tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Migrate to SE 2.0?)

Anixx comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19266)

2012-06-09T09:13:00-07:00

@Michael Greinecker it is completely uninformative compared to the graphic in MO

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19240)

2012-06-06T15:12:11-07:00

@gerald - whoops! I didn't read that correctly. Usually the complaints are 'MO doesn't have this feature of SE2.0...'

Michael Greinecker comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19239)

2012-06-06T08:09:12-07:00

In 2.0, there are different ways to view reputation. One of them is a graph:

http://math.stackexchange.com/users/2513/anixx?tab=reputation&sort=graph

geraldedgar comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19238)

2012-06-06T06:32:36-07:00

@David: ... and Anixx claims 2.0 lacks this feature.

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19237)

2012-06-06T02:10:05-07:00

@Anixx, see http://mathoverflow.net/users/10059?tab=reputationhistory#sort-top

WillieWong comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19236)

2012-06-06T01:56:35-07:00

In fact, multiline comments are explicitly discouraged by the SE2.0 software: hitting the carriage return would trigger comment submission; and newline characters are ignored in the presentation of the comments.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19235)

2012-06-05T23:03:19-07:00

I don't recall seeing multiline comments either here or on math.SE, it is possible to line breaks with TeX code on both sites, though.

Anixx comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19234)

2012-06-05T22:29:36-07:00

It seems that the SE2.0 has not some features that current MO has. For example, the graphic representation of reputation growth/decline and multi-line comments. The latter one is quite important for me, because some of my comments may be extensive.

François G. Dorais comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19232)

2012-06-05T09:34:16-07:00

This feature exists on SO, but not on every SE 2.0 site. Not all SO features make it to the SE 2.0 network but this seems to be a good candidate.

djordan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19231)

2012-06-05T08:29:03-07:00

@Asaf: no it's different. The interesting tags on MO allows you to indicate a discrete set of tags that you find interesting. The "Interesting" tab on stack Exchange factors in that user input, but also systematically tracks the user's activities, in terms of what questions they ask, what questions they answer, and what questions they view, and uses all this information to create a model for the user's interests. So it requires less organizational effort on behalf of the user, and it does a better job (hopefully) of tailoring the site to users' needs.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19230)

2012-06-04T21:30:32-07:00

Are you talking about "Interesting" tags feature? That exists and works just peachy on MathOverflow...

djordan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (19227)

2012-06-04T16:24:47-07:00

I would just like to add to this rather old thread, in the hopes that Anton or Scott is reading it that to my mind the "Interesting" tab on SE, if it works (I don't use the site enough to know) would be worth a great deal from my point of view. As the number of users has grown the site has become less and less usable for me, as there are simply many topics that for one reason or another are not interesting to me, or even close. The "Interesting" tab tracks a user's history of interacting with the website and suggests questions tailored to them.

kyle comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16761)

2011-10-30T01:16:56-07:00

grp comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16751)

2011-10-28T15:21:39-07:00

Gerry, indeed it should also work that way on MathOverflow. My concern is that someone will take an interpretation of the policy similar to what I outlined above, especially if one only sees the (moral equivalent of the) phrase "it is encouraged to ask and answer your own questions". I have no problems with a policy about updating your questions when you figure out the answer, nor (subject to an advisor's proper guidance) with graduate students asking questions pertaining to their particular dissertation topic on MathOverflow.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.10.28

Gerry Myerson comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16748)

2011-10-28T14:34:42-07:00

The way that "answering your own question" generally works on math.stackexchange is that someone posts a question *without* knowing how to answer it, then works out how to answer it from the hints and leading questions people post in comments, and then is encouraged by a commenter to post the newfound understanding as an answer.

grp comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16746)

2011-10-28T12:41:03-07:00

Any particular policy is subject to abuse or to use beyond and contrary to the original intent of the (principles of) the forum containing it. If this particular policy were promoted on MathOverflow, here is how I might (ab)use it.

I would start posting a mix of questions, some of which I knew and some of which were related to the ones I knew, but had not worked through, whether for laziness or lack of cleverness or what have you. Those who paid attention would see some of the struggles and successes with my current dabblings on Jacobsthal's function, whether they be in the literature or not. Then I might resurrect my work on the Hadamard matrix conjecture, then on Frankl's union closed sets conjecture, followed by hyperidentities and other work related to Murskii on finite basis problems. I figure each of these topics to be good for 10 posts at least; depending on my strategy, I might let half or more of them be questions to which I know the answer.

My intent would partly be to circumvent (or totally alter) the process for doing graduate level research; I tackle the stuff I know I can handle, and the stuff "I don't feel like doing" I post on MathOverflow. If I don't get shut down by the moderators, I amass enough material for a dissertation or two and present it to my advisor.

The discussion of how ethical this is (or not), how it changes the role of the advisor (who might be compelled to check the references and attributions made or not made in the submitted draft of the dissertation), and how it affects doing research can be saved for other threads; I think this is a lousy way to make a mathematician. It takes away some of the struggle I feel is necessary to build one's abilities. (Supporting anecdote: I recall the time I proved to myself that the real numbers were separable and how this could be used in forming sequences of functions that were used in regularity results of Leray on Navier-Stokes; never mind that I did not really understand the PDE course I was taking nor that I had not yet taken topology; I'll always remember the flash of "there is a rational number between any two distinct real numbers", and how from that followed many of the claims Leray made in his paper. The struggle to reach that insight as much as anything from the claim of certain properties of countable sequences of functions was formative for me.)

It's possible a version of such a policy might be useful to MathOverflow, but I am not seeing that yet.

Gerhard "Is Feeling Somewhat Expansive Today" Paseman, 2011.10.28

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16745)

2011-10-28T12:11:25-07:00

I don't see a problem as long as it is understood that people should indicate when they are doing this, which I don't think contradicts Joel's policy.

François G. Dorais comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16744)

2011-10-28T12:10:15-07:00

The blog post by Jeff Atwood seems to encourage posting a question and immediately answering it. This is not as much of an issue as a quiz question. (And we already had one of those http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71092/how-many-integer-partitions-of-a-googol-10100-into-at-most-60-parts, which caused quite a stir http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1091/how-many-integer-partitions-of-a-googol-10100-into-at-most-60-parts/.)

Tom Church comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16743)

2011-10-28T11:54:08-07:00

One facet of the proposed move that should be considered: StackExchange has an explicit policy to encourage people to post questions that they already know the answer to:

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/

To be crystal clear, it is not merely OK to ask and answer your own question, it is explicitly encouraged. (Joel Atwood, emphasis in the original)

This leads to questions like the following: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/76683/what-is-the-millionth-decimal-digit-of-the-10101010th-prime

My impression is that on Math Overflow there has been a consensus against this kind of thing, especially when the original poster is not forthcoming about the fact that it is a "quiz" rather than a real question. Thus if we plan to join with the SE network, we should consider to what degree this policy will or should apply to Math Overflow.

thei comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16680)

2011-10-24T18:41:21-07:00

Some remarks:

Cons:

1) I view it as a big disadvantage that user profiles get linked on the SE network. I do *not* want to mix my professional life with any other activities (which would include an otherwise fine answer to an "interesting" question on skeptics, say, which will easily have more votes than any math answer and be listed first in my profile). (I actually view this as a weakness of SE that one cannot easily separate work and play, I realize that people a bit younger than me have grown up with facebook, but I suspect that many of them are going to wake up when they apply for jobs.) Note that if someone used the same email address to open an account on MO and SE, I am quite sure that they would be linked automatically even though someone might have used their real name on MO and a pseudonym on SE. Obviously, this issue can be dealt with by using different email adresses, logouts etc, but essentially, one has to try to subvert the idea of the network that *wants* to mix professional and personal aspects of life. It is not as simple as just clicking disassociate by now and if you associate something by accident, then it is linked, as I suspect that the migration will do.

2) MO is like a math journal that is looking for a new publisher, but the offer is to take over the *name* of the journal and the implicit right to change the editors with the understanding that there is no plan to exercice this power. I have no reason to believe that this particular publisher has any bad intentions, but that is no reason to sign ownership away. Obviously, this point can be addressed by the "escape hatch", but it is without any doubt a point that will be a concern to many mathematicians.

3) A more fundamental problem is that the philosophy of the SE network is depersonalization: By delegating reputation to points, it is possible to trust information by strangers. The philosophy on MO is personalization: A pressure to use realnames, for example (which I am against, but that is not the point). Even without realnames, people here have at least pseudonymous personas with reputation, typical for a forum with a humanly comprehensible size. The SO users enjoy this exchange with strangers, a bit like exchanging your apartment with strangers for holidays or flashmobs, but it does not go well with a research community. Many SO users do not understand at all why the research-oriented sites don't want to do what is necessary to grow really big. It is a bad idea to interpret this culture clash as hostility.

This issue is much more fundamental than just what Jeff may or may not think. MO as a community is only interested in half of the SE software: Using votes to do some sorting, but the reputation on MO comes largely from real-life reputation or direct impression from the answer quality.

I think that a lot of the problems on MSE can be tracked to this issue and in some ways, it is an issue of SE Inc. that they do not (yet) know how to reconcile their philosophy with research communities because they personally think that it is ok if they are just mixed up with everyone else. They have not yet figured out how research communities can work on their network, and this might be an incentive to invite MO because there is a high probability that MO will survive minor problems. MO will be a guinea pig.

Pros:

1) If the guinea pig phase works, MO will have some influence on the standards.

2) Yes, 2.0 is much better.

3) SE 1.0 will not work for 20 years, either, so it is not a good argument that SE2.0 might not be a 20 years solution. We might migrate to holodecks by then.

Conclusion: If you can negotiate a possibility to leave, then it is an interesting thing to try, but there *will* be problems, especially along the M.SE/Math.Overflow boundary. Many soft questions work well on MO because there are only MO users answering.

Note that the software problems are not really problems. There are *programmers* on SE, lots of them, there are greasemonkey scripts for anything you want, sorted by votes, including disabling of the enter-comment function. And you are not even allowed to say thank you :).

I strongly disagree with the negative view on Jeff Atwood's personality. Given the numbers of interaction with communities and the circumstances, a conflict like this was very likely, regardless of personality.

And finally: I am annoyed by the "we don't want a democracy"-lanugage. If I don't want to have citizens of other countries decide the public transport policy in my village, then this is not undemocratic. And there was a time when a policeman could certainly not remove a hobo from the math common room because policemen were not allowed to enter universities at all without special permission. And a small enough community should decide as much as possible by consensus not just by vote, because everyone who has been in a committee knows that it depends on who formulates the text voted upon.

j2m comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (16069)

2011-09-12T01:52:29-07:00

(Sorry for double-posting.)

Something to consider for the case of migrating MO: a few hours ago, there was a hiccup in the SE 2.0 engine that caused answers to be disassociated from their owners. The bug was fixed in short order, but a bothering aspect of this was that bug reports filed on the meta site were deleted by a moderator (not the elected ones, I might add) rather quickly with nary an explanation/comment.

j2m comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15666)

2011-08-21T05:50:56-07:00

I've nothing to say that hasn't already been brought up, so: for the people interested in a blow-by-blow account of changes made to the SE engine, here is a frequently(?) updated changelog for the SE engine, for those who want to know whether the added features are going to be hunky-dory for MO or not.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15660)

2011-08-20T13:44:45-07:00

Some hypothetical scenario, delted. (Sorry, did not see something in time.)

Peter McNamara comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15659)

2011-08-20T13:29:27-07:00

I have now realised that under the accounts section, one can disassociate SE accounts, so they shouldn't appear in one's network profile. Hopefully this works permanently (I'm not quite confident), but as this appears to be the case, this particular artifact of the SE system that I brought up shouldn't be a problem.

Zev Chonoles comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15658)

2011-08-20T12:47:48-07:00

No, you can choose to keep a profile edit localized to one site; when editing one's profile, the following appears at the bottom:

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15657)

2011-08-20T10:43:59-07:00

Is it true that an edit to your profile on one SE 2.0 site necessarily propagates to all of your other SE 2.0 profiles? If no, then I can't imagine the objection to the accounts being associated, since it would be almost completely behind the scenes. If yes, then I think we can make a reasonable case for a feature allowing a user to prevent such propagation. It is completely reasonable to want to present different information to different communities.

simoncfr comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15656)

2011-08-19T13:40:05-07:00

Qiaochu -

That's not really a given. Unless I misunderstand, the purpose of OpenID isn't really to tie together several accounts, but to make it easier to log into multiple accounts. While it certainly fair of the SE network to prefer to identify all accounts across their sites, I don't think that it's fair to conflate that with OpenID's purpose.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15655)

2011-08-19T12:40:58-07:00

If not having accounts associated is a thing you value, what's wrong with using different OpenIDs to do it? Automatic association reflects a philosophy that the different sites in the SE network shouldn't be completely unrelated, and if you don't want to use them that way, then you might as well use different OpenIDs, right?

Peter McNamara comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15650)

2011-08-18T22:55:16-07:00

Since this got bumped again, I thought I'd add another potential issue.

When you sign on to two different stackexchange sites with the same OpenID, the SE network will automatically associate those accounts. From trawling through their meta, I get the impression that in theory it should be possible to disassociate accounts, but this is a non-trivial task (and one I failed at attempting myself). Of course you could sign in with two different OpenID's, but that seems to void the whole point of allowing OpenID signin.

I don't really want my accounts automatically associated, and I imagine that there will be other people in the same boat.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15644)

2011-08-18T12:09:28-07:00

Actually I think the batman question is a success story for Math.SE. The best answer is really really nice, is the highest voted answer, and is more highly voted than the question. The daily reputation cap assured that the asker's reputation didn't go high enough for them to cause any real havoc (and the user hasn't tried to cause any havoc).

If we migrate to SE and we get a question like that then we'd just migrate it over to math.SE. There's just no problem there.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15643)

2011-08-18T11:34:08-07:00

Willie, you just added one more view by linking it here :)

In general, I am also not so worried about such extreme cases. (Whether they are really windfall for mathematics, in a positive sense, well I don't know, at least I don't think they are overly harmful.) However, as documented for example by Nilima's remarks in another thread, highly voted questions actually can shape the image of a site (at least locally). And, I assume in this vein, SO even has edited-in a disclaimer for some old superhighly voted questions (that however are essentially off-topic) to the extent that these should not be taken as representative.

What I am slightly more worried about are almost invisible effects: this softish question gets, say 27 instead of 15, that simplictic but nice one 19 instead of 12, yet the real on-topic one still only gets 4.

It is not a big deal and already present now, but I am quite sure it will get worse. If it can be avoided a bit, by not allowing these automatic-voting-powers for almost everyone on the network, I'd too appreciate it. Yet, I understand that this might be difficult to achieve.

WillieWong comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15642)

2011-08-18T10:36:19-07:00

To provide one single data point (so with absolutely zero significance) for Kaveh's comment:

This is the currently most viewed, and highest voted, question on Math.StackExchange. You may be interested in some figures.

But Memes tend to be short lived and sporadic, so over all I don't think they can cause that much of a problem. Afterall, no one is seriously using question vote counts for any statistical analysis. In regards to the image a highly voted question may create for a site, in hindsight, I agree with G Edgar's admonition in the Meta.Math.Stackexchange thread I linked to: those type of popularity are windfalls for mathematics as a whole.

And yes, the migration problem. I remember reading here and there (something on Meta.SO) discussions about whether it is kosher to migrate something that has been open for quite some time. One time when this discussion happened was during the infancy of TeX when a lot of questions with ridiculously high number of votes were mass-migrated from StackOverflow. I don't recall whether any thing ever came out of that discussion, so I don't know what the current SE policy about that is.

Kaveh comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15636)

2011-08-18T02:34:50-07:00

@Quanchu,

I think both voting and commenting by non-mathematicians can be problematic, particularly when SO has half a million users. Voting might be broken but does not justify making it even more broken. Note that SE does not allow other new users to comment or vote, only those from the SE network who have at least 200 on some SE site, I understand their philosophy but IMHO it is not a "feature".

Btw, here is a new thing I have noticed recently, when a question is migrated from another SE site the votes also get transfered, e.g. if someone posts a math question on SO and it gets 20 up votes and then it is migrated to MSE the question retains the 20 votes it got on SO and the owner of the post gets 200 rep for it on MSE even if no user on MSE has upvoted it.

None of these is a big deal in my experience on cstheory, but still it would be nice if they didn't force these "features" on all sites. :)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15633)

2011-08-17T23:41:11-07:00

@Asaf: I really don't understand why this is an issue.

If all you care about is knowing what someone's "real reputation" is, you can figure out how likely it is that they got the boost based on their network profile.
The privileges you get from 101 starting reputation are of no particular importance with the possible exception of CW editing (and that can be abused by users who "legitimately" have 100 reputation just as easily). Voting on MO is already broken.
Anyone who is "not suited" to MO will probably find that out very quickly and leave anyway regardless of whether or not they get a +100 boost.
Anyone who is "not suited" to MO and won't want to leave won't be particularly discouraged by not having the +100 boost.

Giving users from elsewhere on the network the ability to leave comments is a boon to moderation; without that ability users will frequently leave answers instead, which will then need to be cleaned up.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15629)

2011-08-17T23:16:13-07:00

David,

somewhere in this thread (the end of the third/beginning of the fourth page) there is a small discussion over the automatic +100. To reiterate my stand on the topic, if MO wants to separate itself from the rest of the SE network it is important that this sort of feature will be gone, or at best diminished.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15622)

2011-08-17T19:15:48-07:00

@DL: Anton is currently discussing the issue with SE further. We should wait for an update from him.

DL comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15621)

2011-08-17T17:47:38-07:00

By the way, has anything been decided re: SE 2.0 migration?

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15620)

2011-08-17T15:39:35-07:00

@Qiaochu - thanks for clearing that up.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15619)

2011-08-17T15:24:19-07:00

@David: as far as I know, this is a one-time deal. At any given site, you get the +100 boost once if any of your other accounts pass a threshold, and after that, that's it. (You're right that the system functioning the way you thought it did would be silly. That's why it doesn't function that way.)

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15618)

2011-08-17T15:06:39-07:00

@Qiaochu

I'm interested in the possibility that with a number of linked SE accounts, one could garner even 500+ rep by each boost in rep pushing one over the minimum in other subcritical accounts. As was discussed above, community norms vary between sites. What makes a barely ok 2 or 3 questions asked on SO/food/scifi/sceptic/english/TeX/etc poster might not make an ok MO poster.

But as I said, I don't want to raise old discussions.

Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut :-)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15617)

2011-08-17T11:40:02-07:00

Calling 100 reputation a "massive boost" is an overstatement. Here's the basic idea behind that boost: a user with under 100 rep is not capable of doing certain things because new users don't necessarily know how to use SE sites correctly - they may think it's a forum, etc. If you already have a certain amount of rep on another site, you presumably understand how SE sites work, so that's no longer necessary.

For the sake of completeness, these are the privileges you have at 100 rep:

15 Vote up

15 Flag for moderator attention

50 Leave comments

100 Edit community wiki posts

They're all the kinds of things that a similar site might automatically let you do as a new user.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15612)

2011-08-17T00:51:26-07:00

David, I think this might just be the automatic 100 reputation that each SE user gets when they join a new SE site. In order to qualify for it, they have to have "sufficient" reputation on another SE site. It may be that when you first joined SciFi.SE then you didn't have enough reputation on any other SE site to qualify for this, but now you've gained a bit on maths.SE (and TeX.SE) then you qualify. This has been raised in the above discussion.

Will Jagy comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15610)

2011-08-16T23:57:30-07:00

David, use your powers for good, instead of evil.

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15609)

2011-08-16T23:26:14-07:00

An example of bizarre behaviour from having linked accounts on SE. Don't necessarily want to open more discussion, just keep a record of SE2.0-specific behaviour.

I just happened to look at scifi.SE, and got the following pop-up messages:

Your associated account on Mathematics has passed 200 reputation: +100 reputation

Congrats, you've gained the privilege – create chat rooms and 4 other privileges learn more

so merely by one account on one SE site getting a certain rep count, another account on another SE site got a massive boost, giving me privileges before unthought of. I could imagine this snowballing.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15454)

2011-08-10T07:19:43-07:00

A very relevant link to meta.math.SE in the matter of automated editing by the SE engine.

Retroactive automatic editing of question punctuation affecting correctness

Harry Gindi comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15281)

2011-07-28T12:08:24-07:00

Being forced to use the SE meta exclusively (that is, not in conjunction with this current forum-based one) is a deal breaker for me. The SE meta was designed specifically to discourage discussion, which is what meta should be about!

The 101 rep problem is something to think about, sure, but I think the structure of meta as an effective tool for community organization/community discussion is totally destroyed by the SE meta approach.

Just look at this thread we're talking in right now.

Now imagine reading it as a comment thread on SE.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15278)

2011-07-28T11:20:31-07:00

I'm saying it's a necessary evil on other SE sites. I don't think MO really has this problem, but to the extent that it does, the format of our meta seems to do a decent job of alleviating it.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15276)

2011-07-28T10:56:51-07:00

Qiaochu, are you saying that MO has this problem and it would be alleviated by having chat? Or are you saying that it's a necessary evil on other SE sites? Or are you saying that it's a necessary evil because SE doesn't have a meta like ours?

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15275)

2011-07-28T10:51:59-07:00

and then the recent "Chat" activity

Necessary evil. The reason chat exists is so people don't ask chatty questions and/or clog up comments with long conversations. It's not actually desirable behavior except in that it provides an outlet that keeps the main Q&A part of the site cleaner.

theojf comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15274)

2011-07-28T10:18:18-07:00

A few largely unrelated comments:

Scott Morrison's post from about 5 days ago, beginning to put together some reasonable proposals for migration, is spot-on.
My only pet peeve with the current front-end at the SE sites is that they're a little too social-network-y for my taste. For example, the right hand column of Physics.SE starts with a "Welcome!" box, then a "visit Meta" box, then an ad for Area 51, none of which I mind too much (although the logo on the Area 51 ad is probably perfect for attracting random netizens to some site, but not something you'd see in a math journal), and then the recent "Chat" activity, and then the recently posted-in Tags, and then a long list of badges and what people won them. On CSTheory.SE, they have things like "66 people chatting" and "Love this site? Get the weekly newsletter!". I would, of course, get used to this kind of right-hand column fluff (I almost never actually see the ads on gmail, for example), but if possible, I hope we can retain firm control over the front-end displayed content when we migrate.
With many other people here, I do wish that we could pay Fog Creek for their services, and retain more control over the look and feel of the site. I don't think we should roll our own --- there is a culture in mathematics of doing all computing things in-house, and sometimes it's great, but often it means mathematicians using outdated or bad technology. But I understand that Fog Creek may not want to create a set-up where some sites pay for services (even if I don't fully understand why they would not want this). Anyway, I think all of the worries people have expressed about migrating will quickly dissipate, and it's certainly true that SE is pretty awesome software.
Here's one final thought, which for me speaks in favor of migrating. Every once in a while, I wander over the physics.SE or math.SE, and think, oh, I'd like to leave a comment here, or upvote there. I don't want to be as active in those communities as I am on MO, and I haven't made it over the energy barrier of setting up accounts there. But if it's easy for my MO account to wander to those sites, then great.

stankewicz comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15253)

2011-07-26T21:35:42-07:00

At the risk of being too brash I will add a thought that has been percolating in my head when I've occasionally read this discussion:

It seems with Scott Morrison's list and the earlier suggestion of an SE Academy/ SE Omega set of sites among the SE family, the ideal time to migrate that people have in mind is the day that Fog Creek agrees to accept money for premium services.

I don't exactly disagree with this notion. I think advertisements (even for SE network partners) for example would make the site look noticeably less professional. Worse, they could possibly scare off the sort of mathematician who still hasn't switched to LaTeX and only came here because the site was mentioned in the Notices. That said, as many have noted there's a danger here as that day may not be coming any time soon (maybe it's a weird condition of their venture capital? maybe they feel like we'd be more likely to move on if we were both paying AND had access to database dumps?). I don't feel like I'm enough of a part of the community to make a choice either way but it seems like it would be an easier decision to make if that day were on the horizon.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15242)

2011-07-26T10:07:59-07:00

I am actively in favor of the current level of inconsistency in the boundary between MO and M.SE. I think people should ask at whichever site they feel is appropriate, and that questions should only be moved if they're clearly posted at the wrong site.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15239)

2011-07-26T09:13:59-07:00

Qiaochu, my worry is that if we collectively try to figure out and enforce what 'being consistent about the division' means in actual practise, this will be quite complicated; in particular, as this consistence is not present at the moment, so that this won't just be an issue for new user but some regular users then might (suddenly) find all/many of their questions being migrated. I would say for a very sizeable part of MO question one can start arguments to the extent that they are in fact not research-level, if one wishes to do so. And, if half the frontpage will consist of [migrated]-questions at any given time this might start to be more than mildly annoying. Thus, I am simply in favor of at least initially tolerating the current level of inconsitence. But, in principle, I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15237)

2011-07-26T08:17:28-07:00

I can very well imagine situations of the form: Question on MO (about alright but on the simple/general end could well also be on M.SE), some answers/comments, next day somebody suggest on the question or on meta 'wouldn't this better on M.SE...sufficiently many people agree', question gets moved. Whether this happens or not is of course a pure community decision, but what I hope is that we collectively will resist the temptation to transfer too much (both directions) just becasue it is easy, since I think I would find this (mildly) annoying.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. I think a little mild annoyance is well worth being consistent about the division between the two sites to prevent confusion among new users in the future.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15233)

2011-07-26T06:09:54-07:00

Qiaochu, two points:

First, let me rephrase it. In case too many questions should be moved around between MO and M.SE it seems to me I could eventually come to the conclusion that I'd find it more convenient to have just one site; rather than to be implicitly forced to visit two sites. What I am worried about regarding the moving of questions is that now a suggestion to move to M.SE either happens quickly (almost instantly) or not at all. Perhaps, I am misunderstanding this transfering process, in which case my point is less severe, but if a question with its answers can fairly simply be transferred, then I can very well imagine situations of the form: Question on MO (about alright but on the simple/general end could well also be on M.SE), some answers/comments, next day somebody suggest on the question or on meta 'wouldn't this better on M.SE...sufficiently many people agree', question gets moved. Whether this happens or not is of course a pure community decision, but what I hope is that we collectively will resist the temptation to transfer too much (both directions) just becasue it is easy, since I think I would find this (mildly) annoying.

Second, regarding SE Inc. (not sure if this is the right name, or is it Fog Creek, well I think you'll know what I mean). It is really not my intention to suggest explictly or implictly that they do not have good intentions for MO. And, I find it reassuring that those who know the people their (mainly, you and Anton) have a high opinion about them. Just, as far as I know, not too long ago, they had an altogether different idea how to make use of their software (roughly, offer the software and the servers for a fee to whomever is willing to pay the fee; and as far as I know this was how MO initially envisioned the relation). Now, they have an altogether different idea and scrapped the other one (it is nice and reassuring that they seem to treat their old customers very well); yet one is told what excatly this idea is unclear (eg, how revenue will eventually be create is unclear). So, to me and perhaps to truly everybody it is genuinely unclear how this SE network will look like in one, two, three years. Perhaps millions of people will be there to ask about cooking, gardening, home improvement, parenting, poker, and what not, and this will be great for SE as all these people will be susceptible to quite targeted adds and might buy all kinds of things directly from the site, and it will also be great for the people using these sites because they will get useful information. It just might not be so great for the couple hundred or thousand research mathematicians that use MO on a regular basis, because they simply don't fit into this environment.

And, let me add reseacrh mathematicians in their role as research mathematicians. Of course, most mathetmaticians have interests besides math and might enjoy these sites too. But, just because I enjoy some venue in some context, I do not have to think it is a good place for discussing mathematics.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15231)

2011-07-26T02:37:07-07:00

Asaf:

Its say in matters of what should or should not be with other communities seems to me as quite a peculiar way to run a network of communities.

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Seriously, I can only talk in terms of the impression I've gotten from hanging around the SE network for a bit. My impression gleaned from that is that SO is The Model and the other SE sites are meant to work in a similar fashion. That's why seasoned users get their "head start" of 100 extra rep: the assumption is that their experience on other SE sites will stand them in good stead on a new site. When the SE2.0 stuff started, then this 100 extra really was for people coming from SO to encourage them to get in to the new communities to show them how it was done. The original system on Area51 (the proving ground for new SE sites) was that your voting capability was tied to your SO reputation. The whole idea of Area51 and the new SE sites was that it was meant to grow organically from the tried-and-tested soil of SO.

Now, with a site like TeX-SX, we haven't had a problem with a mass influx of SO users. This, I think, is due to the nature of the topic. TeX is one of those things that if you know what it is, you probably know enough to participate on the site and have something to say there. The only real annoyances have been those that don't know anything about the SE sites at all and try to start discussions. But on a mathematics site, the problem is that there are people on SO who think that they know what mathematics is but really have no clue whatsoever.

So it's a balance: will the ease of access from SO balance against the ease of migration to MSE? Actually, I think it might balance in our favour. If you search on SO for "MathOverflow" then you'll see that we're already regarded as a bunch of elitist snobs who close any "reasonable question" in no-time flat. So I doubt that there will be a large influx of people, and if we can keep our "hot questions" off that list then there will be little opportunity for people to "stumble upon" MO by chance.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15229)

2011-07-26T01:42:39-07:00

Andrew,

To respond on you response to Qiaochu. The SO community might be a democracy but it is a democracy within the confines of SO. The maintainers of SE may bow or may not bow to the whim of their largest community, but as a whole it seems to me that SE is the whole network while SO is just one big community. Its say in matters of what should or should not be with other communities seems to me as quite a peculiar way to run a network of communities.

I am not familiar with how things run, but from the impression I have so far (both from math.SE as well from Anton's and SE's owners in this discussion) this is not how things are done.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15228)

2011-07-26T00:55:20-07:00

I'd just like to respond to one phrase in Gerhard's post: that the purpose of MO is

to ask and have answered certain questions of interest to research mathematicians.

That's what I originally thought, but now I would phrase it more in the form:

to ask and have answered certain questions of that research mathematicians could encounter when doing their mathematics.

It's a bit more awkward, but the point is that the mathematics has to be of a certain type and level. If I've phrased it correctly, it also doesn't mean that the person asking or answering has to be a "professional mathematician". Just that they play the role whilst on the site.

I also believe that this is more in line with Anton's vision. I don't want to put words in to his mouth, but that's certainly the impression I have after debating this issue with him many times on this site.

To Qiaochu:

SE has no intention to ever merge the two sites. Everyone, please stop bringing this up. It is really, really, really, really not an issue.

SE might not, but there is a sizeable (or at least very vocal) segment of the SO community that does not like "two level" sites. Since SE is meant to be a democracy, the fact that the "overlords" don't want to merge the sites doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen. I, personally, doubt that it would happen, but I'd like safeguards to ensure that even the question of it is ridiculous. As you are a moderator on an SE site, you can look in the moderator chat room and search for "mathoverflow", "mathematics", and "mathematicians" to get a sense of the comments that I've seen that lead me to this opinion.

I'd also strengthen Noah Snyder's comment:

This is very much a side point, but if we end up migrating I do not think that a 2/3rds vote among the moderators is an acceptable option for how to "break the glass." The reason being that there's no way to stop a future bearded EvilSE from just changing all the moderators one day.

I think that I'd go for 2/3rds vote amongst the current moderators, or a successor team appointed by them for precisely this purpose. After all, if things deteriorate to such an extent that we're worried about SE replacing moderators to swing the vote their way, they could just replace the lot!

DavidRoberts comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15226)

2011-07-26T00:36:41-07:00

@grp - well said, especially the last sentence.

grp comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15225)

2011-07-26T00:27:18-07:00

From Andrew Stacey (in another context):

If each "side" remembers that the other side is also present on the site and that their own preferences are not universally acknowledged as a truth, then each will moderate their behaviour and both will find that the site is big enough to accommodate them.

I bring this up because I see sides in many of the recent posts in this thread and in other recent threads. I also bring it up to remind myself and others that, like it or not, the MathOverflow community is changing as new members come and as others go.

If this site is to be just for professional mathematicians, that will rule out quite a few contributors of merit to this community in my opinion.
If this site is to be just for professional mathematics, that will rule out quite a few contributions of merit, in my opinion. I find many posters in this thread making statements that are, or are close to, categorizing the community as mainly one type or mainly another. I find this uncomfortable, as what should be done is not to protect the community, but to protect the ideals and basic mission statement of MathOverflow: to ask and have answered certain questions of interest to research mathematicians. While having this community support those ideals is important (and thus trying to keep this community happy or at least together is also of concern), I think it is more important that the mission survive whatever changes the future brings.

I made a choice many years ago to not become a professional mathematician. When I encountered MathOverflow I found something that encouraged me to take up mathematics again, despite rusty knowledge and skills. There are many others who are using this forum to help make their choice of being a professional mathematician or not. There are still others who are attempting to extract information about professional mathematics, for application in their fields or for their own enjoyment, even though they may never care to become mathematicians at all, professional or otherwise. I want posters in this thread to remember that the forum serves many people and purposes, and that the actions of the community help shape the resource that MathOverflow is becoming. I also want to caution posters about making assumptions of who the community "mainly" comprises.

Much as how comfortable or uncomfortable the migration to SE 2.0 may be for the community, I think the migration issue should also be viewed in the light of how it affects the forum itself and its purpose. Even more so (although this may be better in a new thread), I think the basic mission statement should be revisited, and (looking back on the good and the bad in the databases) a new set of policies and behaviours considered regarding how the community supports the mission (e.g. what kinds of questions are allowed, how should they be tagged, should questions be edited to fit the mission rather than dismissed or redirected). Such a revisiting may even help answer the question about whether or not to migrate to SE 2.0.

Gerhard Paseman, 2011.07.26

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15223)

2011-07-25T21:27:38-07:00

What I mean in particular is: if a year down the road, say, 90 percent of regular MO users also have an M.SE acount since there was so much transfer and all the soft-questions got moved there (as suggested above), won't it then be hard to argue why the sites need to stay independent, eg, in case in the course of some general stackexchange network cleanup a merge should be suggested?

SE has no intention to ever merge the two sites. Everyone, please stop bringing this up. It is really, really, really, really not an issue.

Questions like common misbeliefs, counter examples, urban legends and refereeing papers all seem much more at home compared to math.SE.

I would say that misbeliefs and counterexamples (unless made more specific) are both fine for math.SE. Urban legends could go either way. Refereeing papers is definitely an MO question.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15222)

2011-07-25T20:30:06-07:00

I think that MO is the right place for some of the soft questions. I know, as well, that had I not been interested in getting myself involved in math.SE sort of questions I would not have gone there at all.

Questions like common misbeliefs, counter examples, urban legends and refereeing papers all seem much more at home compared to math.SE.

Alex Bartel comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15220)

2011-07-25T19:57:26-07:00

I actually quite like the idea of moving the soft and non-research level questions to MSE. We have had a discussion here not so long ago in which it transpired that many conscientious new users who really want to do their homework look at the highest voted questions and answers and get a completely wrong idea of the main focus of the site. Such a mass migration would sharpen MO's focus.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15218)

2011-07-25T18:16:06-07:00

Since I do not know math.SE well, I am not well-placed to discuss this. However, it seems to me that the relation between the two sites and how much transferring will be done could be important. What I mean in particular is: if a year down the road, say, 90 percent of regular MO users also have an M.SE acount since there was so much transfer and all the soft-questions got moved there (as suggested above), won't it then be hard to argue why the sites need to stay independent, eg, in case in the course of some general stackexchange network cleanup a merge should be suggested?

Regarding the voting and 101 automatic reputation: as just came up in the googol thread, and if I remember well this was not the first time, also on MO in its current form the voting patterns can sometimes be quite surprising (and not only for really soft and CW questions), and actually go to some extent against the purpose of the site. To further strengthen this trend, by bringing/letting in many (up)voters that in all likelihood will only (up)vote the stuff at the simple/general end, seems undesirable. So, I agree that this could be an issue.

Since I have raised various concerns in this thread, a personal summary: while there are various small points that I find (potentially) unfortunate about a move, in the end, those advertising the practical necessities/advantages convinced me that it is still the better option.

I would, too, be very happy if this meta board could 'survive' the move. Not to say, I just answer some questions on main to be allowed to discuss here ;D

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15211)

2011-07-25T15:28:41-07:00

I agree with Henry that it would be sad if all questions which were in the "appropriate for either MO or math.SE" questions all got sent to math.SE. But I still don't see why users who would prefer math.SE would stick around MO trying to make it more math.SE-like. math.SE already works quite well as an "ask-the-expert" site. Suppose there's a user where half their questions get migrated to math.SE. They're likely to get sick of having their questions migrated and just end up on math.SE.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15210)

2011-07-25T15:21:44-07:00

To be exact you don't even have to associate your account, but can just go there.

I do share Qiaochu's expectation to see more MO users joining MSE. I think that this site has a lot to offer from the point of view of writing answers.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15209)

2011-07-25T15:15:23-07:00

(2) We crack down on soft questions, and migrate anything that could plausibly fit in MSE to MSE, so visitors below a certain level of knowledge never see anything in MO that they understand or enjoy. This would work, but it would make me sad, since it would remove some of the content I understand and enjoy.

I don't see the problem here. Migrated content is not removed content: you can easily associate your account with math.SE and read soft questions there! I fully expect this to start happening if we migrate.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15208)

2011-07-25T14:52:05-07:00

This is very much a side point, but if we end up migrating I do not think that a 2/3rds vote among the moderators is an acceptable option for how to "break the glass." The reason being that there's no way to stop a future bearded EvilSE from just changing all the moderators one day.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15207)

2011-07-25T14:34:08-07:00

A more direct way to deal with your worry would be:

1) Empowering moderators to block questions from appearing on the multicollider (see http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/99765/mods-should-be-able-to-suppress-questions-from-the-multicollider)

2) Automatically stopping all MO questions tagged "soft question" from appearing on the multicollider.

Unlike the 100 point bonus, this is entirely behind the scenes and would not interfere with user experience. As such, it seems like the sort of thing that SE would be more likely to agree to.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15206)

2011-07-25T13:41:23-07:00

But we already have exactly that problem (soft questions get voted up too much relative to other questions). The limiting factor on soft questions is votes to close not up/downvoting. And votes to close/reopen have a high threshold where 100 points makes no real difference.

Henry Cohn comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15205)

2011-07-25T13:29:43-07:00

I'm not worried about people randomly voting on things they don't understand, but rather selectively voting on the things they do understand (or would like to). The tech industry, and the internet at large, are full of people who really like math and know quite a bit more than the average person, although much less than an incoming math grad student. For example, someone who regularly reads popular math books and took several proof-based math courses in college but has since forgotten some of the details, and who feels a kinship with mathematicians and would like to hang out where the professionals are. (Few software developers fit this profile, but there are so many of them that the absolute numbers are still large.)

In one problematic scenario, every so often an attention-getting soft question on MO would be advertised widely on the SE network in the little box on the right side of the screen. A bunch of people would visit and end up hanging out, upvoting and answering the soft questions or the questions on the borderline between MO and MSE, and occasionally using MO as an "ask an expert" service. Each of them would be more or less harmless individually, but not collectively. Over time, MO could end up with a substantial body of users who felt they were contributing and therefore deserved a say in how MO was run, but who were detracting from the research focus.

I can see three ways around this:

(1) We do nothing, and if it ever becomes a problem, Anton exercises his dictatorial powers to maintain MO's focus. This would be better than not exercising his powers, but still suboptimal: if we don't intend to allow the community to develop in certain ways, then we should make that clear from the beginning, rather than letting people develop an attachment and a feeling of investment before essentially disenfranchising them.

(2) We crack down on soft questions, and migrate anything that could plausibly fit in MSE to MSE, so visitors below a certain level of knowledge never see anything in MO that they understand or enjoy. This would work, but it would make me sad, since it would remove some of the content I understand and enjoy.

(3) We try to make sure MO isn't advertised on other SE sites and that users of other sites aren't encouraged to join MO. (I wouldn't explicitly discourage them, but a reputation bonus suggests that we value or want to incentivize people coming from other sites, and that they are fully entitled to do everything the bonus enables them to do.) If that fails, we fall back on (1). This is the solution I would prefer.

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15204)

2011-07-25T12:47:32-07:00

Hrm, the worry I see with an influx of other SE users is an influx of questions that we don't want. The response to this in my mind is two-fold: first a popup to try to direct people to math.SE, and second the awesome new ability to directly migrate questions to math.SE.

An influx of votes seems bizarre to me. Most people's reaction to a typical good MO question is to chuckle at its absurdity. It would take a very weird sort of person to show up and start randomly voting up questions or answers that they don't understand. I just don't think we're going to get that many people like that.

My impression from following SE stuff is that this sort of basic user experience issue is exactly the sort of thing that they'd be least likely to want to budge on. They really really want the experience of people coming to a new SE site to be uniform. They don't want different thresholds for powers at different sites. They want people to be able to move to a new site and know how the mechanics work. (Of course, this is because they want users to be able to move from site to site, while we want to stop users from moving to our site...)

Henry Cohn comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15203)

2011-07-25T12:42:27-07:00

Oops, sorry for the ambiguity.

Noah Stein comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15202)

2011-07-25T11:53:22-07:00

I agree that there should be a popup (in addition to eliminating the free 100 reputation), but I don't think this is even something we need to request: I believe all SE2 sites have a popup for new visitors describing their purpose.

Also I should point out to avoid confusion that Noah Snyder and I are both involved in the conversation so "Noah" is ambiguous; it looks like Henry Cohn and Andrew Stacey were referring to the other Noah S.

Henry Cohn comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15201)

2011-07-25T11:38:17-07:00

I suspect the 101 reputation could actually be important, and dealing with it after it becomes a problem would be much more contentious than dealing with it before. However, even if it does turn out to be be basically harmless, it still seems like a philosophically important issue. If we don't believe that everyone from the SE network should automatically be entitled to vote on MO questions (for example), then we should set it up so that they can't, rather than explicitly telling them they can but then discouraging them if they try to actually do so.

This is presumably a pretty trivial change in the software, so if it's something MO wants to do, then the only issues are whether it annoys the SE team or the other users on the network. From my perspective, if the SE team won't do it, then that's a real sign of trouble ahead. As for the other users, it's too bad if it annoys them, but it's better to set the expectations from the beginning. (I like Noah's idea of a popup, but I'd do that in addition rather than instead.)

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15200)

2011-07-25T11:01:03-07:00

(Thanks! I was actually just using text so I figured html would work. But it doesn't seem to. Switched to markdown.)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15199)

2011-07-25T10:57:44-07:00

(Noah, if you're using Markdown then it sanitises HTML so you need to use Markdown's link syntax [text](url).)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15198)

2011-07-25T10:56:48-07:00

Reading the discussion, I find myself thinking that if MO migrates, the only thing that I would really miss would be meta. The rest, I could probably live with or without (depending) and, as has been pointed out. But this discussion here would not be possible on an SE meta. So for me, meta is at the top of my list.

I feel that the 101 thing is more of a red herring. If we, the regular users, are aware of the issue and make sure that we keep an eye on the "new posts by new users" list (which is a feature of SE2.0) then we can leap on these people (gently) and make them aware that MO is only for snobs. Sorry, I mean "mathematicians".

Noah Snyder comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15197)

2011-07-25T10:50:12-07:00

On more thought I basically think that moving is the most reasonable option. Tyler Lawson's point is very good, as is Scott Morrison's most recent post. We're already dependent on SE, and are already vulnerable to this site disappearing or changing if and when someone buys them out. We want to have software that is well-written and is maintained by someone other than us. In the near future it seems like SE2.0 is the only option in town for that.

I really don't want us to try rolling our own site. Alex's point that big programming projects run by mathematicians don't do well in the long run is very important. (Of course, I'm not objective here, as it's very much against my own interest to have Scott involved in large programming projects.)

In terms of negotiating points, the one thing I would really want is a top of the screen popup (like the "we just linked your accounts" popup) for users coming from the SE network who haven't used MO specifically before which says something close to "This site is for research-level mathematics only. For other math questions please go to math.SE."

I think a message like the above would be more effective, less annoying, less confusing, and more acceptable to the SE network than trying to restrict the initial rep of outside SE network users.

(In the long-run, what I really think would be nice would be for there to be a "SE academy" subnetwork containing the sites like MO and cstheory. I think SE is right not to want too much variation in how the individual sites work, but I think that having a well-marked subnetwork for research-level sites might be more acceptable for everyone.)

Noah Stein comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15195)

2011-07-25T07:43:07-07:00

Like many I initially had a mild gut reaction against switching to SE2. While good arguments have been made on both sides, I think the most fundamental was Tyler Lawson's point about a vote against switching being a vote for an emergency switch n years down the line. This now puts me generally in favor of a switch.

There have been a variety of suggestions for requests we might make as a community before agreeing to switch. It is not clear what, if any, power we have in this regard so I think it is worth prioritizing what we really need.

Personally, I think the automatic reputation of 101 for members of other SE2 sites is the biggest negative to a switch. I remember thinking when I started on MO that the need to convince the community you have something to add before being allowed to vote was a great way of codifying that MO is a Q&A site for professional mathematicians and not a homework help site. I think if SE wants to encourage such fora for other fields, this feature will be important for them as well. It also seems like it would be relatively simple to implement in the software, and so more likely that SE would agree to it.

I would vote in favor of a switch if this change came with it, even if there were no other changes.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15190)

2011-07-24T23:05:19-07:00

@Alex, it is true that I did not want to make a fool out of myself, and while some people do make fools out of themselves most of them give up before a critical point of reputation. This gives them up to 100 points extra, which is something I would very much like to think is bad.

Especially in light of how protecting a question, a feature of SE2 allowing only users with "enough" reputation to post, therefore blocking the comments and answers by newcomers which may be problematic, is useless against other SE users (since "enough" is more than 10).

Alex Bartel comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15189)

2011-07-24T20:14:09-07:00

It seems to me that the 101 starting reputation is a non-issue. Asaf, the reason you found it so hard to earn your first 50 reputation points was because you didn't want to make a fool of yourself along the way. But there is a much easier way. It is perfectly possible to ask 16 questions, most of them repeating each other and none phrased in English, have only four of them with a positive vote count and some voted as low as -8 and still have a reputation of 246 (at the time of writing). This even includes 13 cast down votes.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15183)

2011-07-24T15:47:12-07:00

(ctd)

As Pete L. Clark worried before, and I very much agree with this, the SE engine changes the text automatically. This is not a good thing. If MO joins the SE network, I believe that we must insist that automatic edits will be turned off. I have to say that I am also upset about the fact the changes are not public. I agree that the best thing is to let users run along, and if they don't fall and scrape their knees they will never know better.
Personally, I feel cheated every time the SE team does something like that. Even if the change is for the better, I believe that at least hosting some tracker that we can know what issues they have updated/working on is a welcomed thing. I do not think, however, that the lack of transparency is a reason to vote again this migration. Just something that I find disturbing; on the other hand the automatic edits are much more severe as a whole.

This has gone for long enough, I just have to say one last thing (and if you read this far, you're a braver person than I am), I am not against this idea. I am even somewhat in favour (although not 100% sure it is necessary right now). Change is good if done properly. I have a firm belief that MO (and by extension math.SE) is a rather unique community that does not fit into the "usual" Q&A mold of hobbyist sites, and if we (by which I mean you) decide to migrate I think that it as important to consider the above points as much as it is important to ensure Mr. Atwood and others will not interfere with MO and meta.MO.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15182)

2011-07-24T15:47:01-07:00

I decided to get myself one of dem fancy meta.MO accounts for this particular thread, to voice my humble opinion on the matter.

To give a bit about my "street cred", I am a grad student, I joined MO slightly over a year ago (and mostly sat quietly in the corner) and joined math.SE during the public beta stage (almost a year ago), as well the meta.m.SE about six months (or so?) since I became an active participant there as well.

Some issues to consider, that have been brought up before this post but seemed to have been neglected compared to other issues:

The incompleteness theorem can be abused in the notion of bugs and security holes: every big enough software has some huge bug that occurs once every five years when the planets align and the moon is in the scorpio. All network-interfaced software which are large enough have immense security holes which, when found, will let the smarter user go through them like lye through fat - in the most corrosive manner you can imagine.
By this, of course, I mean that unattended software is bound to fail eventually, and the bigger they are they harder they fall. This is due to server updates, or possible leaks in underlying software (php? perl? common lisp?) or even bugs in the code that is the SE engine. While this does not pose an immediate threat, eventually it will become impossible to fix, and one disgruntled hothead user with the right kind of knowledge can in fact wreak havoc (at least for a while). Of course this is a very catastrophic scenario that is not very likely to occur, but isn't the probably of a tsunami washing parts of a city just as unlikely - but just as devastating as we saw twice during the past decade?
Furthermore, as Anton said, usenet is still perfectly fine. Most of the users nowadays don't go there anymore. It is a dying medium. Platforms that stop attracting users whither away, and if this community wants to thrive for an indefinite amount of time, it seems like a good idea to upgrade at some point.
While having different reputation for questions and answers is perfectly fine in sites like SO, it seems to me that MO is a whole other thing. Mathematicians appreciate questions, good questions, questions that are phrased in an interesting way and leading you to think. This makes good questions seem like an excellent source, equal (to some extent) to good answers. While it is clear that answers are the goal, I would hate to see a site which is based on questions of high level being dropped of this status.
The connection with the rest of the SE network seems somewhat troublesome to me, it seems that no clear answer about whether or not it is possible to have the site seem disconnected from the SE network. That means no ads (and perhaps as importantly no ads of MO in other SE sites), and even more so ditch the 101 reputation for newcomers from the SE-land.
The latter seems to me to be important for a main reason, not the comments nor the voting and not the CW editing. It is because a reputation of 101 points gives you a voice in a community that you did nothing to earn its approval for voicing. I still remember how hard it was for me to get my first 50 reputation points on this site (something that some might have shared and other might not). I was just starting my way in my grad studying. I would hate to think about people from other SE sites, which effortlessly given the permission to speak where they might not be wanted. It was pointed out that this community is run by mathematicians. Not by hobbyists, nor students which may or may not be qualified in either moderating or mathematics. This is a website with a very strict framework, in which you can do pretty much everything you want as long as you remember "to put on some pants" (i.e. play nice with others, and stay within a reasonable epsilon from the norms of the website).

(ctd)

Will Jagy comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15176)

2011-07-24T12:27:17-07:00

People might be interested, I have reserved this guy's 2010 book "You are not a Gadget" at my public library,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

http://www.jaronlanier.com/

Oh: I'm pretty senior.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15165)

2011-07-24T09:31:50-07:00

I do not qualify as senior, but sort-of fall into the category described by Qiaochu; except I merely would say, I do not use all these things (this is meant value free as a description of what I do, perhaps I should use them) but still am on MO. And, yes, that SE 2.0 sort-of goes into this direction is a concern for me. Personally, now that I am already around, I won't leave because of this, but whether I would have joined in the first place not sure. Although, since I joined fairly late, likely yes, due to the great number of mathematicians already around. So, that in the very end, I think now this concern is not too severe.

A not perfect analogy: MathSciNet is something else than Wikipedia. Both have a value, but the fration of mathematicians likely to contribute to them is I believe quite different.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15163)

2011-07-24T08:53:59-07:00

The meaning of "internet thing" escapes me. Do you just mean it appears on a website? If so, I don't see how moving to another site makes it "more" or "less" of an internet thing.

Well, take Twitter, for example. My impression (and it is only an impression) is that senior mathematicians consider such things faddish, a product of a modern obsession with social applications, and overall a waste of time. It is possible (and I am pretty sure I saw a related point raised earlier, which is why I mention it) that SE 2.0 will seem more like such things. Perhaps this is a non-issue, which would be fine with me.

KConrad comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15153)

2011-07-24T00:49:53-07:00

Qiaochu: Personally, my opinion about whether MO should migrate is completely unrelated to what kind of meta format there is, since that's not the part of the site where the real mathematical questions and answers are appearing.

I don't believe the migration to SE 2.0 would have a serious effect on senior people using MO. Why should it cause people to turn away if they are already using the site? Do you know anyone who stopped using gmail because of a format change?

The meaning of "internet thing" escapes me. Do you just mean it appears on a website? If so, I don't see how moving to another site makes it "more" or "less" of an internet thing.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15149)

2011-07-23T22:07:26-07:00

It seems to me that many people's concerns about migration would be greatly alleviated by us keeping this meta. Is that a fair assessment? That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask SE for.

The only concern I can think of at the moment that wouldn't be alleviated by keeping this meta is the concern that senior mathematicians might be put off by the association with the SE 2.0 network. But this seems like more of a mild temporary setback to me than anything else. MO was an "internet thing" before it became important, and MO 2.0 will perhaps be slightly more of an "internet thing," but as long as everything keeps running smoothly it shouldn't take much more effort to get used to. Perhaps some brave volunteer should poll some such mathematicians? I don't think the people I have in mind frequent meta.

HJRW comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15145)

2011-07-23T16:15:24-07:00

We're mathematicians busily writing papers, and trying to get jobs or tenure. Please bear with us, and try to see some of the downsides of joining the StackExchange network in this context.

We (the MO community at large) certainly shouldn't take lightly the commitment of those of you who have created MO and keep it running. If moving to SE2.0 eases that burden, and you would like to do it, then that reason alone would be enough to convince me.

I do also find Tyler Lawson's first point very persuasive.

That said, I think Scott's list of requirements makes a great starting position for a negotiation.

Scott Morrison comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15144)

2011-07-23T14:31:37-07:00

I've realized my last post was perhaps unduely negative.

As Qiaochu says above, we are already hosted by StackExchange, and nearly every worry about calamity in the future because of a change in their business plan applies at least as much to our current situation.
the StackExchange software is really good, far better than we can expect to find elsewhere or produce ourselves.
Fog Creek does a fantastic job of handling all the heavy lifting, running webservers, backing up data, dealing with network outages, fixing critical bugs, etc. This is a gigantic advantage for us, and we should be very very pleased to be getting all this for free.

As such, if we eventually decide to migrate, I (and I think the other moderators) will be willing to cash in some of the community's goodwill, saying something along the lines of:

"Running mathoverflow without this support from Stack Exchange might not be viable. We're mathematicians busily writing papers, and trying to get jobs or tenure. Please bear with us, and try to see some of the downsides of joining the StackExchange network in this context."

I'm very happy to help write code that opens the door to future migration away from SE, and happy to put in effort finding funding for or managing any development work that we decide is necessary for such a migration. Nevertheless, it's important to remember the scale of the advantage we gain by piggybacking on Stack Exchange.

WillieWong comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15142)

2011-07-23T13:19:56-07:00

A propos 101 rep:

I don't think comment everywhere is that big an issue. If someone misbehaves in a comment, you can always flag it for moderator attention. It is pretty hard for moderators to not see that in the SE2 tools.

For votes: I agree partly. Insofar as meta is concerned, if we keep meta on this platform, that would not be a problem. Perhaps we can arrange to have a different rep threshold for voting? But I don't think that would be that much of an issue.

Community wiki edits: that could be a big issue.

If we identify specific things that we don't like, we can try to negotiate with SE to see if they can be changed to our liking, right?

Kaveh comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15141)

2011-07-23T10:03:01-07:00

@Akhil Mathew, I agree with Pete, I like this meta more than SE 2.0 meta. Voting in a discussion is useful only when we are taking a vote, it can be counterproductive for discussions in other cases. The Q&A format of SE 2.0 meta is clearly not designed for discussion and is intentionally designed to discourage it.

@Qiaochu Yuan, Your argument about the necessity of real-time intervention by SE employees is not convincing for me. As Joel noted, SE employees can't monitor the sites all the time either. I am sure at least one of the MO moderators will visit the site in a reasonable time and waiting a few hours is not a big deal. If it is a very urgent matter then MO moderators can be contacted using other methods like email (there is also flagging by ordinary users can solve many cases without even MO moderator intervention). Discussing rare situations is not helpful, it is not difficult to give similar "what if" arguments in the other direction. The point here is to make it clear that intervention by SE employees without approval of MO moderators is not acceptable and that is the rule, to break the rule they should have very convincing reasons that it was necessary to break the rule in that particular case.

@WillieWong, The main problem I see with the initial 101 rep for users coming from other SE sites is that it gives them a say (i.e. vote, comment, ...) without being part of the MO community, it can bias the votes on the main site, but more importantly it can bias the votes on the meta (and this does happen, someone links to a discussion on the meta in another site and suddenly we see a huge increase of views and votes by users who have never visited the site).

Akhil Mathew comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15140)

2011-07-23T09:26:43-07:00

I think that if we do use the SE 2.0 meta, we should also ensure that voting privileges are extended only to those who have participated on MO (as opposed to those who have only participated on other sites). While I generally prefer MO's meta as having less clutter, I think Anton mentioned he could arrange the SE meta (if we used it), to display answers in chronological order, so as to make it more discussion-y. In that case it would not be so different, and in fact there would be one advantage: you can vote on posts to express(dis)agreement even without having to say anything. For instance, I would upvote the recent posts by Tyler Lawson, Scott Morrison, and Angelo Vistoli.

One point that has still not been addressed is whether being attached to the SE network would make the website less attractive in the eyes of mathematicians. As long as the current policies on meta.SO that many of us here appear not to agree with (i.e. closure/deletion/locking of complaining posts) are not extended to meta.MO (which seems a safe bet since Joel Spolsky has assured us that MO would remain self-moderating), I myself don't have any objections.

Incidentally, at some point or another, I have looked at the MO profiles at most (all?) of the mathematician participants in this thread, and it seems that, on average, we tend to be much younger than Jane Q. Mathematician (or even Jane Q. MOwer). I think it would be very interesting to hear, in addition, the views of those who have been in mathematics for, say, 20 years or longer.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15139)

2011-07-23T08:45:23-07:00

He thus has a financial interest in defending the corporation and convincing us to migrate. I usually find him pretty level-headed, and I was wondering why he was so vehement about defending SE on this thread. I thus did a little google search and learned this.

My internship is for a fixed period of time, and my pay is also fixed and does not depend on the success of the SE network.

Let me also clarify this "vehemence" issue. I believe I am the only MO user in this thread who has actually spoken to an SE employee in person (though perhaps Anton has as well). It's therefore easier for me to see them as actual people as opposed to faceless corporate automatons. The "vehemence" you observe is a result of me trying to inject a strong opposing voice into this discussion because it is all too easy to demonize people you have never met. (Some cognitive biases I think are relevant to this discussion: the fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and the availability heuristic.)

I'll also repeat that I am not 100% in favor of migration. There are still things I don't understand about the long-term viability of doing nothing, as well as the viability of OSQA, that I would like to understand before I "vote" for one thing or another. Again, if we reject migration I just want to make sure we're doing it because we actually think it would be a bad idea and not because we're so scared of non-mathematicians that we would rather do anything than be forced to work with them.

quid comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15138)

2011-07-23T02:03:04-07:00

Random Mathematician, I very strongly suggest you retract your comment (and appologize). Even if he would not have mentioned it himself in the discussion, I would find your comment unacceptable; supplying the mere information might (though not even sure about this) be acceptable in this case, yet insinuations about financial interests influencing the arguments are scandalous (even in that hypothetical scenario).

Angelo comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15137)

2011-07-23T01:55:25-07:00

I have followed this discussion with interest. I like MO very much, but I feel I don't have anything meaningful to contribute. However, I will intervene to say that I am irritated by the comment by "Random mathematician". Insinuations are always distasteful, but when coming from an anonymous source they are downright loathsome.

grp comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15136)

2011-07-23T00:25:10-07:00

At his first post in this thread, Qiaochu mentioned he was an intern at StackExchange. While I am sure he has several motivations dictating what he posts, Qiaochu usually does not make statements that he can't back up. Also, one person's vehemence is another's exuberance. I recommend choosing your words (and identities) with more care.

Gerhard "On This Side Of Keyboard" Paseman, 2011.07.23

Random Mathematician comments on "Migrate to SE 2.0?" (15135)

2011-07-23T00:17:20-07:00

He has neglected to mention it, so I thought I'd point out that Qiaochu Yuan is currently a paid employee of StackExchange. He thus has a financial interest in defending the corporation and convincing us to migrate. I usually find him pretty level-headed, and I was wondering why he was so vehement about defending SE on this thread. I thus did a little google search and learned this. I thought other people might want to know too...