Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Etiquette: Upvoting closed questions?

Bottom of Page

1 to 26 of 26

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    There are occasionally questions which are closed, but which continue to be voted up. What is the etiquette surrounding this - is post-closure voting enabled so as to re-open questions if there is sufficient interest? Are we helping if we continue to up-vote such questions, rather than post to Meta about re-opening?

    For example, the post http://mathoverflow.net/questions/68146/tell-me-about-system-design-closed clearly elicits positive responses - it's been voted up at least 15 times since it was closed. Without betraying what I personally opine about this example, it would seem people like the question, and ergo want to see the answer.
    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    I don't expect people really need to see an answer, and i still wonder if Gerhard asked the question himself. People often vote up opinion questions on divisive subjects if they agree with the apparent stance of the person asking, or feel strongly that some painful topic needs more public discussion, but those are precisely the sort of questions that lead to angry exchanges. The hard lesson from other math or science websites is that one cannot risk flame wars. On this one, of course, it is just a goof on Gerhard, who has chosen some odd public mannerisms, and he properly indicated in comments that he can discuss it with people who email him.
    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Will, your explanation is helpful.

    I'm a mildly autistic mathematician, which is why a site like MO is good for me, the rules are usually clear.

    Unfortunately, I still do understand some features of the site. Why voting is allowed on closed questions is one of those features. I understand the rule you appear to propose: no questions which lead to angry exchanges or flame wars. If people desire to express an opinion on a controversial stance, surely Meta is where the desires are fulfilled. But this rule is not enforced here rigorously: a question may be closed, but voting is still allowed.

    In the specific instance of the post mentioned, the question was asked by a new user whose name is an anagram of Gerhard Paseman. The user has been a member for a day, asked this one question, amassed 205 reputation points and some badges because of the up-voting which continues. There are now 30 votes and counting! This is now a 'hot' question and an 'active' question.

    So I infer if one wanted to gain reputation points, one may put up a question designed to generate heated opinions or an in-joke. Even if the question is closed the user seems to be rewarded. This makes it harder to describe what a good question should be.
  4.  

    Agreed, Nilima. I am amused by the post and the comments, but it's not a very defensible use of MO in my opinion (to say the least). Why is this to be reopened? (Oh, I'm imagining it's Gerhard in disguise.)

    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Nilima, I'm afraid you are quite right. I can also tell you that I put a link to this thread there. Also, at this point there are two votes to reopen, which makes little sense to me. I feel the joke has worked well, Gerhard did respond at that location (but was not particularly funny), and we ought to forget about it.

    For your own interests, I assume you can already vote up or down. However, it takes some 3000 points to vote to close a question, or vote to reopen a closed question. I can only hope that the votes to reopen here are people, aware that their votes can be seen by others with over 3000, who have decided to continue the joke.

    My take on good questions was always to wish a new user would answer at least a dozen questions carefully, that experience should teach one how to ask a question that displays due consideration for the people attempting to answer. Often enough, though, people ask poor questions because they do not have enough background to answer many MO questions.

    Anyway, back to you, you are correct. Just answer several questions and ask a few, everything else will work out in time.
    • CommentAuthorMartin B.
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    I don't that in this case a general discussion is necessary. It's just a very special opportunity to get entertained by a MO question which is about MO but does not fit to MO. :-)
    I mean, I've voted it up, although I know that it it's not approproiate at all. I'm sure that I'm not the only one ;-)
    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Martin, I agree a general discussion about this specific post is unnecessary. Note that I don't offer views on the appropriateness of your specific vote.

    Under the guidelines concerning Meta, I believe that a general question of etiquette concerning up-voting closed questions is legitimate.
    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    And thank you, Will and Todd. My motivation is not to understand this specific instance, but more understand the rules.
  9.  
    The people who upvoted that question did it because they thought this was funny / interesting / possibly promising.
    After all, I've been wondering for some time what Gerhard meant by this "system design" thing...

    Even though there are some aspects of the question that are clearly inappropriate for MO (e.g. it's a personal question to Gerhard),
    I think that it's worth reopening it, and see what happens. That's why I voted to reopen.
    • CommentAuthorgrp
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    There are many things that I want to say and that should be said, and said at length. I will instead make it brief here, and prepare a longer version for those who have an interest in more depth to these answers.

    1. I believe there is good in philosophies of which System Design is an essential component. I view some of my studies in engineering, teaching, mathematical logic, parenting, and general algebra as facets of System Design. (To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "System Design isn't about everything; it's so much more.")

    2. Ragman rephrased is a user name I have not seen before today. I believe the email associated with that account is different from the email addressed associated with the 7 accounts having the name Gerhard Paseman (and no, I am not ready to merge them). I would appreciate a moderator either confirming this fact (if you have a moment please, Anton), or using some other data to promote the idea that Gerhard Paseman did not post using the MathOverflow handle Ragman rephrased.

    3. I have intended the use of phrases and dates in my posts partly to help me organize my contributions here. While point 1. above has been
    part of the motivation for choosing what goes between the quotation marks, sometimes there is a filip, double entendre, self-parody, or
    other (to me) relevant motivation for including the phrase. If it gives the reader something to think about, smile at, or wonder, then I am glad for the effort I made (because choosing the right few words can be quite the mental exercise); If others find it distracting, I apologize.

    4. I have not been the most active or best, or other superlative MathOverflow community member, but I have helped others and will continue to do so. It is my belief that my participation has on balance been positive and helped promote the site in some small ways, even if
    one result is that the phrase "system design" likely ranks in the top 100 phrases found in the MathOverflow database, even better than "wicked smooth" or "of the" and hopefully approaching "algebraic geometry".

    5. For those that have responded to my email address on the subject (with one exception), I am preparing ever longer replies on why I
    should be asked about system design; the question posted by Ragman rephrased tells me I have waited too long in withholding the
    full answer. I will update my registered user page with a website which will answer many questions and raise many more as soon as I have
    it up and running. I give myself a week from today to have the site running. If you can't wait a week, my registered user page and some
    comments has a way to figure out an email address for me. (And please don't spoil the puzzle for others; I want the spambots to have as much or more fun with the puzzle as everyone else.)

    In spite of the impropriety in posting such a question (I honestly expected only comments to be made), I hope that a benefit will accrue,
    and not just that I got myself in gear and put forth the information that I think will help others. If MathOverflow grows beyond its mission
    of answering research level questions, I hope there will be room for some whimsy, and that my signatures and Ragman rephrased's question will be accepted as such.

    Gerhard "More Texan Than German, Actually" Paseman, 2011.06.18
  11.  
    I suppose this raises another question. Most of Gerhard's responses come equipped with his signature, which is an advertisement for something not specific to the thread. I suppose I have nothing against this practice but as we've seen, it is distracting. I suppose I would be bothered if more people started making sales pitches in their responses. As is, it's an eccentricity I hope isn't duplicated and generally is infrequent.
  12.  
    I agree entirely with Ryan.
    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Gerhard, I have no views on whether system design is important. I'm supportive of increasing the net amount of whimsy on Earth. May I recommend that your post above be offered as an answer to the now-closed question?

    At the risk of appearing both humorless and nitpicky: I'm not really interested in this specific example. It clearly captures the imaginations of those in the know. I have nothing against in-jokes per se. There are other worthy closed questions which don't fit the scope of MO, for example http://mathoverflow.net/questions/68081/going-to-graduate-school-for-mathematics-next-year-need-some-advice/68166#68166. The relative merits of these specific instances are better discussed by interested people on another thread.

    I would just like to understand a simple component of the design of this system: why (and when) should one allow the up-voting a closed question? If the answer is: 'because the software says so', that's all I need to know.
  14.  
    I do not know if we've ever had a discussion of your question before Nilima, so I'm not sure there's any consensus. In practice what I've seen is that up-voting of a closed question is perceived by some (?most?) as partial impetus to start a re-opening campaign.

    But a re-opening discussion is really something that should happen on meta.

    So I personally regard such up-voting as okay but largely sentimental and more of a half-effort towards discussion of re-opening. So I use it as a gauge towards opening a thread on meta, if one doesn't already exist. I guess that's the only functional purpose.

    I have noticed a lot of up-votes on my closed question about algorithms in low-dimensional topology. Since I was part of the closure effort I take the upvotes as sentiment people like the question regardless of it being appropriate for MO. So in that respect it's purely sentimental.
    • CommentAuthorgrp
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Nilima, I do not know why closed questions can be upvoted. One of the basic tenets of (my view of) System Design is "If something works or behaves in a certain way in a well-designed system, there usually is a reason for it. " Taking on faith that the Stackoverflow software is a well-designed system, let me offer the following rationale.

    The intent is to provide a definitive question, one or more definitive answers, and a means of ranking the suitability (or importance or degree of whimsy perhaps) of the answers as well as of the question. When the question and answers look like they have settled the issue contained in the question, then the question can be closed to preserve (with respect to answers, anyway) the appropriateness of the answers.
    However, some aspects may still need to be judged after said closure, namely how suitable or helpful the question was as well as how suitable or helpful the answers were. That will never be decided as the material is meant for future audiences. The present audiences can help the future audiences by casting said votes roughly indicating the suitability (or whimsy).

    And of course, "the current version of the software says so".

    As to offering my post above as an official answer to the question, at this time my preference is not to do so. I will defer to the moderators and the community if they think answering the question that way is a good idea. If you can wait a little bit longer, I will do what I mentioned in my post, and there will also be time to give a considered response on handling ragman rephrased's question properly. I offer no opinion now on whether the question should be open or closed.

    Gerhard "Perspective: Key In System Design" Paseman, 2011.06.18
  16.  
    Gerhard, my understanding is that once a question is closed it is not possible to post an answer - that's basically what closing a question means - so even if you want to post an answer to the question, you can't.
  17.  

    @Gerhard: please accept my apologies if you found the speculation that you were "Ragman" offensive. (Contrary to what this bloke "Ragman" says -- whoever he is -- I didn't find the speculation that baseless; it would fit with what I took to be your occasionally puckish sense of humor.) And, I didn't know until now that you were more Texan than German (even though I knew that my anagram might have come off as slightly presumptuous).

    • CommentAuthorgrp
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Indeed, Gerry, that is my understanding of closed questions also. My response to Nilima meant to include the possibility of moderator action, which might entail (presumably with my agreement) a moderator opening the question, posting my earlier response in this meta thread under my name, and then closing it. I don't expect or recommend that such happen, nor do I predict the desires or presumptions of either the community or the moderators in what is good for MathOverflow. I do repeat my preference (based in part on my belief that it is NOT good for MathOverflow) that my meta response stay in meta and not be offered as an answer to the MathOverflow question.

    Once again, I apologize for any distraction/inconvenience/harm that may have arisen from the posting (being a consequence of my
    behaviour).

    Gerhard "Use Whimsy And Posts Responsibly" Paseman, 2011.06.18
  19.  

    The question has just been reopened, without any substantive justification. It is clearly not appropriate for MO. I have voted to close it as off-topic.

    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2011
     
    Ryan, thanks for your response. If a series of up-votes on closed questions is a useful indicator for others to open a meta discussion, this is a good reason.

    Gerhard, sehr gut geschrieben auf MO! And if indeed the software decrees it thus, thus it will be. I have a tale of a university seeking to change from a 4.0 to a 4.33 GPA system because of the limitations of some new software, but that's a story for another forum.
  21.  

    ... some other data to promote the idea that Gerhard Paseman did not post using the MathOverflow handle Ragman rephrased.

    Information visible only to moderators suggests Ragman rephrased and Gerhard Paseman are not the same user.

    ... once a question is closed it is not possible to post an answer - that's basically what closing a question means

    Yes. As I see it, there are basically two reasons to close a question:

    1. The question doesn't belong on MO, as in the case of Ragman's question. These questions shouldn't be reopened.
    2. The question should be edited before it is answered. To test for this, I ask myself, "to answer this, would an expert in the field have to guess what the question actually is?" These questions should be edited and reopened.

    In each of these cases, I think it makes sense to suspend voting on the question. However, I can think of one reason to allow voting on closed questions: it makes it so that having your question closed doesn't sting as badly. In situation 2, I think it's really important to encourage the OP to clarify so that the question can be reopened. I like to see comments of the form, "I think there's a good question here, but which of the following things are you trying to solve?" or "I've edited the question with my best guess of what you meant. Did I get it right?"

    Upvoting a closed question is some small way to keep the OP from being disheartened. Comments or meta posts of the form above (which more actively solve the problem) are much better.

    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2011
     
    The question appears to have been deleted. Or, rather, does not appear.
  23.  
    One of the moderators deleted it shortly after it was closed for the 2nd time.
  24.  

    Nilima may be unaware that there are aspects of the software that we cannot change. Although some might think that voting on closed questions is a bit pointless, there's not a lot we can do about it. Three of my four top-voted questions are closed, and I tried to get the fourth closed but was unsuccessful! I've even managed to get 7 votes for an answer to a closed question (that was posted about 10 months after the question was closed!). So there are aspects of the software that we learn to cope with and there are often discussions here on meta about how best to behave in the light of certain features - though even if a group of people here agree that they will behave in a certain way, there's nothing to stop others behaving differently.

    • CommentAuthorNilima
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2011
     
    Andrew, thanks. From this discussion I glean that:

    1) the SE software doesn't allow for fine-tuning things like voting on closed questions,
    and
    2) up-voting of closed questions may motivate others to start a meta thread.

    That's all I was looking for. New users (such as myself) may be curious about what seem odd features of MO. This particular odd feature is now explained.
  26.  
    Upvoting closed questions should be allowed. Questions sometimes get closed simply because some of the people here are hotheads. The system has bad features that tacitly encourage that.

1 to 26 of 26

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page