@JitendraSingh ridicolous, but look at the questions with scores above 300. Then, you are possibly no more surprised. By the way, the -1/12 - link is one of those.
@JitendraSingh: I upvoted and answered that question because I find it interesting. The question invites discussion about deeper ideas, mainly "why is multiplication distributive over addition, but not subtraction?" A range of answers can be offered, some more theoretical/abstract, others more intuitive/concrete. In my experience, MSE rarely receives pre-calculus questions from those wanting to understand their material, rather than simply memorise it.
@Peter Open for deletion. @Joe, why do you continue to answer the most basic of PSQ's?
@Joe That question about "deeper ideas" was never asked. Math.se is not a forum to juice out all the deeper conjectures, possibilities, etc. This is not your blog, nor the OPs. Your excuse is fails, big time.
@Joe Do you tell your library who fines you a fee for an overdue book, that "I don't agree I was overdue; I don't agree that I should not be fined." You see laws and policies to not require you to agree with them, in order to be valid.
@Joe EoQS addresses answers to low quality questions, lacking context, not just PSQ's. Just because you think doing so anyway is okay, doesn't make it okay to do so.
@amWhy: That's a poor analogy, because whether a library book is overdue is an objective fact. Whether that question is a PSQ is something we can discuss. If things were really as clear-cut as you are suggesting, then why is that post sitting at $8$ upvotes?
@amWhy: Now, if you want to discuss this, then that's fine—but right now I am not inclined to continue with someone who makes comments like "your excuse fails, big time". You don't look like you are here for a discussion—you look like you are here to create yet another pointless argument.
@Joe You're clearly intentionally arguing, trying to diminish me through snarky ad hominids, and hence, are clearly not here for a discussion, but to trigger/and pointlessly argue. Practice what you preach.
Time to start stepping up, once again, and flag those who are intent on defying EoQS; If it makes the pokey mods weeks to go through the flags, there will be patterns via users most frequently flagged. @user21820, @ParamanandSingh, @Peter, @Teresa, and all regular users who'd like to see folks abide by the EoQS, written by an elected moderator, and authorized
... by the entire moderator team, all of whom serve as our elected representatives.
@Joe This comes back to a very important question I had asked a couple of users earlier. Let's say that we see a question, that lacks context in the sense that it possesses not enough of content present in the "how to ask a good question" post. But we are interested, for the deepness that we see in the question (the OP doesn't see it). That often happens, after all it good to see the motivation behind what a user is asking. A situation where the OP doesn't see what we see , as motivation...
... and now , people want to keep the question afloat because they see merit in the question. Let me give you an example : recently, someone asked about the irrationality of $pi^{e}$ or something like that (it was some weird number, the fact that I do not even remember it tells you it was arbitrary). That question was up voted 15 times. The OP provided no motivation, but others felt that it could "invite new techniques" in problem solving , and that it should stay afloat. But it was a PSQ...
so the point is : should a question stay afloat merely because , despite it "lacking context", answerers see it in a better light? So what is the OP's role in all this? Just providing a question and letting people decide whether it stays afloat or not, based on their notions of what is useful/accessible/worth asking or not? Is that of the best benefit to the OP? Another problem is that OP hasn't actually engaged with any of the answerers : so where is their interest in the situation?
(Of course, note that engagement doesn't equal interest, but there is a correlation.)
@Joe your opinion is fine at your place however you only tell me is it a q and a site or a blog site? Definitely question and answer site. Blog or deep thinking are to be present in arxiv.org
So you might understand why it is not a good practice to answer this. What my mind says is that the 8 or 10 upvoters of this question might be the user not much familiar with EOQS or context question or like you believer in deep knowledge question.
@Joe This was a point of contention, after all it is possible that OP hit a great question without knowing how to motivate it. But that's exactly why we ask for context, right? We do not want a situation where an OP posts a question and others answer it, based on the interest they take off the question. Now, what can happen, and can definitely, a cent percent happen, is the usage of comments. All the on-topic comments made there by JM were fantastic. They were not "improving" the question...
Please note @Joe chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/58584025#58584025 in this by "like you believer in deep knowledge question" I am by any way not criticising you or the upvoter. It is just opinion which is fine for me. Yours is fine for you
... in the sense that they weren't directives into improving it, but I think they were meritorious comments which attempted to shed new light on the question. An interested OP would hopefully try to reply to that, either in the question post or in the comments. Actually, my worry on that post doesn't even have to do with the fact that it got so much attention : but the fact that no one thought : ah, this question could face an issue. No one asked for any kind of OP's input on things.
@TeresaLisbon Yes, that's what my comment reflects, below the post. Though there is slight improvement with this user's meta posts: Void of sections, starting with Preamble, and absent any reference to a toddler analogy.
@amWhy Oh yes, the whining toddler one was pretty interesting! I still remember Asaf though, when he said that he actually doesn't mind people who think about it and then do crazy things! We probably have a case right there.
Clearly, there is not something like an algorithm deciding whether a post is good or not. So, any automation will lead to absurd results. Short remark to the discussion above : There cannot be two opinions about whether a question like "must I do the same on both sides of an equation to transform it, and if yes, why ? " is on-topic on this site. It is clearly off-topic. That it was nevertheless heavily upvoted - well, we know what this usually means.
@TeresaLisbon At least the author had an idea, unfortunately without trying to work it out.
@Peter Yes. It is not a PSQ for sure. But it's a question in inequalities, which usually but not always come in contests questions or problems. So a source should have been given. Not given.
@TeresaLisbon It's a pretense at being a non-psq. Claiming "this might work but I come up empty" is not context, it's the pretense of context, unless they actually show their work until they get stuck.
@amWhy Correct. I think we have consensus on such things, at least in this room. My biggest worry still remains, that enough people aren't informed about sources being useful. Why can't people state where they come from? The answer is either that they are unaware or that they are cheating or that they are somehow doing "reserved, secretive" activity.
Just a simple line like : "this is from XYZ contest" doesn't make the question instantly non-closable (in fact, I'd still close it). But it allows potential answerers to make use of OP's resources to suggest all kinds of context that the OP can see , and let OP add it to the post.
@TeresaLisbon Particular annoying is when a user wants to have help but claims that he/she cannot present details because someone could steal his/her "great" idea.
@Peter That is (without reflecting on the person's character) the last kind of person I would want on MSE. Who wants information but cannot share anything for it. Even research is collaborative!
@TeresaLisbon I agree. Too many folks focus on "I need an answer to this", assuming we are a "do my work for me service", as though they have no responsibility: post a question and it ought to be answered ASAP. Entitlement, sometimes. Also, some users are timid about showing their work, because they fear being humiliated.... no one reason.
@Peter Too many excuses, put forth by abusive askers and the answerers that seek "i have no clue" questions to hunt.
@amWhy I can understand the conversation around attempts actually. I mean, it does make sense that an attempt can deflect from the question, although I find that to be a rarity as well. But my trouble is when people don't even want to mention their background or source! That is funny. I mean, are you THAT entitled that you will get an answer on a silver platter, without so much as having to type your question in and bat an eyelid!
@TeresaLisbon Not long ago we spoke of askers wanting to be spoon fed, and too many answerers willing to spoon feed, where the most important task at and should have been wanting to learn how to feed oneself, or wanting to assist OPs only wrt encouraging them, hinting, etc. To eat independently.
@amWhy Exactly. I think EoQS grasped very well, the fact that if too many ask and get, it's because there are too many who give for the sake of giving.
@amWhy Right! I think EoQS also got it right because yes questions and OPs of questions suffer collateral damage : but the problem is that they aren't , as far as I know, asked to read "how to ask a good question" or given useful pointers on context before asking a question. So I wouldn't blame them, or newbie answerers, for answering these questions. It's the other users , who know the way things should work, who should know better. So EoQS is targeting the right population.
One of the biggest, often heard fibs folks tell themselves, and others on this site, is: I just want to help the poor, pathetic users who can't are clueless (reflecting arrogance and pity.) While there certainly are users that truly respect askers, and sincerely want to make a difference and help students learn how to learn, far more answerers are answering to serve themselves, but know that's the pathetic facet, and so make excuses.
As usual the differing on what help means. I remember our earlier conversation on "who" should get help. Now I see that this question was far, far deeper than what I thought about yesterday, because it's not only about the "who" but it's also about the kind of "help".
@TeresaLisbon Indeed: many professed "helpers" (let me show my stuff and help you by giving you an answer you can copy and paste onto homework, or your current test) do, ultimately, undermine a user's struggle to confidence, learning, and maturity, etc.
@TeresaLisbon I think we're "singing to the choir", you and I!
@Saad @Peter, it seems as though some users are gladly answering PSQs and crappy questions, it's become a way for lower rep users to take advantage of the lull in the classic FGITW. All, absolutely impervious to the EoQS, including our user Joe.
@amWhy: Earlier, I said that it didn't look like you were interested in having a discussion. You seem to have confirmed that with your comment stating that I am "absolutely impervious to the EoQS". Jitendra Singh wanted to know why that question was being upvoted—I told him why I upvoted it, and as a result, my answer was downvoted twice. You seem completely uninterested and even hostile towards what I have to say.
@Joe Not at all. I do not, on the otherhand, find anything you've said indicating your interest in having a conversation. I say, the question you answered seemed to be..... You say, I don't think it was. I say check this meta post or that meta post, and you say, "I disagree." You want to talk about downvoted posts!!!! I average receiving 14 per week. Don't read more into victimhood than is there.
Joe When you come here on the offensive, all hot and bothered, it is you that is not ready to have a calm discussion. Stop playing the victim.
And about downvotes, imagine 14 weekly downvotes, on average, having answered, at most, six questions in seven months?
Okay Joe. I'll give you this: I will not bring your name up, but I will act on posts failing to abide by the EoQS, and/or "How to ask a good question", and not comment to any of your posts, though I reserve the right to flag for mod attention when appropriate.
@amWhy Fantastic. So that clears it up. I think , perhaps that relativism did lead me too far, so thank you once again. If we agree that it's wrong, it's wrong. The rules dictate that it is wrong. End of. Makes sense. So we don't actually need such a post! Surely the information is present in previous situations as you mentioned.
No , @amWhy you were not stern, but merely direct with your concern. That made the point far more clearly. I was trying to avoid loopholes in the system because I felt, being a relativist ,that anyone catching an opinion that was defended by a collective on a meta chat could claim it as theirs and then stick to it, disallowing any form of engagement.
Now I realize, that actually speaking we stick to what we know, and our guidelines aren't up for as much interpretation as we see on previous meta chats. They are there for a reason, and PSQs are up there with the worst kind of violation to that post.
"The appeal to what is helpful or harmful appears to be a standard that transcends local disagreements and variations" probably sums it up perfectly.
@TeresaLisbon It is a challenge, to have a sense of orientation (ethical, epistemic), while also remaining open the consider some details, which don't every time require one to lose their orientation entirely. E.g., How best to implement a goal , is different than being challenged every day to justify one's goal, when it has already been finely detailed. Conversation and discussion how about how to proceed, may very well differ.
@amWhy I consider that the biggest challenge in my life, if you like. Being equally open minded and equally closed minded. Having that balance , I will strive for. I also used to love this quote : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I now see that we can't quite defend the rights around certain things, especially when they've been hashed out to stunning detail.
@TeresaLisbon True; with a utilitatian bend, which is a big step above moral and epistemic relativism. Our Code of Conduct on this site argues, the use of language, comments, etc., that violate respect for humans, their sense of worth are wrong, period. Even if the imprisonment of a wimping child, as a condition for an entire city to experience only joy, which, I personally cannot endorse, though a utilitarion my compute an overall gain in happiness.
This issues is one of the reasons I also pursued philosophy.
We can always continue this conversation, when you and I aren't winding down, in our chatroom. I don't have any problems with our current conversation up until now, remaining here.
@amWhy Sure! Perhaps not now, since I fancy completing an answer I should have given ages ago, but definitely in the future. But unfortunately my philosophical background is very poor, I know about as much in philosophical disciplines as a fish does about being on land.
@TeresaLisbon I think that's perfect. We can pick it up perhaps tomorrow. I want to link you a short story, which helped to understand the treachery that even (strict) utilitarianism can lead to. Get to work, you walking fish! ;D
@mods How is it possible that the answerer, one of the most frequent EQS offenders, is not suspended. Yes, I have flagged him now and several other times.
@ArcticChar D4's asker actually posted the only answer there. While the question wasn't good, can the answer make up for it that we don't have to delete?
@vitamind I flagged him to, as I have many many times earlier. I wouldn't risk addressing MV directly; his is hostile in attacking those who suggest he shouldn't be answering PSQ's
@user21820 Well, that needs to be challenged. (His first username was DMV, or DrMV, which I could spot a mile away, because the first is an acronym for my state's "Department of Motor Vehicles"! (off topic aside.)
@amWhy: I don't think either of us came out here on the offensive. If you look at the first comment I made, I simply explained to Jitrenda Singh why I upvoted the post he was asking about. It's pretty wearing to take time out of my day to explain my reasoning, only to be immediately criticised and downvoted for it.
But it's the way in which you did this that I find most frustrating—saying that the question is "the most basic of PSQ's" is pretty condescending, as it implies that it should have been obvious to me that the question was a PSQ. Clearly, it wasn't obvious to me, as otherwise I wouldn't have posted an answer.
I too care about this site, and if I post an answer to a question that you consider to be a PSQ, then it's not because I am acting in bad faith—we just have a difference in opinion. That's why I simply said "I disagree". I'm not interested in having a lengthy argument over the internet. Ironically, that's exactly what this seems to have become, but I'm willing to move on now.
@Joe Very well. I'd add it's the way in which you posted, and posted to meta, and responded that I find most frustrating. So we need to create a baseline, rules for engagement, each of us agree to. I do not believe you are acting in bad faith. Perhaps we have a difference of opinion, but one of us is much newer to this site than the other. I don't respect you any less, but it is annoying when users are categorically dismissed because : amWhy is a bitch, Not at all attributed to you
but you've observed it often enough, to have an easier time now challenging me, than say any other user from more than eight years ago. I admit, sometimes I worry that others see me as an easy target (e.g., the downvotes I spoke of). I do not attribute that to you in any way. You do strike me as sincere. I am sorry if you felt demeaned by my words; I did not intend to do so. I do respect you. And I should have been more patient. We can make this work, ...
...and I think you are and will continue to be a great value to this site, @Joe.
Can we just "start over," @Joe? If there is a meta comment I wrote that still upsets you. let me know. I appreciate you returning to speak with me. It gets very hard sometimes when we're getting pings, reviewing, participating in a chat, all at the same time.
Yes, let's start over, @amWhy. I also value your contributions, and I'm sorry to see that your posts are downvoted so frequently. I don't see you as an easy target in the least.
