Please consider downvoting this question about which this meta question was posted. The linked math.se question lacks absolutely any form of context, and will be eligible for closure, subsequently, for deletion, in two days (when the bounty set by the meta question asker expires).
@amWhy I've seen for a couple of times that some questions, being PSQs or having other issues eligible for closure, were effectively “saved” by the askers using an active bounty before enough votes for closure arrive since such posts cannot be closed.
As a reminder to all, this post needs one more vote for deletion.
@RRL I voted to close C1 and C3, but i am kind of on the fence about C2.
Context seems to be given ("I can use ratio or root test, but they are inconclusive.").
I am a bit concerned by the accepted answer, which rearranges the series, then concludes that it diverges. I'm too tired to think, but something about that really sits wrong with me.
@XanderHenderson: The answer is OK since the summand is nonnegative and you can split the partial sum into two pieces one of which diverges and the other converges. The term $1/n$ dominates -- you could use the ratio comparison test as well. Nevertheless it is a PSQ. The assertion that an attempt was made because the "text" hinted at the ratio or root test is bogus IMO.
As reiterated in the answer neither of these tests is helpful. If an attempt was made -- it should have been displayed and the excuse that the root test "did not fit well" is nonsense. I answer a lot of series questions. The student is aware there are many tests -- term test, ratio test, etc. Very easy to say I tried some standard test without making any effort to analyze the situation.
Plus OP uses "socially offensive language" in a comment :-)
It is not a PSQ. A PSQ would simply say "Does this series diverge?"
The question contains more context than that.
The point of giving context is to tailor an answer to the question at the level of the asker. The asker mentions that they are familiar with the root and ratio tests, and that they expect that one of these should work (given the placement in the text they are working out of).
It might be nice to know what text is being used, but, as far as context is concerned, there is some there.
I also feel pretty strongly that "here is my attempt" is about the weakest form of context. I think that the context provided is actually an improvement ("I used the root and ratio tests, but they were inconclusive"---since this is a true statement, why do we care about the exact computations?).
@RRL Finally, comments can be flagged and deleted, and have no bearing (as far as I am concerned) on the quality of the question itself. I would have been better if the asker didn't have a potty mouth, but I don't see it as relevant to the question.
Now I'm pretty sure this is a PSQ -- please consider for closure. Repeating the hypothesis of the problem statement does not add context.
Also can anyone please confirm that my understanding is correct. If a question is deleted after two months have lapsed, then there is no loss of reputation points or bounties to the answerers. (There may also be some condition about the number of upvotes.) Is this correct?
@RRL Re C2: 1. I did not see the comment you are mentioning. 2. The phrase "root test didn't seem to fit well and ratio test was inconclusive (resulted in a ratio of 1)" seems to amount to some context. Sure the OP is rather lazy, but...
@Did: (1) This was a reference to use of profanity by the OP in a comment -- so it is not relevant to consideration of closure. (2) I've seen questions like this closed with more context, but I know this is a borderline case so no worries. Thank you for weighing in on this.
> Awesome. This is a blatant copy, including the "[closed]" from: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1886696/… ; just that you, on the way, not even bothered to keep the formula formatting, or to read the explanation why that question was closed. – Marcus Müller 17 hours ago
The asker copied the question from the title of the closed question, including the "closed", and of course all the formatting was also lost.
@Did Well, Willemien posted a ton of other Godel-related nonsense before. And some people really believe all sorts of things they read on the internet. Who knows about this one.
@JoséCarlosSantos There are a couple or a few "users" who use every one of their upvotes allotted each day on PSQ's and other poor questions, as well as on very low quality answers. One of those users at any given time, has three or more accounts from which they vote; inevitably one or more of their accounts is deleted for this reason, and the user simply proceeds to make a couple more new accounts. Dealing with that user amounts to playing "Whack a mole"...
@JoséCarlosSantos Also, as a follow up to my previous comment to you, also relevant for all CRUDE users, the user I speak of has a habit of answer very poor questions in comments below the question, both before and the very poor questions are closed. This is another reason said person's many sock-puppet accounts have been consistently deleted. If you see such a pattern: an answer in a comment below a very poor question which has also received an inexplicable upvote (or two, or three upvotes) ,,,
3
... please flag for moderator attention, and explain that something seems fishy with the answer in a comment, and the upvotes to the very poor question. Or you can comment here, and we can all investigate.
@Lord_Farin When a question is really really bad, or really really trolling, users with greater than or equal to 20 K rep can vote to delete a closed question with vote count less than or equal to -3, immediately after its closure.
After 2days post closure, a question with a net vote count less than or equal to -3 can also be delete-voted by users greater than or equal to 10 K.
@amWhy @TheSimpliFire Thanks both. I was indeed wondering why we would want to exercise the privilege. I guess it can help to alleviate the burden on moderators in some cases.
Update: discussion on specific changes to how deletion works is here:
Turbocharging the Roomba: solutions for premature deletion
This needs to stop: https://stackoverflow.com/posts/15348333/revisions
It doesn't help to improve close descriptions or encourage fixing and reopening if clo...
@Lord_Farin Perhaps you're correct. (Forgive me my ignorance, as I occasionally forget the criteria for users 10K and over, two days post of a question open for deletion.)
@Lord_Farin I think the rationale is that if two days have gone by, and a question has not been improved via an edit, or reopened, due to a good edit, it is unlikely to see any substantive approval henceforth. But I believe that one can not vote to delete until having reached 10 K rep, and so, as you note, it seems that "after two days, any user with 10K rep or greater, can vote to delete a closed question."
@TheSimpliFire Reading this, it seems like the original idea was that users could vote to delete before the end of two days, but that the actual deletion would take place later. I kind of like that idea. If a question is terrible and closed, but not very old, vote to delete. Once the question hits a certain age threshold, it is deleted.
I imagine that there are a few borderline cases where someone might get a bug up their butt about reopening bad questions, but in the vast majority of cases, I think that this would be productive.
Though this would probably require an additional status banner, i.e. "This question was closed for [reasons]. It has been nominated for deletion, and will be automatically deleted in [x] hours unless it is improved."
@XanderHenderson I can understand that rationale, but their are too many instances in which diamond mods are not available, but during which an offensive, or spammy, or trolling question/answer is posted many hours before a mod actually handles it, and in those cases, immediate deletion via votes from 20K+ users puts an end to such abuse. Under your agreement, such delete votes wouldn't take effect for yet another 48 hours.
@amWhy Yar... the issue is the balance between dealing with spam and dealing with legitimate questions asked in good faith which are nevertheless terrible.
@amWhy Perhaps questions which have been marked as spam / abusive / whatever can be speedy-deleted? This is open for abuse (if I know that I can flag something as spam, then I can get it deleted), but it is at least subject to oversight.
That being said, I am not really opposed to speedy-deletion as it currently stands---I don't really see it as a problem. I am, however, interested in compromise with those who are worried about the speed of deletion.
@Holo In addition to being self-answered, the answers don't really address the issue at all---the look more like additional context for the question.
@XanderHenderson Sure, but I think there is also the issue of determining what has been asked in good faith, and what has not been asked in good faith. Questions which have not been asked in good faith include questions from trolls, and questions with a link to an image of a PSQ, followed by the "six" words: "please solve this for me, ASAP!!" (and similar such bad faith questions seeking only an answer to their current homework assignment/test/entrance test/current contest).
@XanderHenderson That's my impression as well. Perhaps a comment encouraging the asker to improve their question with the context provided in their non-answers, may be productive.
@amWhy My inclination is to assume that an image and the words "pls halp!" represents a good faith question, until and unless the asker refuses to improve their question (I get email from students all the time that is not much better than PLS HALP!).
I don't see a problem with tagging such a question for deletion, but giving the asker two days to fix it.
@amWhy I guess my point is that I don't really want to adjudicate what is good faith and what is not. Spam is clear ("Yay p3n1s pills!"), and should be eligible for speedy deletion. Very low quality questions are less clear, so give them the benefit of the doubt, let users vote to delete, but delay the deletion a little.
@XanderHenderson I'd agree with this, provided the asker is made aware of the fact that, unless improved sufficiently within the subsequent 28 hours, the question will be deleted. Short of such notification, they are left with little motivation to improve the question.
@XanderHenderson But is it sufficient? Or will the pending-deletion notification just spur the rep-farmers to edit the question during that 'grace' period to save their rep?
@XanderHenderson You, as of yet, have not addressed the case of a troll who posts a question, which is not by definition spam, but is pretty obviously an effort to troll users on this site. That happens probably more often than spam.
@amWhy That might fall under the tag of "abusive behaviour", I would think.
If a question is flagged for being abusive or spammy (two flags which currently exist), it should be eligible for speedy deletion. If not, it gets a grace period.
@Holo No. It's an audit, and one is expected to vote it as "spam or vandalism" or "conflicts with the authors intention," or likely any reason for rejecting the proposed "edit" (it's an audit.)
@user21820 I think that you and I have something of a difference of opinion about rep-farmers. They piss me off, but if they managed to take a piss-poor question and turn it into a good question, more power to them. I don't see that happening very often.
And I don't see a grace period before deletion as having much of an effect (as I see it, you would still need to garner three undelete votes to remove something from the delete queue).
@amWhy The non-existant one that I am proposing, i.e. a low-quality question gets closed, users can vote to delete, but it isn't deleted until 48 hours have elapsed since closure.
@XanderHenderson I have mixed feeling here. Most of the poorest of questions are asked in an attempt to get immediate answers (pre-test, homework due the next day, or current test (perhaps take home), due shortly. If answers come before closure for lacking context, letting it (and the rapid fire answers that come in before closure) sit for two days, gives the message to the asker, "Well, this worked as intended, and I can put off until tomorrow to copy and paste an answer to submit as my own."
...And it provides other users seeking answers in questionable circumstances, to do the same, knowing there's a good bet an answer or two will come in before it is closed, and knowing they then have two more days after closure to read and copy the answers that were posted, and the answers provided in subsequent comments, after closure.
Perhaps the whole issue could be resolved with a notification and email: "Dear [user], Your terrible question [link] was closed for [reasons] and subsequently deleted. Please do better in the future, or you will no longer be able to ask questions."
@Lord_Farin If a question is deleted and a user really wants to improve it, they can (and should) open a new question. As I see it, the point of asking that folk not ask new questions to re-ask [closed] questions is to keep them from creating duplicates.
@XanderHenderson That's an interesting take on it. I guess it would work, and gives the new attempt actually a fair chance (posts showing up with -2 or below are usually not taken favourably).
@XanderHenderson But also, an user abusing the help offered on this site offers, might have a question (and answers posted before closure) remain after closure, for two additional days. So I think the issue is more about using care and discretion before 20K users vote to delete a question, insisting they consider both issues that deleting or not deleting may have, and withhold delete votes for two days on new users who seem truly clueless on site policy. This isn't fool-proof, but it's better than
An auto ban, across the board, from deleting any post whatsoever prior to 2 days post closure. In fact, SE is designed to prevent any deletion whatsoever of posts scoring greater than -3, from deletion, at least for two days.
@XanderHenderson I disagree. There are many times when a user's question has been deleted, only to have them reask the very same question in a new question. That's a flaggable offense for moderator attention. Just as is an asker reasking a question after their earlier question (same) question has been closed, can be closed as a dupe of the original question, even when the original question has downvotes and no answers.
And indeed, trying to ask the same question after closure of it, or deletion of it, as though they had never previously asked the question, and withholding any history of closure or deletion is an unquestionable abuse of this site, on par with a suspended user creating a new account in order to continue to reask and continue asking, questions.
@Lord_Farin I like this idea. But I'd hope said queue would have well articulated criteria that any post should meet prior to undeletion. (But it would at least also offer answerers of questions, whose answers have been deleted, a chance to subsequently improve their answer(s), then be reviewed, and perhaps then be reinstated.)
@XanderHenderson I missed this, but yes, if such a notification (in user's messages and email) would help!
@XanderHenderson Not always, when an IP address is an institution (college, university network, etc.) That's what has prevented the mods from banning the serial comment-answerer-to-poor-questions-prior-to-or-after-closure-and-chronic-upvoter-of-questions-likely-to-be-closed-or-deleted-multi-account-creator-owner, and said owner's sock-puppet-accounts created for the same reasons, because said user uses random computers connected to a university network.
@amWhy I wasn't replying to the idea of IP banning, only noting that users already create new account to circumvent bans.
@amWhy But I am not suggesting that they should ask the very same question. I am suggesting that they ask a better question which addresses the same content. If they ask the same question again, it will be deleted again.
And a new question cannot be closed as a duplicate of a deleted question.
@XanderHenderson No, but it can be flagged for moderator attention, and dealt with accordingly. Moderators need to be aware of an asker who deleted their question, or whose question was deleted, only to reask the same question yet again. That is gaming the site. If they were to acknowledge, in their second post, that their previous attempt to ask was deleted because it what not a post meeting site standards, and additionally, improve the repost, and explain what they improved, that's acceptable.
I'm just trying to point out that one needs to be cautious about proposing new site policies, which may be useful only for a subset of questoins/answers, but may be problematic in other subsets of questions. I'd prefer evaluating and acting upon each individual question, as is appropriate for such that question and its context, than trying to apply a blanket policy on ALL questions, even those for which the policy doesn't really make sense.
@amWhy Right. We are in complete agreement. They need to post a new, better question.
I don't think that this is proposing a new policy. Users have always had the option to post a new question that is better. Otherwise, what are they supposed to do? There is essentially no mechanism for improving a deleted question.
So, if a users says "My question was deleted for [reaons]. What do I do now?", the advice would be "First, understand those reasons, then craft a new question which fixes the issues which were highlighted. Maybe explain in your new question that you are asking an improved version of a deleted question."
This is not a blanket policy, but advice to give to newbies.
@XanderHenderson I would further argue that if an asker's post was not deleted until 48 or more hours after its closure, that "no further chances for improvement be granted, including no attempt to improve an reask a deleted question for which they had failed to improve during the 48 hours post closure. I do not support giving a an asker 48 hours after closure (as an opportunity to improve the question) before casting a delete vote AND, if no improvement is made during those 48 hours,...
...and the post is subsequently, Also then allowing them to the "anytime you want" opportunity to reask the deleted question, improved or not, If another user thinks the question can be improved, and wants to repost the improved question after its deletion, I'm open to that.
Else, I'm afraid your supporting the coddling of users who never are held responsible for the consequences of their behavior.
@XanderHenderson I expect you are fully aware that a real newbie cannot be accurately discerned by rep or account creation, alone. In fact, there are users who have used this site for two years or more, who simply create new accounts each time they need help in a mathclass. Expecially since the "introduction" of "new contributor designation." It would be incredibly naive to consider all "new contributors" to be in fact newbies.
@XanderHenderson But if a new, exact replicate of a deleted question is reposted by the same user who posted the original, since deleted question, it should be flagged for moderator attention, explaining that the "new" question is merely a copy-and-paste of that user's deleted question, so it can be handled by mods who determine whether to delete the subsequent exact replicate only, and/or warn the asker, and/or take further action against said asker.
"If another user...open to that." Could this be the key to alleviate the "but I thought it was interesting by itself because of reason X" objection to deletion of PSQs?
@amWhy (1) Your idea that a user cannot ask the same question again is either essentially unenforcable or equivalent to a question ban. I believe that the culture of MSE should discourage reposting the same question repeatedly, but I don't think that it makes good policy.
(2) I don't think that I am "coddling" users or saying that they shouldn't be held responsible. The two concrete things which I have suggested are (a) a delay between the time that delete votes are cast and the time at which the actual deletion occurs and (b) a more clear message to askers of deleted questions indicating that the question has been deleted and why.
Neither of these proposals would change any existing policy. Right now, an asker of a deleted question can reask it. If someone notices that the question is identical, it can be flagged. Otherwise, it is likely to be deleted again for being of poor quality.
@amWhy (3) I agree that many "new users" are not actually "new". However, as an average Joe user without access to moderator tools (which I assume give email and IP addresses, among other things), I cannot tell the difference between a new user and a "new" user. The best I can do is flag suspected sockpuppets.
Lacking better evidence, I believe that the correct default assumption should be that new users are, in fact, new, and should have the rules and culture explained to them.
@XanderHenderson I sometimes can. Some users are dead give aways, given their choice of words (e.g., one user with three accounts mutually upvoting one another and asking 18 questions in one day, was quite identifiable by the repeated use of "my wondering")
@XanderHenderson Another dead give away is when some asker asks an arithmetic question about how to add fractions, is a "new contributor" who joined that same day, with rep of 1, but posts an amazingly well-informed mathjax-formatted question. Ditto for questions tagged "algebra-precalc" or "functions", trigonometry, or a number of other such tags.
@XanderHenderson Perhaps, unless you want to debate what counts as "evidence" to suspect otherwise. ;D
Update: discussion on specific changes to how deletion works is here:
Turbocharging the Roomba: solutions for premature deletion
This needs to stop: https://stackoverflow.com/posts/15348333/revisions
It doesn't help to improve close descriptions or encourage fixing and reopening if clo...
