How to make users follow a better etiquette?

Question

We've all seen it. A question of a new user, copied from a problem book, 5 people answering it with one-liners within 10 minutes, the user saying maybe a "thankx" and either picking a best answer completely at random or never being seen again.

I'm surprised to see even users of 2000+ reputation (not going to blame anyone in particular, sorry) behaving like that. Why not enforce the standard from other communities a little better? That is, have posters wait 12 hours or so for everyone getting a fair chance of writing a quality answer that might help someone else than just them as well, letting the community vote, and choosing by quality rather than just picking the first or none at all?

This pace actually reinforces people in writing short incomplete answers informative only to the asker, as spending more on a single question would have them see 5 other answers and an accept before they are even done writing theirs.

Update: a possible feature-request in the comments below (the first two written by me).

Answer 1

You solve this problem by having no one answer the question. Have the community vote to close it or downvote it to deletion without giving any answer.

Unfortunately there are lots of users itching for that sweet sweet 15 points of reputation that comes from posting the best 30 second answer to a dumb question that doesn't deserve an response in the first place.

Answer 2

I see some of these kinds of question, and I admit that I answer them from time to time.

I think, though, that I'm pretty good at recognizing when people are looking for an easy way out, and I'll usually answer in a way that points them in the right direction, but stops short of answering it. This isn't technically an answer to their question, but time and time again I've been rewarded by the community for such answers, so I keep giving them.

Then again, sometimes I'll post "What have you tried? Where are you stuck?" in the comments of the question. It all depends on my level of energy, I guess.

If I sense entitlement from the asker, I might be a little more direct: "This isn't a homework-answering engine."

Other times still I'll answer the question. ("It's your lucky day!") If someone beats me to it, oh well, it happens. If the question gets closed while I'm writing my response, that happens, too.

(Vincent mentioned the Nash Equilibrium. I'm helping the community, but I'm also helping out myself: keeping my brain active, giving myself a little happy boost when someone is helped, etc. It's a credit to the design of these sites that my helping out myself also helps out the community and the Internet.)

But over time, the good questions will be upvoted more than the "thin" ones, and exposure to those questions will take care of themselves.

Basically, we have enough good teachers here that we can all approach these kinds of questions in different, but appropriate, ways, and the site gets better as a result.

Answer 3

There is a fundamental difference Math SE has compared to other Stack Exchange sites:

• Questions on other sites ask for information.

Look that over very carefully.

---

Fundamentally, there are three things involved in the topics of Math SE:

1. Mathematical notation.
2. Understandings of mathematical concepts.
3. History.

The predominant item is the second one I've listed.

Mathematics is something that you understand, not data or information which fundamentally must come from an external source.

You can derive the entirety of mathematics yourself. Or, you could learn it on an alien planet—who knows? The ideas of mathematics are fundamental. They have to do with basic postulates (axioms) and conclusions derived from those axioms. These ideas and understandings are independent of language, race, Earth, or even physics.

(Although much mathematics is applicable to the physics of this universe, there is just as much or more mathematics that is not directly applicable within the realm of this universe.)

---

If you were an expert alien mathematician, the only aspects you would be missing from your mathematical repertoire that you might need to fill in from the external source of Math SE would be:

1. The particular notations used by Earth mathematicians, and
2. The history of discovery and development of these fundamental mathematical ideas on Earth (and the history of the notations used.)

---

Now contrast our SE with another SE that deals with specific invented items, such as computer operating systems. (Unix & Linux Stack Exchange, for example, just because I'm very familiar with it.)

These OSes were created a certain way (by their creators) and thus the information about how they work is not something you can make up yourself. You can make up your own OS, of course, but unless you make it "in agreement" with certain common principles of "*nix" systems, you won't have made a Unix or a Linux-based operating system at all. Thus, answers there must provide information.

Math has no such restrictions.

You can create any mathematics you like and use it in any fashion you want, to accomplish whatever you want to accomplish with it. It's an adjunct or servomechanism to your own mind.

There is a fundamental difference between information and understanding.

Given that, what is there to ask about Maths?

By observation, most of the questions on Math SE have to do with solving specific math problems.

The better ones have to do with understanding specific mathematical notations (usually in the context of solving specific math problems), and the best ones have to do purely with understanding mathematical concepts for their own sake.

aside:

Of course, since concepts shall be communicated in every case by means of symbols (by which term I include written word symbols and spoken symbols) until and unless we reach pure telepathic ability—even those askers of questions seeking purely to understand mathematical concepts are invariably hung up on symbols; either the notation symbols or the "word symbols" used to explain the ideas. (Good educators recognize the importance of the undefined term or the undefined symbol.)

So perhaps I should really say, the best questions have to do with proposing new ideas (independently originated) and asking what the consequences (ramifications, implications) would be of those ideas. But those are hardly questions with a "single, definable answer," are they?

end aside

---

How is this relevant to the question of user etiquette on Math SE?

The only possible purpose to writing an answer here is to improve the understanding of those who read the answer.

When an answer is written so that only those who already have a vast amount of requisite knowledge can understand the answer, it is of more limited value.

An answer written to convey the necessary understandings, without assumptions of reader expertise (particularly without assuming notational expertise), is thus highly desirable.

Now, having written this far, I'll confess: I don't have an explicit answer to the title question, "How to make users follow a better etiquette?" Instead, I believe that what I've written above constitutes an entirely different framework from which to address the problem.

Perhaps canonical answers could be written—excellent exposés on individual mathematical concepts—which could be used as "dupe close" targets. Other sites have many of these; this site, so far as I know, has none.

(Why don't we have these already? Because such answers for this site would have to simply convey understanding, rather than just contain information.)

Perhaps apparent "etiquette problems" are merely due to this failure on our part to write canonical answers.

---

I don't have a firm conclusion. I don't have a firm answer. But, hey, this is Meta—and the post is tagged "discussion." ;)

Answer 4

I think I see a possible solution to this, however imperfect it might be (as mentioned very well in comments, once a game system in put in place, bad behaviour occurs).

The platform can decide to allow less points for early answers once these are validated (for instance, the number of points can grow linearly with time and then be fixed).

If we look at this new situation from a game-theory point of view, then the Nash Equilibrium for the people answering very fast is to answer right away, thus earning less points. I think we are safe from any cooperation on their part (all of them waiting just after some time limit to post a one-line answer).

It works under the assumption that any answer given in less than a certain time (for instance 30s) has less value than one that takes more time to arrive. It might be true that most of them are from the users described by Morgan Rodgers.

Answers to more advanced questions usually take time to be given.

The associated question can also be accorded less value, but it may be problematic since it gives leverage to fast-answerers to take down the value of a question which may have been interesting. I wouldn't be in favor of it.

Please post any disadvantage you would see for this new point system in comment.

Of course, plenty of versions can be made (negative points for early answers then compensated if it is a good answer, $points\times =\ln(time+1)$, $points \times =1-\exp(-time)$). Personally, I like the $\ln$ version better, it also covers the problem of long-time ignored questions.

Answer 5

There's just one flaw in this entire prospect you give:

How do you know that the community will upvote the best answer?

There's plenty of times where the correct answer is downvoted because either the question was unclear in the first place or because the author preferred a certain method. In these cases, why is it fair or reasonable to force a user to accept the upvoted answer. I understand that you are saying that people should merely wait for votes, but if an answer truly answers a question accurately and correctly in a clear manner, then why should the user be forced to wait? Some questions are asked out of sincerity and are incredibly simple just as some other questions are incredibly complex and may never be answered.

"rather than just picking the first or none at all?"

Once again, an answer might not truly answer everything the op wanted to know. This sometimes causes friction between users as expected. Sometimes questions are asking things that people immediately reject as false. Someone makes a false premise (to try and analyze how the falsehood of a true statement changes things) but wants it to be followed through with regardless and people refuse to accept and reject the premise in their answers. In hindsight, this is an obviously wrong answer but maybe it gets upvoted for being intelligently well-written. Clearly the person shouldn't be punished for someone giving a bad answer by forcing it to be accepted over the answer they wanted.