So, the first part of your 3, yes but with a considerably more narrow definition of 'similar' so that this is actually applicable or has some relevance in the context.
Your 2 rather not; and definitely not with such an abstract approach you choose. 'there is no point'. Yeah right, in the grand scheme of things there is no point in publishing for a lot of papers.
Your 1, in theory yes, but merely as a side question.
In other words the 'question' is: (If you have experionece with such a situation,) please give me advice what to do.
And, then there is not only what you answered but how you answered it. My impression is: you simply found it "amusing" (to use the word you used above) to tell your point of view on some things vaguely related to this. Nothing like good will, helpful. tolerance, ...
Finally, people implictly calling others 'crank' (without any need, as all this was over) have a hard time making me believe so much in their good will and alike.
]]>ADDED: Or, since the above is perhaps too cryptic: I'd say for each user it would be very very simple if everybody would have the same 'common sense'. However, since experience shows that this is not so, the guidelines are there to lay out some common 'common sense'.
]]>I am not suggesting how others should vote, I was simply explaining what I meant by "like" and "quality" and what I think would happen if we had two different kinds of up-votes. I am also not implying that having questions that people like and asking them doesn't need expertise or effort is a bad thing and I do like many of them but I wouldn't reward them, particularly if they are soft-questions. I was trying to give an explanation for the high amount of up-votes soft-questions receive (42 out of 50 questions with highest votes are soft questions).
ps: btw, if a question is already asked then I think it should be closed as duplicate.
]]>]]>When you're browsing MO, please don't vote up unfocused or imprecise questions. Such questions are as bad as (or worse than) homework questions; they waste everybody's time. If somebody asks, "What's the deal with algebraic geometry?" you might say to yourself, "Wow, I'd really love to see a great answer to that one. I'm going to vote it up." But don't! You're encouraging the wrong behavior. The great answer you're hoping for doesn't exist [emphasize mine] because there isn't a precise question.
I call the first type "like" votes and the second type "quality" votes. My theory is that in a hypothetical universe where we had a choice for making a like up-vote and a quality up-vote, these soft-questions would receive much lower number of quality up-votes than they the up-vote they have received in the current system.
(I assume that the question/answer satisfies the basic and general guidelines for being a suitable post for MO and I am only discussing up-votes.)
]]>Second, for some of the personal advice questions (like the present one) I actually suspect that often an up-vote can mean still something else. Namely, something like 'Sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Good luck!' or something like 'I really wish this (type of) problem could be solved.' On the one hand this is supported by surrounding discussions [still none of the reopeners was able and willing to give any explanation, and the only explanation given completely ignored preceeding discussions; so there is a complete absence of rational arguments in favor of this question], on the other hand by the fact that for these types of question it is fairly frequent that the question is much higher voted than the answers.
]]>http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/16617/academia
It would not be just math, but there are a significant number of MO and math.SE people among the supporters.
In general, I am not even against advice questions (even tried to answer some). But this one was/is just not a good, or rather suitable, one. (I think it should even have been closed on such a sister-site.)
]]>In any case, I think Bill Johnson is very right. A senior mathematician in detail familiar with the situation likely could give some good advice. Without even knowing the two papers as well as some additional details, I don't think there is much to answer. I voted to reclose.
Again one of these brilliant situations where none of the voters to reopen feel any need to explain why the disagree with those voting to close and in part giving some explanation for their decission. I find this type of behavior quite rude.
]]>Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.11.17
]]>I would not vote to close a well formulated general question.
]]>