tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices) Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:39:33 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher grp comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (4007) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=4007#Comment_4007 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=4007#Comment_4007 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:15:24 -0700 grp
If this is supposed to be an introduction of/advertisement for MathOverflow to a larger community, I would have as few negative words in it as possible. Delete phrases containing "anarchic" and "Unfortunately." Limit the discussion of handling bad questions even further. It is better to sell the product and let the customer kick the tires than for you to kick the tires for him, especially given the length constraint. (If you are interested in full disclosure, provide a link to an expanded version of the article to be placed on the website, separate from the FAQ. Call it a press release or press kit or something.) Keep this article short and sweet, while plugging all the advantages of the system.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.03.22 ]]>
Sam Nead comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3731) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3731#Comment_3731 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3731#Comment_3731 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:57:40 -0800 Sam Nead Steve Huntsman comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3719) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3719#Comment_3719 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3719#Comment_3719 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:21:28 -0800 Steve Huntsman
"Currently some areas of math are disproportionately represented, but just as with the arXiv, it is gradually “filling out” as it matures. We’d love to have mathematicians from more areas actively involved, and already you’re sure to find something you’re interested in."

perhaps something more explicit, such as

"Currently some areas of math are disproportionately represented, but just as with the arXiv, it is gradually “filling out” as it matures. We’d love to have more mathematicians from currently under-represented areas (e.g., numerical and applied mathematics, classical and functional analysis, PDE) actively involved, and already you’re sure to find something you’re interested in." ]]>
Ravi Vakil comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3716) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3716#Comment_3716 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3716#Comment_3716 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:16:47 -0800 Ravi Vakil
@Harald, I don't think I agree; the target audience aren't the people here; they are the people for whom this sort of thing isn't yet even on their radar screen. I would expect that of the roughly half of my department who are much older than me, almost no one could mention one of the blogs. (It's possible a couple might have heard that Terry Tao has a blog, and feel some amusement about it.) Of course, of the rest of the department, almost everyone would be able to name a blog. Tricki doesn't seem to have yet become as canonical as the other things listed.

@Bruce, your point that smr is a reference point for many Notices readers (even if off most younger mathematicians' radar screens) is a good one, that hadn't struck me. (I didn't even realize sci.math.research still existed, I'm embarrassed to admit!) ]]>
Regenbogen comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3713) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3713#Comment_3713 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3713#Comment_3713 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:01:02 -0800 Regenbogen @Noah Snyder. There was once a thread in meta asking about the origins of MO, and somebody wrote in there that all of the secret blogging group is here in one form or other. Also I think cpries wrote, Scott and Anton started this, and "the rest of the secret bloggers found out soon". So it stuck in my mind that MO-creators are a subset of secret bloggers.

@Ilya Nikokoshev. Nice analogy with youtube and TV

]]>
Bruce Arnold comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3712) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3712#Comment_3712 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3712#Comment_3712 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:52:35 -0800 Bruce Arnold Right. In the Good Old Days you could sit down on your couch, grab the chips and a can of beer and did not worry about being downvoted because you watch Bonanza.

]]>
Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3707) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3707#Comment_3707 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3707#Comment_3707 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:59:16 -0800 Ilya Nikokoshev

Is MathOverflow really more then a web 2.0 remake of smr?

I would say that it is a remake of s.m.r. in the same sense that YouTube is a web 2.0 remake of TV.

The similarity is that most people use both mostly to watch moving pictures. But the changes in underlying technology lead to quite different user experience :)

]]>
Bruce Arnold comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3706) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3706#Comment_3706 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3706#Comment_3706 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:35:28 -0800 Bruce Arnold @Pete What you explained is, I think at least in parts, also of interest for the readers of the Notices, which might be familiar with the long standing smr. In any case I think your answer shows that a comparison can highlight more vividly the spirit of MO then just explaining the mechanics of MO. The article as it stands also gives the impression that MO invented the discourse of focused mathematical questions and answers on the web and denies the existence and history of smr. That the Internet makes the communication much more attractive than the possibilities Usenet newsgroups can provide is beyond question.

]]>
Pete L. Clark comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3705) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3705#Comment_3705 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3705#Comment_3705 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:00:20 -0800 Pete L. Clark
Then there are major differences between the two sites:

1) sci.math.research is fully moderated, meaning that no question gets posted until it is read over and explicitly approved by one of a small number of human mathematicians. The same occurs for answers, resulting in a lag time of 12-24 hours for each round of a conversation. [Of course this full moderation is very necessary for s.m.r to distinguish it from sci.math, one of the more impressive asylums for the mathematically crazy that the internet has produced.]

At MO on the other hand, 90-something percent of all questions go through their normal lifespan without any direct intervention on the part of the moderators. The time savings is very significant.

2) Possibly related to 1), the volume on s.m.r is quite low -- usually about 1-3 threads a day, including calls for papers, etc. Thus it is not really a place for mathematicians to "hang out". MO on the other hand is high volume and thus addictive. I have a gold badge that testifies to my logging onto this site for 100 consecutive days: that's addiction! Also an addict is Greg Kuperberg, one of the cofounders of s.m.r.

3) Probably related to 2): because the volume is higher on MO, it is attracting an increasing number of leading mathematicians in many areas, including some who are coming from a culture of math-blogging and not so much from a participation on inernet newsgroups. If I know that Bjorn Poonen, Matt Emerton, Brian and K. Conrad, Kevin Buzzard, Qing Liu (and so forth!) are going to read and respond to my arithmetic geometry questions and answers, then I am much more willing to ask a high level question and take the time to craft a long, thoughtful, technically rich response.

4) Also the slightly fancier format of MO serves to make it more addictive, or "stickier". There is no shame in this: when you are devising a product or a service, you want to do everyting you can to draw people in. MO does a much better job of this than the internet newsgroups, in my opinion. ]]>
Bruce Arnold comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3704) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3704#Comment_3704 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3704#Comment_3704 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:44:09 -0800 Bruce Arnold What I think is conspicuous missing is a reference or comparison to the (still existing) forerunner of MathOverflow: sci.math.research.

Is MathOverflow really more then a web 2.0 remake of smr? What describes the difference between a question (say the one Greg Kuperberg asked on 1996/05/07 on smr 'Is Vol K_bar minimized when K is an ellipsoid?' (in: "The bottleneck conjecture" ) and the same question if posed on MO today (besides some HTML and color) ?

]]>
Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3703) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3703#Comment_3703 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3703#Comment_3703 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:30:58 -0800 Harald Hanche-Olsen Assuming the references aren't to be cut, why not also mention tricki in the introduction? I think it's more important to mention this than the blogs, which are already fairly well known.

]]>
Noah Snyder comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3701) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3701#Comment_3701 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3701#Comment_3701 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:05:03 -0800 Noah Snyder Scott Morrison comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3700) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3700#Comment_3700 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3700#Comment_3700 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:56:31 -0800 Scott Morrison @Jonas, thanks for catching the "must [be] able". Over at SBS, we're actually being advised to cut all the references!

@Regenbogen, really? Why is it important that there's some overlap? Especially as time passes one presumes this will become less relevant.

]]>
Jonas Meyer comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3698) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3698#Comment_3698 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3698#Comment_3698 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:09:55 -0800 Jonas Meyer
Typo in the last paragraph: "must able" --> "must be able" ]]>
Regenbogen comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3697) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3697#Comment_3697 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3697#Comment_3697 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:02:55 -0800 Regenbogen The close links between the Secret Blogging group and the MO Moderators group should be mentioned.

]]>
Anton Geraschenko comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3696) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3696#Comment_3696 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3696#Comment_3696 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:45:11 -0800 Anton Geraschenko I went with "Math Overflow" from the beginning, and that's how it has appeared in various places on the internet, but I think it's probably still fine to change it if people prefer "MathOverflow" (I'm starting to prefer it myself).

]]>
Scott Morrison comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3695) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3695#Comment_3695 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3695#Comment_3695 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:30:22 -0800 Scott Morrison I think the consensus use by now is "Math Overflow". Personally I agree, and prefer MathOverflow, and even more just mathoverflow.

I'll add a link to StackOverflow. In the end we may cut many of the references: Notices opinion pages usually don't have a bibliography!

]]>
Steve Huntsman comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3694) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3694#Comment_3694 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3694#Comment_3694 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:59:09 -0800 Steve Huntsman Mariano comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3692) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3692#Comment_3692 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3692#Comment_3692 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:41:38 -0800 Mariano (You'd do worse than add a link to StackOverflow where it is mentioned)

It is Math Overflow or MathOverflow? I prefer the second... :)

]]>
Scott Morrison comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3691) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3691#Comment_3691 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3691#Comment_3691 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:37:20 -0800 Scott Morrison The same text appears in a blog post at the secret blogging seminar, if anyone would like to follow over there.

]]>
Anton Geraschenko comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3690) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3690#Comment_3690 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3690#Comment_3690 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:34:50 -0800 Anton Geraschenko

Upon first visiting Math Overflow, people are often surprised by the high quality of the content and the sophistication of the mathematics. This is made possible by features which allow the community to moderate itself, keeping the site from becoming anarchic. For example, established members of the community have increased power to make decisions. This ability is measured by a point system, somewhat unfortunately called “reputation.” Votes for something you’ve written increase your reputation. As your reputation grows, you gain abilities that allow you to organize and improve the site, so moderation duties are efficiently shared amongst the most active users. At first you can only ask and answer questions, but soon you can vote (one good question will get you this far), then you can create new tags, and eventually you can edit other people’s posts and vote to close bad questions.

A “bad question” is one which is either irrelevant to mathematicians or one where it is unclear what constitutes an answer. Homework questions, on the rare occasion that they occur, are closed and the asker is politely directed to one of many websites where such questions are appropriate. Blogs often host discussions, and wikis compile expository material; Math Overflow fills a different niche. It is optimized for focused questions which (could) have clear answers. As a result, it is awkward to use it for broad or open-ended questions, and such questions are often closed. Community norms dictate that you should use Math Overflow when it is the right tool for the job. The best questions include motivation and background, and have a clear goal.

The underlying software is StackExchange, the engine behind the extraordinarily successful programming site Stack Overflow. All contributed content is under the same Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia, and database dumps are regularly made available for analysis, reproduction, and future-proofing. [10]

It is hard to explain Math Overflow without showing it to you, so please visit http://mathoverflow.net and poke around! If you have a question that’s been bothering you that you are pretty sure \emph{someone} must able to answer, try asking it. If you find the main page overwhelming, go to http://mathoverflow.net/tags and click on a tag corresponding to your specialty. Currently some areas of math are disproportionately represented, but just as with the arXiv, it is gradually “filling out” as it matures. We’d love to have mathematicians from more areas actively involved, and already you’re sure to find something you’re interested in.

[1] John Baez, Notices of the AMS, Febuary 2010 Volume 57 Issue 03 http://www.ams.org/notices/201003/rtx100300333p.pdf
[2] Secret blogging seminar, http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/
[3] Terry Tao’s blog, http://terrytao.wordpress.com/
[4] Gowers’ blog, http://gowers.wordpress.com/
[5] The nLab, http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/HomePage
[6] Polymath project, http://polymathprojects.org/
[7] Shtetl-Optimized, “Prove my lemma, get acknowledged in a paper!”, http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=432
[8] F. Calegari, S. Morrison, N. Snyder, “Cyclotomic integers, fusion categories, and subfactors”, to appear.
[9] N. Snyder, “Number theoretic spectral properties of random graphs”, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/5994/.
[10] Mathoverflow database dumps, http://dumps.mathoverflow.net/

]]>
Anton Geraschenko comments on "Draft piece on Math Overflow for the Notices" (3689) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3689#Comment_3689 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/271/draft-piece-on-math-overflow-for-the-notices/?Focus=3689#Comment_3689 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:34:27 -0800 Anton Geraschenko Ravi Vakil, Scott Morrison and I are writing an opinion piece for the Notices about Math Overflow. Following in the fine tradition that John Baez started with his opinion piece about mathematical blogging, we’d like to post our draft here, and ask for suggestions and criticism!

Note that we’re working inside a fairly strict ~800 word limit for an opinion piece, so if you tell us to add a whole new section, expect to be disappointed. (On the other hand, we are listening for ideas about things that you feel should be covered in a longer article, as we’re writing one of those too!) Particularly helpful would be advice from anyone who’s standing a little bit further away from Math Overflow than we are, and can point out any background or context we’re implicitly assuming of the reader.

Here’s what we’ve got (spills into next comment because of the character limit on this forum):

The internet has changed the way mathematics is done. Online journals, MathSciNet, and the arXiv have existed for some time. More recently a number of blogs have become home to rather sophisticated mathematical discussion [1,2,3,4]. There are also mathematical wikis combining exposition and research [5] and several massively collaborative online “Polymath” projects [6].

On the new site Math Overflow, users ask and answer focused mathematical questions. They also vote on questions and answers, making it easy to sort out the good stuff. The majority of active participants are graduate students and faculty, including many leading researchers, along with a few advanced undergraduates and non-professional mathematicians. On a typical day, the site receives about 30 new questions and over 30,000 page views from around 2500 different users.

Math Overflow is a natural tool since doing mathematics is itself largely driven by asking questions. We often formulate a problem as a series of small focused questions and then try to answer them. Sometimes the answers are surprising and lead to more questions, and off you go on an adventure. Other times you get stuck, in which case you might try looking online. Math Overflow is heavily indexed by search engines, so you’re likely to find your question being discussed there. Since many mathematicians first visit the site in this way, the system is designed to make it easy to jump right in. You can start posting questions and answers without registering, and \LaTeX\ “just works.”

The site has a personal feel to it. It’s very satisfying to know that you’ve helped someone with their problem or that somebody has taken the time to help with yours. It’s like a global math department tea. You interact with excellent mathematicians of all ages and you get to do some really fun math. We know of cases where someone was stuck on a problem in their research, asked it on Math Overflow (why not?), and got a satisfying answer within an hour, or even minutes [7]! The site launched in October of 2009, and already questions have led to research papers with the asker and answerer as coauthors: [8] was a direct result of [9].

]]>