I Approach0 down?

@XanderHenderson It seems so. If I notice a problem with Approach0 then I usually leave a notice for Wei Zhong (the author/maintainer of Approach0) in the “In the search of a question” chat room:

@BillDubuque Unfortunately, as you know, the distinction between bad and good questions is not univocal therefore what I can say is that I’ve answered to questions which have been perceived as a “bad questions” from a part of the community but as “good questions” from another part of the community. Therefore, what we can conclude is that these questions deserve deletion for a part of the community and undeletion for another part.

Your claim that “I ask other users to help me to undelete all deleted questions I've answered” is not correct. Indeed, I don’t ask to undelete questions, that is not the scope of GENTLE. I submit questions in order to have an evaluation from other users which can decide freely whether the overall content deserve or not deletion.

Moreover, I don’t submit all the deleted questions I’ve answered but only those which, in my opinion, are disputed (by downvotes/upvotes or comments) and therefore eligible for a deeper evaluation.

The most important thing is that if we allow submission in public chatrooms for closure/deletion of questions and, at the same time, we try to interdict and prevent submission in public chatrooms for reopen/undeletion of questions, I think we are promoting a very unfair and unbalanced system for the community.

@MartinR Yay! Thanks.

@MartinSleziak Martin, I haven't really completed all of it (end of semester chores). The chief complaint I have against users like gimusi is the scale of FAQ-answering. I realize that it is difficult to formulate a rule with the effect that an isolated incident is tolerable, but becomes offensive when done in excess. My currently best formulation of what I think should happen is outlined in this MetaStackExchange post.

I realized that calling for suspensions (and actions of our local diamond bearers) is too harsh a remedy. The users indulging in mass answering of FAQs never show up to talk this over in our local meta, and future mass answerers won't find any eventual deal we could make with the current batch binding anyway. Then I reached the conclusion that software assistance is needed. Hence the proposal in MSE.

In light of Shog9's reply to my MSE rant from last year I'm afraid we all need to compromise for the network to be able to continue. For my part I need to brace myself for a future where duplicates by newbie askers need to be tolerated. But I am not going to go for that if it means that those duplicate questions become fodder for the gimusis.

I am close to thinking that it is preferrable for SE to go down in flames as opposed to surrendering the site to the repfarmers. The long term well-being of the site needs new users. The most knowledgable of those need to earn enough rep from those duplicates. But, it means that those who already have excesss rep, say over 50k, should sit back. Otherwise the game won't be fair.

For my part I will try and shed excess rep by handing out bounties to excellent contributions. Quality material is difficult to find, so I really want to start that new chatroom for collecting suggestions for bounty worthy contributions. An old pet project of @AlexanderGruber and yours truly. I would call it The Pearl Dive to accentuate which end of the pearls vs. sand dichotomy I want to flourish.

A "dive" is a slang word for a low end watering hole in the US, but when connected to pearls a search comes up with a high end seafood place in DC (with Michelin stars to boot).

IMO an interesting idea that was brought up in that MSE thread was to wall off tutoring of newbies outside of the main Q&A area. I like that suggestion a lot, and need to learn the use of chatrooms to that end (as opposed to comments which is what I have been using).

yup, the chat rooms have a lot of unexplored applications

@JyrkiLahtonen Incidentally, I have recently mentioned chat as an option in another room: chat.stackexchange.com/… chat.stackexchange.com/search?room=97476&q=tutoring

Of course, a new user needs to earn some reputation first before they can talk in chat. That might be an obstacle. (IIRC mods can give explicit write access also to a user below 20 reputation points, but that should probably be used only in exceptional cases.)

One more thing. The idea I proposed in MSE is in anything but final form. I was basically tossing it out for public criticism. The network wide meta is necessarily a better forum, when software changes are called for. Needs more work.

@MartinSleziak Hmm. What about those auto-suggested chatrooms when a comment exchange length exceeds a certain threshold?

@JyrkiLahtonen IIRC the users with low rep won't be able to talk there despite being invite in chat. I think I saw some posts on Meta Stack Exchange complaining about this.

or if they have been banned from chat

@JyrkiLahtonen So this is marked as (status-completed): Disable chat migration notification if one of the users has insufficient rep? If that's correct, suggestion to move to chat shouldn't even be given in such cases.

There were also some feature requests related to this - by a quick search I found Suggested Privilege: Inviting new users to chat and Invite low rep users to participate in chat.

In any case, this is only tangential. TL;DR: A user needs to gain some reputation first to be able to talk in chat.

@JyrkiLahtonen Finally-- the perfect name.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer (94): Partial fraction with a constant as numerator by Best Method on math.SE