@Jakobian That was to a comment you wrote to me, and I addressed you back. I don't understand the subtle antagonism you've expressed towards me, for some time. Most of us are acting on this site in good faith. Your skepticism extends well beyond this chatroom. If you want to chat with me, or anyone, put a reign on your tone. Else I'll no longer respond to your innuendos. I'll depart now.
@amWhy Yes it was to comment what I wrote. Before that you mentioned targeting people. This is precisely why it was out of place. It seems to me like someone downvoted you and you jumped to a conclusion that it was me, hence the remark. And now you're trying to jump around the issue without telling me directly. I don't appreciate your condescending tone however. I am anything but subtle. If I were to find offense in what you write, I'd definitely tell you. You're again, assuming things.
And, it is pretty rude. I can only speak in the way that I am able to. To say that I am using some kind of innuendos or silently accusing me of bad faith, is stepping dangerously out of boundaries of what's appropriate.
I'm a university student and posting this question while studying $3n+1$ conjecture.
Recurrence relation of sequence is as follows:
$$ a_{n+1} = \begin{Bmatrix} \frac{a_n}{2},& \text{if }a_n \text{ is even} \\ \frac{3a_n+1}{2}, & \text{if } a_n \text{ is odd} \end{Bmatrix}$$
Define $ b_n := \lfl...
Just to clarify (@amWhy @ТymaGaidash @Jakobian): the policy on Math SE has always been that low-quality questions should be closed (not answered). This is common to all SE sites, though it is less of an issue on other sites because other sites tend to have a bit more consensus about what constitutes a low-quality question.
The 2020 EoQS is simply an announcement that we have adopted new procedures for enforcing this policy.
That being said, the motivation for the procedural change is to remove some of the incentives for posting low-quality questions (if answers are not given, it is less likely that a given user will ask similar questions in the future). The emphasis with respect to low-quality question answering should be on new questions.
It is nigh certain that EoQS flags for anything more than a few months old will be ignored (whether they are marked as helpful or not).
In general, content curation should focus on new content, not old content. There is plenty of new stuff which needs work.
@XanderHenderson okay so to apply this to this specific case, you have said that curation should focus on new content, but that doesn't mean we can't or should never curate old content. Moreover the EoQS deals with old questions and not old answers. Correct?
So I suppose the only source of information with which we could handle that decision about deletion is to consider that not always its worth it to delete a question, and that it's an old question indeed shouldn't matter.
@Jakobian I have not looked at the specific case, and I don't really care to (I am busy today with real world work).
However: (1) Sure, you can curate old content. But (a) it shouldn't be where you focus your energy, and (b) it certainly shouldn't be where you ask others to focus their energy.
3
(2) EoQS has never been about questions. It has always been about answers. EoQS is about more aggressively enforcing quality standards with respect to answers to low quality questions.
