-10
$\begingroup$

I have just logged in on math.stack and I immediately see

Can you guys please provide the answer? [closed]

and then I clicked and I realized that OP asked the question 5 minutes ago

see

enter image description here

enter image description here

Is that ok ?

OP is a new contributor that does not even know how to use MathJax, by judging the question seems like is a first year student (remember how lost one is in the first years) and by looking at his name (Japanese name) seems like it is not a native english speaker.

Note: Don't read my question like a rant (which means speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way) that was not the tone when I was writing it. Had I used mark like this one !!!! or ??? or other kind of comments, that'd have been different.

$\endgroup$
40
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ The point of closing the question is to give the OP a chance to improve it -- by looking up how to use MathJax, and in this case by providing sufficient context and writing an actual question there. Closing it is giving them a chance to breathe, to borrow your title $\endgroup$ – postmortes Feb 20 '20 at 15:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes Maybe it's not big deal for native english speaker or maybe I am overreacting but the word [closed] in bold doesn't looks welcome at all and maybe it wouldn't be that bad after some time, but 5 minutes.. ? $\endgroup$ – user486983 Feb 20 '20 at 16:05
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ .. and when the OP improves the question, it will never be opened again, for example because even improved, the question is of little interest. $\endgroup$ – kludg Feb 20 '20 at 16:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user486983 What would you suggest instead of "closed" then? As there is actually no question there at all, just a statement, I think it would be fair to say that being open for 5 minutes is rather generous for something that doesn't even attempt to follow the rules of the site. It has big problems that need to be addressed and by closing it we give the OP a chance to do that. That impersonal message doesn't criticise, it simply says what needs to be improved. $\endgroup$ – postmortes Feb 20 '20 at 16:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes don't lie that closing is for improving a question, it is (for this particular question at least) is a step for deleting a question. $\endgroup$ – kludg Feb 20 '20 at 16:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes Well is not that I have something against Closed unless is used in this specific cases and within 5 minutes. Maybe a [Temporarily on hold] would fit better. I agree that OP didn't follow the rules of the site but there is a really high chance that was not intentional. Again, you need to take into account his background: is a new contributor that does not even know how to use MathJax and by judging the question seems like is a first year student + his name is Japanese i.e. a probability that is not a native english speaker $\endgroup$ – user486983 Feb 20 '20 at 16:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @kludg Closing is a necessary step for deletion but, AFAIK, not a sufficient one. If you only vote to close because you intend to see the question deleted that is your prerogative, but it seems unfriendly to pretend that it's the aim of every close-voter $\endgroup$ – postmortes Feb 20 '20 at 16:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user486983 turn that around: wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the OP to have taken that 30 minutes to take the tour, learn what is expected of a question here, and even prefix their question with "I'm new, my English is poor, if I make a mistake please help me understand why?" We do see questions here with that kind of prefix, and the ones I've seen tend to get helpful comments at least initially. Perhaps what I'm driving at here is why should the onus of effort be on the community and not the questioner? (And no, no Latin roots I'm afraid) $\endgroup$ – postmortes Feb 20 '20 at 17:02
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps instead of asking that the community gives a user 30 minutes after posting their first question to "see how the site is like and adapt accordingly", perhaps, we want to hope that users spend an hour before their first post, trying to understand how the site works? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Feb 20 '20 at 18:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand why this question was closed (the question here on Meta, not the math question discussed in the post). Regardless of what one thinks of the opinions expressed in it, how on earth is this question not on-topic here on Meta? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 20 '20 at 19:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's a Pavlov reaction @EricWofsey . Closing questions on Meta and on SE. I do agree with OP. We should understand that new contributors dont know the rules. So for the mathjax..It's easier to edit the question and post a comment asking OP to learn a bit of Mathjax with the appropriate link to the tuto. That's more fair. And that's what most members do. They take on their time to edit the question. $\endgroup$ – Aryadeva Feb 20 '20 at 21:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I can't speak for the users who voted to close here, I wouldn't do that (even without my binding vote) as it is the meta site. But your question reads a lot like a rant, rather than raising and discussing an actual issue, and some people take issue with ranting. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Feb 21 '20 at 0:12
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @LostInSpace: To post a question, one has to register, and one has to jump through the hoops of a welcome page. One can choose to spend a few minutes looking at the site (just like one might look at StackOverflow and decide that's not the best place for a math question). It's hard for me to feel sympathy for people who do not find the energy to survey the land before building a house, and then finding themselves stuck in a bog. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Feb 21 '20 at 0:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user486983: I think you underestimate how your question is read by some people. It complains about the treatment a new user has received, most of its screen real estate is a screenshot, and there are stars in the title trying to put emphasis. Not to mention that the question essentially reads as rhetoric, not as a genuine attempt for discussion. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Feb 21 '20 at 0:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One upside to closing very poor posts early is also that it prevents opportunistic answerers from answering the post until the post is improved and reopened. I'd only support a thirty minute window for not closure if every post also prevented answers for 30 minutes. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Feb 22 '20 at 17:32
-3
$\begingroup$

You asked

Is that ok?

And the answer is

Yes, it is fine

It's supported to Close 1st time psq by 1st time users within 5 minutes (no more, ok? 5! :), regardless of their background.

(Psst btw nice new record: $-10$ downvotes in less than a day).

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ It's supported by some, and opposed by others. Also, I'm sure there have been questions here that got more downvotes faster (or maybe you just meant it was a personal record?). $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 21 '20 at 21:26
  • $\begingroup$ math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31135/… has 17 downvotes. math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/… has 19 downvotes. math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30351/… has 15. math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15050/… has 18. I'm sure the record is higher. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 21 '20 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson "It's supported by some, and opposed by others." Ohh. oh ok. So let me put this straight, do you expect me to think that? seeing my question asked 22 hours ago with a record of -10 downvotes + reading the comments where you can clearly see that the gist is no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes, (no + saying that my question reads a lot like a rant and essentially reads as rhetoric) + the unfair and nonsensical action of closing my question 5 hours later after asking. It was open 4 hours later. It wasn't expected tbh, nor Eric's comments (I was surprised) that was a good to see. $\endgroup$ – user486983 Feb 21 '20 at 23:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your question has 13 downvotes, and 4 upvotes. Four upvotes counts as "opposed by others". Four voters (other than yourself) voting to reopen the question counts as "opposed by others". Comments by users kludg and Eric and Lost count as "opposed by others". And when you look at the many times that exactly the issue you raise has been raised here in the past and hotly debated with users on both sides of the debate, you will see that it has been strongly opposed, by many others, on many occasions. Unfortunately, the supporters are currently ascendant (continued) $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 22 '20 at 0:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (continued), the opposition has lost hope and no longer rises to the bait the way it used to. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 22 '20 at 0:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17353/… and math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13016/too-quick-to-close are just questions I asked about treatment of new users. There are many more – it comes up every few months – there is support for both sides of the argument, but apparently more for the quickfire closers than for the time-to-breathers. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 22 '20 at 0:47
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I appreciate your comments trying to see the nice side :3 where seems like doesn't exist. I can tell you that I perfectly understand the situation and also how things work $\endgroup$ – user486983 Feb 22 '20 at 1:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I'd support a 30-minute "time to breathe", provided that applied to both a moratorium for thirty-minutes on (1) casting votes to close, and a moratorium for thirty-minutes (2)on answering the question. There lies the rub. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Feb 22 '20 at 20:32

You must log in to answer this question.