Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
The question on Descartes' x, y, z got closed!
I really, really do not see how that question is off-topic: it is very much 'history of mathematics' and we more or less agreed (at least, no one disagreed strongly...) to welcome the subject a little while ago!
(Edit by Anton) Link: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/30307/explanation-why-x-y-z-are-always-variables-closed
It may be history of mathematics, but it is very much from the trivia end of the history spectrum, hence I have no difficulty with it being closed. However, one could perhaps argue that it's not appropriate for a moderator to swat it into oblivion just like that. Maybe it should be left to the discretion of the requisite number of ≥3000 rep users instead? (I would probably have voted to close it, BTW)
Oh, and by the way – @Mariano: When starting a new discussion on meta, please make sure it goes in the right category.
Scott's «[this] is getting out of hand» woke the experimentalist in me...
In the recent questions list I find seven non-mathematical questions (x, y, z; mathematics in nature; Greg's question asking for a picture; Abstract Thought vs Calculation; Software for Tree-Decompositions; Demystifying complex numbers; Examples where physical heuristics led to incorrect answers?; at last two of those are obviously on-topic, and at least 4 of them I find of actual interest to ---some--- research mathematicians) out of forty something (I'm excluding closed questions in the line of «read my paper and answer the questions therein» or «let's randomly come up with defintions», but not duplicates)
This does not look worthy of much alarm to me.
It may be the case that what is getting out of hand is the attention put on those questions, not the actual number of those questions (views/answers, respectively: 102/0, 332/10, 125/2, 722/10, 76/2, 885/18, 1k/6) Since the views affect only the viewer, as opposed to the answers which bump the question to the top in the main page affecting everyone, that makes 48 times (I'm not counting the time the questions were asked nor edits to the questions themselves (in one case a at least, there were 4 edits)...) the questions were noticeable.
To see whether this 48 is significantly worrisome, I'd need to know how many bumps there were in the period (more or less a day?) I don't.
I really can't see why was this closed. Knowing the history of mathematical symbols can be interesting, and we have had a few questions like this before. The symbols X,Y,Z are among the most commonly used in mathematics and it would be interesting to see if someone has any insight about that.
Moreover, I think moderators should only in extreme cases use their powers to close questions without the voting mechanism (spam, trolling, obvious homework questions, etc). Whether this is a good question or a bad one, it definitely does not deserve such a quick closing without any discussion.
If this question was open, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez could've posted an answer, instead of split it into 2 comments. I just don't see what was the rush in closing this.
There are 3 reopen votes already. I'm reopening the question so that Mariano can post his answer.
I agree with Harald's comment:
Maybe it should be left to the discretion of the requisite number of ≥3000 rep users instead?
Fast action from the moderators was needed back when there were few 3k+ users. However, at the moment, there are 81 such superusers, and the number is only going to go up.
Scott and the other moderators: For non-emergency questions (like this), could you please refrain from voting to close unless you're the final vote?
Scott and the other moderators: For non-emergency questions (like this), could you please refrain from voting to close unless you're the final vote?
Scott (Morrison) and Anton, at least, have definitely been doing this for the most part since the beginning of the site.
Perhaps we should put in a feature request?: Give moderators the option to vote-to-close or to instantly-close questions.
Perhaps we should put in a feature request?: Give moderators the option to vote-to-close or to instantly-close questions.
I've been pushing this feature request for a while, but it's gained little traction. Once SE 2.0 sites start coming out, I think it makes sense to push for it again.
Sorry about being so hasty to close. I see now that this sort of unilateral action may not be the best way to engage the community. I think I'll restrict myself to closing only in limited situations (e.g., flags) for the near future.
Incidentally, how do people feel about hitting this question with the wiki-hammer, as suggested by Wadim Zudilin? It's not at all clear to me that this is a situation with multiple answers, in which we want the most appealing explanations to float to the top.
1 to 13 of 13