A guided self-study anti-pattern?

Question

I've observed a certain pattern of behavior a number of times on MSE over the years (to varying degrees), but I didn't find it discussed directly on here (although some related topics have been discussed), so I'm creating this thread to do so. I'm not linking directly to examples because I don't want to embarrass or offend anyone.

This is the behavior:

1. A user, typically with limited mathematical experience, decides they want to self-study a particular math book (or other resource) without access to a teacher, tutor, etc. to help them. The book is too advanced for them at their current stage of learning, but they don't realize it (for example, they're dead set on learning category theory from Mac Lane but haven't yet mastered basic mathematical notation or concepts like function composition).
2. The user, while repeatedly getting stuck trying to work through the book, posts question after question on MSE (sometimes one every few hours) seeking clarification about the most elementary statements in the book.
3. The user, while attempting exercises in the book, posts question after question seeking verification of their "solutions" or "proofs" which often reflect misunderstanding of the most basic notation, concepts, etc. from the book and are sometimes totally incoherent.
4. The user often engages in extended back and forth replies in response to comments or answers, seeking additional clarification or explanation, or posts new questions asking about these.
5. If and when good answers are provided, the user may not upvote or accept them (and may not even recognize those features exist).

While I can understand and sympathize with someone turning to MSE for help in this situation, and while MSE is explicitly intended for learners of math at all levels and welcomes even basic questions, my feeling is that the above behavior constitutes an anti-pattern for use of the site for at least the following reasons:

• The questions asked are often highly specific to the user's personal circumstance in (1), and very narrow in scope, therefore much less likely to be relevant to other users. This is often empirically evidenced by less engagement with the questions (fewer views, fewer upvotes, fewer answers, etc.).
• The questions often relate to topics that have been covered extensively on the site in some form, but because the questions are so specific and narrow they may not technically be duplicate. This pollutes the site with almost-but-not-quite duplicate content.
• The questions are more likely to attract comments and answers which are less valuable for precisely the same reasons: they're highly specific to the user's concerns and less likely to be a useful "answer for the ages".

My feeling is also that it's important to evaluate these types of questions in the broader context of the anti-pattern because the above points are true even if each individual question, when considered in isolation, otherwise meets quality guidelines and is not in violation of site policies. For example, the user may have provided context, background, motivation, definitions (possibly including unnecessary screenshots of the book), their own thoughts or work, etc. but is still polluting the site. Also, the volume is relevant here: posting a question like this once in a while is not a concern, but repeatedly posting many questions like this is.

In these situations, I've sometimes suggested that the user seek a different book or a tutor, but that's usually not well received. I'd rather be able to link to a policy discouraging this general behavior, but that would only make sense if the community agrees.

What do folks think? Is this pattern of behavior acceptable or not? If not, do the existing policies and moderation mechanisms sufficiently address it or not? (Alternatively, am I just an elitist jerk who is being unhelpful to those in need, or am I a hero without a cape?)

Related:

• Discrepancies between skills and ambitions
• Why should "trivial" questions not meet the guidelines?
• Should I ask stupid questions?
• Is it appropriate to ask "dumb" questions?

Answer 1

No, you cannot do anything with this.

What you want is to have an "ideal" forum with questions that fit your criteria. The only way I can think of to approach this idealism is that people have to delete their in-your-definition-dumb questions after, for example, some back-and-forth communication in the comment section.

But that's harsh. Those who have enough reputation can close the questions or mark it as duplicated when it's necessary. For me this is enough.

Answer 2

Not quite the same, but in the same vein, I have seen this type of behavior also with very advanced questions. Sorry about the rant that will follow, but I have to share this as it always bothered me.

Specifically in the field of general topology, which is the one I follow more closely, there were some users a few years ago who were using the site as a private answering machine, in order to decipher advanced papers in the field. It's as if these people were taking an advanced seminar in some course without having the proper background, and then instead of doing the work, they would continually ask questions here. And based on what they were asking, they did not seems to grasp even some of the most basic things, while at the same time asking about advanced results from papers in the mathematical literature (typically without mentioning sources). And typically without context (but that was before the enforcement of context guidelines, I think).

Even worse, some of these users engaged in that behavior for a few weeks, then disappeared. But then exactly the same type of questions quickly reappeared under a brand new user, continuing with the same theme where they left off, with nearly identical mannerisms of speech, same incorrect grammar, same way of organizing the questions, same lack of context, and same total lack of feedback when people would ask something about the question in a comment. And then the whole pattern would repeat a few more times. You can draw your own conclusion here.

Now the amazing thing, or maybe not so amazing, is that some of the most expert users who were active on the site at that time would indulge them and repeatedly answer the questions with a wealth of informative details. Basically doing the work for them in the course.

What do I think of all that?

First of all, I think the behavior of the persons asking the questions in this manner is not appropriate for this site. I am with blargoner in this.

Second of all, I think I would not have indulged them in providing answers if I could. But on the other hand, the advanced answers provided by the expert users were very informative and useful, even if the questions themselves were pretty terrible in their form (even if we ignore the repeated pattern). So in a way this enriched the site as a repository of useful knowledge and I am glad this information is here.

I am basically ambivalent. Not sure how this would be handled nowadays though.

Answer 3

The type's of questions you've described are precisely the questions I think should not be asked on Math.SE. I would however strongly recommend they ask their questions on the Mathematics discord which is more suited for these types of back and forths.

I think Math.SE's strength lies in its ability to answer questions holistically, with the answers often being complete giving multiple perspectives, some of the explanations and proofs on the website belong in a book honestly. That is precisely why it has become an indispensable tool for students and even Professors!

Answer 4

I don't think any thing has to be done about it.

The tagging system can be used to filter out simple questions.

I also used to be the opinion at some point that the site hsould be completely filtered out so that only the very best questions with actually good ideas remain, however it's pointless.

We have enough experienced people to answer all the questions, and sometimes too many that if it were not for these questions, that they would not be answering. The people want to do math at these levels so badly that at some point the moderators started banning people who obsessively answered questions even if the asker put any effort or not.

It is an easily observered fact The supply of answerers at basic levels far outnumber that of askers.

However, I think there is a good ideal that you put in the question that we can all strive for, and that is, we should not get comfortable and do simply what is easy for us, but rather, always try to find the more difficult problems that we can progressively overload our brain for brain gainz.

Answer 5

Clear communication is core part of the skill one is developing when learning mathematics. Beginners are not good at sourcing information. For this reason, two years ago, I would have said that helping people comes first. You don't need to protect the site from bad questions. The ease of searching can be addressed by investing effort in the algorithm which ranks the value and relevance of the questions. It is likely difficult to make the search "smart", but what matters is that it can be done, and so it will be (soon).

That is, unless you believe it already has been done. And I do. When I want quick, conversational answers to my math questions, I ask a chat bot. I wouldn't necessarily advise that for a high school student (the LLM gets a lot wrong), but it is the new reality, and they don't care what I advise. Bottom line is that low-effort, demanding, regular posters don't need coddling anymore; the answers are at their finger tips.

So what is this site for? It should be a repository of exemplary conversation (the good kind).

A user who does not take the time to understand responses before asking more questions is potentially corrupting the value that a model will assign to a good answer. It seems fair to call that a problem. On the other hand, a user who takes pains to explicate what they do not grok is (within reasonable limits of tedium) helpfully contributing to a data set of potential pitfalls and misunderstandings. I am not so keen on the idea that the "answer for the ages" is the only type of value that this site is providing, but having standards is probably a good thing.

This site and its purpose predate the recent progress of large language models. But why would you wait for a human to answer when a robot is there to care for you? We just have to keep the most explanatory human answers (for a variety of levels and misunderstandings) near the top of the pile. If these serial "offenders" are making that difficult, or using the site like a chat bot, then that is bad.