http://mathoverflow.net/questions/72546/is-the-l-function-of-the-complex-cohomology-of-a-motive-equal-to-the-l-function

*Possibly too harsh remark, now redacted* Sometimes I feel that MO has enabled the spread of a disease that used to be mainly confined to Harvard undergraduates: falling in love with fancy words while simultaneously being unable to distinguish formalism from content. Someone more polite than me might like to point out (beyond the fact that this particular question is essentially gibberish) that one has very little chance of saying anything sensible about motives without first, for example, having a very good understanding of abelian varieties.

I wish more generally that people would confine themselves to asking precise technical questions, with perhaps the occasional philosophical question - I doubt that anyone asking questions at a rate of two or more a week (say) is putting enough thought into what they write before they post. Then again, this may well be a minority opinion. Apparently at least 11 people upvoted the question:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71939/what-is-the-strongest-most-natural-conjectural-form-of-langlands

which I would paraphrase roughly as follows: Expert, please put a great deal of effort into formulating a statement which I will not be able to understand. Bonus points if you use the following fancy words I saw somewhere.

(Thank you (btw: I do not think the remark was harsh, only that there was an unfair asymmetry in the situation))

One of the reasons people come to MathOverflow is to improve their thinking on a subject. Although I put thought behind every thing I post on MathOverflow (and on meta.matheverflow), there are many instances in which more thought on my part would have made the post better. When I can, I go back and edit accordingly. If you (Frictionless Jellyfish) want to reverse the trend of people posting before thinking enough, you need to do something on MathOverflow instead of on meta.mathoverflow.

The reason MathOverflow is licensed the way it is is to encourage thoughtful, considered, and polite group participation. This includes community editing as well as a mindset among many to "read and follow the FAQ". It may be that the poster in question reads meta; I imagine the poster is more likely to read answers or comments.

If you are able to phrase your concern above in a more helpful way, I encourage you to add it as a comment to the question. If you can, suggest an alternative which captures some of the nature of the original question but is more suited to MathOverflow.

Of course, it is easier to gripe about it on meta. It is also easier for me to post my initial thoughts about something before reconsidering.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.08.10