3
$\begingroup$

Today I posted a question (which has not appeared) and subsequently lost 109 reputation points! Surely it wasn't that bad?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Usually such things happen when post is classified as spam. Hope, moderators will clarify soon. $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 25 '11 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ It was a simple question about exponentiation. $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 25 '11 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ You have 8 badges (math.stackexchange.com/users/1770/thudanblunder); is that the wrong count? $\endgroup$ – mmyers Jun 25 '11 at 19:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Thudan Note, that meta and main site has the same rep but different badges. $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 25 '11 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Thudan Now you can edit the question to make mathematical question more clear — then it (hopefully) will be reopened... $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 25 '11 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Thanks for that info. I have duly amended my original whinge. $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 26 '11 at 1:03
9
$\begingroup$

The spam flag was my fault; sorry. I was trying to test whether I could dismiss a spam flag as invalid, but apparently if a moderator flags a question as spam the question is automatically locked and deleted, and the flag also doesn't show up in the queue. Whoops!

In my defense, I made sure to test on a closed question with a lot of downvotes. In the future, if you want to ask a mathematical question, stick to the mathematical question.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you undelete and clear the flags, he should be restored. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Jun 25 '11 at 19:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Done. So I can dismiss spam flags on questions as invalid, but not (as far as I can tell) spam flags on comments. Hmm. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 25 '11 at 19:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your conduct has always been inspiring, to put your hand up like this makes one wonder how did so many good attributes have accumulated in person. $\endgroup$ – jimjim Jun 25 '11 at 22:54
4
$\begingroup$

This was the question in question I believe:

Based on certain observations, I used to jokingly claim that IQ + EQ = constant, where both IQ and EQ are reals. I later mischeivously refined this to $IQ^E$$^Q = $ constant.
However, if outliers are considered it might be more accurate to exponentiate EQ times. :-)

Can we derive meaningful properties of such exponetiation?

This is the link: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/47560/a-function-of-iq-and-eq (need 10k+ to see).

This has a score of -7 (-8 + 1) and was deleted by the Community user (mostly likely because it got enough spam votes).

This would give you a net reputation of -100 (spam) - 16 (downvotes) + 5 (upvote) = -109.

Personally, I would not have flagged as spam, but would have voted to close as not a real question: which in fact did occur, so the spam flags (if indeed they occurred) surprise me.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I thought that it was meaningful to ask wether we can exponentiate other than an integer number of times. $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 25 '11 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this is really not what spam flags are intended to be used for. The question is not spam ("This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.") nor is it offensive ("This question contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech."). It may not be a good question, but there are other tools to deal with that. $\endgroup$ – mmyers Jun 25 '11 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ Huh, that was strange. I only see 1 spam flag on that question. I am not sure that was supposed to happen. (Of course, I may also just be reading some of the tabulated information wrong.) I hope someone from the SE team can clarify. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jun 25 '11 at 19:01
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @ThudanBlunder: that is not how I read your question. The bulk of it was a silly joke and I could not get a mathematical question out of it, only some kind of request to help you extend the joke further, which is not an appropriate question. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 25 '11 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu Yuan: OK, sorry in future I will remember not to mix business with pleasure. :-) $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 25 '11 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ To put this to bed - yes, I should have been more formal but "This question contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech." is way over the top. If a book about failure doesn't sell is it a success? :-P $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 25 '11 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for returning my points. :-) $\endgroup$ – ThudanBlunder Jun 25 '11 at 22:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .