« first day (2865 days earlier)      last day (70 days later) » 

5:26 AM
Our prolific repfarmer self-plagiarize in a 24 hour window.
 
6:24 AM
Anybody got any bounty suggestions so I can get back down to 20k?
This inflation is messing up my whole rep graph >:(
 
6:58 AM
you don't like the saw-tooth look?
 
7:38 AM
@AlexanderGruber I share that feeling, and have been looking at questions/answers worthy of investments. Do we want to reheat the old idea?
 
7:50 AM
reheating old ideas may lead to an unexpected discovery
 
8:04 AM
@AlexanderGruber Since you mention bounties, what happened to the project with the Sponsors' Lounge? Are there plans to get back to it at some point? @JyrkiLahtonen
 
8:24 AM
@MartinSleziak That is exactly the idea I would not mind revisiting. I think we could try it less formally than what was planned back in the day.
 
 
5 hours later…
1:35 PM
Guess which two users are answering a triplicate.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:45 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen You used Approach0 to identify the exact duplicates, didn't you? I think if Martin Sleziak's post How to search on this site, particularly regarding how to use Approach0, is read by more people, it will help avoiding duplicates more effectively. Currently, this post has been viewed only 491 times. @MartinSleziak
 
3:16 PM
I mentioned in the mods office that the link might be edited into help center at some point, as discussed before: Should we add external searches in some help pages about search?
Still, some improvements to that post could be useful. (It is CW - which is an obvious choice for this kind of post.)
 
4:35 PM
Correct, @Jack. If you have any ideas on how to make these users actually use Approach0, please share! In the past my links to Approach0 (with the current relevant search string added to the link) have fallen to deaf ears. I don't know if the reason is their desire to post as many posts as they can, or whether it is simply because I made those posts in frustration, and hence the tone was more antagonizing than strictly necessary.
Bill Dubuque, to his credit, tried a more constructive tone, but wasn't more successful. Their unwillingness to talk about, and follow, a compromise (such as the PSQ-policy, or more hopefully a refined version thereof), is what drove me to resign back in the day.
 
4:51 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen Thanks for the message. The How to ask a good question has 41k views, which is 100 times of those for Martin's post. If Approach0 is written in the help center or Martin's post is in faq, it may draw more attention to it.
 
5:08 PM
@AlexanderGruber You should promote that on meta :)
 
5:27 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen You should promote that on meta too. So that people know about it. It's unlikely to someone to come here to know about it.
:52580779 what is the project with the Sponsors' Lounge?
 
6:10 PM
@Isabella The users who should search before answering won't come to meta. I posted it as an explanation to my downvote to make sure they see it.
 
@JyrkiLahtonen How do you think that we should deal with questions which are both PSQs and duplicates? I have no clear idea about that.
 
6:40 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos Is your question exclusive to Jyrki?
 
@Isabella No! Please share your thoughts about this issue.
 
@JoséCarlosSantos IMO, You should first analyze each of the answer(s) in each 'duplicated question'. If you see an invariant on those answer(s) (a different approach to get the same result), then you should mark it as duplicated question. And that's it. No need to delete anything.
 
@Isabella What I had in mind was this problem: if a question is both a PSQ and a duplicated question, should we close it as off-topic or should we close it as a duplicated question? If we close it as a duplicated question, then we will be in fact rewarding lazyness.
3
 
(continuation of my comment above) Now, I also think that if it is a new or recent question, then one should left a comment to OP and to the user(s) that did answer, to tell them to Not answer PSQ because of the rules of the site.
 
6:55 PM
D1, D2, D3.
 
@JoséCarlosSantos If you mark it as off topic, then will be deleted at some point?
 
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
@JoséCarlosSantos I agree with this. If it is a PSQ, close as no context and later delete. If it is not a PSQ but is a duplicate, close as duplicate and do not delete.
 
@JoséCarlosSantos Sometimes the PSQ helps to search easily.
 
@Isabella If the get closed, get no answers and get no upvotes, then they will be automatically deleted.
 
Id love to revive the sponsors lounge. Im still very for the idea but havent had time to rally up the necessary support. (I have a new job that requires 14 hr days.)
Maybe this question rep inflation could be a good impetus to annouce though.
 
7:12 PM
@Isabella Yes it may, but... Others in this room have differing views, but I personally will not reward cheating or laziness on this site. Don't forget that using Math SE to cheat on homework may help to earn marks easily. So X facilitating doing Y easily is not a good argument for X being a good thing.
 
@user21820 yes, I agree. You should know also, that sometimes it's not because of laziness or cheating or whatever. Sometimes it's because OP doesn't know how this works. I'd say that each time you vote to close, left a comment below OP's question, explaining how to ask properly.
I once saw a PSQ. Then I told OP (new contributor) to add context because of blah blah.., and OP did.
 
@Isabella The close-banner explicitly links to the how-to-ask page so the asker can definitely figure out how to ask (if they actually read the banner).
2
If a question is closed, and the asker actually puts in the effort to improve their question, we would gladly reopen it.
 
7:30 PM
@user21820 That close-banner doesn't work properly then. It might look overwelming maybe for those who are not english native speakers. You could try experimenting doing both actions: Say you see 2 PSQ. On one, left a comment explicitly, telling OP how to ask. On the other PSQ, close it as usually.
Tho the explicit comment doesn't always work.
Either way, you could try experimenting
 
7:46 PM
@XanderHenderson I don't think I am breaking the spirit of that guideline. I'm certain the spirit is to avoid the appearance of targeting for deletion by user. Simply pointing out that what was formerly a hypothetical problem-user now has a concrete example does not do that. And I'm certain i am among the least guilty of users in this room who have engaged in that.
I don't think too many proof-verification questions by a single user are an admin-fieldable problem. It is more important that the community takes it into account in their discussions.
@XanderHenderson Why you'd think I'd need a reminder about this is baffling... I'd like to think I'm pretty in touch with this room and I have definitely shown a vested interest in keeping it ethical and transparent.
 

« first day (2865 days earlier)      last day (70 days later) »