# How is acceptance rate calculated?

I am just curious to know. For acceptance rate calculation, does it consider deleted questions as unaccepted? And what about close questions?

This question is so simple yet the site shows that it doesn't meet our quality standards. (I just typed the last sentence to make it meet the quality standards.)

• See this and this. Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 8:34
• @J.M. : I couldn't understand the second link. Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 8:40
• @Rajesh: It is generally a good idea, when asking for clarification, to try your best to pinpoint what exactly it is that you do not understand. Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 23:34
• @Willie Wong : my question is about the second link.....which took me to J.M.'s profile page. The second 'this'. Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 14:18
• @Willie : Oh! I miss clicked it...sorry for the trouble. Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 14:20
• Whenever one clicks a link and it takes him to an unexpected page, a mouseover of the link previously clicked certainly helps... :) Commented Jul 27, 2011 at 1:58

Let $Q$ be the set of all questions that you asked that satisfies the following conditions:

1. More than 3 days old
2. Have at least one answer
3. Is not closed
4. Is not community wiki.

Let $S$ be the subset $S\subset Q$ satisfying the additional condition

• You have accepted an answer on that question.

The accept rate is $|S|/|Q|$.

• I can't understand this. :) Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 23:21
• Don't worry Jeff, I'm sure you understood the blog post. :) Incidentally @Jeff, something just came to mind: when you said that the questions counting for the acceptance count are those which do not have "no answers" (sorry for the convoluted phrasing), is that "no answers" as in "no answer", or "no answers" in the sense of the Community User autobump of unanswered questions? Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 23:33
• "no answers" does not mean "unanswered". "no answers" means what it says.. "unanswered" is more of a logical concept. Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 0:11
• @Jeff: I think that this is one of them places where mathematicians differ from the rest of the world... :-)
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 8:55
• @Willie Wong : -1; Thank you for the wonderful answer....but just curious ..why do you expect paople using meta to know elementary set theory !!!....isn't it inappropriate ! Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 14:15
• @Rajesh: since you didn't specify what you didn't understand, one possibility could've been that the colloquial phrasing on the blog was not precise enough for a mathematician! ;p Commented Jul 26, 2011 at 15:06
• @Rajesh: I think this answer is far more understandable then the blog post. Also, it doesn't use elementary set theory... The words "set" and "subset" are easily understood by almost all English speakers... Commented Jul 27, 2011 at 22:23
• @Eric : If we start this utterly pointless argument, then I wouldn't be surprised to hear from you that you thought all most English speakers are from US and UK. Any way the point here is that Willie's answer serves as same info in the link but given in a different flavour. Commented Jul 28, 2011 at 6:18
• @Eric Naslund : What I do not understand is your last comment, 'all most all english speakers', as the set of all english speakers is countable even more is finite. What exactly do you mean by 'almost all'. What do you actually mean I do not get anything in mathematical sense :-). Commented Jul 28, 2011 at 6:43
• Addendum: The acceptance rate is only defined for $|Q|\geq 4$. In particular, we cannot use it to settle the question of what $0/0$ is. ;.) Commented Nov 24, 2012 at 12:44