-1
$\begingroup$

I would like to ask for some assistance about my question from here. Apologies in advance for my bad language or spelling mistakes.

First of all, what I have done differently than this similar question? Note that my question got made community wiki since it "Asks basically for the creation of a list", but same goes with the other one. Also mine got closed for missing context.


However I think in the actual state the post is quite a failure and definitely deserved to be closed until improved, but I would rather put it as "too broad".

That is because there are actually $2$ answers that makes a list of what I asked in the last line and another $2$ answers that answers the main question (the one with yellow background), however those two posts that actually answers the question got shadowed by the other posts.

Also there are another $2$ answers that aren't related to any part of the post. So it's quite a mess.


Anyway I would like to improve the question, but I don't really see a good way. Reflecting in time I think removing the part where it's asked for similar questions would solve the issue about the answers that gets shadowed and actually answers the main question, but that can't be done since the other answers would lose meaning.

Also removing the main question and ask only for a big list can't be done either, the reason being the same as above so it's quite a dead-end. I am thinking that it would be a better idea to expand the question so that the answers that aren't related to the question will became so, basically a bigger list.

Could you help with some suggestions on how the question should be edited so that it will become a decent one? Also, I hope this is the place to ask such questions.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The year-old question is a poor question, and (in my opinion) should have been closed a year ago. It currently has three close votes, so it is possible that it will be closed soon. In general, there are far more questions asked than can possibly be effectively moderated, so I would not conclude that a question is a good model simply because it was not closed in the past. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jan 1 at 14:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ In any event, your question has a (again, my opinion) a couple of issue: yes, it is overly broad. Also, I don't really think that it is about mathematics---it asks users to come up with identities involving 2018 and 2019 in a way that is more numerological than mathematical (hence it is kind of off-topic). Finally, the question seems intended to generate discussion more than it is intended to actually get a canonical answer---this, too, is not really in line with the goals of MSE. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jan 1 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment! Note that I mostly took that as a model since that's the first I saw yesterday, but there are plenty of them (none closed) in the past. I think a better search can provide more, but here are a few examples: math.stackexchange.com/q/2586745/515527, math.stackexchange.com/q/1595138/515527, math.stackexchange.com/q/1081270/515527, math.stackexchange.com/q/1653438/515527, math.stackexchange.com/q/1595361/515527 $\endgroup$ – Zacky Jan 1 at 14:39
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I'll note that many of those question come from a single user, and that at least one of them was, at one point, put on hold. Personally, I don't think that any of them are a very good fit for MSE (though I am going to continue to ignore them, and not use your links as a hit list). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jan 1 at 14:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I also turned the other CW now. The reason why it was not done before is that it was not noted before. We try to be consistent, but we just do not see everything. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 1 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Well, those $5$ links are actually from $3$ distinct users. Also more from different posters: math.stackexchange.com/q/95480/515527, math.stackexchange.com/q/2073020/515527, also one closed because was a duplicate: math.stackexchange.com/q/2617684/515527. And one closed: math.stackexchange.com/questions/623745/… $\endgroup$ – Zacky Jan 1 at 14:50
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for confirming that we should be more strict about this. The point is we sometimes let "fun" posts stick around since some say they are harmless and well why spoil the harmless fun. If now this creates all kinds of discussion the solution will be simply that all this is shut down more rigorously. Such posts were also closed and deleted in the past. Of course you can only find those that weren't deleted. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 1 at 14:55
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Zacky I could very easily find hundreds of poor, low quality questions that are still around on MSE. Every day, hundreds (if not thousands) of questions are asked, and there are only a small number of people who put in the effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. The existence of old, low-quality questions should not be used as an endorsement to post new, low-quality questions. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jan 1 at 14:55
6
$\begingroup$

The primary two issues, from my perspective:

  • You have multiple questions, not really related, in the same post. Namely, seeking a solution for that integral, and integrals of a similar type. That in itself would likely warrant a flag for "too broad," especially given that the latter's sole limitation of "have $2019$ somewhere in the answer and $2018$ in the integrand" is really a trivial limitation and any number of integrals could apply or be manipulated to apply.

  • While you offer context (if it was not somehow obvious in the first place), it doesn't help with you not providing any particular understanding/attempts at the integral, or the pattern you apparently derive from it or your basis for assuming said pattern exists.

In that light:

  • The integral list ... honestly seems iffy at best. It's also a question that has no proper, factual, "best" answer, nor ever will, so that makes asking such a question in poor taste on MSE, even if in the spirit of the holidays. I'd abandon it altogether.

  • The question regarding the integral $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\sin(1-\frac{2018}{x})}{x+\frac{1}{x}}dx$$ could possibly be put in its in own question. However, elaborate on the pattern you noticed in solving the version where $1$ is in the place of $2018$, why you think it would extrapolate to that case, and any attempts at the $2018$ integral you've made or where you're getting stuck on it. Of course, the context also helps, but it should suffice to really just link to the old question, or just explain that you were looking for integrals with $2019$ in the solution, something like this wouldn't need a firm establishment of "why you're trying to solve it" beyond it being recreational.

What does the other post you linked do that yours doesn't? ... Honestly, I'd argue it does even less than yours, albeit only marginally so. At least you establish a tiny bit of context, but that other post posts its question almost as a PSQ (or as it'd be looked at outside of the context of the holidays). It also asks for other $2019$ identities, which could also warrant a flag for too broad.

But that doesn't make either your post or the other post good; bad questions go unclosed all the time. I'd say the other question's issues mirror your own, and both should be closed.


In short - I guess, then, the core issue to improve on is you asking for a solution to the integral

$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\sin(1-\frac{2018}{x})}{x+\frac{1}{x}}dx$$

without establishing your own attempts at it. Employ the elaborations as noted above in a separate question and it should be an alright question.

The list of integral identities just isn't going to go anywhere good, because by its very nature it's not a good question for MSE.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! "The integral list ... honestly seems iffy at best.--- I'd abandon it altogether." Am I allowed to that in this case? (considering it has already $2$ answers). The other part seems reasonable, I will try later to do something. $\endgroup$ – Zacky Jan 1 at 15:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would agree that modifying your already-posted question as-is would be bad. It could be confusing to people who come by in the future somehow, and is a slight dash against the work the answerers did. I think it's best to just leave the question up - don't modify it, just accept that it's probably going to get closed and take this as a learning experience. $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Jan 1 at 15:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you end up re-asking the question about the specific integral and no progress has been made on the current post, editing it to say "I improved my question about this integral over here" with a link to the new question would likely be most appropriate. $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Jan 1 at 15:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...though now looking at the question, we have the issue that someone made a solution. (math.stackexchange.com/revisions/3058221/3) I'm not 100% sure if it's valid, but if it is and in line with what you desired, it might be better to just accept that answer and not re-ask anything, again just taking this as a learning experience. (Obligatory note that this is just my opinion and I'm kind of a noob here still.) $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Jan 1 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again for your time! I guess after all, you're right and I'l take it as a experience. Unless somehow a different opinion comes. $\endgroup$ – Zacky Jan 1 at 16:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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