More specifically, every previously linked meta discussion has an invalid link. Is there an option to search and replace all the references to meta.MO by tea.MO?
]]>Our current MathJax setup doesn't automatically upgrade to new versions (and is still back at 2.0). Two questions:
It seems we are a pretty good candidate site for trying out their beta for them --- we have lots of eyes, people care about the typesetting looking right, and there's a reasonable chance that if problems are noticed feedback would at least reach meta. On the other hand maybe it's not worth the bother, or on the whole we'd prefer the safety of a stable version.
]]>Several points:
1) I said that referring to a previous question (c.f. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19679/seeing-math-when-viewing-abstracts-on-arxiv-org-closed) as "closed by the MO thought police" was rude. I stand by this. Calling someone "thought police" clearly denigrates them. Obviously, one is allowed to identify real "thought police" when they appear, but I think you're clearly against the consensus here: the people who closed the previous question left well thought out explanations of why they closed the question.
2) Closing a question is not rude, and I think it's important for everyone to internalise this. It is not an insult, it is not a personal rejection. It's a community process that decides that a question is not appropriate on MathOverflow. (In this particular case, commenters made it clear that it would be much more appropriate on StackOverflow.) We're trying very hard to keep MathOverflow focused and on topic. There is easily sufficient community support for the current approach that we're taking to keeping MathOverflow on topic --- this isn't something to argue about at this point (or at least, not in the context of any specific question or vote to close), just something to accept about what MathOverflow is.
3) The MathOverflow community has a quite strong objection to duplicate questions. Your question is clearly a duplicate! I'm actually a little surprised people didn't step in more quickly with votes to close on this basis. Allowing duplicate questions is a real pain --- if a question gets closed, the appropriate thing to do is either revise the question and hope that it is reopened (this has happened many times), and to come over the meta.MO and discuss the reasons for closure. We've had several instances in the past where someone has felt strongly about a closed question, and after some discussion here and some revisions, the question has been reopened. I think anyone with a closed question may find themselves suprised by how willing people are to reopen, once some regard is given to the original complaints against the question. It is inappropriate to ignore the existing consensus on a question, and repost it --- it's immensely frustrating to anyone who went to the effort of explaining why the original question should be closed.
Now -- VA, if you're reading this: these points all apply in particular to your recent questions! I understand that you vigorously disagree with the closure of your original question. Nevertheless, simply reposting the question is not the right way to proceed. You have to show some willingness to engage with the objections to your previous question!
I'm sorry if I upset you, because I don't intend to. Hopefully you can see that I think it's an interesting question (indeed, from my answer you can see that I spent some time trying to work at an answer to it)! Nevertheless, the community process is important here, and it's important to both respect that, and not insult people who were acting in good faith.
]]>Suppose this is a suboptimal typography practice.
Probably it can be easily fixed by adding CSS like:
margin-left: $X$em
or something similar.
]]>I keep looking for the nice "markdown" syntax page when I'm typing an answer and I can't find it easily in the FAQ, or on the sidebar. I realize it is linked to on the "how to ask" page (which is how I eventually keep finding it), [and now that I'm testing out editing, I realize that the big blue question mark on the formatting bar also goes that page... so I feel pretty silly now] but I think it would be helpful if it were linked to on the sidebar, or perhaps if there was a text label on the formatting bar too.
The sidebar on the page for asking questions does have a helpful list of commands and a link, so perhaps that should be copied onto the answer page so that it is visible when writing an answer.
The flipside of this is that perhaps the interface will be slightly more cluttered, but that seems like a minor price to pay for better-formatted questions and answers.
]]>If 5 more people think that the question should be closed than people think it should remain open, I think that that is indeed enough to close it. But right now, any 5 people can 'unilateraly' close a question, and it takes effort to re-open. This seems unbalanced.
]]>Much like the "cite" export function, it could be nice if there was an "import" function in which we can specify a DOI and the object will be instead given a nice citation form?
Since DOIs are pretty static, this can be an external (or not) script to the SE program which will hardcode the resolved data into the post instead of leaving a DOI tag to be resolved every time the post is loaded.
How does that sound?
]]>For open discussions, at the bottom of the page showing the thread there is a text box for adding new comments and two links: one to go "Back to Discussions" and one to go to the "Top of the Page".
For closed discussions, obviously there shouldn't be a text box for adding new comments. But can we still have those two rather convenient links?
]]>On meta.SE:
On meta.SO:
If you find another bug/feature-request on meta.SE or meta.SO that you think is relevant to Math Overflow, please post it here.
]]>When I vote to close a question, I'm presented with a list of reasons for closing. This list seems inadequate. In particular, there isn't anything like "too elementary" or "homework" (unless you count "off topic," which I don't think is quite right).
Do others feel that the list of reasons is inadequate? Does the software allow this list to be expanded? If so, then what additional reasons should be added to the list?
]]>Right now, if you write a comment containing LaTeX, and there is an error, you have to retype all of the LaTeX stuff. What would be nice is if there were a way to either "view source" for the entire comment at once or somehow copy the source to the clipboard.
No problems if you can't figure out how to do it using methods available to you. I just figured I'd give you the challenge and see how things work out!
]]>The question about the infite series keeps popping up and people try to answer it while it's not very clear what the question is, which leads to more comments and wrong answers. These people have essentially put effort in answering a question that is not of great interest to me anymore. If some of you still want to keep the question open because you think it is interesting or at least want to be able to go to from the homepage, then it's all right with me. In that case, the question doesn't need to be closed.
I hope you understand,
Max
]]>It's not a huge deal for me. When I'm at home I'm on a secure network. When I'm at an airport, I can set up a full SSL tunnel through Berkeley's library. (On the other hand, I think when I'm on campus I'm using an insecure network; maybe I should just run the tunnel everywhere by default.) Still, "https://secure.mathoverflow.net/" would be awesome.
]]>I gathered from a previous post that Math Overflow is in no rush to switch over to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, but can anyone comment on plans for at least implementing the Stack Exchange API that is part of that release? There are a lot of really great applications being built on top of that API that work on pretty much every SE site out there except for Math Overflow, and it's a real pity. I'm sure a lot of the users here would find them very useful.
Is there any plans, now or in the future, to update Math Overflow's software in this way, or is it essentially a fork at this point that will never merge with upstream?
Thanks, Adrian
]]>I realise that this might be considered inappropriate behaviour on my part, so I'm reporting the details here in case the community wants to overrule me. Suspensions are easy to clear, so this action can be undone immediately.
Let fly! :-)
]]>MathOverflow gets a fair number of questions that are not research-level, and are quickly closed. In most cases, this seems to happen because the user thinks MO is the math equivalent of Stack Overflow, and does not know what sort of questions are acceptable. Part of the reason I think is that the "Ask a Question" page does not mention anything about this: there is a "Please read the FAQ…" message, but it's almost an axiom of user-interface design that no one reads instructions! There is a "How to write math" on the right, and it has happened that some newbie spent a lot of time learning LaTeX and formatting a question carefully, only to have it quickly closed. On Stack Overflow's Ask a Question, there is a brief message to the right on what sort of questions to ask — in the place where MO has "How to write math". It continues to be displayed while you type the question title, and only when you start typing the text of the question does the message change to formatting instructions. Something like this would be easy to implement here too, I think?
Of course, once math.stackexchange.com goes into Public beta tomorrow, this will probably be less of a problem, but I still think it would be polite and nicer to people who arrive here by mistake to clarify all this (and direct them elsewhere) on the Ask a Question page. There's no guarantee that everyone will read the more visible instructions either, but it's a trivial change that could help quite a bit.
]]>I ask because I am pedantic and have seen a few discussions here on Meta that accidentally ended up under "Feature Requests", presumeably because the poster was not completely familiar with the interface and the form defaults to it. I think a more sensible default value for the category should be "General" or "Community".
]]>At the time of the edit, the user can specify if the edit is trivial (for fixing minor things like spelling or punctuation) or major (for mathematical mistakes or new content or something like that). Trivial fixes don't count toward the "8-edit and CW rule" but also don't bump the question on the home page. Major edits do.
If you think this request if reasonable, please also post some comment on how to better refine the differences between the two!
]]>Is there any way that you can get email notifications of updates to your favorite questions?
]]>I'm not sure if Anton can do this directly via DNS. Alternatively, it may be possible to point mathoverflow.net to mathoverflow.tqft.net for email purposes (there's a separate set of DNS entries for email), and then I could do the aliasing on my end. This might mess up existing email accounts @mathoverflow.net.
I guess I can just make up addresses under the .tqft.net domain if that's the best we can do.
]]>Now, I'm not actually planning to regularly use a "general mathematics" StackExchange 2.0 site, because my understanding is that it would be rather dull! :-) On the other hand, I think it might be very useful for us if such a site existed, so we could point people there. In fact, it may become possible in the near future to actually migrate questions there rather than just closing them! As such, I'm not going to hesitate "gaming the Area 51 system" for our selfish ends.
(Full disclosure: the link I gave has a referrer code in it corresponding to my Area51 account. To my understanding, the effect of this is that if you "commit" it will say something like "Referred by Scott Morrison" under your name in the list. Here's a clean link if you prefer.)
]]>If more people support it, then it would be probably be implemented by them. So please go over there and .. . ...
]]>