« first day (2159 days earlier)      last day (649 days later) » 

3:04 PM
0
A: Would a question-series to understand a selected paper be on-topic?

Mike PierceI think it would be a good idea to create a new tag for this venture, so long as you are really going to create enough content to deserve it's own tag (judgement call though). That way any user can easily find all the questions that have been created for this series. I'm also curious what the re...

I am not sure about the suggestion to create a new tag. (It would definitely be a meta tag.)
I believe there were questions of this kind in the past and they have not been tagged in some special way.)
What do you think about this suggestion for a new tag?
At the very least, the question whether or not we should create a separate tag for this should probably be separate from the discussion whether such questions are on-topic.
Perhaps - to some extent - the tag proposed by Mike Pierce seems similar to the tag which existed for some time and was removed relatively recently. AFAICT, the difference is that tag was mainly for books.
 
3:26 PM
So it seems that I misunderstood the answer - I thought the suggestion was to create a single tag:
Do you mean a tag for each series or a tag for all such series? — SK19 6 mins ago
@SK19 Yeah, so long is the series is "big enough," then why not? They should all be linked together somehow, and tagging them as being part of the same series of questions related to a certain paper seems like the cleanest way. — Mike Pierce 3 mins ago
@MikePierce The suggestion to create a separate tag for every paper seems rather questionable to me. In the past something similar was discussed for books, and the consensus seems to be that we do not want such tag. For example, here:Is using subtags to identify book source appropriate for this site? and Is the tag [hoffman-kunze] necessary?. — Martin Sleziak 1 min ago
I definitely agree that it is good to clearly identify the source, but I do not think that tags are suitable way to achieve this. I have also left a few further comments in tagging chatroom. — Martin Sleziak 25 secs ago
 
In any case, I think an overview of the complete series would be helpful. Since it would be more or less chronological, I think putting them somewhere into the first question or maybe on meta would be the way to go. I can't see how a tag would improve this.
If anything, it may be a good idea to make a meta post for each series for coordination and tag THAT with a series-tag
However, I wouldn't know what primary tag to use for this meta post. None of discussion/support-feature-request/bug seem appropriate, though I would choose discussion if I had to
 
@SK19 By meta post you mean a post on meta? Or post on main which would not be a real post but post with "table of contents" for the series?
I see, from your message about the tags it seems that you mean a post on meta.
 
3:42 PM
@MartinSleziak Yes, a post on meta. I cannot image that a post just for collecting a bunch of questions even when related would be accepted on the main site. It is clearly meta imho.
 
My guess is that this would not be appropriate use of meta. (But you can simply try this with one paper. And you will see the reaction of other users whether or not they agree with this approach.) My personal preference would be collecting link in the first post of series, perhaps?
@SK19 Certainly, there are such posts on main (with links to other questions), although they were created for somewhat different purpose. You could find some examples here: Would “organizer posts” be useful/welcome here?
Despite the risk that this looks a bit as self-promotion (since I've answered some of them), here is example of the type of post you are interested in: math.stackexchange.com/…
 
@MartinSleziak This was the original idea, I just fear it would clutter the question. But I'll try to chose an easy question. I think a good candidate is "How did the result in the paper proof X as proposed in the introduction?"
 
It is a series of questions all originating from reading the same paper. I'd guess that there are other examples like that on main. But probably they are not that easy to find. (I found this example simply because I remembered it.)
 
@MartinSleziak Measured on how often I put Mizar into my answers, I feel lenient towards others "self-promotion" ;)
 
In any case, you can try both things when you ask the first question. You can create a tag for the paper. (My guess is that it is going to be removed rather quickly.) You can create a post no meta. (And from the reaction you will see whether in the future if you have somethings similar this is the way to go.)
By "it is going to be removed" I meant that the new tag will be removed (not the question).
 
3:50 PM
If you just include the links in the original question then a future user who finds one of the other questions related to the paper might not even notice that there is a whole series of posts on that paper (those links will only show up on the Linked Questions sidebar, right?)
 
Maybe they might not notice it if you just include a link. But you can also say something like: "This is another question from the series of questions discussing the paper ..... For the index see (here comes the link)."
If it is clearly said in the question - for example in the way I suggested above - then I think the reader will notice this.
 
@MikePierce I planned to always link to first, previous and next question
Don't worry guys, I've already spent some thought on design ;)
 
And yes, the questions linked in question (or in any answers) are shown among linked questions - that is, unless you take special measures to avoid it.
 
Well, it's kinda a first, so it doesn't have to be ideal. But I'm open to suggestions
 
Well, as far as the question whether this type of question is on topic, AFAICT the answer is clearly yes. (Will Jagy's answer notwithstanding - it is about this specific paper, not about question series originating from papers in general.)
As far as the idea with new tag is concerned - as I said I don't like that idea and I pointed to somewhat similar past discussions about tags related to a specific book (not paper).
 
3:59 PM
I guess my issue here is that all the suggestions that would go over well with the MathSE community, like including links in the questions, feel hacky or feel like work-arounds. The mechanics of organizing such a series of questions should be built into the site, and it's irking me that there is no such mechanic. Tagging feels pretty right mechanically, but yeah, that would start to clutter things.
 
In any case, we can simply wait and see what other users say about this. (Or what will be the reaction if such tag is actually created.)
 
Like I'm getting the same feeling about this as I do about the List of Generalizations post: there's gotta be some better way of organizing things.
 
I will refrain from creating a tag. I would like a "question-series" tag, but that is clearly a metatag for a question and the Help Center asks so nicely not to create such that I will oblige.
 
Yeah, I no longer like the new tag idea either.
 
@MikePierce Well, one way to organize things is to use some external resource (i.e., not on-site). Something like that was tried here: Catalog of standard exercises.
But I suppose you have been around long enough to remember the post on meta about index of limits.
 
4:04 PM
@MartinSleziak I haven't :D
 
@MartinSleziak I don't remember such a post either. But yeah, I can't imagine an off-site solution being the best solution. "How do you search for questions on MathSE? Step one is to leave MathSE ..."
 
That is the best way to search on MathSE - I mean either google or Approach0. :D
I have reposted part of this discussion to Math Meta chat. On the off-chance that somebody notices it and has some comments. (Not many people visit this room.)
I have to admit that I do not have any suggestion about "organizing posts" other than the few links I've given in the messages above.
 

« first day (2159 days earlier)      last day (649 days later) »