@Saad: just a request, when giving links to posts please try to use at least two letters so that link is easily clicked. The choice of a thin letter like "i" makes the link difficult to click on a mobile device.
@amWhy It's been only 36 minutes since that question was posted : The OP is active as of just 8 minutes ago and I left an improvement comment (as I did on Peter's post as well, following a conversation). I would suggest more patience regarding this question, I would like to know your thoughts on this.
I don't have problems deleting posts where I don't see any OP (or any) activity for a long time : but we should focus on deleting the answer there, and I have a downvote and a delete vote.
I'm sorry, @TeresaLisbon, but the question statement says only "I am stuck on the calculation of this integral: Can someone please help me?" At this time. I think you should invest time on helping users improve more promising questions. We are not here to hold hands. We can suggest improvements, which you said you did; But there are not enough users to hand hold everyone who is clueless on this site. Your attention to this OP is depriving other struggling OP's your attention. Triage!!
@TeresaLisbon This user has posted two PSQs in two hours and it seems that they already turned blind eyes to multiple comments under their first post suggesting improvement.
That's right, I think I was just swayed by the fact that the post and OP participation was too recent to warrant deletion, and I felt if they were active I could handhold them through the process, but fair enough.
@TeresaLisbon Please share your philosophy of hand holding only a few askers, and who you may have a bias to go to this length? Do they need to be Indian? Why spoon feed user x, but request deletion for user y, z, a, b, c, d? You have a right to help nurture who you want to help nurture, but please do not implore us to behave with biased favoritism to your chosen ones, but not all.
@amWhy: I am all for applying policies to everyone in same manner. At least thats what we need to strive for. We may commit mistakes occasionally and we can take note of those.
And even if a post is closed or deleted, the asker has many options to get the post back in shape and undeleted/opened. A serious/sincere asker need not worry if they are not able to post their question the right way. They will learn over time.
@ParamanandSingh I agree wholeheartedly; and indeed, each of us will make mistakes here and there, but you are right; they serve as great learning experiences.
@amWhy What bias? I found some people, and I helped them because they were recently active. I helped a certain Matt Frank as well, in the integral post, as it turns out he/she replied quickly and we were in conversation there anyway. Most visitors to my room are Indians, but I never advertised, it is only that they came over. I request deletion of old posts, posts where people have had chances to react to closure ...
... and the post which I visited, I felt that 35 minutes was too little, given that although the OP was active we needed to give them at least one clear message in that post, along with time to improve and react. It wasn't given, and I accepted the thought process then. I went back to the user's other post and told them I would be happy to help them if they needed. The same with Matt.
@TeresaLisbon Many people were recently active. Why do you choose the select few you choose to help? You can be a full-time tutor, and do so in a chatroom, for users seeking that out. But please don't ask us to give preferential treatment, i.e., to not take action, on those you tutor.
@amWhy I won't. Do you see evidence of that? A user that I handheld for sometime on the site is now suspended for some violations because they had decided to form their own opinion and it conflicted with mine, at which point I let go despite persistent discussion.
@TeresaLisbon Perhaps I'm being cynical, but for the most part, on this site "Can you help?" = "Can you do it for me?"
@Teresa I can often tell the difference from those who seriously want to understand, from those who post expecting us to do it for them, or have homework or test due within the hour. Can you? It doesn't seem so. And I cringe because I know you have a pure heart, but you often set yourself up to manipulating users. I'm not angry, but I wish you'd realize that you are not always helping. Occasionally you are enabling, just like some answerers are.
@amWhy You are probably right. I want to help everybody. The truth is, I just help those who respond in some way. If that has some bias to it then I can't fathom why, although it may have to do with the fact that I have some Indian alphabets in my profile page. But I don't give an answer : only pointers to improvement.
@TeresaLisbon I know that. And I am convinced you are dedicated to doing the right thing. And you have been helpful with some users, including some who are regularly here joining us. I do not intend to smother your good work; Perhaps it's more that I want to spare you the disillusionment "wall" I crashed into quite a while ago. But it didn't break me; it just helped me realize some askers, just like some answerers, play games, perhaps they don't even intend to play, but they mutually reinforce
each others' behavior.
"play clueless, helpless, desperate"" --> "Answer as the knight in shining armor who saves the damsel in distress" , etc., etc.,
@amWhy I am trying to pick relatively new users so I can be influential from the word go. If users have previous history, then I'd like to be somewhat informed about this, although with some profile searching I have a list myself that should be aware of things.
(Note : by influential, I mean that I can push through the whole EoQS arguments and why questions should be presented in a certain way,...)
@TeresaLisbon I understand. I apologize if you felt I was too harsh in my earlier statements to you. I relate to you more than you can know. I do think at times you are a tad too overconfident, but there's no need for me to say so publicly , and I will abstain wrt addressing you with anything resembling criticism.
@amWhy Oh dear! I know you very well, you care for me a lot! Thanks once again. Do criticize me when you feel the need to. Yes, after reading all those meta discussions twice and then thrice more, I don't feel "overconfident" : but yes, I do feel empowered , in some sense, like I can take actions and defend them with some more conviction than I'd usually do. I kind of feel like I see through things more carefully : that kind of lead me to noticing that new users might need more handholding...
... and also that the constructive feedback chatroom needs to be activated a little more, because I feel that this place can be a uniform go-to place to handhold and help out new users. In particular, once we close questions, I'd like us to focus on deleting the answer and let the OP of the question come to the feedback chatroom and sort the question out as a reboot.
It's true that not all new users will come : but I'd like it if one user was helped, and then they helped another, and so on. We need to come across as a helpful community as well : sending the message that we are closing and deleting questions is going to make someone think : ah , so how exactly am I going to be able to ask a new question? Of those that care, some read meta but are still confused, partly due to "recent" changes. So for them , I'd say get them to the C.F. chatroom.
(Note : by "recent" changes, the point is that enforcement is tighter and meta discussions may be outdated, bar the EoQS page of course)
@amWhy I do acknowledge one thing, but also with a caveat : I'd like questions to be held up for a longer time at least for new users (say rep < 500) so that they can be given some time( I would say 8 hours or a night's sleep, you can make it lesser) for improvement guided by comments. The caveat, though, is that closure will still occur, in fact I'd actually love closure in the sense that...
... it may be helpful to visit closed questions with OPs who want answers, and then get them to visit the C.F room and help them by setting guidelines for them, that hopefully future users will also read and follow up with.
(Note : by held up, I mean "held up as closed, but not deleted" so close it quickly, but let it remain undeleted for longer). I know this makes it difficult to track such questions, but if people post links on CURED and someone follows up and sees that enough time has passed without improvement, we push it back and it gets deleted.
@TeresaLisbon I think this is fair, provided closure occurs, so no new opportunistic answerers can claim their rep stake in it. I think that, formerly, was one of the only ways to punish answerers of low quality questions. We just need to develop, individually, or on CURED, jointly, a way to list such posts in order to revisit them a day later. That can be difficult, without over-stressing stars on comments.
@amWhy Thanks! Yes, we need to think of such a way. I will probably indicate verbally my actions on a post, but maybe I will now leave the following message : "if enough time has expired please delete this" or something like that.
@amWhy Right, so starring may not be the right thing to do , because I have a screen of the same size (there or thereabouts) as well. I think for now I'll stick to verbal indication.
By the way : mods are handling dupe flags, I provide details of how I can easily access the dupe post in my flag text so that it makes it easier to see that the dupe is not lost in the wilderness.
I did not follow the complete dialogue , but my opinion is that it is OK to give a user a small hint unless it is utterly obvious that the user only wants an answer and nothing else. Such obvious cases are however very rare. If the user was able to make progress (and gives a feedback actively), then one can give the next hint and so on. Surely, we can never be sure whether the user is cheating, but experienced users develop some feeling whether this is the case or not.
The decision WHICH users should be on the help list is another story. Everyone must decide this for its own. The main problem is anyway that an answer usually occurs before the OP has even a chance to make an effort this way. There is unfortunately no good way out of this dilemma.
@Peter hence, bottom line, we absolutely do need to close such questions ASAP, to circumvent, or minimize, answers given. That's why I think holding potential answeres to first assist the OP with suggestions to improve their question, and search for duplicates, is crucial, to slow down the FGITW.
@amWhy Correct, remember my meta post which I retracted very quickly? Over there, I raised a similar point, but what I could not defend was the following : "answers can't be expected or made to do things they don't want to do, or that they don't hold positive opinions about" (The explanation was longer, but basically this). I had to delete in light of this kind of completely taking the heat off potential answerers.
@Peter I'll get the exact phrases first, then I'll try to paraphrase it. I still think it came out right, but I'll see if I missed a point upon a second reading.
@TeresaLisbon But what you suggested, as I suggested, is very much a paraphrase of the current EoQS, which does hold answerers accountable for answering, when they have not assisted in the improvement of the question, nor in searching for a dupe. I suggest we should include these points in flags of answers answering PSQ. E.g., "This answerer made no attempt to assist the asker to improve their question, nor did they search for obvious dupes. They merely answered a PSQ."
I got the exact phrase which troubled me : "To approach my point from another angle: telling answerers that they "must" do something when there is no way to enforce that and when they don't agree is unlikely to be effective. You can ask people to avoid answering, but it doesn't mean they "must" do anything".
We still need to keep flagging answerers violating the EoQS. Some may need a week suspension, some may need a month. But this site has long made exceptions for abusive and enabling answerers, so I do not think that having them suspended is worse than any sanction on an asker. It's a symbiosis: chronic answerers of PSQs, chronic askers of PSQs, they feed off each other.
Another quote : "I understand the conundrum you are struggling with, but I suggest that the first step to a fruitful discussion is to avoid faulty premises, such as assuming someone else "must" do something (when in fact no one can force them to do anything, especially when they might not agree with you), and instead replace that with more accurate statements...
... (such as that we can't force anyone else to do anything). I'm not saying there are easy solutions to the problem (otherwise the site would have already solved it). The poster is responsible for the quality of their question."
We have to diminish the activity of both, as much as possible, which means flagging answerers, and closing as quickly as possible, PSQs.
@TeresaLisbon We cannot force them, but we can go through the channels to sanction them: PSQ --> closed, answerer of PSQ --> Flagged (and downvoted as users deem appropriate)... Then let the consequences pile up. Ultimately they will leave the site, or adapt in accordance with site policies.
The difficulty will be to find the right balance. But clear is that something must be done to prevent this site from drifting away completely. Hope this balance will be found.
@amWhy @Peter Absolutely : here's the link to my deleted answer I should have given this long ago , I don't have a clue as to why I was copy-pasting from it when it was there all the while!
I deleted it as I felt that my arguments were premature in light of the comments I received.
@TeresaLisbon Your post was foreshadowing what was yet to come! And is available now, provided mods keep their end of the bargain up and truly Enforcing Quality Standards, equitably applicable to answerers!
@Peter Do you remain hesitant to flag, or downvote answers to PSQs? Because I agree with Xander; that until we hold answerers accountable for answering PSQs, rather than assisting askers to improve their questions, and/or search for dupes; they will keep seeking rep. And tell me: who should be held more responsible: an new asker who posts verbatim a question their exercise, of a user here for 1 year to 10 years, who answers it???
@amWhy I spoke to Matt just now, we sat and improved his question on limits. We spoke about potential duplicates and the source of the question, and we managed to make it a pretty attractive question which is easy to parse through. I feel good. Now to another user!
@Peter Because most every answerer has been notified with the template linking to the EoQS, I now flag for moderator attention: "This PSQ should not have been answered. This user made no effort to assist the asker by suggesting ways to improve the question, nor did they suggest the question was answered by a dupe they searched for, but rather immediately answered. If there's another handy post to add that they answered, you can link it at that time. Regardless, you'll have made your case
I think of mathse as a platform of learning and educating, and not a place to boast about your math skills. The reps and badges are not to show off but to feel a sense of achievement. Like I see them and say I spent my time in some productive manner.
Unfortunately there are some who think it of as a competition.
It was a review audit I failed because I failed to click "reopen"??? I really think the review queue audits hurt the causes of this site, rather than help them.
@amWhy Yeah I think it's one of the most maddening aspects of SE. Even though I kind of get what the intention is, I can't tell how effective it is at stopping lazy reviewers
When it's an audit, it already feels like "haha just kidding, that was a waste your time, sucker, made you look though". When you fail an audit, it's a double insult "lolololol, you not only wasted your time, but you wasted it WRONG!"
@ElliotYu Indeed. I mean, on the one hand, it is virtually impossible to fail a suggested edit audit (unless one wants to fail), but the algorithm used to select "good questions" whatever question got 5 or more upvotes, with no close votes; so as in the case I linked to, I immediately, after failing, "taught" the algorithm to never use that question again (or at least since it has a close vote now.)
Let $\{\theta_t : \Omega \mapsto \Omega \ | \ t \in T \}$ be a family of measure preserving transformations on the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}).$ A measurable random dynamical system on the measurable space $(X, \mathcal{B})$ over $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}, \the...
@amWhy An opinion, related to the preceding conversation: close fast, delete slow. If a question is closed quickly and never improved, it will likely be automatically deleted. But if we give it a day or two, it is possible that improvements will be made, and the question can be reopened.
That being said, I don't think that a lot of harm is done when questions get deleted quickly---only a small percentage are ever improved.
@TeresaLisbon Yes, but we can (and do) suspend accounts. It would, I think, be best if folk would not speak in the imperative ("Please don't answer this kind of crap" rather than "Do not answer this kind of crap"), but, at the end of the day, answerers "must" be more selective, in the sense that, if they are not, their accounts can be suspended.
@amWhy Please keep flagging. It is helping (I typically take 5-10 minutes investigating EoQS flags, and have issued a fair number of warnings and suspensions; I know that other moderators have done the same).
@XanderHenderson That question is a link only question, length one line, more or less. It screams "PSQ!!!?? At the very least it screams: "you should know what I mean so just answer it", and we had two answerers ready to jump in. The higher rep user should have known better; the upvotes on the question were likely granted due to the answers. They have not been earned by the asker.
@XanderHenderson That's the sort of question that should show up in a reopen queue, with STOP! issued to any response other than "Leave closed".
@XanderHenderson For the most part I agree, particularly if a questions is closed before answers start piling up. Once they do pile up, closing the question only will likely not lead to change, and the post will not be autodeleted if answerers are high-fiving each other with mutual upvotes on the answers. I rarely if ever seek deletion of a closed post with no answers.
Again, the point is not that these askers need their hands held, but that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and a little bit of time to disappoint us by not improving their question.
@XanderHenderson I get what you mean. In truth, prior to now, the only way to deter answerers from answering was to rapidly delete the questions they answered, in which case, answerers would lose rep and accept points.
@XanderHenderson Yes, indeed, and even after sixty days, the only answerers keeping rep are for answerers with scores of >= 3. And even then, accept points are lost when the post is deleted. I think until recently, with the enforcement (EoQS), I began to think the closer askers and answerers received reversals of points/deletions, the better the connection between poor behavior, and consequences.
I'm not contradicting you. I think we now have other tools, but I hope, when we flag answerers, it's not just about warnings and suspensions, but also perhaps deletions??
@XanderHenderson I really hope to see more of those who have been FGITW, or exclusively answerers, engage with users to suggest ways askers can improve their questions, and/or search for dupes. Unfortunately, some of us have had to devote all our time every day to suggest help for askers, to review, to search for dupes, to flag, to close, to delete, just to balance the carelessness of "wanna gain rep" users. It would be so great, to engage with each other, rather than oppose each other.
Maybe someone can find a good dupe target? Or maybe the question should be closed? Or maybe it is okay? (I want to burn it with fire, but, again, solution-verification. Hate.)
@XanderHenderson I found an exact dupe, verifying the same proof, asked by the same user, both asked yesterday. I was able to dupe hammer the six pointer as a dupe of the other question. I can not believe the gall. The asker, double posting the same questions in one day, should have that dupe deleted, with all the points lost, and the answerers, as well. It appeared immediately to the right, in a list.
@XanderHenderson Burninate it!! It was a dupe by the very same asker.
@Xander Please tell me you read my comment(s)? I can not discern which was asked first. But I prefer the one which earned more rep be closed and deleted.
@Xander Do I need to flag it for moderator action???
@Xander I take it your attention is on other matters. But all it will take for that question to be reopened is for another user with gold badge in either tag, to dupe-open the post. I found what you asked for, and it couldn't have been any more incriminating... Do what you can do if and when you have a chance.
After more thought, I think that both versions of the question should be closed for lacking context. There are a number of ways of defining an exponential function (via DEs, as a continuous extension of exponentiation over the naturals (extended to the rationals in the "obvious" manner; as the inverse of $x \mapsto \int_{1}^{x} 1/t \,\mathrm{d}t$, etc).
Without knowing which definition is meant, it is hard to know what tools to use.
@XanderHenderson I have to agree. Neither question was terribly great. And how can the asker have accepted an answer, only to reask? I merely hope to strip the enablers and the double asker of the rep they got.
Let $\{\theta_t : \Omega \mapsto \Omega \ | \ t \in T \}$ be a family of measure preserving transformations on the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}).$ A measurable random dynamical system on the measurable space $(X, \mathcal{B})$ over $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}, \the...
