Not signed in (Sign In)

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

Community: John Baez

Bottom of Page

1 to 14 of 14

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorMartin B.
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010 edited
     
    I just want to remind you that upvotes for questions are intended to measure the "quality" and "your personal interest" of the question, and NOT the reputation of the questioner (inside or outside mathoverflow).

    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/45410/formally-real-jordan-algebras

    By the way, I like Will Jagy's introduction very much.
  2.  
    I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people are giving upvotes simply because they like John Baez? If so, is there any evidence for that? Or is this a bit of reverse psychology, where you're trying to draw the attention of MO to the presence of JB so we'll all vote him up so he'll be flattered and stick around?

    Maybe I should have stopped at "I don't understand."
  3.  

    @Martin:

    The same could have been said of John Tate or Jacob Lurie (two recent ones I can remember), but there was no meta thread like this.

  4.  
    My impression is that, even for pure mathematicians, having a big reputation or "celebrity status" gains one advantages both on and off MathOverflow. There's nothing to be done about this, since it happens largely unconsciously. I think the benefit (for example, having top notch people participate actively on MathOverflow) far outweighs this rather minor annoyance.
  5.  

    Agreed. This is a particularly silly concern, in my opinion. While there's a sense in which reputation is a reward for putting in work, the point of view from which one would take affront at "free" points going to John Baez, the more important aspect of reputation is that it permits the easy visibility of experts in the field. From this point of view, welcoming John Baez to the site with a flurry of upvotes is not only, well, welcoming, but also appropriate. I, for one, happily admit to upvoting John Tate's response before I even read it.

    Also, there are daily point caps anyway, so the effect won't be particularly exaggerated.

  6.  

    As far as I can tell, upvotes on a question are intended to indicate agreement with the statement: "This question is useful and clear". That is the text that pops up when I wave my mouse over the upward pointing arrow. Although I doubt that people follow this intent strictly (and I also doubt that they need to), it is conceivable to me that 17 MathOverflow users found John Baez's question useful and clear.

  7.  
    I'll bet Martin B's suspicions are correct, but I also agree that it's a relatively minor concern. I think the same thing happened with other stars who entered the scene, like Bill Thurston, who was immediately showered with upvotes from all directions. But his presence is a great thing for MO. So is John Baez's presence.

    Oh, and John Baez's question was very useful and clear. JB is an all-around useful guy!
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
     

    I don't understand why it is a concern, really.

    Is the problem that we may have $RANDOM_MATH_CELEBRITY register, get upvoted to the skies because of whatever reason and... put the power thereby invested on him/her to, hmm, evil (?)

    • CommentAuthorRyan Budney
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010 edited
     
    Martin, like near everyone else this is a non-issue with me. All the previous "math celebrities" (that's less of an oxymoron the more myopically mathy one is, I suppose) have got similar if not more extreme welcomes.

    If it's any comfort we're running low on non-MO-active math celebrities. So barring Perelman or Grothendieck logging in, it's smooth sailing from here on out. :)
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
     

    Hmm, I can think of many celebrities missing!

  11.  
    @Mariano: Most of the ones I can think of are all dead. I'd be really happy if Minkowski logged in and gave us some Einstein-as-an-undergraduate stories, though.
  12.  
    @Ryan : Of the last 10 Fields medalists, only one is active on MO <grin>.
  13.  

    @Andy: if you count the last 14 Fields medalists, the fraction improves significantly.

  14.  
    *Of the last 10 Fields medalists, only one is active on MO*

    (Under their own name...)

1 to 14 of 14

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page