I just read the first comment to the M.SE (yes: I got tired of typing Math.SE...) question http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1648/how-do-i-figure-out-what-kind-of-distribution-this-is/1650#1650

I've seen remarks to the same effect elsewhere.

Should something be done to change that perception?

I get the impression that this reputation is what has kept away the real pests.

@Mariano: I think part of the problem has to do with the inconsistency of question closure. Can you blame newbies for calling MO snobs when their off-topic posts are quickly closed yet similar off-topic posts by well-known MO members are sitting on the front page for all to see? Double-standards always cause problems.

@97832123 Your extremely rude comment there will only serve to reinforce such perceptions of MO.

@Ian: We're not snobbish, just selective. Maybe you could take your head out of your ass for a second and realize that, for example, just any layperson shouldn't have the right to speak at the ICM. – 97832123

Dear 97832123: as someone who is not speaking at the ICM anytime soon, I am a little uncomfortable with this comment representing "we" MO users.

@Mariano: I beg to differ: I think that every question should be judged by its merit, not by the reputation of its author. In fact it might be better if all questions were anonymous to help avoid such issues. That's not to say that we shouldn't go out of our way to attract highly-valued members. But bending the rules is not one of those ways.

Bill, at various times I was quite concerned with inconsistency of questions closure and raised it on meta, but clearly this isn't the only issue shaping public perception of MO, and not even the main one. As far as "snobbery" is concerned, it can be expressed in many ways that are quite independent of closing questions. Often, the problem goes the other way: many clearly inappropriate questions (e.g. K-12 homework type) are very helpfully answered before, or even instead of, getting closed, which runs counter to both the stated purpose of the site and refutes the charge. In other words, there is a broad spectrum of outcomes.

More generally, I agree with José that a healthy dose of intellectual elitism is nothing to be ashamed of, especially, since the target audience is mathematics professionals. Maintaining high standards is rarely popular with general masses, be it teaching service math courses or running a question and answer mathematics website with research focus. FWIW, the comment cited by Mariano is very mild in this regard.

"Questions sitting on the front page" is a fundamental feature of the website, so each of us will do well to exercise some tolerance, even though many or even most of them at any given time may not appeal to a particular user or a group.

We are called snobs because we talk over peoples heads when they ask us what we do. I was excited about a workshop recently and a friend asked what it was about and i sent her the program. she said she did not understand it... why would she? she is not in math. There is a common arrogance expressed by lay people that they know all about math because they took it in high-school. This doesn't seem to happen so much in other subjects. I think it is safe to say that we all find it frustrating. I find it especially frustrating when I see MO users being referred to as snobs because of standards.Maybe cross pollination with MSE could help our cause.

you might be interested to note that there is a proposed Calculus.SE at Area 51 right now.

PS, @Harry: sometimes you dont help, but as jose said, you are spot on and i sympathize with your frustration.

Bill: the examples of our egregious inconsistency that you allude to should be linked to, no? We could learn from historians in this regard in terms of source attribution and analysis.

@Harry: thanks for deleting it! My point was that using "speaking at ICM" to discuss "participation on MO" is quite absurd too (not to mention the language). I would have no issue if you made clear that what you wrote is your own opinion, but the way you wrote it (to me, admittedly a non-native speaker) may cause casual readers to think it is the common attitude on MO.

Dear Harry,

I think that your comment was misguided in almost every aspect: in its language (unnecessarily rude), in it's use of the first person plural (you don't speak for MO), and in its invocation of the ICM (quite possibly, the poster has not heard of the ICM, and even if they have, doesn't care about it or have any sense of its professional significance). Even your choice of adjective (selective) is probably not the best, although it is literally correct. I think it would be better to simply explain (if any response is necessary at all) that MO is not meant as a Q&A site for general mathematics questions, but has a more restricted focus. (So the selectivity is not based on the intrinsic merit of questions, but simply on their relevance to the (very restricted) area of focus of MO.)

As both comments are now gone, I'm puzzled about what are we talking about.

I will make sure to add a disclaimer at the bottom of any such post.

That was not on MO. I wouldn't think of speaking like that on MO.

@Andy: There's really nothing I can do about it now, but I take your point to heart.