Timeline for What was wrong with my post?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 23:56 | comment | added | Simply Beautiful Art | A better example of this topic problem is the good old divergent series $1+2+3+\dots=-\frac1{12}$, and all the related "I didn't get -1/12, what's wrong?" | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 11:18 | comment | added | Jaideep Khare | Is someone selling some popcorns? :-P | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:43 | comment | added | Peter | @Did I think you know what I mean. And the discussion about the exact formulation is rather off-topic. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:39 | comment | added | Did | Sorry but I shall not replace anything in your post, considering it is rather your responsibility to reformulate it more precisely, if you feel doing so. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:36 | comment | added | Peter | @Did OK, replace the post with "I do not claim that ALL downvotes were wrong" ... | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:34 | comment | added | Did | "I neither claim that those downvotes were wrong" Hmmm, you did select the case of a "very interesting" question "attracting downvotes" due to its "topic" being "prime numbers" (which logically implies that these downvotes were unjustified since being about prime numbers is not reason enough to be closed). Anyway, thanks for the explanations. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:32 | comment | added | amWhy | You also need to differentiate "questions about primes which show the investment of the asker in the questions," and those that are merely problem statement questions. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:29 | comment | added | Peter | What is generalising in the claim that SOMETIMES a topic CAN attract downvotes ? Generalizing would be : "Some topics always receive downvotes". But I did not claim something like that. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:26 | comment | added | amWhy | @Peter: that's the fallacy of over-generalization. One user's experience does not make it's generalization ("I blamed downvotes I received on the fact that questions about primes are targeted") so therefore you were likely a victim of a (presumed) bias against prime numbers." | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:24 | comment | added | Peter | To clarify : I neither claim that those downvotes were wrong, nor do I claim that those downvotes always represented the opinion of the majority. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 23:21 | comment | added | Peter | @Did To backup my claim with statistics, I would have to list several links to questions about primes which received downvotes. I do not think that this is actually useful. Since I deleted several of the questions because they obviously weren't welcome, I am probably not able to convince sceptisists to believe my claim. Often, when I asked for a prime of some form , several downvotes were the result, and comments like "why do you want such a prime? " appeared quite often. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 22:58 | comment | added | Did | @Peter In case your "shocked" comment is actually addressed at me, let me note that: 1. you should ping me, not some other user, 2. in my world, there is nothing shocking in asking for solid evidence substantiating a claim, 3. at present, I am forced to put the statement " the topic (for example prime numbers) can attract downvotes even if the question is very interesting" in the collection of unsubstantiated opinions (but I would be delighted to put it out if data, or arguments, come). | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 22:51 | comment | added | amWhy | @Peter, indeed there are much more important issues to deal with than as in your post. I actually *upvoted the post". In any case, I will delete most, if not all, of my comments, so as not to distract from the question at hand. Done, save for this comment. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 21:31 | comment | added | Peter | I am shocked that such a harmless answer results in such reactions. My claim is only that SOMETIMES even the topic CAN attract downvotes, and Zachary admits that this claim is not totally absurd. I have not posted many answers in meta, and if this is the result, I won't do it in the future. If the question will be deleted, I will have to accept this, but I do not see a reason to delete it myself. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 20:41 | history | edited | amWhy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | user223391 | @Did Of course I don't have data to back this up and I doubt Peter does either. But it's just something I've seen. I would like to see some evidence as well. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 16:17 | comment | added | Did | @ZacharySelk Tons of unproven assumptions here (and in your own comment), I am afraid. One would love to see data proving that questions about the RH receive a significantly greater proportion of unmotivated downvotes. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 16:13 | comment | added | user223391 | @Did I think they mean certain pop sci topics tend to be received harshly, even if it is a good question. Like if someone asks an appropriate question about "the Riemann Hypothesis" people automatically assume they're a crank and downvote away, even if it is a good/appropriate question. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 9:51 | comment | added | Did | The topic "prime numbers" is "attracting downvotes"? Is this a recognized fact, substantiated by some solid evidence? | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 20:29 | history | edited | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 28, 2017 at 20:23 | vote | accept | Benjamin | ||
| Aug 28, 2017 at 20:22 | history | answered | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |