Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 8 of 8
The question http://mathoverflow.net/questions/51056/is-there-a-place-where-people-discuss-arxiv-org-papers was closed rather quickly, I think. Two of the closers left very good comments explaining their votes. I'm not convinced the question should have been closed.
It seems that the question, which right now reads in full
Is there a place where people discuss arXiv.org papers? Where do we go to discuss these? I assume that discussion of a particular paper is not appropriate for MO.
has a short, correct answer. Namely
No, at present there does not exist a unique web location dedicated to discussing each individual arXiv article.
Moreover, if I were leaving the answer, I would go on to say that this is a good idea, that I've heard it before (I think from Secret Blogging Seminar, but a bit of googling didn't turn up any article matching my memory), and that it if OP has some experience with modern web design, s/he could dummy up some sample code and try emailing the arXiv moderators (who are very busy people and so might not respond expeditiously), and that I supported the desire to have such a page. I might also mention that certain subdisciplines of mathematics do have sections of the interwebs carved out --- the area I know best is the collection of sites that begin with the letter n.
Which is all well and good, but of course a short correct answer does not a MathOverflow-appropriate question make. We have a general attitude that questions should not be about MO, so I wonder if the last sentence "I assume that discussion of a particular paper is not appropriate for MO." raised flags for people. But in this case I am untroubled by it: OP, it seems, is not planning a rash of "let's discuss this paper" questions (I hope!).
Anyway, I would have rather the question been answered than closed. (I'm also happy for it to be CW-hammered, since it's not the type of question that I think should accrue points.) I don't care that much, and the question has been answered, just here and in the comments, so I'm going to leave it at that.
I've rewritten the question to be more consistent in tone with MO's community standards. It would be unfair of me to vote to reopen, but I would do so if I had only one vote, rather than a moderator super-vote.
Ben, thanks for rewording the question. I find it much more appropriate now and I've voted to reopen.
OK, after it reached 4 votes from other people, I reopened the question.
Ben, the rewriting leaves the question much improved.
There is at present a vote to re-close. Anyone care to express an opinion?
I've just left this as an answer, but I'll also record it here. Although this question isn't quite a duplicate, it covers pretty much the same ground as http://mathoverflow.net/questions/3038/errata-database and http://mathoverflow.net/questions/13619/is-a-free-alternative-to-mathscinet-possible.
I feel mildly guilty in my answer, incidentally, because although to the best of my ability I try to answer the question as currently asked, I also include my own thoughts suggesting I think something similar to what the question describes ought to exist, and some ways to make it happen. (My answer is pretty much exactly as I said it would be in the comment that started this discussion.)
In any case, I've intentionally tried to interpret the question on face value: "Does there exist such a system?" The question does not ask whether there should exist one, or how it should be set up if it should exist. I certainly think both discussions worth having, and I have no real objection to them happening on MO. But in my mind those discussions are outside the scope of MO, whereas the original question is perfectly valid.
Anyway, the "a little heated" discussion in the comments that Andy's referring to does not consist of answers to the question (as it shouldn't: those should be in the answer section), but rather discussion of the "should" version. Probably OP believes that such a system should exist, but I'm not sure, and I do hope that the conversation doesn't stray too far from "does".
For a great answer to "does", see the one about SciRate. It is short, answers the question going much into whether said system should be used, and provides information that I, for one, did not know.
1 to 8 of 8