@Saad can you plese tell why you rejected this edit? So that I don't make same mistake in future.

Should be a duplicate : duplicate target in comments

Another duplicate

@JitendraSingh the \text swap to $ is an improvement, but one so slight I could see why others wouldn't think it's worthy of bumping to the front page. \iota is absolutely not the same as $i$, however.

that is, the square root of negative one is the lowercase Latin script letter i, never \iota

Unclear elementary question

@JitendraSingh Jack has basically said what I thought, and I usually reject edits that are not substantial enough. You could see from the reviewers' stat that I've accepted only about 1/3 of all the edit reviews.

@Saad Okay thanks Saad. I will try to make my edit of more value. Thanks to you too @JackGallagher

My answer to this closed question has been actively deleted by the community.

The feedback offered, "This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post", is perplexing though, since the question was "find ϕ in terms of p,q and r", to which my answer was "let ϕ be P∧¬(Q→R). This is one of many possible answers to this problem." Is this just a template/stock feedback?

Please close this question

@RyanG I apologize : it is true that your answer is a correct answer to the question, and the flag offered was incorrect. The deletion was processed in light of the fact that the question being answered was seen to be of low quality. This occurs because we want to discourage answers to such questions. Now, of course, you have the right to argue about why this question should be closed, and this is the place to do it. It has been closed for lacking context, as of the time of writing.

correction: he might have = they might have

@RyanG Understood, thanks for sharing your point of view. Let me share mine : I usually like to use the criteria "source, background, motivation, attempt" in that order. So a source isn't there, struck off. Then we've got one line of background effectively, the first sentence (which is useful, definitely). But we haven't got motivation for "why" they'd like a formula for $\phi$ (just a phrase like "it makes computation easier" would suffice, for example), and the attempt was asked for by...

... Doug in the comments. So, arguably one of these four was fulfilled. I ideally look for 1.5 to 2. So it's borderline, and for me just the other side (despite the diagram). I'm also a little concerned that OP hasn't commented yet : there could be various reasons for this over a period of say a day, but I don't know if it's a whole week! So this is my thought. It's ok if it differs with yours, because I still see that we do share our thoughts and that's what is important.

Ideally, in such a situation, rather than ask for the attempt (which is traditionally frowned upon as well in meta circles) you are better off asking for background, in the form of references(books/PDFs etc. and definitions. I have always said that barring duplicate questions, it's fairly easy to phrase your question and make it on topic.

@TeresaLisbon Thanks for sharing your thoughts! They will inform how I read future question posts. (And I agree that said question post has a weak context.)

(Despite that , I had chosen to answer it primarily as it was is non-routine.)

@RyanG You still made some fair points, so it's good we could get across to each other, Hope to see you more often.

@TeresaLisbon I agree with the criterions, but not with the order. Attempt is for me the first priority. If source is the first criterion, this would improve the chance for reviews of papers. The next is motivation. And then, if possible , source or background (the so-called context). I am astonished that the attempt is considered relatively unimportant.I consider at least some amount of attempt as absolutely necessary.

@Peter The attempt is the most important, in the sense that an attempt alone can keep a question afloat (having just one of source/background/motivation will probably not keep it afloat as much as a good attempt). But if there was a question which has nothing in it, then the order in which I would request the OP to improve the question is "source,background,motivation,attempt". Sorry, you are correct, it was good to clarify this.

Like, if the OP writes a PSQ, then the first thing I would ask them for is a source and their background. I don't ask for an attempt unless OP has insufficient background/motivation.

Actually, my entire theory of the attempt part of things is centered around Bill's idea that the attempt is the form of context that can most likely lead to problems which are tangential to the question. For example, if OP's approach is completely wrong, then yes we know it, but it still deflects from the actual question, and provides no form of context, especially if there's something stupid like a sign missing or a computational error.

I agree that a poor question cannot be saved by effort alone , otherwise proof trials of famous conjectures would be on-topic which is not the case. However, I think that some questions are OK with just an effort including clear definitions (that are often missing).

Yes, definitely. Actually, a poor question can be saved by , like, a really really good attempt. The trouble with this whole famous conjectures business for me is (personally) that the disagreements are almost funny, like one mathematician tells another "you did this wrong" and the other says "no it's not wrong, read it again" (iterated 100 times). So that kind of conversation doesn't suit MSE. The site rules have their own reasons for not allowing these questions, good that this is the case!

So, clarity and as much effort as the author can offer are the most important requirements. Of course additional context is always welcome , but only if it is relevant for the question.

Of course. The famous conjectures thing came up recently because of two questions : one was the question regarding the Riemann proof, and the other was the proof by the seventh grade boy of the twin prime hypothesis. Both were closed despite having "context" under the famous questions policy mentioned.

Not relevant are comments like "I am poor in mathematics" or "This problem caused me much trouble".

Yes, they would be irrelevant to context evaluation. Sometimes if users make such remarks, they are frustrated, so I try to tell myself that I will be patient and try to talk to them in the comments.

As compared to PSQs, where I don't usually reply, but just close (mostly with the usual "source etc." message).

What I often wonder : What should be defined , and what can be expected to be known by an "expert" ? There were several cases not easy to decide.

I wondered about this, but from merely a guidelines perspective : source, background (usually specified as "I've seen xyz from abc textbook" so fairly discernible) and attempt are often fairly easy to make out, so the trouble is : is the motivation and attempt given enough? That is what usually causes the debate, and would need an expert's take on things. For me, a PSQ in an expert subject will be a PSQ.

The minute there is something else other than the problem statement, like a single background statement or an attempt, then I must leave to the experts, the decision to make.

@TeresaLisbon By the way : I continue the search for solutions for : $\lambda(k)=m$ has exactly $m$ solutions. Still only solution so far : $m=100$.

@Peter Yes, I spent some time doing some manipulations yesterday. Very unsuccessful for starters.

I would like to ask this as a question, but it is hard to offer context/effort apart from mentioning the brute force search.

D

D

C/D

One more vote needed: C1, C2, C3; D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6

For deletion: D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12

For closure: C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9

D

D

D

D

D

Long PSQ

@Saad It's that poster, the one who along with like two others (one of them had a Russian six-letter surname like Anorov or something) was part of posting the same question again and again, and then seeing it deleted each time.

@TeresaLisbon Maybe you could flag it since you know more details there.

Wait, is it one of those recent sock puppets?

@Saad Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

@Peter, @Teresa, may I suggest that sufficient context from a user depends to some extent on the context in which the question is asked: How is it tagged? Is the aim for intuition, or for solution verification, or notation, or etc? I suggest that various questions vary in what you are discussing as the best or most appropriate forms of context a user can provide. I suspect there is no one "best" criteria to apply for all forms of questions.

...Note: I believe that context provided by an asker regarding their level in math, the class they are taking, or the text they are studying, are always welcome.

PSQ

@Teresa where did you go?

@Peter re: my comment to you and @Teresa. I'm not sure whether your discussion that I commented on is an ongoing discussion, or not. If it is, please remember that not everyone frequenting CURED is aware of your interactions previously. Please keep one-on-one conversations to a minimum in this room. For one-on-one conversations, create a chatroom for you and the person with whom you want to speak.

@amWhy First , I pointed out my point of view, that for me effort is more important than sources. Then, I posted some general remarks that are however important for this room (which terminologies have to be explained ?) I admit that there were following two comment off-topic about something that would have belonged in another room. Teresa didn't reply, so I think , there is no further discussion.

But what would actually interest me : Does any mod currently look at the possible sock-puppets above ? And why does the software not detect multiple accounts, if users have to register ?

@Peter That's fine, but you didn't just state that that effort was important, but the most important context. But it is hard to apply "effort criteria" to a question asking what the notation $\otimes$ means, or other questions in which effort does not readily apply, but research might.

@Peter That's a good question to post on meta, or in the math mods' office. I understand that such cases should be dealt with swiftly, by mods. But I've found, personally, that asking mods to pursue some tasks is read by even our most active mods, as a demand, after which they are very much disinclined, to do what they didn't think of first. I don't know what the answer is other then spreading the word here, and having the burden of notifying mods via flags spread across many users'

shoulders, so they can not ostracize just one or two users who are quick to point such sock-puppets, or anything, really, to mods.

@amWhy Sorry, I was out for an extended period. Even now, I can only take a brief look at your comments, but I will come back in the morning. I know there's been a breach of our room in the EoQS answer.

@TeresaLisbon No problem. The breach was merely an excuse for TM to avoid the topic posted in the original question. No problem.

@amWhy Sure. I was just concerned that some things we said there would be taken out of context. I've read all your comments : yes, we'll keep things a little more private, although for this particular discussion, thankfully there is no need to be very discreet. It was an open discussion about the order of context, and then I had to bolt because of some random commitment.

By the way TM has replied there, and I've replied back as well. I need to probably see if that has got a reply, but I don't know if it did.

(Exiting, see you all in like 6-7 hours).

@TeresaLisbon Your earlier comments were good.

@TeresaLisbon I commented there earlier today, to ask him to stay on topic.

@TeresaLisbon @Peter @amWhy I've just read with interest the above discussion (about question-askers providing context, effort, etc) following my question. Thanks for your input.

On a tangent: The signal:noise ratio of MSE will surely be improved by a screaming notice visible to new users (either in a banner, the sidebar, or a via a "welcome to MSE! do check if your post has met the following criteria blah blah: 1) not merely seeking opinions, 2) demonstrated effort 3) blah blah" pre-submission notification/welcome message)

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

Duplicate question about quadratic equations. See this duplicate target.

@vitamind: That question was answered by a moderator.

@rschwieb Gone!

@RyanG It would, but just like a host of other suggestions (quizzes for newbies, having their questions pass through an initial review queue, improving their feedback etc.) the implementation falls into SE's hands, and they will not want to reduce their user base by prompting checks for users. Basically, SE is trying hard not to put the guidelines into play : it wants as much traffic as possible, ideally. For that reason, our circumstances and suggestions usually revolve around what is...

... already present. Which is people , and their attitudes. So EoQS may be divisive : but in spirit I just wanted EoQS to be that "reminder" to everybody that we were losing ourselves in the flood. If the attitude of the public changes with respect to such actions, then we are in a better place. But thanks for your suggestion!

Well put, @Teresa.

Ah, morning @amWhy and thanks!

The question here was interesting, answered by a moderator even though it was arguably borderline (apart from one line of background, it's a problem statement). I am also not convinced by the answer for part (b). I know we shouldn't treat mods as gods, but that's not setting an example, let alone the best one.

@TeresaLisbon Indeed, and I commented below said moderator there; I've let to experience the consequences, but ostracism sees the most commonly used tactic by the more active mods. I agree, the answer there upsets me precisely because it does not set a good example, and in fact, we have users that will point to it, and argue, "If a mod can answer a PSQ, why can't I?"

Please close this PSQ

@amWhy Yes, I saw your comment, thanks.

Arguably low context Apart from one definition, there is no context. In my opinion that definition is necessary for the question.

Low context question