I note only that I was responding to a post that was, in light of the facts, at best uninformed and facile, and at worst ignorant and unnecessarily insulting. I was merely returning the gesture (a rude one, at that). I also don't really agree about the "intrinsic merit" of the questions here compared to that of the questions there.

I think that your comment was misguided in almost every aspect: in its language (unnecessarily rude), in it's use of the first person plural (you don't speak for MO), and in its invocation of the ICM (quite possibly, the poster has not heard of the ICM, and even if they have, doesn't care about it or have any sense of its professional significance). Even your choice of adjective (selective) is probably not the best, although it is literally correct. I think it would be better to simply explain (if any response is necessary at all) that MO is not meant as a Q&A site for general mathematics questions, but has a more restricted focus. (So the selectivity is not based on the intrinsic merit of questions, but simply on their relevance to the (very restricted) area of focus of MO.)

I don't understand why making the ICM reference is all that absurd. The difference is in degree (admittedly a pretty big difference) only.

But if not, then could I venture that my day job involves helping people other than myself or my collaborators, without thought of reaping benefit for my own work or entertainment or edification. MO is not part of my job.

More generally, I agree with José that a healthy dose of intellectual elitism is nothing to be ashamed of, especially, since the target audience is mathematics professionals. Maintaining high standards is rarely popular with general masses, be it teaching service math courses or running a question and answer mathematics website with research focus. FWIW, the comment cited by Mariano is very mild in this regard.

"Questions sitting on the front page" is a fundamental feature of the website, so each of us will do well to exercise some tolerance, even though many or even most of them at any given time may not appeal to a particular user or a group.

@Ian: We're not snobbish, just selective. Maybe you could take your head out of your ass for a second and realize that, for example, just any layperson shouldn't have the right to speak at the ICM. – 97832123

Dear 97832123: as someone who is not speaking at the ICM anytime soon, I am a little uncomfortable with this comment representing "we" MO users.

I do not see it as a bad thing that a community like ours show interest and appreciation in some of its members. Why would be treat John Stillwell or JS Milne in the same way we treat unknown (google)?

Seriously, though, I don't think that this is something to be alarmed by. One person's snobbery is another person's intellectual elitism and I, personally, do not think that's something to be ashamed of. I would be surprised if the intended audience of MO (researchers in mathematics and cognate areas) would shirk away from participating in the site based on any such perception of snobbery.

I've seen remarks to the same effect elsewhere.

Should something be done to change that perception?