1
$\begingroup$

I've just hit the 50 per month limit. As you can see from my profile, the majority of my question gets upvoted, that is, they are of a quality standard that is welcome on the site.

At the moment I am self-studying and I really do not want to worry about how many questions I can ask per day/week/month. I have a high fluctuation in numbers, that is, there are times when I answer more than I ask and there are times like now, where I have a lot of questions.

Dear community, can we please lift the upper limit on questions recently implemented?

Here's another thought: I usually struggle to find questions to answer because there are so many answerers. If I see a question that is suitable I usually need to hurry in order to answer it before 5 others do. From this point of view I find it hard to follow why anyone would think of implementing a limit on questions.

Edit

I have voted to close this as not constructive. Leonid's answer is entirely based on subjective opinion (His last sentence indicates that he assumes that I'm preparing for exams and that according to his judgement, I don't think enough. Slightly puzzling since we've never met and he joined the site like last week. For comparison, there are quite a few regulars that I've been in contact with for more than a year and they are all less judgemental. Perhaps one could consider this a variation of Dunning-Krüger?)

I also entirely disagree with the idea of treating other human beings by imposing on them our ideals. (=e.g. cap them because we think they should think more.) The limit was not implemented with this goal in mind.

To conclude: since we can't seem to be objective, I hereby vote to close.

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am mistaken), the primary reason for introducing the limit was the behaviour of a very small number of individuals. It would be a shame if valued members of our community were to be penalised due to the behaviour of such a small group. $\endgroup$ – Old John Aug 2 '12 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ What sort of 'month' is this? Is it "August" or just "within a 30 days time frame"? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 2 '12 at 22:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: according to this answer the limits are 50 per 30 days and 6 per 24 hours. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Aug 2 '12 at 22:37
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Though I am not a moderator and have no power to lift the cap on Matt.N, judging by the quality of the questions he has posted I think Matt.N should be allowed to post more questions. Some of the questions he has posted have led to very informative answers and high level interpretations of material. For example, see this answer by Pierre here to one of Matt's questions. $\endgroup$ – user5783 Aug 3 '12 at 0:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ BTW it was asked in the other thread whether the moderator are able to remove the limit in particular case, see this comment, the answer was no, see this comment. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 '12 at 6:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since you asked about possibility of second account, this was discussed not so long ago here: Could I have two accounts? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 '12 at 9:49
  • $\begingroup$ @MattN. Well, the meta.SO thread linked from other question would suggest so; the reactions here at meta.MSE were ambivalent, I'd say. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 '12 at 10:10
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: I do not think that opening a second account specifically to circumvent limitations imposed on another account is acceptable. In my opinion this is comparable to working around a suspension by opening a different account. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Aug 3 '12 at 10:22
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @Matt, t.b. did not say you did anything wrong. I believe his point is that it is in principle not acceptable to create a new account just to get around the rules you don't like. That's independent of whether one thinks the rules are really fair or not; if they really are unfair, well, we're having that discussion now, so not all hope is lost. (And if I've counted correctly, your 50th most recent question was asked almost exactly a month ago, so your cap should be lifted very soon.) $\endgroup$ – Rahul Aug 3 '12 at 11:48
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, though, I do disagree with closing a question just because you're unhappy with one of the three answers that have been posted. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Aug 3 '12 at 11:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattN. You have me on skype. Type up as if you want to post a question on SE, then paste the text on skype and I will post it for you. And ping me on chat or something if you would like me to post on your behalf. $\endgroup$ – user5783 Aug 3 '12 at 12:56
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If you want to comment on Leonid's post, use the comment function, don't edit your question. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Aug 3 '12 at 13:56
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Dear Matt, it would not be a good idea to delete this thread, because it documents the events it documents. It is a slightly annoying side-effect that you will get a few pings out of it, but hopefully that is not too much noise. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 3 '12 at 21:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that the good folks writing on this thread should ask themselves: Would you register in advance if they would tell you that the limit was prebuilt into the system, knowing that there is no reasonable alternative without the limit? I would think that most people would say yes. Much like other conveniences that are taken away - this too is something that we can easily adapt to. For those not believing, try quitting TV or using a cellphone for a short period, say two weeks. See how it goes... $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 4 '12 at 0:45
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ If you feel the need to ask more than 50 questions per month, then that's a very good sign that you need to step back and think more carefully about what you're studying. $\endgroup$ – user5137 Aug 5 '12 at 5:53
5
$\begingroup$

This is not the right thread to discuss whether the limit is good or not, such a thread exists already. It is however a problem that the new rule was effective retroactively, which I (and apparently several others) think it is blatantly unfair. While I agree with t.b. that one should not create new accounts to bypass rules, I think it would be okay to open a new account to bypass the retroactive effect and indefinitely suspend that account in ten days or so.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (The 30 day window moves: I am pretty sure that one day after being hit by the cap one is again able to ask questions. Of course, if one asks as many as are needed to reach again the cap in the new 30 day window, one will get capped again) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 3 '12 at 20:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Is it even necessary to create a new account? According to the FAQ, anonymous users can ask questions, and asking anonymously would seem to have essentially the same effect as creating a new account for a few days. That being said, I don't know how the cap works for anonymous users. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Aug 4 '12 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ If I did not miscount somewhere, the OP posted 50 questions between 2012-07-02 and 2012-08-02, see here. So he should be able to post a question today again. (However, he posted more questions towards the end of the last month 31 question between 2012-07-15 and 2012-08-02. E.g. he can post only 4 questions until 2012-08-09.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 4 '12 at 7:35
11
$\begingroup$

The limits have just been instated. Why don't we instead try to see how they work in practice?

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

My opinion is that the cap is appropriately applied in this case, in order to stem the flood of routine exercises. A person studying for an exam would be well advised to spend less time typing and more time thinking.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I must say that, although it is true one should "spend less time typing and more time thinking", writing (and typing) maths, and discussing and receiveing advice helps to get prepared for exams, or to settle doubts and gain confidence. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Aug 2 '12 at 21:39
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Leonid: I generally agree; however Feynman's algorithm clearly begins by writing the problem down. When typing a question, especially a well-posed question, one often finds the solution by the time the question is ready - often because we re-arrange our thoughts and clears the path for finding the answer. In this aspect, typing the problem is as important as thinking. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 2 '12 at 22:19
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, one can type as much as one may want without hitting any caps in the privacy of one's own computer... $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 2 '12 at 23:00
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I do not really agree. Perhaps they are routine exercises but still, not that easy. I suppose the cap is to prevent really easy questions to get blocked as it pollutes the website. I don't think this pollutes the website. I feel that I don't have to make any moral decision about whether it is a good or bad thing to ask the questions (in terms of learning) but would rather just look at the quality of the question itself. That seems to be quite okay here. So +0. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Teuwen Aug 2 '12 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Mariano: True, but at least to some degree there is a positive side effect from knowing that others will read it and answer you. Even if you end up not clicking "Post question" at the end. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 3 '12 at 4:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jonas I think the question limit was provoked by a certain infamous user who posted a lot of rather advanced questions of little interest to anyone but himself. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Aug 3 '12 at 11:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelGreinecker I know. But in my opinion these questions are of general interest (at least many of them). $\endgroup$ – Jonas Teuwen Aug 3 '12 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelGreinecker Just because you are not interested in cyclotomic number fields(which are still the objects of active research), it does not necessarily mean other members are not interested in them. $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Aug 7 '12 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ @MakotoKato I should have been more precise. Your posts are of little interest to anyone but yourself. I'm sure there are people who would read it as a paper on the arXiv. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Aug 7 '12 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelGreinecker Please read my comment, again. I guess your main interests are in analysis. There are many members who are interested in algebraic number theory. I think they are interested in my posts. $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Aug 7 '12 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ @MakotoKato I think several members interested in similar areas as you have already expressed that your way of writing down your ideas is not very conducive to learning them. A well typeset single paper is just more readable, than a network of posts. There are reasons why people write papers and books. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Aug 7 '12 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelGreinecker I'm just saying that your opinion that my questions are of little interest to anyone but myself is baseless. As for whether my questions are conducive to learning the subject or not, I believe they are. $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Aug 7 '12 at 12:42
4
$\begingroup$

I don't like the idea of removing a rule the community have just established (by community consensus, it received many upvotes).

In this particular case, could we help the OP to bypass the limit by posting his questions? (We should take into consideration that he is a valuable member of MSE community.) Maybe there will be a few similar cases now, since the quota was introduced only recently. This is not suggested as a permanent solution; it is only for the first month after introducing the quotas.

This does not change so much for him:

  • He has sufficient reputation to edit other people questions.
  • He could use favorites to follow questions someone has asked in his name.

I can see several possibilities:

  • He could agree with some user to do this and communicate with him using chat or email. (In which case he would depend on the fact whether the user is online and has time to post the question at the moment.)
  • He could make a new thread here at meta. There he would post his questions as answers. Anyone who sees that the question at meta was bumped can post a question and add the link to the question in a comment. Then the question can be removed from meta (similarly as in the "Sandbox for long and complex answers"). If it is tagged , the users who do not want to be disturbed by this can use ignored tags.

The "proxy poster" might risk some penalty for posting questions of some other person - therefore I wanted to know the opinion of the community/mods on this.

Of course, the person posting the OP's question would receive notification about activity in the question - so only someone who doesn't mind some additional notifications should do this.

The poster would receive some reputation "unjustly", when these questions are upvoted. But I think it is better than posting these questions as CW, so that the answerers get their due reward.

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Let me add that I assumed that the "month counter" started on the day when the quotas where introduced. In this way the whole situation is not fair - it is basically changing the rules after the game had started. (The OP would probably have posted less questions if he knew about the quota a month ago.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 '12 at 6:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've noticed Michael Greinecker's comment in the other thread, which suggest basically the same solution. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 '12 at 8:15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd much prefer not to implement a kludgy workaround but, rather, fix the problem at the source, i.e. either remove the limit (which was never needed) or raise it significantly. The MK problem is solved. Alas, reactive laws are are almost always highly problematic. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Aug 3 '12 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts and opinions on my very related question at meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/11757/…. I of course would appreciate your support for it. $\endgroup$ – Pamela Lee Jan 23 '14 at 7:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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