Here's my 2012 question. It also has 45 upvotes and 33 bookmarks:
Are there other kinds of bump functions than $e^\frac1{x^2-1}$?

Here's someone else's 2019 question that mine was closed as a duplicate of. It also has 2 upvotes and 1 bookmark:
Are there test functions $\in \mathcal{C}_{\text{c}}^{\infty}$ which aren't in the algebra generated by $f_{a,b}(x) := e^{\frac{C}{(x-a)(x-b)}}$

Between the closing of one of my more popular questions and the downvote I collected since this happened, I'm effectively being penalized for my participation. This has the effect you can predict on my motivation.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar No, that was before I posted. Since I've posted, I've gotten an upvote, but that wasn't my goal. $\endgroup$
    – jnm2
    Feb 4 at 21:37
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Similar question was asked before on meta here. I agree with the answer there. But in your scanario it is hard to argue that the newer post has better answers. $\endgroup$ Feb 4 at 21:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Strictly speaking, the 2019 posts are more general, in the sense that the bump functions are supported in $(a, b)$ instead of just $(-1, 1)$. Might be that's the reason the close-voters think that it should be closed. $\endgroup$ Feb 4 at 21:49
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I noticed the first voter to close your Question was a user who asked the recent Question, and not only that, but who accepted their own Answer on that. Your Question is rather broad but in a good way (there are many ways to construct test functions, and many cases in which some advantages are to be found). Voted to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Feb 4 at 22:03
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ This is where you should post such questions in the future: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today) $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Feb 4 at 22:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ Feb 5 at 5:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I do not like the "closing" war here. The right thing, I think, is to transfer this post (with comments) to math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34447/…. $\endgroup$ Feb 5 at 16:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree, @Moishe. That's where is should have been posted in the first place. That was the purpose of closing as a dupe, to post this as an answer there. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Feb 5 at 19:37
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Closing this as a duplicate seems to implicitly assume that the goal of this question was to have the main site question reopened. While that may be one of the goals, I understand the question here to be about the direction of the dupe closure (i.e. why was an older post dupe-closed as a duplicate of a newer post?). This is distinct from "Please reopen my question." $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Feb 5 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Thank you for pointing this out, I have not accounted for this as I voted to close. I still believe the discussion would have been similar to what has already occurred here, and given that there is an effort to close independent reopen requests as a duplicate of the standard thread, I did so. $\endgroup$ Feb 6 at 0:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Xander But we can (and should) still use that thread for such requests - it was never intended to be limited to only the specific types of requests listed in the thread title. Rather, it is intended to encompass any similar request that requires exceptional handling - cf. the original description I added when I devised thread 10 years ago "The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling". $\endgroup$ Feb 6 at 8:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Alas, that specification was removed by someone, and now folks are interpreting the thread to be (far) less general, which defeats one of its primary purposes (to localize such requests to minimize usage of scarce front page question slots, and bumping noise). This request belongs there. $\endgroup$ Feb 6 at 8:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque My point is that I don't understand this thread to be asking for action. Rather, this question seems to be asking for an explanation. The original poster is free to correct me, but as I read this question, the asker is trying to understand why a thing happened. Quoting your own instructions, "Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure)." As I understand the purpose of this question, it is precisely to discuss the reason for the closure. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Feb 6 at 12:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Xander I think many will read it as an implicit call for action (and that is likely all that will come of the question). Questions about how others voted are generally not answerable nor on-topic (nor are complaints about such). $\endgroup$ Feb 6 at 12:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I do not claim to be able to read the original asker's mind. Until the original asker comes back and clarifies, I will assume that the question is what is explicitly stated ("Why was my 2012 question closed as a duplicate of a 2019 question?") and not look for hidden meaning. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Feb 6 at 13:00


Browse other questions tagged .