Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 41 of 41
This question has received several upvotes and one vote to close. While I'm not 100% happy with it -- it is hard to judge what happened, based on the OP's account -- it seems like there might make a legitimate question about "good practice" or "shared experience" in the professional mathematical community. However, in its present form something about the question rubs me up the wrong way, but perhaps that's just prejudice on my part.
The question is about a specific case on which one would have to know all the facts in order to give proper advice, so I voted to close. I have given advice to young mathematicians who had problems that looked similar, but only after I knew the facts.
I would not vote to close a well formulated general question.
I agree with Bill. The question seems to soft and discussiony. There's all kinds of reasons a paper can be rejected beyond the actual formal mathematical content. If a paper is hard to read, or if it's not clear who would be an appropriate referee..
I appreciate MatthewDaws's attempt to make the question more suitable for MathOverflow. I think his version and the original both lack a clearly stated objective. If the poster wants to attempt publishing his paper in its current form, he should say so. If the goal is to get the result out, some rewriting needs doing. If the goal is to furher his career, perhaps communicating with Prof. B is needed. In any case, his question should be more explicit in terms of what the answers should address.
Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.11.17
@MatthewDaws: yes I think you summarized it well. Except there seems to be one more point, which could make this even more of a complicated issue. Namely, that OP submitted initially to the same journal as Prof B.
In any case, I think Bill Johnson is very right. A senior mathematician in detail familiar with the situation likely could give some good advice. Without even knowing the two papers as well as some additional details, I don't think there is much to answer. I voted to reclose.
Again one of these brilliant situations where none of the voters to reopen feel any need to explain why the disagree with those voting to close and in part giving some explanation for their decission. I find this type of behavior quite rude.
@MD: as a general question I think it could work (I think it would not be great but perhaps alright; the issue being that I think it will really depend on the precise circumastances, like: only main result the same but different context/proof vs completely the same). In this case however I would rather write it not as a 'first person' question, but this is a detail.
The question has been reopened with no improvements, as far as I can tell. (The title is hopeless, for example.) Whoever reopened, please say why?
I would expect the OP to post in this thread after reading the comments and seeing the link.
I thought that these days priority was established via the arXiv. I was about to ask whether the paper had been arXived, but Tyler Lawson beat me by 13 minutes :) It seems that this is one good reason to arXiv one's work.
Maybe we are out of touch. The question has more upvotes than any other question on the first four pages of MO.
Upvotes aren't synonymous with a question being appropriate for MO. You'll also notice that many of the threads with the most upvotes are closed.
If we would start answering calculus homework problems and would advertise this a bit, I think we would be able to grow our user base by one or two orders of magnitudes in no time; I leave the conclusion to fedja.
In view of Nilima's suggestion I mention/advertise a site (to exist if there is enough interest) mentioned some time ago by Noah Snyder:
http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/16617/academia
It would not be just math, but there are a significant number of MO and math.SE people among the supporters.
In general, I am not even against advice questions (even tried to answer some). But this one was/is just not a good, or rather suitable, one. (I think it should even have been closed on such a sister-site.)
It might be more reasonable to interpret up-votes for soft-questions as "likes" and not as an indicator of the question's quality. Users up-vote these posts because there is no other way of expressing they "like" them (and are interested in the answers) whereas we often expect the votes to represent the quality, effort, and knowledge.
+1 Kaveh ;)
@Yemon: Is that up-vote an indicator of Kaveh's comment's quality, or simply a way of expressing that you like it?
First, I will observe that fedja's voting criteria do not include any consideration whether the question is suitable for MO. I strongly suspect that for many/most other people voting up, this is not much different, and therefore the number of up-votes should not have much influence when deciding the suitability (vote open/close) of a question.
Second, for some of the personal advice questions (like the present one) I actually suspect that often an up-vote can mean still something else. Namely, something like 'Sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Good luck!' or something like 'I really wish this (type of) problem could be solved.' On the one hand this is supported by surrounding discussions [still none of the reopeners was able and willing to give any explanation, and the only explanation given completely ignored preceeding discussions; so there is a complete absence of rational arguments in favor of this question], on the other hand by the fact that for these types of question it is fairly frequent that the question is much higher voted than the answers.
Let me clarify what I meant. It seems to me that an up-vote has two consequences in the system:
I call the first type "like" votes and the second type "quality" votes. My theory is that in a hypothetical universe where we had a choice for making a like up-vote and a quality up-vote, these soft-questions would receive much lower number of quality up-votes than they the up-vote they have received in the current system.
(I assume that the question/answer satisfies the basic and general guidelines for being a suitable post for MO and I am only discussing up-votes.)
Let me also quote something (from 'howtoask'):
When you're browsing MO, please don't vote up unfocused or imprecise questions. Such questions are as bad as (or worse than) homework questions; they waste everybody's time. If somebody asks, "What's the deal with algebraic geometry?" you might say to yourself, "Wow, I'd really love to see a great answer to that one. I'm going to vote it up." But don't! You're encouraging the wrong behavior. The great answer you're hoping for doesn't exist [emphasize mine] because there isn't a precise question.
@thierryzell,
I am not suggesting how others should vote, I was simply explaining what I meant by "like" and "quality" and what I think would happen if we had two different kinds of up-votes. I am also not implying that having questions that people like and asking them doesn't need expertise or effort is a bad thing and I do like many of them but I wouldn't reward them, particularly if they are soft-questions. I was trying to give an explanation for the high amount of up-votes soft-questions receive (42 out of 50 questions with highest votes are soft questions).
ps: btw, if a question is already asked then I think it should be closed as duplicate.
But what to do if people do not use common sense and try to use the site in unreasonable ways?
ADDED: Or, since the above is perhaps too cryptic: I'd say for each user it would be very very simple if everybody would have the same 'common sense'. However, since experience shows that this is not so, the guidelines are there to lay out some common 'common sense'.
Nicely put, fedja. I strongly agree.
@fedja: yes, yes, abstractly this is all well and good. Only my common sense tells me that some users' ideas of 'good will' is harmful for the site and (potentially) harmful for the OPs. For instance had on some occassion everbody shown the good will of strongly agreeing Kevin Walker some user named Fly by Night might still be confused about something very basic. And, giving an IMO condescending answer is also a strange way to show good will. [However, since we read questions so differently, I will assume I also read answers differently, so perhaps you did not mean it like this.]
@fedja: Sorry I am a bit in a hurry. Short answer, what Gil Kalai tried to answer. Original title of the question was: "What should I do?" In any case, the main idea of the question seems clearly to get advice what to do now related to this paper. Also see OPs comment to Gil Kalai's answer. OP seems to be doing exactly this now.
So, the first part of your 3, yes but with a considerably more narrow definition of 'similar' so that this is actually applicable or has some relevance in the context.
Your 2 rather not; and definitely not with such an abstract approach you choose. 'there is no point'. Yeah right, in the grand scheme of things there is no point in publishing for a lot of papers.
Your 1, in theory yes, but merely as a side question.
In other words the 'question' is: (If you have experionece with such a situation,) please give me advice what to do.
And, then there is not only what you answered but how you answered it. My impression is: you simply found it "amusing" (to use the word you used above) to tell your point of view on some things vaguely related to this. Nothing like good will, helpful. tolerance, ...
Finally, people implictly calling others 'crank' (without any need, as all this was over) have a hard time making me believe so much in their good will and alike.
@fedja: thank you for your nice and detailed response. I should have read your answer less critical right away; but somehow I took it the wrong way when first reading it and than was set on this track. Sorry about that. Regarding the last paragraph: in some sense I agree (I just found the form a bit drastic); it is in fact not so unlike my opinion that showing too large amounts of good will and patience on MO can be ultimately a disservice. But, more than right now (what you suggested) is admittedly, at least in some situations, not yet too much.
1 to 41 of 41