tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Related questions -- new/separate threads?)

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2087)

Anton Geraschenko — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:54:17 -0800

@Harry: I think it's immediately relevant for new users to know what the site is and how various bits of it work (what does/doesn't belong, reputation, OpenID, CW, etc). The "How to Ask" (HTA) page feels like it has a sufficiently different flavor to it that I'm hesitant about merging the two. If anything, I would append the HTA page to the bottom of the FAQ (more or less), but I don't think it would actually get any more attention that way.

Harry Gindi comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2086)

Harry Gindi — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:17:31 -0800

@Anton, maybe you should just replace the FAQ with the "How to Ask" page. I mean, the only people who really read the faq are new users and people who are citing the rules to close questions. Then just make the FAQ a jumplink in the how to ask section.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2085)

Anton Geraschenko — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:04:19 -0800

@Ilya: That line of reasoning is already in the "How to ask a good question" page, in the break it down section. It is tempting to say, "this should be at the top of the FAQ" for anything that comes up with reasonable frequency, but obviously not everything can be at the top of the FAQ. Nobody carefully reads the whole FAQ or the whole howtoask page anyway, so I think the right thing to do is to try to refer people to specific parts of those pages as often as possible (every section has an anchor). If you direct somebody to a particular section of a particular page, they're likely to read at least that section, and if they get directed to the same page over and over, maybe they'll just read the whole thing.

Google analytics tells me that the howtoask page gets an order of magnitude less traffic than the FAQ, and I really want people to read and refer to that page, so I've added a link to the topbar. I hope it doesn't clutter things up too much.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2067)

Andrew Stacey — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:29:49 -0800

Now where have I heard that before?

Anweshi comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2064)

Anweshi — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:01:01 -0800

It may be good to create an FAQ level II, for questions which arise after regular use of the site for a while.

Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2062)

Ilya Nikokoshev — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:31:25 -0800

@Anton, I think your line of reasoning deserves to be in the FAQ.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2056)

Anton Geraschenko — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:10:54 -0800

I think it depends on how closely related the two problems are, but either way, I recommend posting questions one at a time. So first post one of the questions (pick one!), and if the other one is closely related, mention it as background/motivation. Wait for some answers to come in and think about them. It's likely that answers to this first question will change your thinking about the second question (or even answer it!). If you still feel like posting the second question, go ahead and do it. Waiting to see what happens with the first question will probably make your second question better.

Grétar Amazeen comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2054)

Grétar Amazeen — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:24:50 -0800

Well thats not my intention to infect anybody else with my general confusion :) But he seems to have two related but separate questions and asking them separately is in my opinion the best way to go.

Harry Gindi comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2051)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:37 -0800

No! Only write one new question, Gretar! You're going to confuse him! ;)

Grétar Amazeen comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2050)

Grétar Amazeen — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:52:35 -0800

I agree with Mariano, I think you should write two new questions and link explicitly to the other one.

Mariano comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2048)

Mariano — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:45:04 -0800

IMO it is much better to write a new question (linking explicitely to the previous one)

dfreeman comments on "Related questions -- new/separate threads?" (2047)

dfreeman — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:40:20 -0800

I'd like to post a question on MO but am not sure of the etiquette. I did a search and found a question like "Is there an n such that all integers are a sum of n cubes?" The response was "this is known as Waring's problem, and here's what we know about it." I have two related questions, one about a variant of the problem and one about an algorithm related to the problem.

Should I:
- post the questions in the original Waring's problem thread?
- post a new thread with my two questions?
- post two new threads with one question each?

Thanks,
--Dave