4 replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/ edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:22 Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ezIf $z_n \to z$ then $(1+z_n/n)^n \to e^z$. I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answeradded a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ez. I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of If $z_n \to z$ then $(1+z_n/n)^n \to e^z$. I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. 3 differentiated link to the question and link to the answer edited Dec 10 '15 at 8:19 Martin Sleziak 46.1k66 gold badges105105 silver badges199199 bronze badges Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ez/1567761#1567761 http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ez. I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answeradded a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ez/1567761#1567761 . I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. Seems to me there's a flaw in the system, not that I see what could be done about it. Someone recently posted a question that was a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/374747/if-z-n-to-z-then-1z-n-nn-to-ez. I saw a very nice answer, if I do say so myself, so I added a new answer to that old question. The problem is that the new answer seems to be invisible. There was already a very nice answer with a +9 score. The duplicate question led to people looking at the old question, and in a few hours the +9 went to +11. Fine. But my new answer is buried down there in the answers with a score of 0. Not to be whatever, but if you look at it I think you'll understand why I conjecture nobody's seen it - it's a very simple answer, with the added virtue of being correct. If people were reading it people would like it. Seems to me that nobody is ever going to bother reading it, when they see the score on the accepted answer - why read the 0's? I swear the problem is not the rep points - I've got enough of those. I don't think anyone who reads my answer will think I'm being overly immmodest when I suggest that someone looking at that question would be better off reading my answer than not reading it. Some sort of "don't be fooled by the 0, this answer wasn't there back when the voting was going on" doesn't seem practical. But it does seem like a flaw in the system. 2 edited tags | link edited Dec 9 '15 at 18:14 quid♦ 37.5k66 gold badges173173 silver badges254254 bronze badges 1 asked Dec 9 '15 at 17:24 David C. Ullrich 63.6k66 silver badges1717 bronze badges