14:24
You didn't bore me at all; thank you for taking the time to describe your opinion. I am not very surprised to hear about tagging, but sort of surprised to hear about titles; definitely we have not-very-descriptive titles here on MO, but my only sporadic forays into MSE have suggested to me that there are many more. But I definitely haven't done any but the most superficial surveying.
I appreciate the offer to discuss this further. I think I don't understand the mechanics of the site enough even to know what I'm curious about, so I wouldn't know what to ask. But there have been many times that you have clarified things for me before, and probably it'll come up naturally again.
It looks to me like indexing by Approach0 is something that has to be done by the creator—there is no automated way for a separate site like MO to have itself indexed, other than for the creator to decide to do so. Is that correct? And the post you linked is from ~6 years ago … so I guess that the results of the survey were not sufficiently enticing for the creator.
14:44
Well, the discussion between Fedor Petrov and Wei Zhong was in 2021 - that is closer than the discussion on meta.
I think it wouldn't be straightforward - but since the code is available on GitHub, at least in theory somebody could host a search engine for MO.
But I think that would be quite a lot of effort. It seems more straightforward if Wei Zhong agreed to add MO.
Looking at the posts mentioning Approach0, it seems that they are mostly on Mathematics or on Mathematics Meta.
For example if somebody asks on Mathematics a question about $\sum_{k=0}^n k\binom nk=n2^{n-1}$ - and this is something which was asked again and again in the past - it is good if one can quickly find the duplicates.
So in this instance, one could perhaps try Approach0. Or one could check whether this is among frequent questions tagged binomial-coefficients+summation.
We'll see how the situation with Approach0 will pan out. (Maybe it will end out behind paywall - as SearchOnMath...?)
Re: but my only sporadic forays into MSE have suggested to me that there are many more. At the very least I can confidently say that I have seen many users on Mathematics quite often editing titles to become more informative. (While on MO editing is frowned upon quite a bit.)
Sometimes people mention in the edit summary that they're editing in order to make the title better.
Of course, it is difficult to compare directly the numbers - Mathematics has more questions than MO. (About 10-times...? I did not really paid attention to the exact stats recently.)
Ha! Indeed, it is tough to make a definitive conclusion. But certainly there is no reason to believe my vague impression over your attempts to gather concrete data; I was only surprised, and did not mean to argue. I have very little sense of the MO community.
The Approach0 thing seems like the sort of thing that requires a critical mass of user attention, at the same time, even to have a chance of being heard—well, or maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and that's just for the broader SE community where things have to be done by SE leaders. Anyway, I, at least, usually just give up on searching if the desired post isn't right at the top of my results, since results past the first few often seem at best tenuously connected to the query.
To have something in hand to compare, I would say that the questions with tags binomial-coefficients and combinatorial-identities on MO and the questions with tags binomial-coefficients and combinatorial-proofs on MSE are somewhat similar.
To be honest, I think that Approach0 could be easily resolved by mathoverflow-inc, if the board considered it useful enough. If they offered to pay the cost for maintaining Approach0 in an exchange for including MO in the index.
But I am not sure how much funds they have at their disposal. (There was a fundraiser here on meta quite a long ago, Asaf Karigila asked repeatedly how it ended without getting any response - but at least some amount obtained at the time was mentioned in the comments.)
There are certainly many users who are welcoming towards edit that improve posts in some way (fixing typoes, fixing tags, replacing dead links...)
But there was a much more noise here on MathOverflow Meta about bumping old posts than on Mathematics Meta.
Naturally, neither of the two communities is happy when too many old posts are bumped to the frontpage at the same time. And since MO has much smaller traffic, bumping 10 question is very noticeable here - among the traffic on Mathematics, hardly anybody will notice 10 questions.
I do try to edit here on MO mostly in case where the question has already been bumped. And in other cases, I try not to do too much at the same time: Do we have an unofficial quota on how many old questions one should bump for minor edits in a single day?
Actually, when I opted to mentioning a replacedment for a dead link only in a comment (rather than bumping a dormant question by an edit), I got a response in a comment suggesting that I should have edited the post. So there are certainly some users on MO who are supportive of editing.
In any case, you have been around long enough to see many discussions on meta concerning editing and bumping. For example, I remember this one - since it was related to my edits: Restriction on Number of edits.
1 hour later…
16:32
Yes, certainly I've seen plenty of discussion on MO—including the eminently sensible, but apparently impossible, and so-oft repeated request for the ability to make edits marked as minor. Anyway, for what it's worth, I always appreciate your edits. I do try to restrict to editing almost always only what's already on the front page (either because it's new or because it's bumped), and I try always to make sure that my edits respect user intention even when I disagree with it.
But, like every other editor, I have my own ideas of what is essential for consistency (capitalising titles on the front page), and what is not.
(Among user intention, I consider it important not to edit math mode into titles from which a user has left it off—and, since Dmitri Pavlov scolded me for it, not even to edit math mode into the body if it is totally absent. I think that it was The Amplitwist who told me that at least editing to Unicode, which was my preferred approach, is harmful to search, so now I just leave it alone entirely.)
2 hours later…
18:49
in MO editors' lounge, May 20 at 5:57, by The Amplitwist
The title of the above post was edited to change
S^1
to S¹
. I don't think this is a good edit. The post is already on the front page, being less than 4 hours old, so small improvements are not really a problem from the point of view of "bumping" to the front page. It also looks like the Unicode character ¹
is not searchable in SE's search engine. If I try to search for ¹
then I get, 'We couldn't find anything for "¹"'.6

Yes, Lp-spaces can be defined for arbitrary hermitian vector bundles.
For the sake of convenience I denote Lp=L1/p (see this answer for a motivation), in particular L0=L∞ and L1/2=L2.
As explained in the link above, p is an arbitrary complex number such that ℜp≥0.
Suppose M is an arbitrary smoo...
@LSpice: Copy-paste is severely broken when using MathJax formulas. It also takes forever to render on Chromium because currently it does not support MathML. That's why for simple formulas that only need subscripts and superscripts it's better not to use MathJax. I think my objection to MathJax will be removed if they can fix copy-paster and Chromium implements MathML. — Dmitri Pavlov May 13, 2020 at 20:10
OK, fair enough. So I assume that you would also prefer not to have the answer edited to include MathJax? — LSpice May 15, 2020 at 16:13
@LSpice: Yes. Adding dollar signs around formulas is a trivial affair, and if this hasn't been done, then one must operate under presumption that it is for a good reason. I often see people editing a recent answer only to add a dollar sign for some superscript. I honestly do not understand why people are doing this. — Dmitri Pavlov May 15, 2020 at 19:27
« first day (3741 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (504 days later) »