no context with answer

please see the comment that says the question is from an ongoing contest - math.stackexchange.com/questions/4393012/…

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): What's theoretically a good Nerdle combination?‭ by cst0313‭ on math.SE

uwcmt.org

Please watch the contest-math tag. The UWCMT math tournament is going on now.

DV/Del dupe of huge faq on irrationality of sqrt(2), nothing novel.

@XanderHenderson Even the original version has no context , so the question should not have been answered. Also, the given hint in the original version is basically already the solution, it boils down to a simple multiplication. For such cases, the proper close vote reason would be "too basic" , if such posts are answered, it should be done in the comments.

PSQ without context, two answers from high-rep users already: math.stackexchange.com/q/4393593/42969

@MartinR and 3 upvotes for the question itself :(

cv-pls measure-theory I think that this should probably be closed(?). It seems like something which should be between the asker and their instructor---we don't have the knowledge to answer. Am I wrong or is my professor wrong? (Basic measure theory/set theory)‭ - Novice‭ 2022-03-01 00:55:34Z

Both answers here should be deleted (PSQ), maybe the question itself too

@MartinR The one remaining answer, I have flagged many times for EoQS support in the past 9 months on the author. Yet he continues, unabated, to answer yet another PSQ. And gets rewarded with rep for doing so, yet again.

@MartinR More downvotes, and/or pinning the question to the rightmost column, to attend to when it is open for deletion, might be a good idea.

@ElliotYu It is simply off-topic.

Welp I guess I used the wrong flag. But in any case it's closed now.

@ElliotYu No, the flag you used was fine.

Honestly, there are a lot of flags which would have been appropriate there: "needs focus", "lacks detail", "missing context", etc. Just not a red flag (spam or offensive).

Nearly anything else would have applied.

How did this question, with hardly any context, if any get five or more upvotes, and an answer upvoted eight times? I am referring to an audit that anyone voting to close will fail. Audits like this are doing as much damage to quality standards as are the answerers who will answer anything, and only delete their answers when someone raises the issue.

I don't care that I won't face punishment for an occasional audit fail. But they are too often not consistent with this site's standards.

Of course, I can refuse to play audit games altogether, meaning avoiding reviewing; compare to suggested edits, where one is guaranteed, if paying half awake, to getting an audit correct.

^^^ Re: my linked post, @JoséCarlosSantos, any thoughts?

@Xander I welcome your input. I understand you suggest not worry about failures of audits. I'm not worried about such; But they can and do suggest to new reviewers "black and white pass/fail standards based exclusively on upvotes, which, when they occur rapidly, deters folks from even trying to vote to close. So our new users are being taught high upvotes more or less defines a good post. Not so fast. Not on this site anyway.

We hope it is true that: High quality question $\to$ higher rep; but let's not pretend the converse is true.

Please consider closing this very low quality question.

@amWhy I've deleted my answer. But the reason why both the question and my answer had so much upvotes is easy to explain: the question was sent to the Hot Network Questions.

I wonder what would have happened if I had got this question as an audit.

Having said this, I think that the OP can be accused of lack of effort, but it is not that obvious to me that the question lacks context.

@JoséCarlosSantos That explains it all. Thanks for the info. I'd say it looks to me like the OP added words, to fill up space, e.g., intuitive, ... which I don't necessarily take to be context. Certainly, there is room for people to reasonably disagree or be unsure, when trying to nail down "what is sufficient context". I'm sure you meant well, as did I. That's the important factor here. Thanks for commenting. :-)