Not signed in (Sign In)

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

Community: "Spam Deflection"

Bottom of Page

1 to 50 of 87

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  
    In a comment to a recently closed question, Mariano stated that we should not redirect spam to Math.SE.
    See: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/34571/what-is-the-use-of-cosets-closed
    I am curious about the consensus of the community and particularly the Moderators of MO as well as those more involved at Math.SE. I think this question in particular could work well at Math.SE and might not be considered spam there. It seems that there have been more and more people asking lots of "Spammy questions" as of late. Maybe it could be added to the mentioned feature request that we suggest they ask the question at Math.SE. If this stuff is discussed in another thread, my apologies.
    Thanks,
    Sean
  2.  

    I have been hanging around here more frequently since Math.SE has been underway - and I watched today's spam session unfold. I'll bring this up EDIT: I brought this up over in our Meta, maybe we can come up with some sort of protocol on this issue.

    It turned out that the most offensive spammer of the day never appeared on Math.SE, thanks goodness. This question showed up and was answered in typical haphazard style (including a haphazard answer of mine... tisk, tisk.) In the future I will refrain from rattling off an answer to a poorly worded/motivated question without making attempts to have the question rephrased or placed into context - this seems to be the policy over here at MO and I think we would do well to adopt it consistently.

    As for receiving properly worded questions that just don't seem to fit over here, we'll take 'em. There are a growing number of regulars at Math.SE that seem to be able to handle pretty much anything, and it is good for those of us less advanced to see what is out there and try our hand at those questions that lie just at the edge of our grasp.

    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2010
     

    The reason I think that is a spammy question is because he had just asked a rather unrelated question, with as much care and added-value, and despite several attempts made by others at indicating the problems did not even made sure that the question made sense.

    Of course one can ask sensible questions on the utility of cosets (and much more so of double cosets, which most people end up considering to be part of the realm of Things That Only Exist In The First Couple Of Exercises In An Introductory Textbook!)

  4.  

    By the way, it may interest you to know that we have several moderators now, and they're good.

  5.  
    @Mariano: I agree that the question was "MO-spam" but was just curious about whether or not that meant it would not be appropriate for Math.SE.

    @Tom: i tried to post something like this on Meta.Math.SE (??) and couldnt because there meta is set up differently, I think it would be great if you could link to whatever post you make there back here so that we can see what the moderators say. In fact, i wish accounts could be associated between MO and Math.SE, i posted just such a discussion topic in here moments ago in fact.
  6.  

    @Sean: The site is running well, quite independently of MO (albeit, MO is the defacto model for Math.SE). I presume that the vast majority of MO users would not be enthusiastic about merging anything Math.SE related into this site - including rep. and meta threads (and you'd be surprised how many Math.SE users feel the same in reverse). You may want to dig around and see just how different MO really is from other SE sites (and everything else for that matter). And, the two threads are linked now.

    • CommentAuthorVP
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2010 edited
     

    I was bemused by the characterization of the coset question as "spam". Maybe, I don't understand what spam is. Or maybe everyone is very hot and irate after seeing lots of poor quality questions lately*: in the past, I've seen questions that didn't make half as much sense as that one, and they weren't either criticized in the comments or closed - they are still out there. Yuck! (By contrast, the question under discussion seems to have been deleted.)

    • Some people may even be irate after arguing that some questions of comparable quality should not have been closed.
  8.  
    I agree that questions that are ill-defined or too vague shouldn't be redirected to math.SE, simply because most of us there (as far as I can tell) don't like them any more than we do on MO. I don't actually object to the division algorithms question: it's not MO-level, but specific enough for math.SE.

    We don't yet have a clear consensus on homework questions, but I think the math.SE community generally agrees that if it is simply "Compute \int x^3 dx," it would be closed. (At least, I would vote to close, and I'm pretty sure a few other users there would too.)
  9.  
    @VP Regarding spam, it seems that many MO members (and even some moderators) are not familiar with the official SE policies - which have very strict rules on what constitutes spam or offensive posts. See

    http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/58032/how-does-the-spam-flag-work
    http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22174/how-does-the-offensive-flag-work/

    I know this only because if was pointed out to me by a very senior SE person who was quite upset that one of my posts was incorrectly marked as spam - apparently in an organized vengeful effort sparked by an old (unfounded!) grudge that a high-rep MO member holds against me. Unconscionably, the MO moderators let the post be deleted even though it was *very* far from satisfying said official SE spam specification. Indeed, my post contained the same sort of reply as all the other replies - except it concluded with a little wordplay joke about Jacobi symbols and my MO logo - a Jacobi symbol (math/flow). Even though Anton did the right thing and removed the 100 point spam penalty, it still left a very bad taste in my mouth. Needless to say, it was a very unpleasant way to welcome a new MO member.

    The behavior of some MO members leaves much to be desired. Now some world-class mathematicians whom I had invited to join MO refuse to join because they became aware of this incident (I had forwarded a link to this post (and others) to a list where such math jokes are quite welcome). For MO to succeed people need to start behaving much more maturely. Local irresponsible actions can have dire global consequences for the health of a budding community.
  10.  

    Bill, official SO policies are not official MO policies. If you think that there is something wrong with how the spam flag is used here, I recommend that you start a discussion here and that the discussion concentrate on MathOverflow and not bring in Grand Designs from SO. Just because we use their software doesn't mean that we have to use every single part of their model. I am very sorry that you don't consider our behaviour "mature enough", but I, for one, see no reason to change based on what you say there. If you have a stronger argument to make, I would be glad to read it.

  11.  
    @Andrew Organized unfounded efforts to penalize someone does not bode well for the future of MO - esp. when the moderators allow such. More senior mathematicians will not join a list where such juvenile behavior is left unchecked.

    Please note that I only criticized the behavior of *some* MO members. But it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bunch - esp. in a virtual bunch.
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     

    What organized efforts to penalize someone?

  13.  
    @Mariano: see my post above
    • CommentAuthorBystander
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     
    Mr Stacey: I agree with Bill Dubuque. In another post your remark that your behavior in MO was probably was not much better than Harry's, is the truest confession you ever made, fitting with so many of your actions.

    Come on, what do you mean? A user's harmless questions are marked spam and results in reputation penalty to him/her and you support this? I do not understand.
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     

    I know about the answer with the logo &c. But I wondered what organized effort to penalize someone you have in mind.

  16.  
    Let me try and steer the thread back on topic by making the following remark: I've been a moderator for the USENET newsgroup sci.math.research for a while now, and let me broadly say that I could break down the posts I do not accept for use into roughly three categories:

    1) Those about genuine mathematics but not hard enough for sci.math.research
    2) Those which are just cranky nonsense with pseudo-maths in (what is being referred to as "spam", as far as I can see, in this thread)
    3) True spam (by which I mean someone trying to sell me viagra).

    My default reaction with these three types of message, as well as rejecting them, are:

    1) reply to poster, sending them to sci.math, knowing they'll get an answer
    2) reply to poster, sending them to sci.math, being almost sure that they will start a flame war
    3) delete without replying to the poster.

    Note in particular that (2) is simply a more old-skool version of what is happening here. You have to remember that barely any serious professional mathematicians read sci.math, as far as I can see, and many of those that do are I think actually reading it for the flame wars!
  17.  
    @Mariano: as I described above
  18.  
    .
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    @Bystander: Whenever a "bystander" comes here and makes a comment like you just have, it is inevitably worthless, inflammatory, and therefore summarily ignored (cf. [Ironical Observer], for instance). If you are interested in voicing your opinion here, please do so with the same name you use on MO, or your real name.

    If you do not participate on MO and have no intention to, I kindly ask that you refrain from posting on discussions of MO policy.

    I further ask that you clear the above comment (you can no longer delete comments) and replace it with something worthwhile.

  20.  
    If MO members are interested I can describe the whole sordid affair. I did not do this before because I did not wish to tarnish the reputation of the high-rep MO member nor did I wish to waste the valuable time of the moderators. My intent was not to punish the people involved, but merely to indicate that *some* MO folks *are* doing juvenile things that *will* harm the health of the forum. I've been involved in online math forums for a few decades so I know the dynamics much better than do most. It's a shame to see the same things happening over and over. People are people. They will bump heads, bystanders will jump in supporting their virtual buddies not knowing any of the history etc. The way to avoid such things getting out of hand is to have *clear* rules and *strong* moderation so that sparks never become flames. Alas, both are missing on MO.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    @Bill: If you could give the evidence without naming names, you will be able to convince us of the problem without turning it into a flamewar. If what you said really happened, I'm sure that it won't be allowed to happen again.

  22.  

    Bill, and "one swallow does not make a summer"! I do not condone the behaviour that you describe (without full knowledge of the facts - which I do not want - I cannot make a stronger statement), but as you say, Anton removed the 100 point penalty. I am sure that he also sent an email to the perpetrator telling them not to do that again, assuming that what you say is what actually happened. However, that does not imply that MO is rife with immaturity! I would like to see more evidence of that before changing my behaviour which, despite Mr Bystander's truly bizarre interjection, I have yet to hear any complaints about.

    I will admit that I use the spam flag in a certain fashion because I know that it will delete the post if enough people agree with me. I agree that the official definition of spam refers to bulk advertising email. Given that we don't get any of that (do we?), and that we have to work with what we are given, I view co-opting the spam flag to "get this out of my sight as soon as possible" a reasonable thing to do. In addition, since our moderators have jobs that do not involve moderating MO (unlike the head honchos at SO), I don't expect them to be sitting by a keyboard ready to leap in to action the moment someone posts something that shouldn't be here. That task has, for better or for worse, been delegated to the community.

    Of course, there will be situations in which power is abused. And that's why, at the end of the day (yet more cliches), there are human moderators who can intervene.

    But to make a gainful attempt to get back on track. We should only redirect questions to math.SE if we think that that is the best place for that question. And in reading that statement, I draw people's attention to the fact that I regard a question as comprising both the written question and the person asking it. So if the person is an obvious troll, then even if the question is reasonable I would not redirect it to math.SE.

  23.  
    @Andrew: I don't know if Anton even realized what was going on - not being aware of the history - which dates back two years ago. It all boils down to the fact that one of the highest rep MO members (say ABC) has an (unfounded) axe to grind with me and has used his powers here to tarnish my good name. That's why I was upset in that other MMO thread. It really had nothing to do with Mariano's minor edit to my post. That was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Originally I thought that Mariano was a cohort of ABC (since he was also involved in the old dispute) but now I realize that he was probably simply an innocent bystander that was drawn into the affair after stumbling upon our arguments (two years ago and again recently). Even though I've made many attempts to patch up matters with ABC there seems to be no hope since he refuses to communicate by email (he's even blocked my email accounts). So I was deeply saddened when he resumed the attacks when I joined MO. The spam penalty only added insult to injury. I expected a middle-aged professor to be much more mature. But we're all human.... Unfortunately the SO/MO model gives high-rep people the power to grind whatever axe they desire. There's not necessarily any correlation between high MO rep and moderation abilities, integrity, etc. The model is ripe for abuse. Beware of self-selected moderators/superusers.
  24.  

    From Andrew Stacey's last remark: "But to make a gainful attempt to get back on track [emphasis added]. We should only redirect questions to math.SE if we think that that is the best place for that question. And in reading that statement, I draw people's attention to the fact that I regard a question as comprising both the written question and the person asking it. So if the person is an obvious troll, then even if the question is reasonable I would not redirect it to math.SE."

    This sounds great to me. We appreciate the business as well as your most prudent filter.

  25.  
    My intent was not to get off-track. The example I mentioned is one of many common problems that may arise without proper policies in place. The old dispute between ABC and I almost surely would've never happened if the other forum had in place clear rules about what was on-topic and, further, had active strong moderators. Both are essential for preventing problems like this. If MO is not using the SO rules for spam/offensive posts then there should be a clearly stated policy as to precisely what the MO rules are. Any fuzziness can lead to disputes and tension in the community. Sparks can easily become flames.
  26.  
    @Tom: I used to try and implement the strategy you suggest. The problem is when someone submits a post to sci.math.research saying "I have proved the goldbach conjecture: take a look at this pdf and please send me any comments or corrections", and you look at the pdf and it's just plainly gibberish and about 3 pages long. So then I would say "This isn't at the right level: please post at sci.math" and then I get the response "but it's clearly the right level because it's a new proof of a famous open conjecture".

    My point, I think, is this: if we, the community, are not going to send cranky stuff to Math.SE, then *where are we going to send it?* I think that's perhaps the question people should be focussing on.
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     

    We don't have to send it anywhere, Kevin.

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    My point, I think, is this: if we, the community, are not going to send cranky stuff to Math.SE, then where are we going to send it? I think that's perhaps the question people should be focusing on.

    Cranky stuff should receive an immediate ban.

    Edit: Mariano +1.

  29.  
    @Mariano: I think the issue is that if we get a spammy question then we could either vote it down a lot and close it without making any comments at all, thus perhaps giving the impression of being rather rude, or we could vote it down a lot and close it as well as making nice comments of the form "try this place instead for your question; it's not appropriate here". The issue is what "this place" is. It would be very easy to send _everything_ to math.SE but might not be a good idea. Where to send the crackpots otherwise? Or is the policy that we just close and downvote without commenting?
  30.  

    @Kevin: I guess I'm not understanding why we can't be rude to them.

  31.  
    @Harry : Because being rude is unprofessional.
    • CommentAuthorAndy Putman
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     
    I propose that we redirect crackpots and spammy questions to http://www.equalis.com/forums/
    • CommentAuthorEmerton
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     

    Dear Andy,

    Brilliant!

  34.  
    But first one needs a *definition* of spam. Else, as I stressed, spam flagging can be abused -- as it already has (cf. my example above).
  35.  
    .
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    @Andy: Haha, awesome.

    @Bill: Come on, the keys are literally right next to one another. I think it's safe to say that it's an honest typo. Now, if you had some kind of evidence that Kevin did not use a qwerty keyboard, maybe you'd be on to something, but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

  37.  
    @Bill : Your constant off-topic whining is getting a bit tiresome. If you want to complain about how you are treated, please do it in a more appropriate thread.
  38.  
    @Harry: what Andy said. This is the whole point! You can't just be rude to someone because you think they're not worth anything. In a public forum you *have* to be civil if you're going to participate, otherwise your potential boss in 15 years time googles for you, finds something stupid you said and decides you're an idiot and decides not to hire you. You have to be very careful what you say on an easily-googlable public place. So we're trying to find a solution by which we remain civil and yet get the cranky proofs off our hands. One very easy answer is send everything to math.SE; this is civil, but may have appalling side-effects for math.SE. Another possibility is ignoring them completely: this is arguably not civil, but might be the preferred option. I think it might be a good first step though, to be honest. If X posts 10 posts and they all get closed and very little explanation is offered, then X may just go away.
  39.  
    @Andy I'm not whining at all. I'm simply mentioning issues that need to be addressed. If these things happened to you then I doubt you'd be so restrained.

    @Harry. There was no need for Kevin's remark, even if "Bull" was a typo.

    I think if everyone knew the sordid details they would instead think I was quite restrained considering the events. I have not said one bad thing about ABC here. Indeed, I'm going out of my way to protect his identity. I don't think he realizes the consequences of his actions. Some of my MIT/Harvard colleagues are people that might be deciding on his tenure someday. ABC should feel lucky that, unlike he, I am not a person who holds grudges. I've not even revealed any details to the MO moderators. I wish ABC would let the past go and realize that his grudges are based on misunderstandings due to his stubborn refusal to communicate offline.
  40.  
    @Bill: done. I think that you might want to consider starting a new thread about the wider issues you want to raise.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    @Kevin: Surely there are enough tenured professors here to be rude to the cranks without the rest of us putting future jobs at risk!!

    I am, of course, attempting a half-joke (whence came the exclamation points).

  42.  
    @Bill: PS I have just realised that one of your comments implies that I incorrectly referred to you as "Bull" instead of "Bill". Is that true? If so, I apologise: a genuine slip (if I've understood correctly---I think it's gone now, if it existed) and one that I can see might well have annoyed you!
  43.  
    @Kevin Thanks. I'd be quite happy if the whole affair was simply just a bunch of "bull". But, alas, it's the most unnerving affair I've encountered in over a few decades online and I deeply regret that ABC carried it over onto MO. I just want to be sure that it does not continue here. Hopefully the moderators will keep an eye out and that will be the end of it. If perchance a moderator (or anyone else with great mediation skills) thinks that they might be able to help patch up things between ABC and I then please do contact me at my first.last@gmail.com. All my good faith efforts to do so have met with silence and/or bounced/blocked emails. In the few other rare occasions that I've ever had an online disagreement with a colleague they've all been resolved quickly with offline discussion. But that's impossible here since ABC refuses to communicate except online. It's a bizarre stalemate. I regret having to make noise about it here but I'm hoping that will cause ABC to stop (it did in the past). Alas, it's the only way I have to communicate with ABC.

    Moreover, it's a good example of the kind of problems that may arise when proper policies are not in place. That was my primary point of mentioning it.
    • CommentAuthorEmerton
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010
     

    Dear Harry,

    I am a tenured professor, and nevertheless, I see no reason to be rude to cranks. I can understand that they are frustating to deal with, and shouldn't be welcomed on MO, but that is not an excuse for rudeness. If someone constantly posts unwelcome questions/answers in such a way as to be disruptive to the site, than the moderators can penalize them in the same way that they would penalize any disruptive user. If, however, someone politely posts material that is nevertheless inappropriate, then penalties and rudeness are uncalled for. The posts can be downvoted and/or closed, and ideally, the person can be directed somewhere else.

    I don't think that posts we regard as crankish (rather than as simply too low level) should be sent to math.SE. Ignoring them (i.e. not making attempt to redirect them, but just downvoting/closing), as Kevin suggests, is one option. As I already indicated, I also think that Andy's suggestion of sending them to Equalis could be a good solution.

    Incidentally, I think that the question on cosets, although poorly phrased, was a reasonable one in principle, which (to my mind) would fit in on Math.SE.

  45.  

    Dear Emerton,

    I guess that the reason "because it's funny" won't cut it.

    ;)

  46.  
    @Harry: Crank bashing is one of the biggest problems that led to the demise of sci.math. I've never understood why even some respected mathematicians get some enjoyment from this. In fact the dispute between ABC and I ultimately goes back to my attempts to moderate probably the worst crank basher of all time (that's how ABC and I first crossed paths).
  47.  

    @Bill: You should probably stop giving out so many details about ABC, since it appears that you've narrowed it down to two people. People who were active on sci.math probably already know who you are talking about, and if you do want to reconcile with ABC, it seems that bringing this up on meta isn't going to help.

  48.  
    @Harry: but MO has a lot of folks from older math forums who had strong opinions one way or another about crank bashing. So I think ABC's identity is quite safe. I wouldn't have gone to all this trouble to protect it only to make it easily inferred. But please do heed my warning about crank bashing. It was one of the true cancers of sci.math.
  49.  
    To be clear: please refrain from making any ABC conjectures!
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2010 edited
     

    Edit: I've removed my speculation here because it can only do harm.

1 to 50 of 87

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
Back to Discussions Top of Page