0
$\begingroup$

There are some highly active reviewers on this site to whom we owe much. Understandably, they can become wearied by the task, and develop a sort of pessimism.

I think that this question is a victim of this phenomenon: Euler's product via Eratosthenes' sieve?

Relevant points:

  • The OP is new to M.SE
  • The OP's either does not speak English as a first language, or has something else going on which makes it difficult for them to communicate in a manner which some of us are lucky to take for granted.
  • The OP has come up with an alternative proof for (i.e. this is not work they claim to be revolutionary and groundbreaking) for a niche(?) topic described by this short Wikipedia section. At the very least, it is a topic I am unfamiliar with, and I tried to edit its introduction to the best of my ability in order to address moderators' concern that it makes no sense from the get go. It seems to have made it worse according to one moderator :( (so, I am to blame for the introduction to the question)
  • The question has received an answer/comment from a user with 1K reputation.

Given these points, can we please be nice to this new contributor, and give them the benefit of doubt/the chance to improve their post? I think it would be sad if they were pushed away due to the weakness in presentation in their first post, given that it is not a low effort/help-with-homework type question?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I dont quite understand. The question is not deleted, so they can always edit their post. Just edit it, make it clear and get it reopened. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Nov 21 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ Some past meta post. Well Gerry happens to be the OP. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Nov 21 at 7:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Is it intentional that after "I think that this question is a victim of this phenomenon" you link to a comment rather than directly to the question? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Nov 21 at 7:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To emphasise @ArcticChar's point: "on hold" is a pause button, not a stop button. The OP should make the appropriate improvements suggested in the big yellow box. The post then automatically (for some value of "automatically") goes back in the review queue. There is also a dedicated meta thread where anyone can suggest any post be reopened (which saves a new meta question for each question). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Nov 21 at 10:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (I notice, however, that your cleaning up of the first paragraph makes the question very clear, so I guess it should be reopened. I'll have a read over it properly at some point before voting. These long questions are difficult because they take time to digest, which acts against them.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Nov 21 at 10:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 1) It may not be a good idea to edit questions on topics with which you are unfamiliar (other than to correct spelling, grammar, MathJax and the like). 2) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a moderator. I am far too immoderate. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 21 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Arc nice catch. I will attempt to justify my contravention of the 24-hour rule that I proposed. The question (on main) is a dog's breakfast. It would take pages to list and explain all the faults in it. When I saw that an attempt to edit it had made it worse, I neglected to notice that the offending edit had been made by someone other than the original poster, and took it as a sign that the original poster was not going to be able to post a coherent question, even if given 24 hours. So, I jumped the gun, and cast the 5th vote to close. Continued... $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 21 at 11:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ...For what it's worth, I think the original poster has to sit down with someone more practiced in the ways of writing math, explain the content to her, and then let her compose and post a question that we can all enjoy and learn from. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 21 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak No, not intentional. I have edited the question to fix this. $\endgroup$ – user89 Nov 21 at 16:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson For what it's worth, I think it was a mistake to try and help OP. I was trying to lay down a "template" of what might help to make the question clearer, and I based it on what I read in the Wikipedia section, and what they had written initially: pn#/(pn - 1)#. Instead, of fixing any technical issues in that edit, the OP decided to lay it on regarding how the "internet" only added more "confusion". I regret helping the OP, and am far more sympathetic to where you're coming from. Better to just mark a question as problematic with a short statement like "I stopped reading". $\endgroup$ – user89 Nov 21 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I only recently got access to the close vote queue, and was perhaps a bit too enthusiastic/optimistic/idealistic. $\endgroup$ – user89 Nov 21 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ Nothing wrong with a little enthusiasm, optimism, and idealism, 89. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 21 at 21:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ as the "answer" person, I switched to a long comment answer ( too long to fit in a single comment) because I wanted to address things I could understand. $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Nov 22 at 2:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To be entirely honest, I find all iterations of the question pretty incomprehensible. I think it was quite right to close it as too unclear. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Nov 22 at 17:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber Yes, and sadly the OP feels that making the question clearer will remove its amateur flavour, and thus make it too haughty :( $\endgroup$ – user89 Nov 23 at 3:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .