16
$\begingroup$

Just reading and re-reading our questions and answers (and even some of the more in-depth comment discussions) - there are some truly impressive and substantial contributions made by an array of members, who in turn, possess an array of backgrounds and expertise.

Why am I mentioning this? Because, when we go public, new members will see this robust standard, professionals will see this robust standard and will be more motivating to participate.

Researching the answers is fun! Working with other like minded people is fun!

More often than not, we get bogged down in the problems, but it certainly is nice to sometimes take a step back for a moment and really read what we have here.

Go team HSM!!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I somewhat regret writing this post and for bombarding the site with my posts in the initial stages (maybe, that was the rude thing...maybe 'selfish', anyway, it is moot now) $\endgroup$ – user22 Nov 27 '14 at 20:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is the second highest voted question on meta, second only to Do we need MathJax?. Whatever was going through your mind when you first posted things like this were, as far as my mind can see things clearly, the correct way to think. The community clearly agrees by vote in this case. I cannot for the life of me understand your above comment (not even remotely). Recognize that no top user or great prolific user will survive a life without some sort of resistance. What was it that Einstein said about great spirits? $\endgroup$ – J. W. Perry Nov 28 '14 at 4:29
9
$\begingroup$

We're in public beta! Now that's impressive.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

In response to Alexandre Eremenko's answer:

Please note 2 things -

  1. when I wrote that statement (during our private beta days) and

  2. my inactivity lately (not that 1 member's inactivity matters, especially me)

Also to be honest, the 'pop sci' and 'non sci', and what I see as an increasing bias towards Mathematics (and a couple of other things - like me considered as rude - I have apologised), have concerned me for a while.

This is pretty much the reason why I have been inactive (like I said, I know it is not critical that 1 minor member goes inactive, am just stating an example). To be honest, deleting this account has crossed my mind - but I am not going to do that.

Before anyone asks, I have tried to bring more attention to a balanced amount of unanswered 'high-level' questions by using my rep as bounties (so far 6-7 of them), most remian unanswered when the bounty expires, I will do 1-2 more, but, that will be it.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Oh, c'mon, nobody thinks you're rude. The bounties have attracted a lot of attention to the top unanswered questions (although if the electron bounty expires without an answer, I call dibs on putting another one on it). $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Nov 25 '14 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Sabre Toth: sorry, I did not notice the date of your question. Somehow I found it only yesterday. I do not regularly read the meta. $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Nov 25 '14 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Sabre Toth: on the bias towards mathematics, I see nothing wrong with that, and I replied on the corresponding meta post: meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/39/… $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Nov 25 '14 at 22:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexandreEremenko well, I know it is not a bad thing, but I am useless in answering math history questions (as I had to delete a referenced math history answer, after being publicly called out on it), my passion is science, and I use the history of science to fully understand the development and rationale for the development of theories - but are not at all comfortable posting the questions - du to their non-mathematical nature. $\endgroup$ – user22 Nov 25 '14 at 22:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Sabre Toth: I am not sure when the statistics was computed, but my overall impression is that we have quite a few non-math science questions currently (physics, astronomy, chemistry). $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Nov 25 '14 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ Like I said, it is just what I see $\endgroup$ – user22 Nov 25 '14 at 22:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think that placing bounties at the very moment is not that effective. And them having no effect should not be taken as a sign of lack of interest or respect for the question. The problem bounties can solve is often mainly one of visibility (and rarely one of motivation). But on a small site there is not that much of a problem of visibility. There might simply be nobody around that knows an answer. But having a stock of unanswered questions is also not that bad. Of course there should not be massive amounts of them, but some are no problem and even desirable. Things take time to develop. $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 26 '14 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ I am going to put on 1 more (big) bounty (300 rep) and that's it. $\endgroup$ – user22 Nov 26 '14 at 22:15
0
$\begingroup$

I disagree with Sabre Tooth's accession. On my opinion, this site is cluttered with "pop-history" questions and answers. I do not want to mention the examples, but let me cite Neugebauer instead: "In this book you will find nothing about Tycho Brahe's nose. This book is about ASTRONOMY". I cannot tell how many professionals in the hard sciences we have here, but most of them (if there are any) are invisible. I also doubt that we have any professional in history of science (this is a very rare profession, indeed).

I also find that serious posts do not attract much attention, while completely trivial and irrelevant questions do. Several times I thought of quitting this site, but then I decided to stay for some time and see how it will develop. I do not know what can be done to attract specialists, but importing some questions from MO and other SE sites, suggested by HDE 226868 looks like a reasonable idea.

I do not know how this is done technically. Once I just typed the same question with different wording in MO and here, without any cross-reference. Is this a reasonable way to do ?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 'Once I just typed the same question with different wording in MO and here, without any cross-reference. Is this a reasonable way to do?' I would certainly cross-reference it, manually adding the links. The importing would be done via the usual migration procedure (normally). This would mean that eventually the question disappears on the other site. Also, how would that importing help the issues you lament? $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 25 '14 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ No, I did not want it to disappear, I've got interesting answers on both sites. How would it help? I am not sure. I am just searching the ways to improve this site. $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Nov 25 '14 at 22:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have many of the same worries as you mention in your first post. From the get-go I was worried we would become more a popular science site than a serious site for researchers. With that said, I have seen some reasonably good answers from you and several others and I hope you will stay around. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Nov 25 '14 at 23:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As for "importing" questions, if you see a good question on another site, it's acceptable to re-ask it here, preferably with modified wording and with a link back to the original. There's no technical solution for this, though people have requested one on Meta SE multiple times. The form of cross-posting which is considered problematic is mostly asking the same question on multiple sites simultaneously which are likely to produce redundant answers; it may not be such an issue here. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Nov 25 '14 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with some points, however, I think one should put things into perspective. On all SE sites I know the marginal content often attracts more votes than core content. Look at MO-q by votes. A list, not a bad idea but more pedagogy than research and not few of the answers meh. An unmotivated questions, "everybody" knows should be hard, viz pop-science. Next, not really researched question either. A video collection. Generalistic discussion. A repost of something around since a long time (no background provided!) Proof-y pictures (research?!) No comment on ABC, too depressing. $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 26 '14 at 7:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I could go on and on about this. This is just how things are on such sites. Furthermore, MO also did not start out like it is now. You joined somewhat later in the game. I was not around at the very start either but still since a longer time. And many of the things we had then would be closed now just so. I am convinced one needs to start such a site with a broad base and can then narrow it down. Some thought they could do this differently and failed, the Theoretical Physics site comes to mind, and Theoretical CS almost. $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 26 '14 at 7:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Of course, we should be concious about standards and developpement. But a main thing that is needed in my opinion is patience and endurance. (Maybe I should have written an answer instead. Sorry for the many comments.) $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 26 '14 at 7:46

You must log in to answer this question.