tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments)

WillieWong comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (15023)

WillieWong — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:15:49 -0700

@Gerry: that is an SE2 feature. The criterion there also requires the closed question to have a net negative vote total.

Gerry Myerson comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (15007)

Gerry Myerson — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 05:17:40 -0700

I meant closed questions that have no answers, not the big list questions. I thought I read that they get deleted after some time, but evidently I misremembered. Maybe that's how it works on MathStackExchange.

Pete L. Clark comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (15005)

Pete L. Clark — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 00:25:14 -0700

@Gerry: No, there is no automatic deletion of questions.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (15000)

Qiaochu Yuan — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:47:00 -0700

Where did you hear that? None of the big-list CW questions we've closed have been deleted, and some of them were closed quite some time ago.

Gerry Myerson comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14999)

Gerry Myerson — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:43:28 -0700

The trouble with the status quo on Question 70346 is that (please correct me if I'm wrong) closed questions get automagically deleted by the software after some time. I'm that's right, then David Speyer's feat will not stand on record very long.

Pete L. Clark comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14994)

Pete L. Clark — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:37:01 -0700

The question is still incoherent, so I can't come down in favor of reopening. It's impressive that David Speyer sussed out the meaning in the first half of it, but this feat stands on record already. I don't think it is a disservice to him at least to have his answer given as a comment.

gilkalai comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14990)

gilkalai — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:35:24 -0700

WillieWong "I think the question should be edited first"
I agree

WillieWong comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14989)

WillieWong — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:33:09 -0700

Gil Kalai:

I think the only way (without putting a burden on the mdoerators) is to reopen the question.

Voloch:

The second half of the question still has not been clarified or answered and I believe it doesn't make sense.

I think the question should be edited first to address Voloch's objection (which I imagine is shared by a few of the people who voted to close, looking at the comments) before it is re-opened.

gilkalai comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14988)

gilkalai — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 04:21:41 -0700

Gerry asked: "How can we bring about such an improved state?", I think the only way (without putting a burden on the mdoerators) is to reopen the question. Then the question should be edited and David's answer should be collected from the comments to become an answer. If the problem remains closed still another option would be to edit part 1 and to add David's answer to the body of the question.

voloch comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14987)

voloch — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:39:23 -0700

The second half of the question still has not been clarified or answered and I believe it doesn't make sense. David certainly deserves to be praised by his effort in clarifying and answering the first half, but I don't think these ill-thought out, non-sensical questions should be encouraged.

Gerry Myerson comments on "Question 70346 closed, then understood and answered in comments" (14986)

Gerry Myerson — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:51:32 -0700

A couple of hours after http://mathoverflow.net/questions/70346 was closed on accoount of incomprehensibility, David Speyer managed to comprehend it, explain it, and answer it, in the comments. I think it would be a good thing if the question could appear in David's formulation, together with David's answer (and, presumably, OP's acceptance). How can we bring about such an improved state?