2
$\begingroup$

This question was asked by an account that has currently been suspended temporarily. I found this question, liked it too much, and put a bounty on it (At that time the account was not suspended I think). Now, the bounty is about to end (which is why I’m asking a bit urgently for clarification) and it has not received much attention. The OP has not shown any kind of effort in solving the problem.

Q. What is the etiquette in MSE with regards to putting bounties on PSQs? Did the question not receive much attention because the question was boring, or does the we-do-not-solve-homework rule apply to bounties put on PSQs by users other than the OP too?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Do you interpret "I tried to draw a diagram but I know that it is quite incorrect and other than that I have no idea how to proceed or how to solve this question." in the linked question as " The OP has not shown any kind of effort in solving the problem."? Maybe you think the claimed "diagram" should appear in the post? $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 14:28
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Uh..yes. Like, the OP could show us the diagram, for instance @user1046533? $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 14:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree there is no diagram, but "I just started $3$ dimensional geometry problems" indicates that the problem is likely approachable to beginners in some manner. I don't think this is the worst question around. If someone has a diagram, I think a context edit in the form of a diagram can reopen the question. These questions are really interesting and should be kept around. This bounty is wasted, but let me know if you are able to provide a context edit, and I'll provide the bounty again. Thanks $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 15:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I note that a few hours after the current post here, the post on main was closed, and the bounty notice removed, by a moderator. $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I’m grateful to that mod for not letting my 50 rep go down the drain lol $\endgroup$ Jul 13 at 4:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 'Tis an ill wind that blows no good. $\endgroup$ Jul 13 at 6:10

1 Answer 1

14
$\begingroup$

Please don't put a bounty on a PSQ. It is MSE policy not to answer PSQs until they are improved and no longer PSQs. A bounty on a PSQ works against this policy goal.

A better approach in this situation would be to work with the OP of the question to improve it, and then add a bounty if you desire after the question meets our quality standards. In this situation, with the suspension of the OP, things would be a little more interesting - it might end up that the best way forward would be rewriting your own version of the question, as outlined in Guidelines for context edits and rewrites.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Ok so this basically means I dumped my 50 rep. into the Pacific Ocean. Sounds fun. Thanks. +1 $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 15:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "It is MSE policy not to answer PSQs until they are improved and no longer PSQs." Do you have a reference for this? "PSQ" is not even mentioned explicitly in "Enforcement of Quality Standards". And I have seen recently quite a few short questions that some people considered as PSQ were answered by highly experienced users. $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ @user1046533 It is mentioned in EoQS, albeit not as the abbreviation "PSQ", but in the full as "problem statement questions". $\endgroup$
    – Elliot Yu
    Jul 12 at 16:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ElliotYu: Thanks for that. I don't find any precise definition of the term in the EoQS though. It seems to be a rather broad term that people may have very different definitions of. There are quite a few recent short questions that were thought of as "PSQ" by some users on the one hand and answered by some other very experienced users on the other hand. See for instance this one. One can find many others by a simple SEDE query. $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 16:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do think there is an agreed-upon definition, which expands the term pretty straightforwardly, namely "questions that contain only the statement of a problem and lack context". $\endgroup$
    – Elliot Yu
    Jul 12 at 16:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In my mind, the hairiness of the issue is that PSQs and low quality questions in general are defined intentionally, i.e. by specifying properties, so that they can be used in phrasing policies, but these definitions also rely on terms like "context", which seems to be defined mostly extensionally or ostensively, i.e. by attempting to exhaustively list things that constitute "context", or by giving typical examples, which then gives us have a hard time when we need to decide on edge cases. $\endgroup$
    – Elliot Yu
    Jul 12 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @ElliotYu: "but these definitions also rely on terms like 'context', which seems to be defined mostly extensionally or ostensively," Exactly this. $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 16:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user1046533 you can replace "PSQ" with "low quality question" if you'd like - this answer was tailored towards PSQs because the OP asked about PSQs. Still, I think it is a bad idea to encourage answering low-quality questions: this begets more low-quality questions! I'd much rather have the question improve first and then be bountied. (FWIW, I would not class the torsion-free but not free sheaf question as low-quality for much the same reasons as davidlowryduda in their comment - if MSE really wants to be a good resource, that's a question/answer pair that should be in here, I think.) $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Jul 12 at 20:01
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @KReiser: I think nobody likes "low-quality questions". The problem is that, as mentioned in a comment above, except for some relatively clear-cut cases of spam posts, this may be a rather subjective term: there are many cases where one's "low-quality questions" are well-defined answerable questions to another one's eyes. The "sheaf question" is already an example. Here is another example and another. I find it puzzling to make a clear-cut policy with a subjective term like that. $\endgroup$ Jul 12 at 20:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1046533 sure, but I don't think that's really germane here - the OP here already acknowledges that the post they bountied was a PSQ. If you want to have a discussion about PSQs and low quality questions, I'm sure you could get lots of responses on another post. Good day! $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Jul 12 at 21:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1046533 Unfortunately, it is still important that we make those policies. Without those policies, we will not be able to give new users a consistent experience of the site. If one poster's apparently low quality question with some detail is rejected, and the same poster's next question is a PSQ which is answered, then what kind of message are they left with? My feeling in all of this is that if enough people can visit a question and express their opinion on it rather than walk away, we will get better community opinions on each question, rather than personal opinions. $\endgroup$ Jul 16 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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