I am an average stackexchange user I contributed to multiple stackexchange sites yet this is my first question to meta.
It feels to me that a review process in math.stackexchange.com is broken. My statement is based solely on my previous 12 year experience with other stackexchange sites. I didn't do any research on community guidelines so I don't claim the rightness in this matter. Yet somehow I think that community guidelines and all site rules should serve at least some common sense.
Consider a question: Gradient of function with index operation
It was asked 3 years ago yet for it's 3-year history it didn't manage to gather even one answer. Now taking into consideration this information how helpful for the person asking a question or for the community of people who are seeking help in subject matter an answer with even little information will be comparing to an absence of any information in subject matter.
I have prepared two answers for subject question:
The first started receiving delete flags shortly with review comment that is irrelevant to issues present in the answer stating that "This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post." This review comment is false and depicts the fact that reviewers do not poses the necessary knowledge or were not thorough enough with their review.
I have invested more time into preparing an answer to a question, leaving the structure of an answer the same just changing some wording, posted a second one and when I woke up next day I've noticed that my second answer got deleted with new review comment: "While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes."
I don't get it! How broken the decision making process regarding review and deletion of answers should be in order to knowingly delete a potentially useful answer judging solely by stylistic aspects and not giving a chance to update the answer.
StackExchange has a voting feature that is able identify poor answers where "poor" is evaluated by people who at least have the necessary context to make such judgement. I don't understand why a small group of censors gets to decide if an answer should be seen by others or not?