# Non-experts closing questions

I have recently noticed what, to me, is a pretty irking trend in the tag I contribute to most often (algebraic geometry). It seems to me that there is a contingent of 'serial closers' who insist on closing questions despite those questions having (at least from my perspective) non-trivial academic merit. What bothers me the most is these 'serial closers' seemingly have zero knowledge about the threads they condemn—or, more accurately, essentially have never contributed to answering questions in the relevant tag.

Is it possible to restrict people's moderation abilities largely to certain pre-approved tags where, of course, pre-approval should be related to one's contribution to those tags? This is perhaps not tenable given the size of this website/nicheness of some tags, but I feel like something should be done.

EDIT: When I wrote the above(/the previous edits) I was frustrated, and consequently was fairly pompous and overly accusatory. I apologize for that. My main concern is for students who can't get their legitimate questions answered because of non-optimal procedures for closing questions. I hope that the tone of my question doesn't distract the reader from this.

• @MichaelJesurum Hey Michael. I'd like to link some examples, but given the public nature of who closed the questions, I think that'd be a bit inappropriate. That said, the examples I have in mind are not even homework-problem type questions (which is what 'problem-statement' makes me think). They are like "Here is a natural question that has arisen in my studies which I haven't been able to find an answer to. Can someone help?" Sometimes these closed questions are about topics that even knowledge contributors say they benefit from. I think it's possible that the closers think they lack context Jun 28 at 19:14
• This reminded me of some post made by Jyrki Lahtonen, such as: Is it appropriate to close every question that doesn't show efforts and/or lacks of context? and Why a question without showing any work is getting upvoted? (Although he seems to have changed his mind a bit since then.) Jun 28 at 19:18
• You don't need to be a parent to have a good advice on raising kids. You don't need to be a general to have a good advice on having war (don't, by the way). You can have something to say about the quality of the question as a non expert. Having said that, I do agree that some of the more advanced questions sometimes can be seen as having no context, where in fact anyone who can understand it anyway already knows the whole context. This is why closure is reversible and we can reopen stuff.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jun 28 at 19:33
• I'd just like to thow in that adding enough context that certain non-experts can appreciate the question is nice. It increases accessibility for future students browsing MSE who are learning that subject for the first time. I wouldn't advocate writing pages and pages of background, but I feel like setting the bar at "non-experts recognize that context is given" is not unreasonable. Jun 28 at 19:42
• (cont.) It's not about the interestingness of the question (most of them aren't necessarily interesting to me) but are very reasonable, well-posed questions to anyone putting a serious effort into studying the topic the tag pertains to. The question poster shouldn't given context for what fpqc descent is, because anyone who could answer that question/would be interested in that question already knows what it is. I have never in my 10+ years on this website pored over the 'quality guidelines', but I imagine that they are common sense things that all the posts I can think of certainly meet. Jun 28 at 19:49
• @rschwieb My impression of the goal of this website is not to serve as a live journal for people's mathematical thoughts, but a place to have specific questions answered. If I want to know why every finite-dimensional $k$-algebra is Artinian, I don't think it's reasonable/worthwhile to define what Artinian means, to explain where this has come up in one's studies, etc. These aspects of the question are self-evident to anyone who is likely to be interested in the question, let alone able to answer it. And, if not, they are free to google the relevant terms. Jun 28 at 19:58
• @AlexYoucis That one is definitely too many questions in one post. I'd agree it 'needs focus'. Good questions are being asked, yes, but they do not all have to be delivered in laundry list. it also makes it harder for people to answer the entire question. It looks to me like you two are addressing what's in (3) but I can't quite tell if the one -or-two questions in (4) are being answered. Part of the problem may be that the user also enumerated (1) even though it isn't a question, and (2) seems to just be another question thrown in distinct from the later ones. Jun 28 at 20:40
• @ParamanandSingh: Personally, I never vote to close questions above my level of competence. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to judge what constitutes a reasonable context or motivation. This is particularly difficult in the case of advanced topics such as Algebraic Geometry (of which, as an outsider to the field, I know fair amount, but not nearly enough to feel comfortable to close most questions). For most questions in AG , it would take a reader unfamiliar with the area about a year of serious reading to understand what the questions are about. Jun 29 at 5:31
• "Questions with no context or motivation are just not helping non-experts." @Para, I don't think there's any rule saying that every question posted to m.se must help non-experts. If you look at the reasons you can choose among for voting to close a question, "this question doesn't help me" is not among them. Jun 29 at 12:45
• @Para, it's fine not to like them, but you go beyond dislike when you vote to close. Please vote to close when a question deserves closing, not when you just don't like the question. Jun 29 at 13:04
• There are area of mathematics that just bounce off my brain every time I've looked at them. Alg Geom is one of them. I am totally happy for alg. geom. questions to be fairly impenetrable to me, and alg. geom. discussers shouldn't have to bring me up to speed with every question they ask. Jun 29 at 13:09
• "there is no universal agreement here on what counts as sufficient context." @Para, agreed. But I think you're the first one to put "helps me to get interested in a new topic" as a necessary condition for sufficient context. Jun 29 at 13:15
• "if something motivates people to learn some new thing, I think that's something positive and worth striving for." @Para, of course, but you aren't distinguishing what's necessary from what's sufficient. Jun 29 at 13:27
• @ParamanandSingh: Just because you can't understand a question, that does not mean it is a bad question. It may lack context to you, but for others who know, I would be clear what the problem is about. I would not close questions about algebraic geometry, or hard nonlinear PDEs. This community is for all kinds of levels of mathematics, If a question if out of your understanding , just move on and ignore it. If you have some curiosity, ask the OP or who ever answers to the OP. I seem to remember that it is encourage to skip closing questions (specially when the OP is out of our breadth). Jun 29 at 15:17
• @AsafKaragila "where in fact anyone who can understand it anyway already knows the whole context" yes! yes yes yes yes yes i bugs me when people whine about context and motivation when the context and motivation are abundantly clear from the question. Not that I know what to do about it, the suggestion in the "question" seems like a bad of many worms... Jul 2 at 23:54

The first obvious issue (which I feel is what may have triggered this post, and has been identified by other users in the comments) is that experts can guess the context from a question, and appreciate why it is relevant, even if there is zero detail given in the original post. They may also know most of the background and guess what the motivation behind asking the question is. As such, some questions seem perfectly reasonable for them, that non-experts will find not up to standard. From this point of view, the frustration you expressed is completely understandable. However, we definitely cannot (and will not) ask people not to help us moderate certain posts of the site simply because they are not experts on a particular topic.

On the other hand, one can draw a parallel between this situation and writing a paper for a non-specialized or general journal: if your audience is wide, then an extra dose of context and background may be necessary for your article to be appropriate for the journal. You may find yourself defining certain terms that may be very common in your subfield of expertise, and reminding the reader of previous work that is absolutely well-known in your area, but that is the trade-off we need to make to reach our desired audience.

In some way, posting a question on the site follows this idea: the background and expertise of our user base is very, very varied, and the volume of questions we get every day is constantly increasing. As such, many users that may not be experts in an area will still be helping our efforts to tackle low-quality posts. The issue arises: do low-quality questions on relatively advanced topics (for example, schemes) deserve the same treatment as low-quality questions on pre-calculus and algebra?

I believe that we can meet half-ways: any post in the site indubitably benefits from context, background, and a show of effort from the OP, and there seems to be no strong argument to change our standards for advanced questions. At the same time, maybe for these, we can be slightly more relaxed as to how far we want to take this. For example, someone may be trying to compute the first or second page of a spectral sequence, and requiring them to show their full attempt may be counterproductive.

• I agree that some quality control is needed to weed out the "do my homework" questions (which seems to be the whole purpose of many curators), the nonsensical questions, and the reasonable questions. What I have observed, is that some curators are forming cliques and close questions just because someone member of the clique requested it. Often, the question may be out of their breadth, but they still close it because... well they are part of a clique. That is more harmful to this site in my opinion. Jun 29 at 15:27
• @OliverDiaz I agree that users forming cliques to arbitrarily close questions is a problem (perhaps similar to a vote ring, maybe worse). We do keep an eye on such cliques, and try to make sure that close reasons are always within site policy. You can always flag posts that you think have been arbitrarily closed for us to look at.
– Pedro Tamaroff Mod
Jun 29 at 17:14
• @OliverDiaz I guess you are probably alluding to CURED as a clique but this is an incorrect usage of the word. Part of the definition implies members exclude non-members; however, the opposite is true of CURED. Everyone is welcome to introduce ideas to close, undelete, reopen, edit or delete. Welcome under the standard rules governing chats, that is. So, I hope readers realize the connotation of the term "clique" is not warranted. A more neutral word like "group" would have sufficed. Jun 29 at 17:57
• Most people at CURED that are doing a fantastic job, but a few visitors there who use are quick executioners (as opposed to quick guns) and do closed just because someone else ask for it, instead of looking at the posting, think abut whether they understand the question, and take a thoughtful decision. I call them clique because, when you agree with them on all is ticket boo, but when you descent, useless byzantine discussions ensue that often become out of order. I myself have allowed been baited into this type of discussions. But ok, call them groups, factions, gangs, clubs, parties, etc. Jun 29 at 18:11
• @OliverDiaz I have long advocated for a "quick to close, slow to delete" mentality. Closure is not a punishment, and need not be permanent. It is a signal to the asker that improvement is required, and a signal to potential answerers that the question should not be answered in its current form. You phrase this as "execution", however, which is incredibly loaded. You have also already been criticized for referring to "cliques". It seems that you are trying to create a kind of us-vs-them narrative, and cast the opposition as "the enemy".
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 19:39
• May I suggest that you seek to avoid such incendiary language?
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 19:39
• Hm, I interpreted cliques in a very mathematical way. I would also suggest to avoid "executioners", etc.
– Pedro Tamaroff Mod
Jun 29 at 19:51
• @XanderHenderson: There are certainly some "groups" that go fishing to find whatever they feel is PSQt. You have your own opinions on context, and certainly I do not share that rigid view for questions that are not the typical homework question. Closing a question unilaterally when the community opted for a reopen is questionable. You were elected democratically as a moderator, but you have to be fair and accept it when questions are reopened. Unless you found evidence that a question is being used for cheating purposes )contest, exams, etc). Jun 29 at 20:01
• @OliverDiaz When I encountered that question, I saw a PSQ with a long, acrimonious thread in which the author attacked users asking for improvement. I deleted the comments and closed the question as a PSQ. I did not investigate the timeline of the question, and did not notice that it had previously been closed (though this likely would not have changed my actions). If moderators were here only to enact the will of the largest plurality of community members, we would not be given the ability to unilaterally close questions.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 20:05

Here is a thought. If you, an expert in a topic, see a problem-statement-question that is interesting, and if you know this question is not a duplicate, and if you judge that adding some context would increase the value of the question to MSE (in part by increasing the chance that someone would be willing to write a good answer before those pesky non-experts vote to close it), then edit the question lightly to include enough context to avoid it being closed.

I have seen this done in the comments sometimes, in fact I have done it myself in the comments, for example by adding a link to a definition which I know is important but perhaps not commonly understood.

• In the comments, perfect. Editing the question to do it should , in my opinion, be done with the permission of OP (so first drop a comment and then have OP lift it, or lift it yourself) and is best done by the OP themselves. But editing, either by OP or by someone interested, achieves the better end result (compared to context in comments) as far as curation is concerned : it's a win-win if the OP is willing to improve their question and allow others to help format their question. Jun 30 at 17:35
• I have been advocating something like this, but cannot boast a good track record here. The moderators spent quite a long time thinking about it, and posted this guideline. If editing can be done within the guideline, then it's fine I think. Jun 30 at 18:44
• Also, this is why users with a gold badge on a topic can close the questions in that topic with a single vote and also reopen them as needed. Jul 2 at 7:11
• @NikhilKumarSingh that applies only to duplicate closure and reopening. Jul 2 at 7:31
• -1: the closing brigade is not known to go back and reopen questions they have closed. So one had to go and make an explicit post in the "reopen" thread. But that's a one-by-one solution that requires significant effort, compared to the mindless clicks of the closers. Jul 2 at 21:07
• I don't really follow what you are saying, @MartinArgerami, my suggestion is not aimed at those who are inclined to vote to close (your "closing brigade"?). My suggestion is instead aimed at those who see a question that is not yet closed, is in danger of being closed, and has some evident room for improvement. Jul 2 at 21:50

No question in mathematics is unmotivated or intrinsically interesting. Despite the fact that I, myself, often use the phrase "this is a natural question," no question in mathematics is actually natural. A question becomes interesting or natural once one has enough of a background to appreciate where a question comes from.

For example, I think that the following is an extremely natural question to ask:

Let $$X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$$ be a metric space, and $$f: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^n$$ an $$\alpha$$-Hölder map. Is it true that $$\operatorname{dim}_{\text{As}}(f(X)) \le \frac{\operatorname{dim}_{\text{As}}(X) - 1}{\alpha},$$ where $$\operatorname{dim}_{\text{As}}(X)$$ denotes the Assouad dimension of $$X$$?[1]

Anyone who can answer the question likely already knows what all of these terms mean, and why the question is interesting, and so on. It is likely an "intrinsically interesting" question to experts. That doesn't make it a good question on Math SE.

Off the top of my head, this question would be much improved by

1. Providing a reference for basic definitions—in particular, the Assouad dimension is, maybe, not the most familiar object. A citation to an appropriate paper in which the dimension is defined would be incredibly helpful. An actual definition would be even better, but is maybe not required.

2. A similar result holds for the Hausdorff dimension. Why not mention that?

3. This question was posed to me by a colleague, so I don't actually know what motivated him to ask, but, given his research area, I have strong suspicions. Why not explain that? "This question is related to controlling the behaviour of differential operators near the boundaries of John domains."

4. I haven't really spent much time on this question, but if I were to post it here, I would almost certainly have put some effort into it. Explaining where the wheels fell of would be helpful. For example: "Paralleling the argument for the Hausdorff dimension in [reference], it seems that we should be able to make an estimate of the form [foo], but the inequalities end up going in the wrong direction at step [bar]."

I will also point out that this kind of question can serve to advertise the topic being studied. If you phrase a question so that only experts are going to understand it, then you are only reaching experts. On the other hand, if you phrase a question so that even a non-expert might understand where it comes from, you might convince the non-expert that the question or field of study is interesting, and put someone on a path towards expanding your area of expertise. Maybe you are one of those paranoid academics who is obsessed with priority and deeply fearful of getting scooped but, if not, isn't a Good Thing™ to attempt to be more inclusive an bring more people into the fold?

Even if a question is more advanced, context is required. Rather than chaffing against this requirement, why not think of it as an opportunity to spread the word about something you find interesting?

[1] As an aside, if anyone has an answer to that question, I would be mildly interested to see it—a similar question was posed to me by a colleague, and I had to reply with a shrug of the shoulders. One of these days, I'll sit down and see what's what, but haven't had time to think about it for a while.

• You seem to suggest that to post a question you have to go through a list of checks. A question does not have to be over 100 characters to be a good question (whether its a precalculus question or a Malliavin Calculus question). To some members, the question will be clear, to others not. But if a curator has no idea about the question (its a topic they don't grasp, for example) they should not behave as executioners for the sole reason of not understanding the nature of the OP. A big problem I found enforcement lately is that curators are forming cliques according to their guts. Jun 29 at 16:00
• My personal take on the question Assouad dimension that you wrote is that it is good question, completely appropriate for MSE and if I saw it I would never vote to close it but would suggest asker to pose it on MO within a week if there is no MSE answer. But that's just me. Jun 29 at 19:18
• @OliverDiaz (1) Every question is required to provide context. Period. I am sorry if this feels arbitrary or silly, but it is a requirement of this site. A 100 character problem statement may very possibly be a good question in an abstract sense, but it is not a good question for Math SE. "Clarity" is only one part of what makes a question of sufficient quality for inclusion here. Searchability and focus are also important (where focus can have something to do with circumscribing the intended audience, and warning off others).
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 19:32
• (2) If an author has not sufficiently explained that a question is likely to be beyond the ken of most users, then they have failed to provide sufficient context for the question. If non-experts are not even given enough information to distinguish a high level question in a specialized field from an example or exercise in a textbook, the asker has failed to provide sufficient context. In these situations, non-experts can very reasonably vote-to-close.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 19:35
• @MoisheKohan I very strongly disagree. If I were to see that question---despite being somewhat expert in the area and understanding what might motivate it---I would unilaterally close it. Problem statement questions are not appropriate questions for Math SE, no matter what the level of the question.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 29 at 19:36
• It is easy to see whether a question is missing context, or if the context is sifficient, when you are expert in that area. I dont think the OP is asking that. The question for the reviewers is: should they vote to close a question in an area where they know nothing about, even if the question looks like a PSQ. Jun 30 at 3:10
• @ArcticChar We have source, background, definitions, attempt, motivation. Of these things, I imagine a source is discernible for anybody wishing to check for it. For example, "I was doing the following calculation [link to post/textbook link etc.] when I hit upon question ...". would count as an explicit mention of the source. So that's a big plus point. An attempt is usually easy to spot, I tried/did ... . What might be missed is the link between different statements, and how one statement motivates or forms a background for the question. Another miss is "how much effort is enough?" which... Jun 30 at 5:38
• ... means that if there's nothing in the question apart from a problem statement, then everybody can make it out, but the minute we have small little statements like : "So ... is true for XYZ functions. What do we know about it being true for ABC functions?" then only an expert can provide weightage on how significant the first statement is towards motivating or being a background for the second. Ideally, though : a source goes a long, long way in an expert question, and linking similar(possibly easier questions) questions is an absolute win-win for all. Jun 30 at 5:46
• In short, the only part where people may be requiring expert advice is on how much other statements in the question post motivate/form a background for the main question. The rest of the criteria, I believe, does not require any kind of guesswork or faith-jumping to be judged. Another thing is that I wouldn't be ashamed if I was a low-level user, to write on a high level question and ask for elaboration of certain parts. That would definitely be the most helpful thing to do : if in the process I'm able to read up something about the subject, it makes it even nicer, and the question gets better Jun 30 at 6:00
• I agree with everything you said, but I am asking exactly the boardline case you described: where an advanced question looks almost like a PSQ (but it's not). This is also the case which motivates this question (see the first link). @TeresaLisbon Jun 30 at 10:23
• Or just take the example here. If the definition of Assouad dimension is included (as a link), I am already not sure if sufficient context is given. Jun 30 at 10:32
• @ArcticChar You have me trussed up! For starters, I would request for sources on both questions : for either the motivating statements, or the question itself, or a general reference. This much would be enough for the question which you linked, along with maybe one line about what's different about proving the properness of the map $X_k \to Spec(K)$ versus $X_k \to X$ (that is not necessary for me , it's only for someone who requests it but it links the first statement and the question better). For Xander's question, a singular source (like a textbook) is enough : but only the definition of .. Jun 30 at 10:50
• So basically, state your problem. Then state how you came up with it (found it somewhere, got inspired by something). Then state one or more statements or questions that is linked to this line, and link those statements/questions with the question you want to ask. If you feel the need, state the definitions of ambiguous terms. Now, the only thing that an expert will need to interpret is if that link is obvious enough, or needs to be emphasised. I am ok if the question of Hajar Hajar is not closed, but if Xander posted his problem and only gave a definition of the Assouad dimension, close. Jun 30 at 11:00
• @ArcticChar "It is easy to see whether a question is missing context, or if the context is sifficient, when you are expert in that area." That is exactly my point. Math SE is not for experts---it is for everyone. If a reviewer cannot read a question and distinguish between an interesting expert-level question and a homework problem in a field they are unfamiliar with, then the asker has failed to provide sufficient context, and the reviewer should vote to close.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 30 at 13:25
• @Dave, $x=1/4$, $y=1/16$. Jun 30 at 23:50

This is really a double-edged sword.

I agree that it is frustrating to see good posts being closed, especially when the close-voters don't seem to have the background to understand the given contexts (even when explicitly given in the post).

However, it is equally frustrating to see low quality/no context posts not being closed. This could happen if the power of the close-voters are further restricted. From my experience (unfortunately I don't have statistics to support that), it is far more difficult to close a Riemannian geometry question then a post in e.g. Calculus or Linear algebra. My guess is that close-votes reviewer are in general less willing to vote on advanced topics (e.g. see this comment).

Also, the suggested proposal is quite absurd, since more knowledgeable users would be banned from some closing some elementary questions. e.g. I am then not allowed to vote to close questions in (which I never answered), or even (only 2 answers).

I fully agree with Asaf that there is no simple solution to this. As suggested (by Asaf), what one could do is to

• leave a comment below and describe how that is a good questions while the post is not yet closed, and

• vote to reopen when it's closed. Use the Reopen thread when necessary.

• I agree with you and Asaf. There are instances however, when questions are reopened, some curators (or a clique of curators who use the close option and some sort of punishing gadget) get up in arms put pressure on some moderators to re-close and/or delete, and a moderator unilaterally close the question again just to avoid confrontation. Jun 29 at 17:27
• @OliverDiaz The active reviewers do exchange links to questions links they find questionable in a chatroom dedicated for such activity. But I don't think there are "cliques". Most of the active users of that chatroom vote according to their personal criteria. It is a possibility that in borderline case some of us/them follow the opinion of a user who they think is qualified to judge a case. But most of that activity is directed to lower level questions. Simply because such questions are more numerous, and need a more urgent response. Jun 30 at 10:46
• (cont'd) Anyway, there have been complaints about the mode of operation of that chatroom, which is why moderators have kept an eye of the proceedings for many years now. To a casual visitor it probably looks worse than it is. If only due to the telegraphic style of the chat message (lists of links), and occasional rants due to frustration. I think the volume of traffic there has been going down lately. Possibly due to EoQS, but it is probably too soon to tell. It is also possible that this impression of mine is inaccurate as I haven't had the time to check it out lately. Jun 30 at 10:49

My experiences with having questions closed is that it can be arbitrary, with too much authority given to individuals whose rankings are sufficiently high to be able to cause a question to be closed.

Perhaps annotation flagging problems with questions could be extended such that if enough time goes on without raised issues being corrected, possibly combined with an assessment that the question has generated insufficient interest, the question is closed. Then it would be algorithmic, and less subject to what frankly feels like somebody's whim at times on this site.

One good test of a question's worthiness is if it generates any serious interest. If a question has been closed which in fact had generated interest, then the interests of some users are not being met.

In fact I reached this thread because I was looking at a geometry question I had bookmarked - only to find it had been closed: Prove that the 4 points are concyclic. While I agreed that the asker of this question could have provided more detail about their efforts, I also thought, for example in this particular case, that the person who asked the question had put considerable effort into the diagram provided.

Also, I have had several questions of my own closed that I know I put a great deal of effort into making as clear and precise as I was able, and that generated some interest prior to being closed.