I actually think commenter was trying to be as kind as possible to OP, and would probably be shocked to learn that the comment was felt to be offensive in any way. In fact, I really believe that commenter was obliquely expressing more or less what you said in the second paragraph -- that OP should not expect any further assistance, given that he does not (or is unable to, whatever the situation may be) make use of well-meant efforts to help.

Anyway, this is a long drawn-out discussion of an isolated incident. I agree it would be a lot simpler though just to be able to point to a clause in FAQ.

"It is considered impolite by many users, including myself, to ask a question on MO and then vanish for days."

It would be nicer, though, just to refer to the faq page.

So, I wished it was written somewhere that if a user is unresponsive on one question, they cannot expect much consideration on later questions. As Angelo said the FAQs also (abstractly) document what is and is not considered as appropriate behavior. If this existed I could simply point there and be done with the comment. Now, this is impossible and this is inconvenient.

• Birthday must be after 1920/01/01

Nevertheless, it's my impression that this user is exceptional to a degree that it wouldn't make any difference even if he tried to respond to comments under his question. I'm almost certain he's in the wrong place (so that his particular non-responses are not really cases in point -- the questions arguably belong in the to-be-deleted-soon category anyway).

Thanks for clarifying your other points.

@Todd Trimble: First, for some fun, I nedd to stress that I am not a "fanatic" merely an "enthusiast" (check my badges) ;D

Second, I am not completely sure why this user should be so exceptional. It seems to be not a trained mathematician, but we have some others (I'd say with sometimes 'mixed' contributions but not so bad either). If ever it is the displayed age, this is not so likley to be "real" (as it happens to coincide with the/a current default age).

Third, yes, I agree one will not write something like three obligatory checks in the FAQs. But, if anything at all, something like Zev Chonoles or you said. Mainly, I wanted to convey somewhat precisely my approximation to a 'perfect world'. Yet, then, if I do not use MO frequently, I do not ask a question each day either. In particular, in my opinion what would really help a lot is to check back after a relatively short period of time. One could ask, read ones emails (or go to lunch, or teach a course, or drive home or to work, or any number of things), and then have another look. It is not as if so few people use the internet on a regular basis these days. By contrast I think it could really by an honest misconception (like, most likely it takes a some hours anybody takes notice at all, so no need to look after too short a time), and to clarify this could be helpful for everybody involved. I just looked (very) briefly through the FAQs and I did not see much mention of reopening, except indirectly in the description of the rep-levels (closing is discussed a bit, as not a big problem for the future if it happens and why it might happen, when describing what questions (not) to ask). I agree to elaborate on the option of reopening could be a good addition.

On other matters: I do not support your recommended tiered system of OPs' checking back in (30 min., 2 hr., 6 hr., etc.). That kind of schedule might be reasonable for run-of-the-mill MO fanatics like you or me. But for others where MO is a very small sliver of one's daily life, the advice seems excessive. I think checking back within 24 hours should be a reasonable standard.

But a warning somewhere that MO moves very fast (e.g., that questions that are unclear to other users can be and frequently are closed within hours or even minutes) seems very reasonable. Armed with this information, users can decide for themselves just how vigilant or fanatical they want to be. It should also be clear (I don't know if it already is) that a closure is not an automatic death sentence for a question: that questions/answers can always be edited, and petitioned for reopening. (But users should additionally know that it's frequently nontrivial to get a reopening.)

MO would be improved if questions from new users had to be approved by moderators. Too bad that this is not possible. But that is not the problem that I was addressing in this thread.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/126650/is-it-known-that-the-sequence-c-sigman2-2-identifies-the-prime-numbers-c and OP unresponsive since two days, except for asking another question

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/126789/does-the-prime-number-theorem-prove-that-the-primes-cannot-be-exactly-identified which is also seems completely incomprehensible.

Yet, it seems some still see "us" as not being helpful enough. It would now be nice to have some convenient way to point out that OP's behavior is not correct in the first place (if one thinks, as I do, that it is). [Even without the preceeding question one cannot do much with this question but close it, but as a second one it would seem this is completely clear.]

1. I wrote 'in a timely manner' however what this means/I mean with this can reasonably be interpreted in different ways; in particular, by somebody new and not familiar with the frequent quickness of MO. In my opinion, it would be good to check back on a question (at least) after: first 30min-1h, then 2h-3h, then 6h-12h; after that depending on how things develop (and of course the process could already stop earlier).

2. Sometimes the issue arises that first a question is not clear and then it gets closed because of this, and in some cases somebody (other than OP) objects to this on the grounds it was closed too quickly (without giving enough time to OP to respond). So, some consensus how much time is 'enough' could also be helpful.

Specifically, I have a vague recollection of a discussion (not sure I could find it though) where somebody in such a context put forward the idea one might ask the question just before leaving in the evening and then only have the next look at it in the morning. While one might abstractly consider this as a good way to proceed I consider it in general as rather ill-advised for MO. Half a day can be a long time on MO; even more so depending on how one's personal day fits with the 'rush hours' on MO.

I do not suggest a formulation, but one might well give a postive spin to this in the way Zev Chonoles did, via mentioning that one can very reasonably expect to have some (first) feed-back on the question very quickly and therefore it is a good idea (also in questioner's interest) to check back on the question soon after having asked it.

Regarding other aspects that seem present in the discussion along the lines of thanking for the work I have no particular opinion, in particular as regards mention of this in the FAQs.

(Just one personal thing related to what Asaf Karagila said: a 'thank you' comment can be nice, a 'thanks in advance' in the question at the end seems not needed but unproblematic, yet impersonal greetings at the start of the question are (mildly) annoying, IMO, but I do not complain about it, just for the record and I might well be a small minority on this; yet it is not only that it is annoying I feel it already somehow sets the tone in a wrong way for writing an efficient question).

> And, in my opinion, asking a question creates the obligation to be responsive to (reasonable) comments immediately linked to the question (for a reasonable amount of time). >

Yes, that is my opinion, too.

The "Hardy/Littlewood rules" (meaning, I guess, no one is assumed to be under any obligation to respond to, or even read communications!) originally applied to the two collaborators, and seem awfully high-minded and selfless even between two people who know each other well. Between those who don't, they seem hopelessly unworkable.