3
$\begingroup$

Concerning https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4192434/1714 .

"At 2-step-cycle for $mx+1$ - problem: is there an analogon for the Rhin-bound (lowbound $S\log 2−N\log3$ )"

For unknown reasons I seem to attract regular downvoting on my questions in MSE (since a couple of months ago), but I've never been faced with "deleting" by "community".

Can someone please comment on this (update/specification: the current problem of "deleted by community"(-bot)) ?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ In your questions timeline given reason is "Scheduled: RemoveDeadQuestions", which basically means it was "Roomba'd". Specifically, it was more than 30 days old, has −1 or lower score, has no answers, and is not locked. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, this is informative enough, thank you very much! $\endgroup$ Aug 14 at 10:51
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Re your edit: I'm not sure "deleted by community"(-bot) is a "problem". It is an automated cleaning process which mostly goes unnoticed. Note that questions deleted this way are extremely unlikely to get an answer. If your question gets deleted for this reason then you should take it as feedback, and either improve the deleted question or ensure that your next question is better. I mean, would you have sought to improve it if it hadn't been deleted? (You can also ask for feedback in the Constructive Feedback chat room.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ Well, @user1729 - thanks for your comment. "Problem"- no I didn't mean a problem-of-MSE (or so) but used the word in a naive manner, simply meaning: "my current problem with this 'having-a-question-first-time-been-deleted' and not knowing what the actual reason was". My asking has been flavoured by the additional uneasy experience of getting questions&answers downvoted -without any comment about the reason- since some monthes ago; the two events (downvoting-deleting) might have had some connection about which I have no idea, so I put them in the same question-body. $\endgroup$ Aug 14 at 12:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Voted to undelete. $\endgroup$
    – Asinomas
    Aug 14 at 14:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can I encourage you to improve your post? You mention wanting feedback, and folk have given you feedback here. The point of the Roomba is to remove questions which are unlikely to receive an answer, so you should realise that your question is unlikely to receive an answer without improvement. Also, one of the users who voted to undelete gave you specific feedback (namely hardmath, in their answer below). $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 17 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 : I've already begun to improve the Question (in the nice SE "sandbox" :-) ). But while I'm working on it I'm the impression grows, that indeed the goal of the question cannot well be reached in MSE: I seek for an idea how to apply a mechanism from diophantine or transcendence numbertheory, which likely is hard enough to have a research project around it - and likely cannot/shall not be worked out in an MSE conversation. I was ambivalent to simply ask for a reference (like that which solved my MO-question) - but then decided to give it a try. (...) $\endgroup$ Aug 17 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ (...) So I'm hesitating again and begin to tend to retract the whole question, because the type of my question might even after being edited be one of the "fruitless" ones here. I'll continue my editing today(math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5101/1714), but shall decide in the evening whether I possibly retract... And thanks anyway for your kind encouragement! The encouragement helped much to discern the real problem with the question... $\endgroup$ Aug 17 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms Okay, great! That all sounds sensible, thanks for replying :-). $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 17 at 10:19
10
$\begingroup$

My recommendation is not merely to shorten the body of the Question but to organize the first one or two paragraphs in a more accessible way.

Separate the problem statement into a setup and a goal. Avoid relying on specialized jargon for this purpose as much as you can. In this case Rhin-bound baffled me initially, and I'd have been more likely to respond if there were some setup to explain the choice of that term.

Once the problem has been stated in an accessible way, the length of your subsequent exposition becomes less daunting for Readers. Even so you may find that extra clarity in posing the problem permits you to articulate the source, interest, and difficulty therein using fewer words and pictures. There's a point of diminishing returns for Readers as a longer post invites confusion about what you already know or tried and what responses will help you.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ That's a very nice analysis, thank you very much. I'll see what I can do to improve the question accordingly. $\endgroup$ Aug 16 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ Hardmath - I've expanded a bit in a comment to user1729 at my question. I'm just pinging to give a chance to see this. $\endgroup$ Aug 17 at 12:45
5
$\begingroup$

It's not clear what you want to know specifically.

The deletion is automatic Question deleted by Community In that sense there is nothing to discuss regarding that event. But perhaps this was not clear.

If you want to keep the post you can post about it in the dedicated thread Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2021 - today)

You would need to make sure that after that it does not meet the deletion criteria anymore.

Other than that the site is not a blog to share ones activities. Some of your questions are a bit borderline regarding this, which may explain the negative reception.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, quid! It was good to see in the other comment a/the (possible) reason for deletion by the "community" bot. The second, the "borderline" to blog, is a complete new aspect to me. Funny, I've never thought to make blog-like questions - I really had/have the problem of finding a way/method to proceed with my analyses; having no training in "transcendental number theory" I can only ask whether there are methods/criteria like that of G. Rhin (or: at all) to step forward... After I've never thought this Q might be "blog"-like, I've now no idea how to improve this at all? $\endgroup$ Aug 14 at 10:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ More thinking: I'd thought occasionally last days, to send this question to MO due to lack of answers in MSE. But reading now your critic, this would have been no good idea? Or is it just my habit of providing the (or: too much?) background of my attempts - I could cut it out from the question, to possibly remove the "blog"-character... $\endgroup$ Aug 14 at 11:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I may be completely wrong here, but I think that you'll get better results on MO. $\endgroup$
    – Asinomas
    Aug 14 at 14:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms indeed somewhat shorter questions might be received better. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 14 at 22:52
0
$\begingroup$

I assume now, that the problem considered in my question is of a difficulty that rather a professional mathematician would work for a complete article on it for a solution, and cannot be solved with the capacity one would invest here in the Q&A in MSE.
(I had already expected something like that and had mentioned my doubt in the question itself that likely only an already existing reference (leading to a known solution) might be found, but not a solution been worked out. Perhaps that latent doubt made my asking so unhandy)

So I retract the question now. ("deleted")

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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