: "No, I do not approve of facilitating dishonesty."

@user So, based on what you wrote, is the following deduction valid? gimusi never answers "bad questions", so any question that gimusi answers is a "good question" so deserves undeletion, so it is ok ask other users to help you undelete all deleted questions you've answered by posting them en masse to GENTLE. If not, please explain precisely which inference fails to hold true.

^^^ "posting them (and only them) en masse ..."

@Jack No, Jack. Cheaters does not mean "MSE users who cheat at certain ongoing contests".

@Jack It's hard to imagine that you don't understand the intent of the question given the massive context above. If you intend to never directly answer then why not simply say so rather than waste everyone's time.

@user21820 asked: Do you approve of permitting anyone to attempt to do something dishonest or to fail to do something in order to facilitate dishonesty?

I asked an even shorter version: Do you approve of facilitating dishonesty?

@Jack But your replies strike me as highly disingenuous.

@Jack I strive not to be, but I am human too (last time I checked)

That wasn't the question, nor does it answer the question.

@Jack Keep in mind that unless you make it crystal clear that GENTLE does not facilitate unethical behavior then it will likely alienate many users who share the rooms main views. So it is essential to clarify that if you wish that room to thrive.

That's one of the reasons I went to great length recently to highlight how close some recent behavior in GENTLE was to the beginning of an (undeletion) voting ring, i.e. to bring to the fore major ethical issues that may make or break decision of others to participate in GENTLE.

To be fair, I felt the same about some actions in this room in the past. It is important that we have checks & balances to keep these rooms under control, because the evil gamification teases one otherwise. Don't dance with the devil.

@Jack Since you emphasized precision above, let's be precise: is it the position of you and the other GENTLE room owners that it is ethical for a user to post massive undeletion lists, containing only questions with that user's answers, and it is ethical for other GENTLE users to act on these single-user-focuses requests. In particular it is ethical for all GENTLE users to do so? If so, than condones an undeletion voting ring.

I asked all current GENTLE room owners to reply to the above (Jack, Martin Sleziak, Zacky)

@Jack I keep stating the precise version of my question, and you keep adding extra stuff that wasn't there.

I never said my question was about any particular post. Why did you keep trying to link it to something. Why can't you just answer my question as it is?

This is all I asked, and I never asked you anything specific to Math SE. If you cannot answer my question, or do not wish to answer, say so.

@Jack You keep asking me whether it is related to this or that thing on Math SE. I keep saying no.

I do not understand why you are so 'obsessed' with some particular Math SE post, and keep bringing it up again and again when I am asking you a separate question.

@Jack: So until you answer my question, I shall assume that you do not want to make your answer public.

It seems this question has been vandalized. Please roll it back (I don't have enough rep. to rollback).

This question is in desperate need of focus, and should probably be put on hold. However, the asker put a bounty on the question, so it cannot be dealt with appropriately.