7:01 PM
@MartinSleziak It's fine (and I asked you of course). And it impressed upon me that Math.SE is in certain ways a more serious, i.e., somber site, which has pros and cons. Since it is open to questions with a much wider variety of levels, I suppose it is natural that it would exert quality control in a way different from how MO generally does (where the more important consideration is level of sophistication).
I think one of the main criteria for "success" at MO is whether the users find a question interesting or challenging; that in itself serves as "self-motivating". Thus lack of an explicit motivation or setting of context is often seen as forgivable, if the question is perceived as having apparent intrinsic interest already.
I think that might be behind Andrej's complaint about how that question was handled (and I do think he had a good point, that some annoyance would have been spared if someone with enough reputation had gone in and supplied the missing motivation, instead of just closing the question).
I also think you make a good point about Math.SE being mindful of serving as a repository for the general audience out there. This probably is a weakness of MO, that it is not as useful as it could be. But to return to the original point, I do think people come to MO for the fun and interest that it has and the challenges it poses, and not as much to build a reference work.
2
