-10
$\begingroup$

I have seen many question that has been up-voted and answered very nicely but it has been voted to close 2 times with this reason:

This question doesn’t meet a Mathematics Stack Exchange guideline.

For example see this recent post.

I am familiar a bit with MSE guideline but not completely. My question is:

What is exactly "This question doesn’t meet a Mathematics Stack Exchange guideline."

I don't want a link to MSE guideline. I have an experience in MSE review that, MSE (AI) tests us sometimes. I want to know is this vote-to-close a bad result of that test? If not, why don't reviewers write down their reason to help to the OP how s/he can improve his/her question?

$\endgroup$
21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question linked to is the bare statement of a problem (also known as a PSQ) with no context provided, shows no independent effort, and shows no indication of the questioner's ability with mathematics. It clearly doesn't meet the guidelines, which require (ideally) both of those pieces of information. So... what else do you want from close voters? Most of us can't read minds to fill in the missing information on behalf of the asker. $\endgroup$ – postmortes Sep 11 '20 at 5:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Where should a new contributor know this issues to improve his/her question or shows effort etc.? I have told this many times: New and some less new users are not familiar with Meta.SE or the rules of good questions (it is their problem and not ours !! No!) we should guide them warmly and kindly. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 11 '20 at 5:23
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Then why haven't you provided a comment on the question to help the user? Is is just the rest of the community, and not you, that are to be held to your standards? $\endgroup$ – postmortes Sep 11 '20 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ 1. I did not vote to close. 2. I saw it now. 3. It has been answered before. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 11 '20 at 5:27
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps you might answer my question though, please? Why haven't you commented on that post to tell the user that the close votes can be avoided or removed by improving the question and pointing them to the guidelines? You've made the point that you don't believe that enough is done to help new users, yet you're doing nothing yourself. Isn't this hypocrisy? $\endgroup$ – postmortes Sep 11 '20 at 5:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Whoever wants to answer a question should be the one helping the asker to sort out the shortcomings of the question. In particular, when the wannabe-answerer is a "trusted user" (= one who has accumulated over 20000 points on the site), they should take charge. True, sometimes such users are nerd-sniped, so intrigued by the question that they forget, but that is the ideal. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 11 '20 at 5:37
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Reviewing is such a thankless job that expecting the reviewers to leave such comments to every single post A) is not a sustainable workflow, B) misplaces the burden. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 11 '20 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes: 1. I did not vote to close. 2. I saw it now. 3. It has been answered before. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 11 '20 at 5:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't really see the point of continuing this discussion, but to answer your questions: I have as much information as you regarding the post you've linked to, and more regarding the community standards since I've been here longer than you. I asked if you're being hypocritical (I accused you of nothing) since you're asking for a standard of behaviour you visibly don't apply to yourself. If your "overkill" argument is relevant, then why are you wasting our time here on this question? I will not respond further so don't feel a need to reply. $\endgroup$ – postmortes Sep 11 '20 at 6:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ C.F.G. To those people I recommend a non-trivial amount of lurking before posting. That way they will learn about the site norms, and won't get caught speeding. The Stackexchange network site is designed to work that way. True, the welcoming ads don't make it clear. But the communities here adopted such policies. Not in small part because the veterans remembered all too well the chaos that prevailed in the usenet newsgroups (serving a similar end), where the users had no control about what people could post. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 11 '20 at 6:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen "Whoever wants to answer a question should be the one helping the asker to sort out the shortcomings of the question" is an ideal we should aim for, but it is not the reality we face. I interpret your stance as "it is someone else's responsibility to help the user so I am not going to", which I sympathise with, but the problem here is that the person who loses out is the new user. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Sep 11 '20 at 10:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 May be I should rephrase it to whoever thinks the question is worth keeping (when duly improved). Mind you, yearly I "help" hundreds of askers of questions that I don't plan on answering (but find ok if improved) by either giving hints and/or pointing them at the "How to ask a good question" -thread. If everybody who wants to answer did the same (and refrained from answering before the improvement is a reality), the problem would not exist. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 11 '20 at 10:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't really realize the postmortes question: Why haven't you commented on that post to tell the user that the close votes can be avoided or removed by improving the question and pointing them to the guidelines?!!!!!! Why I should comment a post that has an answer? The OP can easily ignore my comment because s/he has received his/her answer. Why should s/he respond to my comment? $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 11 '20 at 15:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps I am wrong but this type of commenting is not polite at all. (Excuse to all). We are here to help each other but your behavior shows that you are very angry! I'll never comment here at all. Good luck. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 11 '20 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As is your second to last comment, @C.F.S. It's not polite at all, and is in fact rude. You should aim to do the right thing, even if others aim to merely gain points. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Sep 11 '20 at 22:45
3
$\begingroup$

Despite the title and body asking "What is exactly 'This question doesn’t meet a Mathematics Stack Exchange guideline',” the post concludes with this:

I don't want a link to MSE guideline. I have an experience in MSE review that, MSE (AI) tests us sometimes. I want to know is this vote-to-close a bad result of that test? If not, why don't reviewers write down their reason to help to the OP how s/he can improve his/her question?

The Review Audits never result in casting closing, deleting, or reopening votes. They are simply "tests" as you say. The interaction of audits with attempts to leave Comments varies from causing failure of the audit to revealing that the item is in fact an audit. See Types where Comments are allowed (or not) in Review Audits for more discussion of that aspect.

The Review Queues are not especially convenient for reviewers to write customized Comments, though it is possible to do this with a little extra effort. The workflow guides reviewers to make decisions about the quality of items in the queues. The review is typically being done with a "keyhole" view of the post (either Question or Answer), and the best efforts often require stepping away from the immediate browser tab/window and searching for potential duplicates.

The number of comments left by a user (and not deleted) can be seen from their activity page on Math.SE under the All Actions tab, where one can also find the number of reviews done. While the fraction of comments left in the course of doing reviews is not easily discerned, it seems to me that comparing the number of comments to number of reviews is a reasonably good indication of how much effort was made to help users improve their posts.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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