tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly)

Scott Morrison comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16670)

2011-10-22T17:31:12-07:00

I'm closing this thread. If anyone has anything substantive further to say, please start a new one.

Mariano comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16668)

2011-10-22T17:04:38-07:00

This thread is pointless. You have already observed that you asked off-topic questions... simply do not do that again. There is nothing to analyse.

I vote for closing too...

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16667)

2011-10-22T16:38:29-07:00

In the present case it is a question which has no relationship to the MO community.
In that it is not related to the work areas of the MO community.

If there were a relationship a higher number of views would also imply a higher
number of subject matter comments and/or answers.

But for the present case we have a higher number of views but nothing happens.
There is no resonance. It is an off topic question, not for the MO community.

The MO community does hardly work in compiler construction or logic
programming. Thats not their topic of study.

quid comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16666)

2011-10-22T16:32:07-07:00

What's your definition of a 'neutrino question'? It seems to be defined via views. But then 600 is not a bad number. Also some of your other questions have less than 200. So I do not quite understand your reasononing.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16665)

2011-10-22T16:30:29-07:00

Very constructive, suspending my account. Who was that?
I rather prefer deleting my account.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16664)

2011-10-22T16:12:52-07:00

The problem is that when the question is a neutrino question, you
typically need more effort to explain it. And it is most likely that
your explanation effort will not have any success.

As WillieWong has mentioned in the following discussion:
http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1138/future-of-metamo/#Item_0
That:

"While the SE engine is absolutely horrible for extended discussions
(and the chatroom, while great for discussions, is bad for documenting
threads and such), there are certain things ...

So basically the claim "Once you get acquainted with the forum you'll see
that's not how it works." is not true, in then sense that the forum does not
work very good for neutrino questions.

Eventually its only a social problem and nothing technical involved. Of
course me as a poster should also see more earlier if a question is
a neutrino or not, this is the easiest solution.

Ryan Budney comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16663)

2011-10-22T15:41:50-07:00

IMO this thread should be closed.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16662)

2011-10-22T15:34:10-07:00

Well its difficult to realize, since it requires cross forum competency. Also it would be helpful to promote more other stack exchange sites. I just notice that for example the following stack exchange does exist: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com . I know its very difficult to detect the neutrinos very early on, by definition they cross the matter. But it would be better if neutrino questions are rerouted quickly etc.. instead of lingering around, voted down, creating haters and hate, etc.. and then simply closed.

If a question is posed in the right forum communication can happen. If not communication might look like mind reading. It creates a lot of uncertainty and subsequently mental stress.

Ryan Budney comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16661)

2011-10-22T15:28:11-07:00

Once you get acquainted with the forum you'll see that's not how it works.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16660)

2011-10-22T15:25:01-07:00

Well they don't need to go through the close state if they are obviously off topic. Does only clutter.

Ryan Budney comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16659)

2011-10-22T15:24:09-07:00

That's not how the forum works. Off topic questions are closed.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16658)

2011-10-22T15:23:15-07:00

In general MO should detect off topic questions more quickly and in particular delete these two questions.

Ryan Budney comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16657)

2011-10-22T15:22:14-07:00

I don't think this is a place to be making demands.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16656)

2011-10-22T15:00:24-07:00

For example CS theory has tags "logic-programming" and "compiler", but MO not.

Countably Infinite comments on "Please Delete Neutrino Questions more Quickly" (16655)

2011-10-22T14:37:13-07:00

Dear All,

My current impression is that MO is not the place for interdiciplinary
questions. I am talking about the following two questions:

1)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/65777/de-lifting-lemma-does-it-hold-closed

2)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/77431/can-i-express-variable-occurence-ranges-in-logic-closed

When I was posting them I was hoping to get some useful feedback.
But they crossed MO like neutrinos are crossing matter. The maximum
was so far 600 views for 2), which counts for around ~23% of the
MO population.

When posting the question I was kind in a hurry not very much
thinking about the narrow domain of the questions. But of
course the narrow domain is:

1)
Logic Programming

2)
Compiler Construction

I am sorry for posting this topic here and I demand immediate
delete of the two questions, with whatever comments or
answers they have accumulated. They definitely don't belong
to MO.

Best Regards