tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Meanings of reasons to close?)

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10414)

2010-11-08T13:52:59-08:00

I did lose one opportunity that may have been worth doing. One of my idiots asked a question on a generalization of the LU matrix decomposition called LUP. So I was going to put

See a penny, pick it up,

All day long you'll have good lup.

but he deleted the question for lack of responses.

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10413)

2010-11-08T13:41:51-08:00

Harry, I will of course be thinking about it, and that is what my best friend Dmitry advises. But my feeling is that arguments in MO comments, or on Meta, blow up precisely because there is a presumed audience of roughly 50, any of whom may take exception to any given post. So for my most recent problem I simply emailed the guy and a few MO people cc'ed, I said that he owed me an apology, he said no he did not, and that ended it. No reason for either of us to escalate maters, the audience was too small.

I note there is a parallel thread, quite testy, on one fellow upset by downvotes. If it would do any good, I would write that it is in the software, nothing on Meta will change downvotes, please calm down. It would not help.

Harry Gindi comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10412)

2010-11-08T13:32:35-08:00

I am at this point gunshy.

The only way to overcome your fears is to shoot a someone with (verbal) bullets.

Regarding posting that message, I would do it myself, but I would be denounced and derided for doing it, given my reputation, which often seems to precede me.

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10411)

2010-11-08T13:30:18-08:00

Harry, I see what you mean. I am at this point gunshy. I've gotten in so many fights lately and I'm just not the right personality for it. I don't enjoy it. Put another way, if you look at my recent disagreements with people, I have just about zero success talking anyone into agreeing with me. On some specific issues, I turn out to be in the majority, so it is not all doom and gloom.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10410)

2010-11-08T13:21:30-08:00

I am still interested in people's interpretations of what these things mean,

Which is one reason why meta exists ...

I am slightly bothered by the rigidity of this scheme,

I think we probably all are, but are perhaps a bit more resigned to the current state of affairs (having been aware of it for a bit longer than you).

but your advice (leave comments when closing) seems to be the right response,

I think it originates with Anton, but he'll be pleased to learn that I've so internalised his sage advice that I'm now claiming it as my own.

short of trying to get more control over the machinery.

A-ha! The Revolution! If you want to join that, you need to sign up to the secret meta site.

And suddenly the words of Emily Litella spring to mind...

Being a Brit, I had to look that one up. Looking at the range of possibilities on Wikipedia, I'm not sure how to take that one. Should I see myself as Chevy Chase or as Jane Curtin in this scene?

(In case it's not clear to anyone else, I'm laffin')

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10409)

2010-11-08T13:14:59-08:00

Henry, I think I probably do spend more time looking at the OP's profile than most. There are many sort of in between people. There is a particular "unkown" I have on my idiots.txt file who began by asking open-ended question and revising up to 20 times while learning bits and pieces from the answers of peole who by that point had gotten pretty frustrated. I think such behavior is simply predatory.

Harry Gindi comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10408)

2010-11-08T13:12:40-08:00

"I have looked at your profile and your previous questions or answers, I'm voting to close because this question is pretty bad and you are a moron."

I (double dog) dare you to write this on ecologicyborg's next post.

HJRW comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10402)

2010-11-08T13:07:28-08:00

Will, excellent, now I have a meaning for 'Too localized' to add to my dictionary.

Todd Trimble comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10401)

2010-11-08T13:06:58-08:00

Andrew, in fact I did *not* realize that (I've never actually cast a vote to close... yet); thanks for bringing this to my attention. I feel a little silly now; I probably would not have started this discussion had I known this.

I am still interested in people's interpretations of what these things mean, but I feel much less bothered now not having consensus. I *am* slightly bothered by the rigidity of this scheme, but your advice (leave comments when closing) seems to be the right response, short of trying to get more control over the machinery.

And suddenly the words of Emily Litella spring to mind...

Harry Gindi comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10400)

2010-11-08T13:06:53-08:00

I use "not a real question" whenever someone asks a question about the complex numbers.

I vote to close as too localized when people ask textbook questions about localization.

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10396)

2010-11-08T13:02:41-08:00

Henry, there would be a problem for me putting my real reasons for voting to close. So often it is: "I have looked at your profile and your previous questions or answers, I'm voting to close because this question is pretty bad and you are a moron."

Gerry Myerson comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10388)

2010-11-08T12:43:35-08:00

I use "not a real question" whenever someone asks a question about the complex numbers.
.
.
.
.
JUST KIDDING!

Andrew Stacey comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10383)

2010-11-08T12:18:01-08:00

Todd, if you already know this then I apologise for repeating it. When deciding on what these things mean, it's important to remember that we can't modify the list in any way. And when voting to close, one has to pick from the list as presented. That's one reason why we're encouraged to leave a comment as to why we think a question should be closed. So when you ask, "what the heck do we mean when [we] write these things?", the short answer is: "We didn't write them.".

I usually pick "too localised" as meaning, "I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in the answer to this question.". But often if I'm not the first to vote-to-close then I'll just capitulate and go with the current majority (which is shown to you when you vote-to-close). Some, such as those that Andy listed above, have very clear meaning for MO, but others really only make sense on StackOverflow.

So the Ideal Solution is to get more control over the machinery - though I've not seen any evidence that the SX2.0 sites can change their messages - and the Realistic Solution is to encourage people to leave comments when closing. After all, how many people are going to look at the FAQ to find out what the real meaning of the message is? And how many of those with the power to vote-to-close are going to remember to look at the FAQ to find out which coded message is actually the one they want to leave?

But perhaps the FAQ could emphasise the fact that this is something we have no control over, and that closing is not necessarily "for ever", and that meta here exists so that those who feel that a question was wrongly closed can argue for its reopening.

HJRW comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10382)

2010-11-08T12:11:02-08:00

That's why I'm suggesting that a 'dictionary' between the terms we are forced to use and the notions we want to use would be useful. As Andy suggests, because there will always be difficulties in interpretation, this dictionary should be short.

Todd Trimble comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10380)

2010-11-08T12:02:13-08:00

It's about the received meaning of terms like "too localized", "off-topic", which are vague-sounding and unenlightening. Basically, what the heck do we mean when write these things?

Cam McLeman comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10370)

2010-11-08T10:38:16-08:00

@Will: Hm? I thought this thread was specifically about the reasons behind the votes to close...

Also, new life goal -- no landing on Will's idiot list. :)

HJRW comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10369)

2010-11-08T10:38:14-08:00

It seems like the thing to do might be to list the actual reasons we want to close things, and then try to make them match up with the available reasons we have. Actual reasons for me include:

Spam.
Exact duplicate.
Not 'MO-level': would be more suitable on another site.
Incomprehensible: could be an MO question with some editing.

The first two are fine. Perhaps the last two correspond to 'Off topic'' and 'Not a real question', respectively?

Harry Gindi comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10366)

2010-11-08T10:19:59-08:00

I also like using "not a real question" for questions that are really really really easy.

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10361)

2010-11-08T10:10:12-08:00

Cam, this is not so much about votes to close as the explanatory comments we sometimes put. A guy on cstheory (T. Ito ?) requested that I not send crappy questions there. I realized that I probably was thinking more of programming, so i changed to stackoverflow in my saved message (it and other useful information are in a text file I keep called idiots.txt).

Cam McLeman comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10359)

2010-11-08T10:07:49-08:00

Like the one that Scott eluded to in the post I referenced.

nng comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10358)

2010-11-08T10:07:48-08:00

"questions that really are just too specific to be of interest to even a specialized audience."

Like what ?

nng comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10357)

2010-11-08T10:06:05-08:00

"There is a tendency in the social structure of mathematics to assume that the only interesting mathematics is that done by acknowledged geniuses, and the rest is a kind of `fringe mathematics'."

Ronnie Brown, "Promoting Mathematics"

www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/promotingmaths.html

Cam McLeman comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10353)

2010-11-08T10:00:05-08:00

My working standards:

My "not a real question" point of view is roughly the same as Will's.

Off-topic is for questions, good or bad, better suited at other theory sites (theoretical CS in particular).

Too localized is too easy, or those like Scott Morisson in the "too localized" thread -- questions that really are just too specific to be of interest to even a specialized audience.

I would be happy to change any of these in favor of standardization among moderators.

Todd Trimble comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10351)

2010-11-08T09:57:27-08:00

Whenever I've seen "closed as not being a real question", that's always seemed like a good and understandable reason to me. I would like to keep that reason around, along with "exact duplicate" and "spam".

WillieWong comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10350)

2010-11-08T09:54:22-08:00

+1 Will Jagy: there is a clear-cut case when "Not a real question" applies. Even if the standards for "real" were debatable, the standards for "is there a question in what you wrote" is not.

Will Jagy comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10346)

2010-11-08T09:47:19-08:00

I've used not a real question for many people who simply do not include a question; the occasional rant, but sometimes an advertisement for fringe mathematics, requests to look at dubious proofs offsite, any kind of fishing expedition where the OP wants a huge tutorial instead of doing any of the work.

Harry Gindi comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10336)

2010-11-08T08:48:49-08:00

@Andy:

The reason "Not a real question" has its place, especially when people like you-know-who (don't want to invoke his name and suffer his presence) start questions that are just rants.

Andy Putman comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10335)

2010-11-08T08:16:09-08:00

I think that we will never get a reasonable consensus on what they mean. I therefore suggest that we restrict ourselves to three categories and agree to choose one of these when we vote to close:

1. Exact duplicate (obvious meaning)
2. Spam (obvious meaning)
3. Off-topic (everything else)

Todd Trimble comments on "Meanings of reasons to close?" (10334)

2010-11-08T08:02:49-08:00

There is a battery of reasons to close an MO question: too localized, off topic, spam, and others, whose meanings are never very clear to me. In the interest of transparency and clear communication, it would be very nice to decide what these things mean (no mean task, perhaps), and if there is some reasonable consensus, collect those meanings somewhere that is easily visible, such as FAQ.

To get the ball rolling, a number of meanings of "too localized" were tossed around in the discussion on re-opening the Aut(G) = C_3, G = ? question. At the moment we don't seem to be anywhere near consensus.