date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2014/07/17 | 631 | 2,438 | <issue_start>username_0: There seems to be a strong consensus that we need a new custom close reason to ban “I want to do X, Here's My Life Story…” questions. See the meta discussion [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1093/time-to-expressly-ban-i-want-to-do-x-heres-my-life-story-questions).
User [Emrakul](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1113/929) proposed the following:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it is not answerable by the Academia community; you may need to ask someone specific to your situation, as the general public cannot completely answer this question.
>
>
>
I am not too keen on referring the the academia community as the "general public" and was hoping to get some feedback on the exact wording.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on multiple reactions we have had from closing questions, I would be careful and avoid saying "the question **cannot** be answer". Most of the time, it is actually very possible to answer the question (*do X, don't do Y*), the problem is that there is no way to know whether the answer is a **good answer**.
I am not entirely convinced why the reason "cannot be generalised to others" or "primarily opinion based" is not enough, but if we must have another one, I'd rather go along the lines
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, which is unlikely to yield an objectively correct answer. We would recommend to first ask the question to people with a good understanding of your situation.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: How about:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it is not answerable by
> the Academia community; you may need to ask someone with specific
> knowledge of your situation, as it may involve internal policy,
> institutional norms or other information that is not widely known.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: To avoid any confusion with my previous answer, I would like to suggest to amend the text, to drop the "recommending" part, following djechlin's comment. More specifically, I would suggest the following text:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, and it's likely that only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able to provide an objectively correct answer.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/07/22 | 792 | 3,197 | <issue_start>username_0: I have noticed that the moderator has deleted the tag I created `contribution`.
The process was this:
* She felt the tag is duplicate;
* She posted [a question on Meta](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1126/usefulness-of-the-contribution-tag) to ask about the usefulness of the tag;
* after less than one day (22 July), without any answers supporting to delete the tag The tag is deleted.
I want to know, how many answers in a delete proposal on meta is required to delete the tag?
I am feeling that the moderator is having wrong adaptation of the site's policies and is imposing her personal desires on new user; which she directly brings the user's problem to meta or chat and after one day, she does every thing she wants. Where is this policy written on help center, I have read the help center triple times and found no sign of such policy and process that described above.
This action is against the following instructions on help center because it was not patient, respectful, did not led by example and more important it was not fair.
When I read the [help center for this moderation action](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators),
>
> We generally expect that moderators:
>
> - are patient and fair
>
> - lead by example
>
> - show respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words
> are open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Based on multiple reactions we have had from closing questions, I would be careful and avoid saying "the question **cannot** be answer". Most of the time, it is actually very possible to answer the question (*do X, don't do Y*), the problem is that there is no way to know whether the answer is a **good answer**.
I am not entirely convinced why the reason "cannot be generalised to others" or "primarily opinion based" is not enough, but if we must have another one, I'd rather go along the lines
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, which is unlikely to yield an objectively correct answer. We would recommend to first ask the question to people with a good understanding of your situation.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: How about:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it is not answerable by
> the Academia community; you may need to ask someone with specific
> knowledge of your situation, as it may involve internal policy,
> institutional norms or other information that is not widely known.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: To avoid any confusion with my previous answer, I would like to suggest to amend the text, to drop the "recommending" part, following djechlin's comment. More specifically, I would suggest the following text:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, and it's likely that only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able to provide an objectively correct answer.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/07/25 | 1,330 | 4,927 | <issue_start>username_0: When one is asking a question related to social websites on Academia like the cases which are found by searching keywords like [Facebook](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=facebook) with almost 85 results, [LinkedIn](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=linkedin) with 53 results, etc. s/he has only [website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/website "show questions tagged 'website'") option to choose a suitable tag for the question which seems to be too broad for the purpose of the social websites and is not specific enough. There are also some other tags like [community](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community "show questions tagged 'community'") or [society](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/society "show questions tagged 'society'") but none of which are so relevant to those question types.
Should a [social-website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-website "show questions tagged 'social-website'") (or an equivalent tag) be created on the Academia and if creating this tag is reasonable, what would be a good Tag-Excerpt for it?
---
**update and conclusion**
After a few answers are posted to this question with positive vote rate; now, a tag suggestion (including the tag title, tag excerpt and tag wiki) for [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") has been posted in [this answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1146/15723).
Please post your suggestions and comments to that answer to improve the suggested tag title and excerpt.<issue_comment>username_1: My preference would be to improve the tag wiki excerpt for [website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/website "show questions tagged 'website'") rather than create a new tag. For example, the [website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/website "show questions tagged 'website'") excerpt could be changed to:
>
> Websites for a research group, conference, project, or individual academic; social media and academic community sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, PubPeer and ResearchGate; or sites and blogs about academia and higher education.
>
>
>
This, because I find it ambiguous as to whether certain sites are "social". It's easy to say Facebook is social, but is a blog social? What about a class forum on an online LMS? In academia, there are many cases like this where one person might categorize a site as social and another person wouldn't.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that it may be good to have a related tag. How about [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") or maybe even better [web-presence](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/web-presence "show questions tagged 'web-presence'") (or [internet-presence](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/internet-presence "show questions tagged 'internet-presence'"))?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I would strongly recommend against a tag, and instead go the other direction: have only a tag called "internet".
Let academia SE stay specific to larger academic issues.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: **Tag Title Suggestion** suggested in [this answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1139/15723) and [this comment](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/lack-of-a-tag-related-to-social-media-on-academia/1147#comment4208_1136)
After a few answers are posted to this question with positive vote rate, it seems that the [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") is a good choice to be created.
---
**Tag Excerpt Suggestion** suggested in [this answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1147/15723)
>
> Use of social media (e.g. Facebook, blogs, ResearchGate) by academics to engage with other academics or students and to disseminate their research.
>
>
>
---
**Tag Wiki Suggestion**
>
> Social media is a collaborative internet website through which users (both administrators and visitors of the website) can exchange and share ideas and information such as academic topics.
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: If we are going to have a [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") tag, I think the tag excerpt should describe social media in a way that reflects [the kinds of questions people ask about it here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=social%20media). For example:
>
> Use of social media (e.g. Facebook, blogs, ResearchGate) by academics to engage with other academics or students and to disseminate their research.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/07/30 | 1,814 | 6,621 | <issue_start>username_0: I have used other [stack-exchange websites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) successfully (there are about 100 of them) to get answers to my questions.
Here on Academia.SE the word **rant** is being used in a way that I have not seen on other websites and I would like some clarification.
There are some guidelines in the [help](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask) section of Academia.SE and even a small section on [what not to ask](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask). I still confused and find the use on here very subjective.
Example [Possible "not a question" post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/425/possible-not-a-question-post)
>
> Recently, someone posted the question "Fee surcharge for international students", which was an undisguised rant.
>
>
>
Let me look up this word to see what it could mean:
>
> **[rant](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rant)** to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable
>
>
>
This definition characterizes most online behavior, unfortunately.
That anger is also very real - what should unsuccessful posters do with it?
---
Specifically, I am concerned that "rant" is just a trope used by high-ranking users on this site to close/delete questions they don't like.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> What is a “rant” as far as Academia.SE?
>
>
>
It's a rhetorical question, where the OP has little interest in the actual answer (if there is any); Often asks to explain a rather subjective situation, e.g., "Why is my advisor so bad? Why the reviews from this journal are unfair? Why is the cost of that abusive?".
In particular, the question does not aim at understanding whether the qualification of the subjective situation is correct or not, but states it as fact.
>
> That anger is also very real - what should unsuccessful posters do with it?
>
>
>
There are plenty of places on the Internet where people can share good/bad experiences and discuss about them, for instance forums, sharing sites (e.g., Reddit).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In the help center, you will find the following text:
>
> If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about **\_\_**”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain **\_\_** to me”, then you are probably OK. (Discussions are of course welcome in our real time web chat.)
>
>
>
A "rant" is a special case of a question whose motivation is "I would like to participate in a discussion about **\_\_**", where the motivation of the asker seems to be "I would like to complain and/or share my ideas about **\_\_**".
If a question
1. has a strong negative tone or a strong ideological tone, and
2. does not have an objective answer, or the answer would not be helpful to anybody
it is likely to be characterized as a "rant".
**What are some indications that my question might be a "rant"?**
If your question is any of the following:
* Is there any point to X?
* Why are academics so X?
* Why did/didn't X do Y in this situation?
this *may* be an indication that it is a rant.
**If your post is seen by others as a "rant," what should you do?**
Try editing to make the text of the question less subjective and/or more neutral, and to clarify how the answer will be helpful to you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Since the original question that spawned the original meta question has been deleted, I am reposting it:
>
> I am an international student in the United States and have been here
> in a PhD program for roughly 5+ years. Last week, my university's
> board of control proposed charging international students a surcharge
> of $250 per semester based on the fact the my public university hasn't
> been getting enough funds from my state (Michigan).
>
>
> Most of the international students find this rather discriminatory. I
> am unable to find the federal or state rule or letter of the law that
> is being "exploited" in this case, to impose this surcharge. This
> surcharge, apparently, cannot be paid off with a GTA/GRA appointment.
>
>
> The rationale given is that the "cost of education has been
> increasing".
>
>
> Any help in this regard would be useful. I bring this to academia.SE
> since this has an amalgamation of academic voices from all over the
> world which might provide better perspective to the (un)fairness of
> this "surcharge" situation.
>
>
> What is the legal precedent for such surcharges without enough notice?
>
>
>
I am not sure how this could be described as anything but a rant in the traditional definition. The fact that other SE networks have less of an issue with rants is probably related to the fact that the questions are more "factual" in nature and we tend to have softer questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> What is a “rant” as far as Academia.SE?
>
>
>
I think the definition of "rant" in Academia.SE is pretty much the same as everywhere else (you even cite a pretty good definition). The only difference I see is that around here any sort of complaining (warranted or unwarranted, blindingly obvious or more subtle and backhanded) often gets called a rant - simply because Academia.SE usually does *not* want to get into discussions about various ethical concerns regarding highly ideological issues (sometimes we can't help ourselves, of course).
>
> Specifically, I am concerned that "rant" is just a trope used by high-ranking users on this site to close/delete questions they don't like.
>
>
>
I don't think that it is a trope thrown around by high reputation users to willy-nilly kill questions - it is just a valid reason to quickly explain why something that may sound like a good question for Academia.SE to the OP is in fact not, similar to (for instance) the "boat programming" trope on the original Stack Exchange. The Academia.SE community has simply decided that questions that are perceived mainly as a place to vent or complain are out of scope.
>
> Here on Academia.SE the word rant is being used in a way that I have not seen on other websites
>
>
>
The word has not been invented here, but is quite common slang in many online communities. Other SE sites probably don't have use the term as much because, well, most sites don't get as many rant-y questions as we do here. However, from cursory observation, I have the impression that other more soft-question oriented SE sites have exactly the same issue (and term!).
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/07/31 | 1,166 | 4,132 | <issue_start>username_0: As of now, searching for questions containing the following words mainly used in the context of disreputable publishers yields the following number of results:
* [fake](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=fake+is%3Aquestion): 23 results
* [predatory](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=predatory+is%3Aquestion): 13 results
* [scam](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=scam+is%3Aquestion): 8 results
* [shady](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=shady+is%3Aquestion): 5 results
Now, not all of these questions are actually about disreputable publishers and the search results are not disjunct, but I consider it safe to assume that there are more than 20 questions about this subject without counting them.
There is not one keyword shared amongst all questions about this subject – some examples lacking the respective keywords:
[predatory](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/25916/7734),
[scam](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/17379/7734),
[fake](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/23332/7734),
[shady](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/26455/7734).
Therefore it is difficult to access all our information about this subject and one might easily miss something.
I therefore suggest that we create a tag for such questions.
---
Should we agree on this: What should this tag be called?<issue_comment>username_1: I might recommend [disreputable-actions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disreputable-actions "show questions tagged 'disreputable-actions'") or [disreputable-practices](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disreputable-practices "show questions tagged 'disreputable-practices'"), as I would think that questions about degree mills and other shady actions could fit into the same category.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest [disreputable-publishers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disreputable-publishers "show questions tagged 'disreputable-publishers'") as name, which has the advantage of comprising all *predatory, scam, fake, shady.* (Not every shady or predatory publisher is a total fake or scam and fake and scam publishers are more than just shady.)
On the other hand, it has the disadvantage of not being frequently used in this context.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The [current accepted answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1150/820) strikes a nice middle ground with [disreputable-publishers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disreputable-publishers "show questions tagged 'disreputable-publishers'"), but it has the disadvantage that few people posting questions to which the tag will apply will search for such a tag. I propose setting up [synonyms](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) for this tag, along the lines of [fake-journal](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fake-journal "show questions tagged 'fake-journal'"),[fake-conference](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fake-conference "show questions tagged 'fake-conference'"),[predatory-publisher](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/predatory-publisher "show questions tagged 'predatory-publisher'").
These will be activated when users start typing "fake..." or "predatory..." in the tag selection box, and will guide them to the appropriate tag. For example, typing "pay" currently guides users to [the accepted synonym](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/salary/synonyms), [salary](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/salary "show questions tagged 'salary'"):
These synonyms [can be set up by popular vote](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/70710/what-are-tag-synonyms-how-do-they-work), but the easiest and cleanest way to get them going (and in particular to avoid questions getting tagged with the subsidiary tags, which changes the behaviour ([example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnPx3.png)) is via moderator action - if this is OK by the community, of course.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/08/07 | 1,500 | 5,713 | <issue_start>username_0: There was an [answer (only viewable to 10k+ users)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26842/how-to-deal-with-a-student-who-harasses-the-inexperienced-teacher-during-class/26887#26887) that uses both expletives and suggests a pretty extreme form of student teacher interaction. This answer has been flagged a number of times as being offensive. The flags require the diamond mods to make a decision. We can do nothing, delete the answer, or warn/suspend the user.
Expletives are not appreciated on SE, and may be against the rules: [Are expletives (cursing, swear words or vulgar language) allowed on SE sites?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22232/are-expletives-cursing-swear-words-or-vulgar-language-allowed-on-se-sites). Do we want a no nonsense you curse you get warned policy or do we want to be a little more relaxed?
Are extreme views that do not single out individuals or groups offensive and warrant the deletion of an answer?<issue_comment>username_1: Answers that merely run against general sensibilities should not be flagged as abusive or offensive. The correct way to handle such questions is to **downvote them.** However, questions and answers that clearly are hostile to a particular individual or group of people can be marked as abusive or offensive.
As for the matter of cursing, I think having a somewhat flexible policy is OK. It may be appropriate to have a mild profanity in context. (If people are squeamish about using them, they can always obfuscate.) However, "hard" curses and profanities should **not** be allowed, and should be subject to a warning.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: * About expletives: if you could formulate your post without them, then they should be removed. We are not a bunch of teenagers who need to swear to look cool. In that particular answer, the sentences " *there are a lot of assholes out there*" could easily be replaced by "*there are a lot people who enjoy harassing others*" without any loss of accuracy. However, swearing alone might not require a deletion, and the post could be edited.
* About that particular answer, the abusive flag is also related to the content itself: *"Straighten up yourself, get confident and make your student's life a misery, until he learns that he's the puppy-dog."*; *"Fight him with your weapons you've got as a teacher, hate him."*; those are abusive statements.
* The combination of these two elements makes the post offensive/abusive, and if you add the fact that the user has no reputation, I believe this answer is a troll, not a genuine but poorly formulated answer, and should be deleted. The comment from the poster confirms that feeling.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Thanks for asking this question. I was about to open up a meta thread on the same topic. I flagged the cited answer as offensive, and I commented:
>
> I have flagged this answer as "offensive / abusive". I did not do this because of the use of words like "damn" and "asshole": these do not offend me (and do not offend most adults I know). Rather it is because the answer explicitly advocates that a teacher hate a student. As a former student and current teacher, I am certainly offended by this, and I hope others agree.
>
>
>
Professor Ismail responded with the following comment:
>
> @PeteL.Clark: The correct way to express violent disagreement with an answer is to downvote it, not to flag it as offensive. I also find the thoughts expressed repugnant, but I am quite sure you can find many faculty members who are cavalier to the whole concept of mentoring.
>
>
>
This confuses me. As indicated, I *did* find the answer offensive. The text for this flag reads:
>
> it is offensive, abusive, or hate speech This answer contains content that a reasonable person would deem inappropriate for respectful discourse.
>
>
>
This is a faithful description of my feelings about the answer. (I am making the implicit assumption that I am "a reasonable person". If I am mistaken in that, please do let me know!) This leaves me confused at the transaction. It might be that the moderator in question simply does not agree that the answer is offensive -- reasonable people can, and do, disagree -- in which case I understand why the flag was declined but not the comment: just because a flag is declined does not make it not "correct". However, the comment also expresses repugnance. It is my understanding that ["repugnant" is a synonym for "offensive"](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repugnant), so given that <NAME> feels this way, I am confused not only by his explanation but by his declining of the flag.
**Added**: As one might have guessed from the comments above: no, I do not feel the need for a "no nonsense you curse you get warned policy". No academic I know includes "curse words" in their writing without a good reason. But some academics do include curse words in their writing (I have done it on occasion). The syllogism ends: we have good reasons for doing so. An outright ban thus seems "unacademic" to me.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll state in an answer what I suggested in a comment; if you see expletives, simply edit them out. They do not belong in any answer, and the same point can invariably be made without the cursing. If, after editing, the answer is *still* offensive, then it's time for the flag.
In this case, as Pete points out in [his answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1164/73), even after removing expletives the answer is still advocates that it is appropriate for a teacher to hate a student. That's pretty offensive, bring out the flags and it will be dealt with.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/08/13 | 814 | 1,626 | <issue_start>username_0: Does anyone know the font name?
Reference link: [Why aren't all research articles on PubMed?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9044/why-arent-all-research-articles-on-pubmed)<issue_comment>username_1: This is the `font-family` defined in the main stylesheet on the Academic Stack Exchange website:
```
font-family:Consolas,Menlo,Monaco,Lucida Console,Liberation Mono,DejaVu Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Courier New,monospace,serif;
```
The `font-family` css property lists specific fonts and font styles in order of descending priority; e.g., if a certain browser can't display the first-choice font, it will try the second font in the list, etc.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the info from celeritas, you can use <http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/> to use images to find fonts in the future. Here [is an example](http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/results?ch%5B0%5D=W&ch%5B1%5D=h&ch%5B2%5D=y&ch%5B3%5D=a&ch%5B4%5D=r&ch%5B5%5D=e&ch%5B6%5D=n&ch%5B7%5D=%27&ch%5B8%5D=t&ch%5B9%5D=a&ch%5B10%5D=l&ch%5B11%5D=l&ch%5B12%5D=r&ch%5B13%5D=e&ch%5B14%5D=s&ch%5B15%5D=e&ch%5B16%5D=a&ch%5B17%5D=r&ch%5B18%5D=c&ch%5B19%5D=h&ch%5B20%5D=a&ch%5B21%5D=r&ch%5B22%5D=t&ch%5B23%5D=&ch%5B24%5D=&ch%5B25%5D=&ch%5B26%5D=&ch%5B27%5D=e&ch%5B28%5D=s&ch%5B29%5D=o&ch%5B30%5D=n&ch%5B31%5D=P&ch%5B32%5D=u&ch%5B33%5D=b&ch%5B34%5D=M&ch%5B35%5D=e&ch%5B36%5D=d&ch%5B37%5D=&ch%5B38%5D=&wtfserver=wtf_e_41&id=00204b4a535186d5000a40200000712c&glyphcount=39&imageid=0&x=88&y=35) from this font.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer] |
2014/08/20 | 688 | 2,935 | <issue_start>username_0: Given that we get a lot of "shopping questions" that we have decided are off-topic, should we create a custom off-topic close reason along those lines?
For instance, we could have a reason such as:
>
> **Shopping questions** asking for recommendations for specific programs and universities are considered off-topic on Academia.SE.
>
>
>
Note that we can only have 3 custom off-topic close reasons, currently they are "cannot be generalized", "undergraduate", and "specific advice". If you want a new reason, please also mention which reason it should replace/modify.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, I'm happy to close with *"This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, and it's likely that only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able to provide an objectively correct answer. We would recommend to first ask the question to people with a good understanding of your situation."*
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think we need a closure reason, but we could modify the help center to make this cleaner so that when we suggest people look at the help center there is a clear example.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: As a lower rep user I try to flag off-topic questions as much as I can. Of the ones that I believe to be shopping questions I usually flag in the other for moderators attention box with a note saying I think it's a shopping question. I am not sure if I am putting undue work on to the moderators by doing it this way. I think either a close reason as per aeismail's suggestion might be a good idea or alternatively a community decision on using one of the other closing reasons for such questions.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree that currently, there is no single close reason that applies universally to shopping questions.
* Sometimes they are **too localized** or **seek specific advice for a very specific situation** ("Here is my profile, what university should I attend?") but not always.
* Sometimes they are **too broad or have too many potential answers** ("I want to do an M.S. in Computer Science, which universities should I apply to?") but not always.
* Sometimes they are **opinion based** ("What are the best departments for this subfield?") but not always.
* Sometimes they are none of these things, but just straight-up shopping ("Is there an inexpensive online MS in CS that's a reputable degree?")
I often find myself closing shopping questions with "off topic"->"Other (add comment)" and writing out a comment with a link to [this meta post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/871/11365). I would very much like to see a "real" close reason for shopping questions.
I would suggest to replace the undergrad close reason, since I find myself closing "shopping" questions a *lot* more often than undergrad questions.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/08/26 | 489 | 1,845 | <issue_start>username_0: By definition, almost all questions here ask about advice. [Some questions are tagged "advice"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advice), some aren't. I suggest that the "advice" tag is not useful and should be deleted.
One alternative would be to explicitly define the "advice" tag as
>
> This is a question about **giving, requesting or receiving** advice.
>
>
>
For instance, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16436/how-to-advise-a-student-looking-for-an-under-grad-thesis-topic) could be tagged "advice" under this definition.
However, I am afraid that many users will nevertheless tag any request for advice with "advice", i.e., that the tag will have a low signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, out of the 17 questions currently tagged "advice", it seems like only the single one linked above asks for advice about giving advice, so after cleaning up useless instances of the tag, we would be left with only a single valid instance.
EDIT: And I would also propose deleting the [personal-advice](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/personal-advice) tag, for exactly the same reason. (Should I split this off into a separate meta question?)<issue_comment>username_1: This is a perfect example of a [meta-tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93669/please-kill-some-meta-tags), and I think it should definitely be blacklisted. If there are others that should also be torched please add to the list.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm all for deleting bad tags. However, there is a caveat that we should check if any of these tags should have been assigned to [advising](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advising "show questions tagged 'advising'") instead. Then the remaining can be "nuked" as needed.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/08/27 | 906 | 3,721 | <issue_start>username_0: [Do mathematics researchers regularly solve problems like the ones from Project Euler?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/do-mathematics-researchers-regularly-solve-problems-like-this) asks a very objective answer: is it possible to be a professional researcher working on topics similar to contest maths. There has been some good answers, stating that (to sum up very briefly), it could be possible, but hard (since it's quite hard to be a professional mathematician in general). In that regard, I believe it's a good question, that attracted good answers.
Now, [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/27685/102) is more like a piece of advice, stating (again, summing up briefly) that one should keep an open mind, and that there are plenty of jobs where you can use critical thinking, citing a specific example of a programmer (even though the OP stated that he didn't fancy becoming a professional programmer). To be honest, I think it's a good piece of advice (but at the same time, it's very general, I don't see someone giving the advice of keeping a close mind ...), and would be a good comment, but it's too long to be a comment. This answer has been up voted several times (which is not surprising, it's a good piece of advice).
My question is the following one: **what should we do with answers that do not answer directly the question but can still be seen as interesting?**
If we allow them, then we take the risk to become a discussion board, where everybody comes to share their own experience, and discuss the question instead of answering. If we forbid them, then we could lose some useful content.
**EDIT** For that particular example, it's worth mentioning that the advice applies well to the particular situation of the OP (who is in high school), but wouldn't apply well (at least, in my opinion) to a 40 years old programmer who is tired of his job, and would like to know whether there is a possibility to live from something he enjoys doing (and the question, as it is now, would be a perfect fit for that situation too).<issue_comment>username_1: I think this is something that hasn't been a big problem so far. For now, I'm content to let users flag answers they think aren't helpful or on-topic.
If we start getting a rash of unhelpful answers, we can revisit things. But for now, I don't see how a blanket policy—either restrictive or permissive—solves the problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> what should we do with answers that do not answer directly the question but can still be seen as interesting?
>
>
>
I think due to the nature of our site (questions being mostly rather "soft", and advice-related more than asking for specific facts), we literally **cannot** strictly "forbid" what you call advice answers. Relatively often, we get questions that ask how to best do a specific X, where it is clear that X is something that the OP should really better not do. In these cases, strictly answering the question, without explaining that one should not do X but rather alternative Y, is a dis-service to the OP.
So, what I generally do when reading answers that don't really answer the question, is roughly the following:
1. If the answer is still *really* good, I upvote it anyway.
2. If the answer is still good, but more or less ignores the question, I don't vote up or down. Maybe I'll leave a comment.
3. If the question asks for a very specific advice, which the poster ignores and berates him instead, of if the post seems like bad advice otherwise, I downvote and leave a comment.
4. If the advice is just really bad and entirely misses the point, I downvote and flag as "Not an answer".
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/08/31 | 917 | 3,916 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to clarify under what conditions questions should be tagged with certain very general tags, such as [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'"), [students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/students "show questions tagged 'students'"), and [university](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/university "show questions tagged 'university'").
These tags convey meaningful information in certain situations; for example, it makes sense to tag a question about professors' salaries with [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'").
But given that a *huge* portion of questions on this site involve students and/or professors doing something in a university setting, it seems to me that without very specific guidelines for applying these tags, they have the potential to be overused to the point of being meaningless. For example, is there any benefit to tagging a question about an authorship dispute between PhD students with [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'"), [students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/students "show questions tagged 'students'"), and [phd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/phd "show questions tagged 'phd'")?
Can anyone offer specific guidelines on how to apply these and other very general tags so that they will be useful?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the problem is more general than just those specific tags.
I would be extremely interested in usage statistics of our tags. Not how often tags are being used for questions, but how often somebody actually searches for a specific tag. My underlying assumption is that many of our tags are essentially useless, as they are so general, and their use so ill-defined, that nobody actually uses them for their intended purpose (to find questions fitting their interest). For instance, I can hardly imagine the person that would be interested in questions tagged [phd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/phd "show questions tagged 'phd'"), but not all other questions on academia.SE.
To address your concrete question:
>
> Can anyone offer specific guidelines on how to apply these and other very general tags so that they will be useful?
>
>
>
I cannot. What I would encourage, though, is a deeper discussion about how tags are being used in this stack exchange, and whether we can and should clean this up from ground up. I could, for instance, imagine having a smallish number of fixed tags, a la meta, with really well-defined semantics and which are only changed based on meta discussions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I have been retagging some new and old questions lately and found much too many questions tagged with one of the mentioned tags, which do not even contain this word in title or body. Due to this, I think that the only way to keep these tags clean is to control every single new question.
>
> Can anyone offer specific guidelines on how to apply these and other very general tags so that they will be useful?
>
>
>
When retagging, I have been going by the philosophy to keep those tags only, if they can be expected to be essential to the question or answer, for example, if the situation necessarily involves some of the respective persons to be a professor (and not just any supervisor) or if it was crucial that a university was involved and not a research lab or some other institution.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The "University" tag seems to be completely redundant. At least in British English, "academia" and "universities" are synonyms: it's impossible to ask a question about one that isn't a question about the other.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/09/02 | 4,371 | 17,353 | <issue_start>username_0: Welcome to Academia.SE, the free, community-driven Questions and Answers site for academics of all levels - from aspiring graduate and professional students to senior researchers - as well as anyone in or interested in research-related or research-adjacent fields
We hope you find Academia.SE enjoyable, interesting, and fun, and we welcome your contributions to the site. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about academia.
Much like academia itself, Academia.SE has some conventions and standards of behavior that can be unfamiliar to new members of the community. Below, you'll find some information to help you get acclimated and to make your interactions with this site a pleasant experience for you and all other users.
---
If you're adding an answer to this post: Please answer with *one single* piece of advice per answer. If you have multiple pieces of advice, post multiple answers. This is so that the community can vote separately on each item, and the most important advice will rise to the top.<issue_comment>username_1: ### Write *one* question per post
If you have several questions about a problem or situation, but the questions can be asked independently, please split them up into multiple posts.
There are several reasons for this:
* From [Meta.SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/39224/254250): "That way it's easy to select a correct answer. If you ask several questions in one question you risk having answers that are both correct and wrong at the same time."
* If your question has many parts, it is likely to be closed for being [too broad in scope](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask).
* If a user only knows the answer to some of your questions but not others, they may refrain from answering entirely. Asking one question per post makes it more likely that each of your questions will get answered.
* Writing one question per post makes it much easier for future visitors to find existing questions like their own. Imagine you're a future visitor and you'd like to know whether a publication in an unrelated field will be helpful in graduate admissions. Would an existing question be easier to find if
+ It's a sub-question of a very, very long post titled "Advice for admissions to graduate school?" along with four other sub-questions, or
+ It's in dedicated post with only one question, titled "How does a publication in an unrelated field affect graduate admissions?"
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_1: ### "Here's my situation, any suggestions?" is not an answerable question
Sometimes questions on Academia.SE involve a user describing the situation they find themselves in, and asking a very general question (e.g., "any suggestions or advice?"). Instead of asking questions like this, you should highlight the *specific* question you want answered.
For example, suppose your question is "My advisor does X, what should I do?"
Without further clarification, we can't tell whether you want to know:
* How to gracefully switch to another advisor?
* Whether your advisor's behavior is normal?
* How to talk to your advisor about changing this behavior?
* How to mitigate the effect this behavior has on you?
So, please **make sure you specify the *question* you want an answer to** in your post, and not just the situation.
If you don't describe your specific question, you won't necessarily get answers to that question. It's also highly likely that your post will be closed as "unclear what you're asking."
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: ### Look before you leap.
The best way to avoid having your questions placed on hold is to know what a good question looks like. And the best way to find out is to look at good questions. Click on a tag related to what you want to ask, and see what's already there—and what's been highly upvoted.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: ### Give yourself time to proofread before submitting
Even if what you want to ask weighs heavy on your heart, don't just get your feelings out there. Collect your thoughts, consider what we need to know about your situation (and, more importantly, what we should not know, for instance specifics that could identify you), and ask a nicely formulated question in grammatically correct english, with paragraphs, and a single, explicit question item. If your question is overly long, this is an indicator that you are likely including too much personal backstory into your question.
**Remember, in order to answer your question, people here first need to read it. The chance that your question is read carefully is strongly correlated with how clear and well-presented it is.**
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Think about how to make your question a useful ongoing resource for the internet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This generally means thinking about what is general about your question. You may have a problem that is highly specific to your situation but think about how can it be generalised so that the answers will be helpful to others.
Basically, stack exchange is here to make the life of the Googling masses so much better. The answers you receive will hopefully help you, but more importantly a good general question will help hundreds or often thousands of future people who google the question. The more that you can frame your question in a slightly general way, the more likely a question is to help the Googling masses.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: ### Academia varies more than you think it does
Academic customs and procedures vary greatly across countries, universities, fields, subfields, workgroups and so on. Therefore always consider that what you assume to be general in your question or answer is not. It is very helpful if your question includes at least your field and your country.
Some examples:
* In some fields, publishing papers at conferences is the default; in other fields, it is unheard of.
* In some fields, a peer-review process of one year is quick; in others it is outrageously long.
* How the order of authors of a paper is determined varies greatly across fields.
* The role and relevance of the corresponding author differs between journals, fields and countries. [[1](//academia.stackexchange.com/q/84476/7734)], [[2](//academia.stackexchange.com/q/10062/7734)].
* The rate of papers per author and citations per paper vary strongly over fields and subfields.
* The distinction between undergraduate and graduate students doesn’t exist in some countries. For example, it isn’t even possible to accurately translate the corresponding words into the German language.
* In some countries, PhD students are typically university employees; in others they are not and live on a stipend, which they need to apply for and may not get.
* In some countries, prospective PhD students apply directly to potential supervisors; in others, they apply to a department.
* In some countries and fields, getting a PHD involves coursework; in others, it doesn’t.
Please consider having a look at [Academia varies more than you think it does – The Movie](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4471/7734) for a more extensive list.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_6: ### Don't take constructive feedback personally; see if your post can be improved with some editing
Stack Exchange is designed around being helpful, and the people here who are volunteering their time to answer questions are doing it because they *want* to answer them, and be helpful.
Close votes or other suggestions are not judgements on you, your character, or your situation. They are an attempt to make a question capable of being answered, or steer the question into a place where it can reasonably be answered. A question being closed means we're not sure it can be answered as it is currently written - not that your situation doesn't deserve our attention.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: Don't run, Walk!
----------------
Gaining reputation may be something really interesting for the low-experienced users. They may try to add to their reputation by posting numerous questions or answers which do not have any meaningful content. This may probably reduce their reputation or cause down-votes to their posts. If you take a look at users with higher reputation, you can see that they have posts which have gained many up-votes just because the content is of good quality. They just don't post something; they answer the questions indeed.
As a newly registered user, I recommend you to:
1. Visit the [Academia's tour](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tour);
2. Read the content provided in the [Academia's Help Center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help); Specially the following topics:
* [What topics can I ask about here?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)
* [How do I write a good answer?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer)
* [What types of questions should I avoid asking?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask)
3. Take a look at [tags](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags) list and read some questions and answers which attract you more.
4. Do not go instantly to use your moderation privileges such as edit features.
Understanding what's wrong or right, what's the website's policy about on-topic or off-topic content and how this website works need time. So be patient.
and one last advice;
If your post which may be a question or an answer, is put on hold or even deleted, or your suggested edits are rejected; do not become angry. Ask your questions about the website's policies on [Academia's Meta](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/) and do your discussions on the [website's chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2496/academia), not in the comments or answers.
Try to ask the users with higher reputation, why your content is down-voted, put on hold or deleted and try to learn from your mistakes. So, in future, you will post questions and answers which meet the site's policies and this way, you will not only learn things, but also you will enjoy being on a site in which many graduate students and faculty members collaborate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: ### "I couldn't find a better SE site for this question" is not necessarily a reason to ask it here
The [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) describes what kinds of questions are considered on-topic here, as well as some kinds of questions that are outside the scope of this site (as defined by the community).
We welcome your on-topic contributions. But, if you ask a question that is not within one of the on-topic areas, or that falls within one of the out-of-scope areas, it will be closed.
This is true even if there is currently no StackExchange site (or other site) at which you may ask the question. Off-topic-ness everywhere else does not imply on-topic-ness here.
Furthermore, while some users may suggest a better site1 to ask your question if they know of one, we aren't necessarily experts on all the websites out there. So if you ask in a comment
>
> well, what site can I ask this question at, then????
>
>
>
you may or may not get a response - because we don't necessarily know the answer. But it definitely won't get the question reopened.
If you think you've identified a gap in the coverage of current StackExchange sites, you can visit [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) to propose a new site, or support an existing proposal.
---
1 [Cross-posting is against StackExchange policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu) and is liable to get your question closed and deleted. If you think your *own* question would be more appropriate on a different site, use the "flag" link and ask a moderator to migrate it from Academia to your preferred site. If you think *someone else's* question would be more appropriate on another site, [write a comment](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1024/11365) suggesting that the OP use the "flag" link to ask a moderator to migrate it (and, also vote to close *if* it's also off-topic at Academia).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Useful tips for more interested users who want to be an asset to the site
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a new user, and after asking some questions and answering some others, want to stay on this site and collaborate more, I encourage you to read the [Stack Exchange network-wide Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) content to become more aware of the functionality and usefulness of some features existing on the website.
Especially the questions listed under [FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) tag will help you act more wisely and efficiently. Mostly when you gain reputation and have access to some moderation tools, these questions and answers will help you indeed.
I'll link to some of these questions here and will be thankful to other users if they also add some more valuable questions to read.
1. [FAQ for Stack Exchange sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7931/faq-for-stack-exchange-sites)
2. [What are the guidelines for reviewing?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing)
3. [Can we please have the [foo] tag on our site?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/146949/when-is-tag-creation-appropriate-and-how-does-it-work)
4. [There's an election going on. What's happening and how does it work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135360/theres-an-election-going-on-whats-happening-and-how-does-it-work)
5. [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me)
6. [When should I vote?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130046/when-should-i-vote)
7. [Is it acceptable to write a thank you in a comment?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126180/is-it-acceptable-to-write-a-thank-you-in-a-comment)
8. [How do I contact other users?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users)
9. [How do I write a good title?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title)
10. [What is a 'rollback'?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17038/what-is-a-rollback)
11. [What can cause a question to be bumped?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/48578/what-can-cause-my-question-to-be-bumped)
12. [Is cross-posting a question on multiple Stack Exchange sites permitted if the question is on-topic for each site?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Use tags that are relevant to your question
-------------------------------------------
When tagging your question, go by what the question is actually *about,* not by what it is only *related* to. This way, you can help future users to find questions addressing their problems.
For example, almost every question on this site is somewhat related to research, because that’s what academians do. If you are asking about, e.g., how to best cite something, you are probably doing so because you are publishing your research. Such a question would only be *related* to research, but not *about* it, and should thus not be tagged [research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'"). If you are however asking on how to best organise your research, the question is actually *about* research and thus deserves the tag.
In another example, when you have a question about how to cite something that came up when writing a thesis, the same question might as well have arisen when writing a paper. In this case the question is not about theses and should thus should not be tagged [thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thesis "show questions tagged 'thesis'").
The following tags are often used spuriously: [phd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/phd "show questions tagged 'phd'"), [masters](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/masters "show questions tagged 'masters'"), [thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thesis "show questions tagged 'thesis'"), [research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'"), [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'"), [university](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/university "show questions tagged 'university'"), [students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/students "show questions tagged 'students'"), [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'"), [conference](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/conference "show questions tagged 'conference'"), [graduate-school](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/graduate-school "show questions tagged 'graduate-school'").
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/09/07 | 640 | 2,512 | <issue_start>username_0: [This answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/28101/81) to [How is it in my best interest not to submit a paper to two journals simultaneously?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28086/how-is-it-in-my-best-interest-not-to-submit-a-paper-to-two-journals-simultaneous) was deleted by a moderator:
>
>
> >
> > What can I lose if I don’t adhere to this rule?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Your self-respect.
>
>
>
The claim is that it does not provide an answer to the question. It clearly does provide an answer.<issue_comment>username_1: I was not the moderator who deleted the answer, but had I gotten to it first, I would have. I do not think it answers the question in its current format, although it has the potential to be the basis of a great answers. Without the quote it does not meet the minimum number of characters required for answers suggesting it may be too short. To be a good answer you would really need to explain why the behaviour would result in a loss of self respect.
As for a moderator deleting the question, this is one area where our community moderation really let's us down. What happened was that two users raised the "not an answer flag". A moderator agree and performed an action on the flags and deleted the questions. In my opinion the correct way for the community to handle these things is for regular users to down vote the answer so that it has a negative vote total which would then allow users with sufficient reputation to cast a delete vote. This would keep the moderators out of it. That said, historically we have not moderated ourselves in this way and instead users tend to flag and not down vote, or even comment, which to me is a strange combination leaving moderators looking like they are acting unilaterally.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Answers that don't answer the question may be deleted. This includes:
* Posts asking for clarification on the question
* Posts commenting on a related topic but not answering the question
* Sarcastic/witty one-liners
* Rants
* Abusive posts
* Spam
* ...?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I "deleted" the answer, although it was actually converted to a comment (which you then in turn deleted). The reason the answer was deleted was because of length, not because it's not an answer. Unfortunately, the mod interface (where this was done) doesn't give the option to leave feedback after such an operation, and I forgot to put it in manually.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2014/09/08 | 703 | 2,942 | <issue_start>username_0: I was reviewing the tags list and came to the following ones with excerpts as:
[political-science](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/political-science "show questions tagged 'political-science'") with 4 questions
>
> On standards or conventions specific to political science as an academic >discipline, and programs that lead to a degree in this field.
>
>
>
[law](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/law "show questions tagged 'law'") with 11 questions
>
> Academic questions and answers about law and political sciences.
>
>
>
[politics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/politics "show questions tagged 'politics'") with 3 questions
this tag has no tag excerpt or wiki.
All these tags seem to be synonym and I think politics and political-sciences should merged and the difference of them and the law tag should be declared more or this also should be merged into the previous ones.<issue_comment>username_1: I was not the moderator who deleted the answer, but had I gotten to it first, I would have. I do not think it answers the question in its current format, although it has the potential to be the basis of a great answers. Without the quote it does not meet the minimum number of characters required for answers suggesting it may be too short. To be a good answer you would really need to explain why the behaviour would result in a loss of self respect.
As for a moderator deleting the question, this is one area where our community moderation really let's us down. What happened was that two users raised the "not an answer flag". A moderator agree and performed an action on the flags and deleted the questions. In my opinion the correct way for the community to handle these things is for regular users to down vote the answer so that it has a negative vote total which would then allow users with sufficient reputation to cast a delete vote. This would keep the moderators out of it. That said, historically we have not moderated ourselves in this way and instead users tend to flag and not down vote, or even comment, which to me is a strange combination leaving moderators looking like they are acting unilaterally.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Answers that don't answer the question may be deleted. This includes:
* Posts asking for clarification on the question
* Posts commenting on a related topic but not answering the question
* Sarcastic/witty one-liners
* Rants
* Abusive posts
* Spam
* ...?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I "deleted" the answer, although it was actually converted to a comment (which you then in turn deleted). The reason the answer was deleted was because of length, not because it's not an answer. Unfortunately, the mod interface (where this was done) doesn't give the option to leave feedback after such an operation, and I forgot to put it in manually.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2014/09/08 | 1,392 | 5,757 | <issue_start>username_0: Should questions that are closed for being off-topic be edited for formatting, grammar, retagging, or other issues that don't resolve the reason the question was closed?
Is this a valid reason for rejecting suggested edits?
The argument against these edits is that they have several negative consequences:
* In many cases, it [causes the question to be pushed into the reopen review queue](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/256567/which-edits-push-closed-questions-to-the-reopen-review-queue). The edit didn't help resolve the issue that caused the question to be closed as off-topic. So, this creates unnecessary work for reviewers (since the question doesn't *really* need a review for reopening at this point). Having unnecessary reviews in the queue can decrease users' motivation to help out with reviews.
* ~~Users can [only vote once](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) in each direction (close, reopen) on any question. It's [not clear to me](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239098/do-leave-closed-votes-in-reopen-queue-count-as-voting-once-in-the-close-dire) whether "Leave Closed" votes in the reopen review queue count as *voting once in the close direction*. If it does, this means that by unnecessarily reviewing a question following edits that don't resolve the reason for closure, users are prevented from voting to close this question again if it becomes necessary. Given that we currently have [fewer than 50 active users who can cast these votes](http://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/edit/223533), this is a cause for concern.~~
* If the user proposing the edit does not have enough reputation to apply edits unilaterally, then it will go into the suggested edits review queue. This is also demoralizing to reviewers, for the same reason; it's a waste of effort for questions that are going to be deleted, anyways.
* Edits bump these posts to the front page. If the edit makes the question a candidate for reopening, that's a good thing. But if not, it looks bad to have many closed off-topic questions on the front page; I'd rather not bump these if we can avoid it.
The argument in favor of these edits is that they may turn out to be useful if the question is also, separately, edited to make it on-topic, and it is then reopened. However, it seems to me that it might be preferable to do these formatting, grammar, or other edits *only after* the issue that led to the closure has been resolved.
I am especially thinking of edits to posts that are not likely to be reopened because they are shopping questions or one of the other off topic questions listed in the help center. For example,
* [this suggested edit of a shopping question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/13714)
* [this suggested edit to a shopping question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/13606)
* [this suggested edit to a "Choose a university for me" question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/13401)
* [this edit of a programming question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/25697/revisions)
(Not suggesting that users who made these edits were doing anything wrong, since until now we have *not* had a site policy on the matter.)<issue_comment>username_1: I would restrict editing to the *titles* of closed questions, since this is the information that is most readily visible to the user (in Web searches, internal searches, and the front page).
My argument is that the front page is your "advertisement" to stick around. If there are a lot of typos and poorly worded titles on the front page, it gives a bad impression of the site overall.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think too often closed questions that are salvageable do not get the attention that is required to reopen them. In my opinion anything that people are willing to do to try and move a question closer to being reopened is a good thing. Editing the title and tags can help attract attention from the "right" people who may be able to edit the question even more. Editing grammar and formatting can also be helpful. Sometimes questions are so poorly written that it is difficult to know where to begin in terms of salvaging the question. Other times the question is going to need rephrasing and improved grammar/formatting before it can be reopened.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: We recently [discussed this on Computer Science meta](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1007/trivial-edits-to-closed-on-hold-questions). Consensus was that edits to closed/on-hold questions that do nothing to address the reason for closure should be avoided and, if made, they should be rejected as "No improvement whatsoever."
For me, this applies even if the question could be suitable for reopening if improved. We don't close questions just because they're badly formatted or have poor grammer. By the same token, we shouldn't refuse to reopen a question that's been edited to make it appropriate for the site, even if it's still badly formatted or still has poor grammar. To be honest, it seems unlikely that somebody would make the question appropriate for reopening without also improving the formatting and grammar but, if they did that, somebody else can always come along and fix those minor issues once the question's been opened again (or even while the reopen vote is in progress).
In my experience, people who do make grammar and formatting improvements to on-hold questions are usually well-meaning new users. A polite "Thanks but please don't do that because XYZ; here are some useful things you could do instead" message always seems to redirect their energies to something productive.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/09/11 | 551 | 2,195 | <issue_start>username_0: Based on the positive response to the [shopping closure tag question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/should-we-create-a-shopping-question-closure-tag) I recently asked, I think the best way to handle this would be to edit the "cannot be generalized" tag to incorporate this specifically.
I would propose to change the text of the tag as follows:
>
> Questions that cannot be generalized to apply to others in similar situations are off-topic. In particular, "shopping" questions asking about recommendations for specific programs or universities are off-topic. For assistance in writing questions that can apply to multiple people facing similar situations, see: What kinds of questions are too localized?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I don't think "shopping" is generally a subtype of "Questions that cannot be generalized to apply to others in similar situations."
Many of the shopping questions we get are very general. For example,
* [What are the cheapest online degrees in Computer Science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18283/cheapest-online-degrees)
* [Where can I take online MBA courses without being admitted?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18289/where-can-i-take-online-mba-courses-without-being-admitted)
* [Good chemical engineering schools in US for Ph.D?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27436/good-chemical-engineering-schools-in-us-for-ph-d)
The fundamental problem with these questions is not just that they are too broad, because if they were narrowed down a great deal they'd still be off topic. The problem is that they are shopping questions. I don't think that "shopping" is a subtype of any of our existing close reasons.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: On some other sites I might agree, but I suspect that on academia.SE, the biggest cause of the "cannot be generalised" closure is "Here is my specific situation in great detail. What course should I take / how should I deal with my supervisor / what colour of pen is it best to use?". Answering that with something that might be interpreted as "don't ask shopping questions" will just confuse.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/09/12 | 728 | 2,734 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose we have the following three questions:
* Question 1: [Can I include the completion of Udacity and Coursera classes I have attended in an academic CV?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2336/can-i-include-the-completion-of-udacity-and-coursera-classes-i-have-attended-in)
* Question 2: [Is an X-Series Certificate from edx useful for graduate school?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/25951/is-an-x-series-certificate-from-edx-useful-for-graduate-school)
* Question 3: [How would a Coursera specialization be regarded in graduate admissions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28405/how-would-a-coursera-specialization-be-regarded-in-graduate-admissions)
Question 2 was long ago marked as a duplicate of Question 1. However, I do not think it is an exact duplicate.
Question 3 was just asked, and I think it is an exact duplicate of Question 2.
What to do now?
I don't want to vote it as a duplicate of Question 1, since I don't think it is.
I also don't want to vote it as a duplicate of Question 2, since Question 2 is itself a duplicate.
And I don't want to leave it open, since I think it's an exact duplicate of an existing question.
I suggested that the OP edit it to highlight the difference from Question 2, but I still think it's fundamentally the same question.<issue_comment>username_1: My pragmatic proposal would be to just leave it open. While it may be a duplicate of Question 2, Question 2 is closed and hence "does not really exist". It should be closed if it is a duplicate of Question 1, but as you say it isn't, I see no reason to mark it as duplicate.
More generally, I think it is important to consider closing as duplicate as *"these are very similar questions, to the extend that the answers will be pretty much the same"*, and not *"these are absolutely identical questions"*. With the first, more practical, definition in mind, it becomes clear that being a duplicate is not necessarily a transitive relationship (that is, it is possible that A is a duplicate of B, B of C, but A not of C).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think the fact that question 2 is itself a duplicate of something is a reason not to close question 3 as a duplicate of it. If you do close Q3 as a duplicate of Q2, it keeps the "duplication graph" sensible in case question 2 is reopened sometime in the future. And if that doesn't happen, someone browsing the questions is still going to be pointed to Q1 in the end. The only thing you give up by closing Q3 as a duplicate of Q2 rather than of Q1 is a slight amount of convenience on the part of the reader.
So I would recommend closing question 3 as a duplicate of question 2.
Upvotes: -1 |
2014/09/12 | 1,218 | 4,838 | <issue_start>username_0: Choosing good tags for questions is a little hard for me. Despite reading the [What are tags, and how should I use them?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/tagging) entry in the help center; choosing best tags is a little vague for me.
Could please give me clear clues on how to choose correct tags in an easier way? Please provide examples in your answers.<issue_comment>username_1: If you click on a tag, you get a list of questions using that tag. Before applying the tag, ask yourself the following question:
>
> Would I expect to see this question in a list of questions using this tag?
>
>
>
For example, I removed the "grades" tag which you applied to [What, if any, roads are open to graduate schools for athletes with borderline grades?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28204/what-if-any-roads-are-open-to-graduate-schools-for-athletes-with-borderline-gr) because the question is not about "grades" and "grading." I would not expect to see such a question come up in that context. I would expect to see it in a question about graduate admissions. I might also expect to see it in a list of questions about athletics.
However, **don't tag or retag a question** if you're not certain if a tag should apply. It's better *not* to edit tags, particularly on old questions, if you're not positive the tags you're adding are relevant. If you think something needs new tags, then you could suggest it as a comment instead of retagging.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The guidelines I recommend are:
1. First read the tag wiki excerpt for the tag you are thinking of *very carefully*. In particular, some words have dual or ambiguous meanings (e.g. our [law](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/law "show questions tagged 'law'") is about the academic discipline of law, as described in the tag wiki, not about legal problems faced by academics.) The tag wiki excerpt is supposed to define the scope of how the tag should be applied. If the tag wiki excerpt does *not* do this, either propose an edit to it (if you think you know how the tag should be used) or ask about that tag on meta (if you don't). If you think the excerpt does not match the way the tag has been applied, ask about it on meta.
2. If you're going to apply a tag, first check if there are multiple tags that cover the same meaning and scope (in their tag wiki excerpts and/or in how they are applied). If so, apply the better one (the one that's been used most consistently so far). Then [propose a tag synonym](https://academia.stackexchange.com/admin/create-tag-synonym) (or if you don't have enough reputation to propose a tag synonym, propose it on meta).
3. Don't add tags that are tangential to the fundamental question at hand. For example,
* If there is a question about teaching, and the OP mentions that the class is a physics class, but the question and answers would be exactly the same if the OP was teaching engineering, don't add [physics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics "show questions tagged 'physics'").
* If there is a question about applying to a PhD program, and the OP asks "I saw on the program's website that applicants are encouraged to contact potential supervisors directly - what to write on first contact?" - this is *not* a question about a [website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/website "show questions tagged 'website'").
4. *Re-tag* only if you are adding meaningful information by doing so. For example, almost all of the questions on this site *could* potentially have [phd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/phd "show questions tagged 'phd'"), [research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'"), [university](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/university "show questions tagged 'university'"), or [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'"). But adding these to a question after the fact - even if it's not really *wrong* - often adds no useful information. (This is, unfortunately, a somewhat subjective judgment call that not everybody will always agree on.)
Finally, as with everything else on this site, don't be upset if someone disagrees with your tags, changes them, or applies tags you think are wrong. If someone changes or removes a tag you've added, take some time to read the tag wiki excerpts, look at the questions the tag has been applied to, review the above guidelines, and try to understand why. After doing that, if you still don't understand, ask on meta. (I suggest to ask on meta, rather than in a comment or in chat, so that the discussion is preserved permanently and *everybody* can learn from it.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/09/16 | 2,476 | 9,641 | <issue_start>username_0: There has been general agreement [here on meta](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1202/11365) that our tags are not in great shape, to say the least.
Big tags like [phd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/phd "show questions tagged 'phd'") and [graduate-school](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/graduate-school "show questions tagged 'graduate-school'") are beyond the scope of this particular post, and need *major* discussion on meta before anyone acts on them. But some (very small) tags lend themselves easily to cleanup with just a few retags. I've been working on some of these lately.
Given that mass retags are *very* disruptive to regular operations on this site, I've been taking any steps I can think of to minimize disruption:
* only bump 5-6 old posts at a time
* only bump old posts when the front page (in 'active' view) doesn't already have a bunch of old posts near the top. (i.e. don't everybody go on tagging sprees at the same time)
* when bumping an old post for retagging (or when someone else bumps an old post), fix everything else that's wrong with the post at the same time: correct typos, remove incorrect tags, etc. This way, we won't have to bump it *again* to fix something else.
* fix tags on new questions immediately when they're asked.
Does anyone have any other comments or suggestions on how to minimize disruption when cleaning up tags as part of small, focused effort?<issue_comment>username_1: After a good discussion went on between some users of the site about the need of having [some strategies](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17738787#17738787) when we edit the tags, as a clear and working strategy, [strongbad suggested](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17738816#17738816) that a good strategy to tag edits might be something like the following:
>
> Would it be better choosing a tag you would like to improve and
> removing it from questions that do not need it and adding it to those
> that do? That way you only have to keep a good mental representation
> of one tag at a time. Your approach seems to require you to understand
> all the tags.
>
>
>
Also, [ff524 supported](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17739208#17739208) such strategy by
>
> I also think that since many tags are currently not well-defined in
> scope (see several ongoing meta discussions), it's not even possible
> to "properly" tag every question right now
>
>
>
To conclude that discussion, the strategy that `each user is better to pick a tag and add it to or remove it from the questions` seems to be a good strategy, minimizes double works on tag edits and makes the tag edits an efficient and a less time-consuming work.
However, we have no clear job distribution between users. One user may have edited a question and brought it in a good shape but after a while, another user double edits the question and ruins previous revisions.
As stated in the discussion, [I suggested](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17741610#17741610) having the following approach which makes tag edits more clear;
>
> Isn't it better to make a meta question with a title like "Tags under
> edit" and each person working on a tag post an answer to the question.
> So, we will have a list of tags under edit, and a list of off-on topic
> questions relatively?
>
>
>
By having a meta question in which each user states that s/he is working a particular tag, so another users do not waste their time re-editing the questions with that tag; it is obvious that another user may edit that question for another tag. This way, we solve [the problem of multiple works](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17741628#17741628) on any tags.
>
> This helps with the problem of multiple users working on tags, since
> if it's obvious what should be done it's unlikely someone will ruin a
> good edit; and if it's not obvious, the community should weigh in
> first anyways
>
>
>
Also, in her/his answer to that question; s/he can edit and ask about on-topic or off-topic questions and after her/his is completed, we have a list of on/off-topic questions in each answer which will be a valuable list, will help users in future to learn more about the off-topic questions and helps them become aware about the site's policies about each tag. Another benefit would be the discussions which can be made in the comments of each answer (each tag) or in a separate chat-room (with similar name) which will improve the user's vision about the tags.
Proposal:
---------
We need following spaces on the [Academia website](http://academia.stackexchange.com) to manage our edits to [tags](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags):
1. A [question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) on [academia's meta](http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com) with a title like `Tag edits
management page` in which each user posts an answer to take the
responsibility of editing one (or two) tag(s) (no more, when s/he
finishes his edit with a tag; the s/he can pick another tag).
2. A chat-room with similar name to that meta question in which users
can bring further discussions about question. This way, we will not
miss our discussions between normal chats in our [main
chat-room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2496/academia). Also, we can mention a link to the chat discussion
about questions and tags in front of it's answer in the edits-page
on meta; so users can easily follow the discussions.
Benefits:
---------
1. Editing the tags systematically and avoiding multiple and
unneccessary revisions;
2. User will be focused on only one tag and his mind will not be
crowded with many definitions of multiple tags;
3. Concentrated discussion and good archiving to the off-topic and
on-topic questions on each tag will help the users of the site
become more familiar with the site's proffered policies on each tags
and helps the users better choose tags for their questions.
Considerations:
---------------
1. We should take care and encourage users, if they want to do any edit
to any tags; they post their proposal in a comment to the
responsible's answer on the edit's question in meta, so users will
be rejecting such edits instantly if their suggestions are
irrelevant; however, the comments to each answer will be so crowded
after a while; so we should think about the following issue:
After one round of edits is finished to each tag, what procedure
should be proposed to new tag edit? Should we ask users not to edit
completed tags or we should ask them send a proposal to each edit
they want to make in a separate question in meta?
2. What should we do about the problem of bumping question to the
active questions list? We should think about it too, we can announce
a period of six month for editing the website's tags. Or even, one
day a week for editing the questions' tags. This way, users will not
face a list of questions bumped in to the top list every day; Only
one day per week we will have the bumping problem which will be
completely reasonable. During this period of time, we can apology
the users for some inconsistency by showing them a message in the
first page; something like: Sorry for inconvenience, the site is in
the tag edits period; for a list of newest questions please visit
[the list of newest questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest).
3. Edits suggestions to the excerpt and wiki of each tag may be made as
was in the past (suggesting edits in meta in separate questions).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the best way to minimize disruptions is to make sure the changes to the tags are correct. Removing needed tags or adding unneeded tags is a huge disruption and requires intervention from people. Further, if a particular users edits/efforts are not highly reliable, this can cause other users to want to constantly review the user's edits. This seems hugely disruptive. On that note
>
> when bumping an old post for retagging (or when someone else bumps an old post), fix everything else that's wrong with the post at the same time: correct typos, remove incorrect tags, etc. This way, we won't have to bump it again to fix something else.
>
>
>
While this is laudable, I think it is incredibly hard to fix all the tag issues in one go. In order to do that the editor would need an in depth understanding of the entire tag taxonomy. I think this type of approach leads to more mistakes. I think the cost of these mistakes would easily offset the advantages associated with the decrease in the total number of edits.
>
> only bump 5-6 old posts at a time
>
>
>
I am not sure if bumping 5-6 old posts a couple of times every day (potentially by different users) for weeks on end is more or less disruptive then a single large disruption during a period of low use. A single large disruption would flood the front page, but we would then be fully recovered with a day or so.
The mod only analytics show that our total page views consistently spike early in the week and then drop to the lowest point on Saturday (about 60% of the peak). How the number of questions and answers varies is less clear, but I think the weekends are also the low points.
**Proposal**
Users that want to improve the tagging should chose a problem tag and create an list of questions that need the tag added and a list of questions that need the tag removed. Post this list to meta for some discussion and community agreement and then make the changes in a single session.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/09/16 | 1,078 | 3,920 | <issue_start>username_0: I am raising this question in response to a comment thread on [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/24048/11365). I'm not asking about that particular post, but about the practice in general.
The question is about editing posts that mention widely known sites by name, to make them "clickable" links. For example, changing
>
> Twitter
>
>
>
to
>
> [Twitter](http://twitter.com)
>
>
>
There are several things to consider:
* Are these edits beneficial overall when they cause an old post to be bumped to the front page?
* Are these edits beneficial overall when the question is already on the front page?
* Are these edits beneficial overall when the user making them has less than 2k rep, so that the edit will be queued and consume reviewer resources?<issue_comment>username_1: To summarize <NAME>'s comments:
>
> Everybody knows where to find those sites so the links aren't useful...
> I'm not convinced that bulk-editing to add links to sites that are way more famous than this one is worthwhile.
>
>
>
More specifically, I (DR) think it's very unlikely that somebody reading a post here on Academia.SE will think, "Ooh. Twitter. That sounds like an exciting site. I think I'll follow this link to their front page."
And when they cause the question to be bumped,
>
> This kind of trivial edit of a rather old answer is harmful because it moves the question up to the front of the Active list, displacing some other question onto the second page.
>
>
>
EnthusiasticStudent has pointed out that the questions were on the front page anyway when the links were added, so the bumping issue isn't very significant in this particular case. (Though it still means that the edited question will fall off the first page later than it would have done without the edit.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: To summarize Enthusiastic Student's comments:
>
> I just do such edits, to make links clickable to the users and readers of the posts. This may seem to be useless, but having links on the post is far more attractive for the user than having a simple text. The only benefit is having clickable links on posts, nothing more.
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I find these links to well-known sites distracting more than helpful.
* They're in a different color, so they pull my focus
* They make posts "feel" kind of spammy
* I click on them accidentally more often than I do on purpose
* They make the more useful, non-obvious links stand out less
(I also do not like edits linking to a user's Academia.SE page whenever they are mentioned by username in a question or answer, or linking mentions to other answers on the same page, for the same reasons.)
I brought up this issue on [User Experience Stack Exchange](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64463/are-hyperlinks-to-well-known-sites-useful-in-the-context-of-a-blog-post-or-stack).
As an [answer](https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/64467/53842) there points out,
>
> Do you think users have a need to visit Facebook while reading your site?
>
>
>
I do not think we generally *want* users to click on these links while reading Academia.SE posts (unlike, say, links to useful outside resources, which we *do* want users to click on), so they shouldn't be clickable.
Another [answer](https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/64472/53842) advises,
>
> I found little empirical data for UX hyperlinking best practices (couldn't link to it anyway), but find the practice of gratuitous links to everything, including well-known sites, to be annoying, distracting, confusing, and to serve little purpose.
>
>
> Unless you're linking to specific, relevant information or citing a source from that well-known site, there's no need for a hyperlink. If you're using the internet and are over the age of 12 you know what Facebook is.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2014/09/19 | 1,920 | 7,050 | <issue_start>username_0: We currently have a [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") tag used on 265 questions, with the following wiki excerpt:
>
> This tag is related to the role and duties of a teacher, an academic instructor, tutor or a teaching assistant.
>
>
>
and is also has [teachers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teachers "show questions tagged 'teachers'") as a synonym.
Now, a [pedagogy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pedagogy "show questions tagged 'pedagogy'") tag has been created and applied to 1 question. Its wiki excerpt is:
>
> Relates to the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.
>
>
>
Should we have both tags, as they are currently defined?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that the [pedagogy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pedagogy "show questions tagged 'pedagogy'") tag, as currently defined, will be useful.
"Relates to the method and practice of teaching" seems liable to confusion with [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") to me.
I don't think *I* could reliably determine which questions should be tagged pedagogy instead of/in addition to teaching, and I suspect I'm not the only one. (And the upvotes on [this comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28670/how-do-you-choose-a-textbook-for-a-new-class#comment61831_28670) suggest that others agree.)
This is not to say that I think "teaching" and "pedagogy" mean exactly identical things. But, I'm concerned that in practice, the distinction is too fine for many users (and the excerpt is not very helpful in clarifying the distinction).
I don't think it's productive to have a pair of tags that only a small portion of users on the site can actually distinguish between. Tags that are subject to misinterpretation or misuse are bad for the site.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I created the [pedagogy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pedagogy "show questions tagged 'pedagogy'") tag yesterday so there is currently only one question with the tag, but I would imagine that all, or nearly all, questions that are suitable for the [pedagogy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pedagogy "show questions tagged 'pedagogy'") tag would also be suitable for the [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") tag. While most of the questions with the [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") tag are also about pedagogy, there are some that seem clearly not about pedagogy. Looking at the first 50 questions with the [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") tag sorted by votes, the following 7 questions do not seem to be about pedagogy in even the widest possible sense.
[Is it ethical to profit by having my students buy my textbook?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15136/is-it-ethical-to-profit-by-having-my-students-buy-my-textbook)
[Do student reviews of teachers matter?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26971/do-student-reviews-of-teachers-matter)
[Do teaching evaluations lead to lower standards in class?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9140/do-teaching-evaluations-lead-to-lower-standards-in-class)
[Is it ethical to share the knowledge for free that I've learned at the university?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12910/is-it-ethical-to-share-the-knowledge-for-free-that-ive-learned-at-the-universit)
[How did modern western post-secondary education become tied up with research and publications?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14235/how-did-modern-western-post-secondary-education-become-tied-up-with-research-and)
[Is there a correlation between being a good teacher and being a good researcher?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/183/is-there-a-correlation-between-being-a-good-teacher-and-being-a-good-researcher)
[Is it okay to use students as a reference when applying for a teaching position?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/is-it-okay-to-use-students-as-a-reference-when-applying-for-a-teaching-position)
That to me suggests that we needed a narrow tag on teaching to alert users to the fact that it is addressing pedagogical issues of teaching. I think we have a number of umbrella tags that fully encompass other tags. For example I cannot see any questions with the [journals](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/journals "show questions tagged 'journals'") tag that should not also be tagged [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'"). Similarly [job-search](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/job-search "show questions tagged 'job-search'") seems to include everything in [faculty-application](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faculty-application "show questions tagged 'faculty-application'"), but also many other questions.
I would propose that the above question be tagged teaching and the vast majority of the questions currently tagged teaching be retagged to include both teaching and pedagogy (although from a technical standpoint it might be easier to retag everything and then remove the pedagogy tag where needed).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: These seem different to me.
Questions with the "teaching" tag will just refer to questions involving situations relating to the teacher's role in courses they teach. This might include classroom management, assessment, etc. For example, a question written by a TA who wants to know how to discipline some cheating students would use "teaching".
Questions with "pedagogy" should refer to questions relating to the teaching methodology. Perhaps "pedagogics" or "teaching-methods" is a more precise term, and more relates to the details of how one frames the content or skills for effective delivery to students. I can find no examples of this on Academics, but that maybe is not a big surprise, because most tertiary instructors just lecture and transfer the learning responsibility onto students.
Most questions tagged "pedagogy" are going to also have the "teaching" tag, but the reverse will not always be true.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: A tag the specifically denotes questions that ask "how do I present X in the best way?" (which is a proper subset of [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'")) would be useful.
I propose to use [didactics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/didactics "show questions tagged 'didactics'") which is, imho and afaik, a better term for what happens at universities.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/09/21 | 615 | 2,347 | <issue_start>username_0: By reading the [tag excerpt](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/reputation/info) about [reputation](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reputation "show questions tagged 'reputation'");
>
> The perception of the quality of a journal, conference, or university
> by a specific community or the general public. Also: how reputation
> develops and factors influencing reputation.
>
>
>
it seems that this tag only covers questions about reputation of journals and research institutes; all *but* individuals. By reading a recent question about the reputation of individuals;
[How to judge the reputation of a research group or professor for good quality research for PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28827/how-to-judge-the-reputation-of-a-research-group-or-professor-for-good-quality-re)
this question comes to mind that;
```
Does this tag cover questions about persons too?
```
If it should not be used, the question should be edited and if it is allowed on the questions about people's reputation, we should change this tag's excerpt.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that list ("journal, conference, or university") was ever meant to be exclusive.
In any event, now it reads:
>
> The perception of the quality of a journal, conference, university, or other academic entity by a specific community or the general public. Also: how reputation develops and factors influencing reputation.
>
>
>
so as to not exclude questions about the reputation of: an individual, research group, department, group of universities, type of journal (e.g. open access), publisher, preprint repository, or anything else that might be relevant to academia.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are currently (April 2020) 94 questions with this tag and it is used inconsistently. The alternatives seem to be to edit the wiki to include *personal-reputation* as well or to create a new tag for that. At the moment the solution is tractable either way. But journal reputation and personal reputation or academic reputation seem very different.
I suggest that this needs some resolution. The [answer of username_1](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1274/75368) suggests expanding the definition. I'd be fine with that, but would like some guidance first.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/09/21 | 1,262 | 5,080 | <issue_start>username_0: I can not understand what is wrong with bumping older questions to the top active list of questions by editing them.
If somebody wants to reach the newest questions asked on Academia, he can move to the [Newest Questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) page and read all the newest ones.
I think it's a good feature to have older questions be bumped to the active list; some of these questions have been inactive for more than one or two years. Most of newer users may have not read such questions. They can read them and answer some of them. Some of these older questions have problems such as tags, typos, etc and users may see them in the active list and edit them as well.
```
Could you please declare me, what harms can bumping older and inactive
questions to the active questions list have to site? and what benefits
has not-bumping to the Academia?
```<issue_comment>username_1: Here are [all the reasons](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/48578/what-can-cause-my-question-to-be-bumped/48579#48579) a post could end up on the top of the "Active Questions" list:
1. New question (also visible at top of "Newest Questions" list), which hasn't gotten any attention/answers at all yet.
2. New answer (to an old or new question), which users should vote up or down to show whether it's a good answer or not.
3. Major edit to clarify or add new information to a question or answer, that might make users want to revise their original up/down/close/delete votes.
4. A question that was closed (and therefore, didn't get any answers before) has been fixed, and so it's reopened.
5. User added bounty to question to get it more attention (also visible on "featured" questions list)
6. Unanswered old question is automatically bumped by Community user to get it more attention.
7. An edit to an old question that already got a lot of attention and has good answers (or an edit to one of its answers) that is a non-trivial edit or retag that adds value. This is bumped to the top so users can review the edit and make sure it was correct, and revert it if it was not.
All of these kinds of posts/edits *need* some kind of attention from other users, and *should* be bumped to the front page.
But the things at the top of the list are generally considered more in need of attention than category #7. It's fine (even good!) if a few questions in category #7 are bumped here and there, but not if it's so many that most of the questions in categories #1-6 are pushed down the front page.
For example, imagine you spent 45 minutes composing a *great,* well-researched, targeted answer to a question. Then, immediately after you submit the answer, someone else bumps 20 old questions to add a tag. Nobody sees your answer now that it's all the way down the "Active Questions" list, and you don't get any upvotes for this amazing answer that you worked really hard on. This is obviously discouraging and demoralizing, and makes a good contributor not want to contribute anymore.
Or imagine you're a new user, and you posted a question because you really want an answer. But the question needed improvement, and was downvoted and closed. You work really hard to understand why the question was closed, and put in a lot of effort to improve it. Finally, after four days of working on the question, it's reopened! But 20 old questions that were edited right after your question was reopened have bumped yours all the way down the "Active Questions" list so it doesn't get any answers. As a new user, you feel discouraged, and wonder if the time and effort you put into learning how to use the site was a waste.
On the other hand, if those 20 old questions were spaced out a little so they didn't flood the front page and knock posts in categories #1-6 too far down, I can't think of any negative effects.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm a mod at one or two of the other sites, and in my experience it comes down to how people use the site. This is entirely unscientific and anecdotal
Most people skim the front page, and look for new questions to answer. *One* bump pushes off a newer question off the front page. I generally do say 5 in the space of an hour (which is ok). If you did 20, the front page is nearly entirely unusable. Nearly no one actually uses the *newest* questions tab by default. Humans are lazy, and the front page, by being the first port of call is the place most people will be.
I think another issue you should consider is *why* the edits, and how you can minimize the disruption. In *normal* situations, you come across a question, see something that needs a fix and you do it. Things that need edits in bulk are uncommon, and are rarely urgent. There are exceptions of course, but even then its something for the *community* to decide, organise, and carry out.
Trickling edits are *polite* - you get to do edits that are needed and *other* folks aren't inconvenienced in any way. You can't expect folk to change their behavior, but you can adjust and *make a difference*
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/09/29 | 1,333 | 4,839 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently posted [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29122/i-want-to-study-computational-linguistics-and-nlp-which-program-to-enter), which was closed as off-topic for being too specific to my situation. I admit I'm a little bit confused, since it didn't seem particularly more situation-specific than [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17780/my-plan-to-get-into-a-cs-phd-program?lq=1). I'd like to improve the question by generalizing it so it can be reopened; since I clearly missed something when I was writing the question, I'd like some feedback on my proposed changes.
Here's a rough outline of how I would like to re-word the question:
>
> What background is necessary to do research in computational linguistics?
> =========================================================================
>
>
> I'm getting ready to enter graduate school, and I would like to do PhD-level research in computational linguistics and natural language processing. I know that these two fields are very interdisciplinary and draw on various subfields of linguistics, computer science, math, and statistics. I also know that research in comp ling and NLP is done in different departments at different schools, with some schools having it in the CS department, and some in the linguistics department.
>
>
> Ideally, what background knowledge should someone have in order to do research in computational linguistics or natural language processing? Which areas of linguistics, computer science, math, and statistics are necessary or helpful in studying comp ling and NLP, and is there one field among those four which is overall more necessary than the others?
>
>
> (Note: per [this question from Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1802/what-are-the-fundamental-differences-between-natural-language-processing-and-com), the distinction between comp ling and NLP is pretty blurry, which is why I mention both in my question.)
>
>
>
I'd like to know if there's any more room for improvement, if this looks like a valid, on-topic question, or if there's no saving this question and I should delete it.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure whether a question that asks
>
> What background do I need to do research in specific field X?
>
>
>
is considered a general Academia question, or a domain-specific question about X (which would be off-topic here). I couldn't really find any questions like this on the site.
Perhaps we can find out now :) vote this answer up if you think this *should* be on-topic, and vote down if you think this should *not* be on-topic.
(Since I can't vote on my own post, here's my opinion: I think such a question *should* be on-topic.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Coincidentally, recently I had asked [a question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34941/how-can-physicists-help-in-theoretical-biology-besides-math-and-fresh-perspecti "How can physicists help in theoretical biology, besides math and fresh perspectives?") which I believe that it is closely related to yours. It was closed as off-topic, the main reason was indicated in [this comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34941/how-can-physicists-help-in-theoretical-biology-besides-math-and-fresh-perspecti#comment77691_34941):
>
> the question concerns the subject matter of persons within academia, not academia itself
>
>
>
I asked the reason why [in the meta](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1486/where-is-the-line-between-a-question-about-doing-research-and-a-question-abou "Where is the line between “a question about doing research” and “a question about the content of research”?"), and I can inferred that user jakebeal agreed that this kind of question is on-topic. However, when I ask if my question could be reopened, the answers were no. The answerers suggested me to ask on Reddit, Quora or in biology.SE.
The result? Biology.SE was the best to ask, I was saluted with the [answer in there](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/27450/what-physics-knowledge-can-be-applied-to-biology-of-organisms-and-ecosystems). You can also see [the meta question in biology.SE I asked](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/808/will-this-question-on-collaboration-be-on-topic "Will this question on collaboration be on topic?"). The [question on Quora](http://www.quora.com/How-can-physicists-help-in-theoretical-biology-besides-math-and-fresh-perspectives) attracted low quality answer. I didn't ask on Reddit, but I think if you are patient enough to read all the comment, you will find somethings useful thought.
So my advice to your question: stick to linguistic.SE. People in here will find a reason to close your question ;)
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/10/01 | 1,102 | 4,748 | <issue_start>username_0: I was wondering what is the responsibility of the site with regard to content posted by users that could potentially be defaming? This question was prompted by <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29282/are-conferences-organized-by-iact-like-icke-fake> I have no idea about that conference, but there is a basically a post on our site clearly associating this conference with fake ones. What would happen if the organisers would complain about it?
I'm assuming Ac.SE falls under US law, which I'm not particularly familiar with, and, to the best of my knowledge, this problem has not happened yet, but should we take precautionary measures?<issue_comment>username_1: Legal issues are handled by Stack Exchange, neither the community nor the moderators are typically qualified to judge the legal issues. Unless SE intervenes, there is usually no reason to try and enforce perceived legal issues.
Anyone having a legal complaint about a post on an SE site has to contact SE directly, and SE employees will handle the issue from there.
That said, the community is of course free to enact rules on this kind of question. If this kind of content is considered too problematic, or simply not a good fit for the site, it can be disallowed regardless of the legal situation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The reason we don't do questions asking for recommendations is that they're too subjective; we don't do questions about individual programs and institutions because they're too narrow in scope.
As for the issue of SE being held responsible for the content of its users, in general web sites have protections under the law from being responsible for such attacks, so long as they respond to them. Otherwise, it would be very easy for someone to maliciously get a website shut down.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I refer you to the following excerpt from the SE Network [Terms of Service](http://stackexchange.com/legal):
>
> 8. Indemnity
>
>
> Subscriber will indemnify and hold Stack Exchange, its directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, contractors, partners, vendors and service providers (including, without limitation, hosting and telecommunications providers) harmless, including costs and attorneys' fees, from any claim or demand made by any third party due to or arising out of Subscriber’s access to the Network, use of the Services, the violation of this Agreement by Subscriber, or the infringement by Subscriber, or any third party using the Subscriber's account, of any intellectual property or other right of any person or entity.
>
>
> 9. Limitation of liability
>
>
> In no event shall Stack Exchange, its directors, officers, shareholders, employees, members, agents, consultants, contractors, partners, vendors and service providers (including, without limitation, hosting and telecommunications providers) be liable with respect to the Network or the Services for (a) any indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever; (b) damages for loss of use, profits, data, images, Subscriber Content or other intangibles; (c) damages for unauthorized use, non-performance of the Network, errors or omissions; or (d) damages related to downloading or posting Content. Stack Exchange's and the Network's collective liability under this agreement shall be limited to three hundred United States Dollars. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitations and exclusions may not apply to Subscriber.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Since SE has its own legal representatives, it might be useful for moderators to report posts of this kind directly to relevant SE personnel so that they can scrutinise the material and make a decision. Moderators can certainly take unilateral action under moderation policies, but they should not assume that SE staff will know about the post unless they draw it to their attention.
In terms of what could happen if defamatory material is posted, the person defamed could sue both SE and the poster for damages, and obviously they would have access to all the normal legal defences for such an action (e.g., truth, fair comment, etc.). (Courts have complex rules for "choice of law" that depend on factors including the location of the defamed, the places where the message was broadcast, etc., so it would not necessarily be a US action.) While the SE terms of service specify broad exclusions of liability, these types of exclusion clauses in an "adhesion contract" are often ruled invalid by courts, so even with the presence of a contractual term for use, there is legal danger in defamation on the site.
Upvotes: -1 |
2014/10/02 | 1,646 | 5,607 | <issue_start>username_0: Academia inspires a whole range of emotions in people. We get a lot of questions here of the form "How to deal with feeling X?", or "Is it common for people in my situation to feel X?", where X is:
* **Lack of motivation**: [How to stay motivated in a low-motivated group?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/how-to-stay-motivated-in-a-low-motivated-group) and [How to motivate myself to do more than the bare minimum that is required of me?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20839/how-to-motivate-myself-to-do-more-than-the-bare-minimum-that-is-required-of-me)
* **Discouraged**: [How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student) and [How should I deal with discouragement looking at others success?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15457/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-looking-at-others-success)
* **Guilt**: [How to stop feeling guilty about the unfinished work?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17988/how-to-stop-feeling-guilty-about-the-unfinished-work)
* **Burnout**: [What can I do to recover from a short term burnout?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/what-can-i-do-to-recover-from-a-short-term-burnout) and [Strategies to overcome “academic-apathy” in the final stages of the PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/strategies-to-overcome-academic-apathy-in-the-final-stages-of-the-phd)
* **Intimidated**: [How do I stop feeling intimidated by my advisor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26615/how-do-i-stop-feeling-intimidated-by-my-advisor)
* **Dread**: [Is it normal to feel dread before starting a faculty position?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21345/is-it-normal-to-feel-dread-before-starting-a-faculty-position)
* **Impatient**: [Is it normal to feel impatient in lectures when a lecturer explains material that could be obtained from textbooks?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12829/is-it-normal-to-feel-impatient-in-lectures-when-a-lecturer-explains-material-tha)
* **Undeserving**: [“I've somehow convinced everyone that I'm actually good at this” - how to effectively deal with Imposter Syndrome](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/ive-somehow-convinced-everyone-that-im-actually-good-at-this-how-to-effect)
I think we need a tag to cover questions specifically about "dealing with the things I am feeling."
The scope of the tag would be something like:
>
> On emotional issues such as guilt, discouragement, jealousy, or feelings of inadequacy affecting academics and researchers.
>
>
>
It's similar to tags like [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'"), [religious-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/religious-issues "show questions tagged 'religious-issues'"), and [legal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/legal-issues "show questions tagged 'legal-issues'") in that scope.
But, I have no idea what such a tag should be called.
I think [emotional-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/emotional-issues "show questions tagged 'emotional-issues'") implies *abnormal* emotions, which is definitely not something I want this tag name to convey.
And I don't like just [emotions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/emotions "show questions tagged 'emotions'"), because then it's likely to also be used for questions about research/study related to emotions. (I know this because that's what happened to [healthcare](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/healthcare "show questions tagged 'healthcare'") before I split it into [medicine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/medicine "show questions tagged 'medicine'") and [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'"), and there were similar issues with [law](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/law "show questions tagged 'law'") until I created [legal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/legal-issues "show questions tagged 'legal-issues'").) This would make it a bad dual-purpose tag.
Any ideas?
Note: The tag should exclude questions on dealing with *other* people who have these emotions (or, who the OP thinks have these emotions) - these are better categorized as [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'")<issue_comment>username_1: The best possible alternative I can think of is [emotional-responses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/emotional-responses "show questions tagged 'emotional-responses'").
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If one were inclined to poetry, I would suggest [the-gauntlet](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/the-gauntlet "show questions tagged 'the-gauntlet'") or [leaky-pipeline](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/leaky-pipeline "show questions tagged 'leaky-pipeline'"), but I suspect those wouldn't be considered appropriate.
More seriously, perhaps [emotional-challenges](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/emotional-challenges "show questions tagged 'emotional-challenges'"), implying that these are difficulties, but normal ones that can be overcome.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/10/07 | 739 | 2,933 | <issue_start>username_0: I am not sure if this question is appropriate for the main site or not. A while back I asked about the [Value of light-to-none peer reviewed pay-to-publish articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7908/value-of-light-to-none-peer-reviewed-pay-to-publish-articles) when evaluating a potential PhD student. The answers all suggest I should treat them as any other non-peer reviewed article (which is essentially the same thing you do with peer reviewed articles). This recent question by a PhD applicant asks [Should I list my papers which are published in less known journals in my CV?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29543/should-i-list-my-papers-which-are-published-in-less-known-journals-in-my-cv) and the answers seem to suggest that if the "less known" journals are predatory that you should avoid listing them on your CV. This seems in contradiction to the answers I got. Is there a contradiction, or am I missing something?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think it's necessarily a contradiction.
Presumably, listing an article you published in a predatory journal shows a lack of experience or understanding of the publication process.
The advice to you, as the person evaluating these CVs, is not to punish the student for this lack of understanding. The [answers there](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7908/value-of-light-to-none-peer-reviewed-pay-to-publish-articles) suggest giving the student the benefit of the doubt, since he/she may have had an inadequate advisor who didn't train them in this aspect of academia.
But students can't count on everyone who evaluates their CV to be so understanding of their naïveté. Thus, [the advice](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29543/should-i-list-my-papers-which-are-published-in-less-known-journals-in-my-cv) not to list it on the CV - since the reader's negative impression of those who publish in predatory journals can outweigh any favorable impact the content of the paper may have.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Pay to publish ≠ Lesser known journals
There are thousands of perfectly legitimate but low-impact journals. Publishing in those is by no means a negative reflection on one's character, skill, or whatever. There are also thousands of predatory, pay-to-publish journals. Publishing in those is almost always a bad idea, and may reflect negatively on an individual.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Aside from whether this is a contradiction or not, I think it is ambitious to assume that the answers given here are necessarily internally consistent. Different persons answer different questions, and the underlying assumptions etc. are not necessarily the same. That is, I am pretty sure that one would be able to find two related questions where the most upvoted / accepted answers are indeed contradictory, but I see absolutely no way to prevent this.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/10/15 | 909 | 3,586 | <issue_start>username_0: In this question: [My paper was withdrawn from predatory journal after publication, what should I do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29991/my-paper-was-withdrawn-from-predatory-journal-after-publication-what-should-i-d) the OP is considering naming the publisher and a high rep user has recommended them to do this. I personally do not think naming the publisher adds any value and I do not want AC.SE to be a place to list bad publishers and researchers. If naming the publisher, journal, or researcher adds value to a question or answer, then I think it is important to name names. In cases where naming names is simply to shame publishers/people, I think it is a bad idea.<issue_comment>username_1: I agree that there is no benefit to naming names, and it can be detrimental to do so.
Besides, if a question requires the name of the publisher in order to be answered, it's probably too localized, anyways (as per our [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) guidelines). A better approach is to give details that *characterize* the publisher (as Kurt did quite well). This ensures that the question and answers will be applicable not just in this one situation, but also others like it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are appropriate resources for public "shaming." People can be directed to those sites as warranted.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The naming procedure itself is quite subjective and is not persistent, since the publisher/person might change and the question would be out of sync with real information. A rather more interesting question issued would be asking for guidance to identify the properties of a dodgy publisher/person. At this instance, giving out examples on naming a publisher/person doing (or not) a particular action would help on explanation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think that, while naming *people* is inappropriate and not constructive (example: grad student complaining about their supervisor <NAME> to be a mean, mean person), *publishers* are another story.
As commercial operations, they accept to be public entities and it's practical to the community to be able to discuss about a specific company (see for example this: [Do Springer, IEEE, Elsevier charge a fee for non-open-access journals?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18625/10643)), the same way we discuss the pros and cons of, say, a reference manager software. For example, there are several questions about Elsevier's editorial website (example: [How can co-authors check the status of a submitted manuscript in Elsevier Editorial System?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/20834/10643)).
The same holds for universities. Why put universities under scrutiny ([What is the status/reputation of the University of South Africa (UNISA)?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10728/10643)) but not publishers?
Additionally, if a scholar is wondering about a given publisher, chances are the query will be more along the line of: [Is Lambert Academic Publishing a reputable company?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2513/10643) or [Is MDPI a reputable Academic Publisher?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5466/10643) than 'What is the process to evaluate the shadyness of a given publisher'.
There are also multiple comments and answers that are critical about the business model of established publishers and I think it's very well, but we should also be able to openly criticize the smaller, less experienced, and especially the dishonest ones.
Upvotes: 5 |
2014/10/21 | 314 | 1,328 | <issue_start>username_0: I am on a school board for a small private elementary school, and we're having some trouble between one of our teachers and the administrator which I won't go into on meta, but would like to ask about. Would academia be an appropriate forum (doesn't seem right, but I don't know where else to ask) to ask about interactions between faculty and staff?<issue_comment>username_1: I was going to say initially that this question was off-topic, but I'm actually not so sure. It really does depend on the issue.
The rule that we have is that questions that aren't set at the postgraduate level are off-topic unless they'd also be relevant here. So it really does become a question of what the specific problem is. If it's something that could also take place between a professor and staff at a university, then it could be on-topic.
Alternately, you can take a look and see if this might be appropriate over at [Workplace.SE](http://workplace.stackexchange.com).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you frame it generally enough, it would be on topic, as it's a general question. However, do note that this forum is intended for university-level discussion, so the responses may not actually be relevant to your situation. That said, I would post it and see what answers you get. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/10/24 | 278 | 903 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to use the main site's background color on my personal website.
#FFF, #000 and #EFF appear to be in the home page's source code. Thanks to [color-hex](http://www.color-hex.com/), I found those colors to be black, white and light blue respectively. I don't know anything about code except how to search through it by using Ctrl + F, so in addition, please tell me how to find the color value. Also, I am looking for the hex value.<issue_comment>username_1: Using the Digital Color Meter utility, the RGB values are as `(25,246,240)` (see image below), which translates into `#FAF6F0`.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It is **#fbf8f3**. From the [style sheet](http://cdn.sstatic.net/academia/all.css?v=a1c833099250):
```
html,body{… background:#fbf8f3; …}
```
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2014/10/25 | 234 | 789 | <issue_start>username_0: When flagging comments it is possible to flag comments as either "not constructive" or "obsolete" among other things. If you delete a comment or make an edit that makes another comment obsolete and no longer constructive, I think it is easiest for the moderators if the comment is flagged as obsolete instead of not constructive.<issue_comment>username_1: Using the Digital Color Meter utility, the RGB values are as `(25,246,240)` (see image below), which translates into `#FAF6F0`.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It is **#fbf8f3**. From the [style sheet](http://cdn.sstatic.net/academia/all.css?v=a1c833099250):
```
html,body{… background:#fbf8f3; …}
```
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2014/10/26 | 648 | 2,663 | <issue_start>username_0: Whenever we get a question asked by a student about exams, studying, cheating, disputing grades, or other aspects of university-level coursework, I see flags and comments along the lines of:
* The course references suggest "undergraduate." Is this question on topic here?
* Voting to close as off-topic, since this is a question about a problem facing an undergraduate student
* Although it's conceivable that a similar question could be asked by a graduate student who had cheated, in reality this is an extremely detailed description of a totally undergraduate experience.
* Well, as it pertains to undergraduate students it would still be off topic. I suspect this is a much less common issue at the graduate level (as coursework is less emphasized) though it is possible.
Given that a large number of master's and a significant number of doctoral degree programs include coursework, is there anything undergraduate-specific about questions on exams, studying, cheating, disputing grades, or other aspects of university-level coursework?<issue_comment>username_1: It's certain that dealing with misconduct by undergraduates is very much a part of the academia experience, for grad students as well as faculty. I see that when a faculty member comes and ask: "A student did (misconduct), can you advise me on how to respond?" then as long as it is not too narrowly applicable a situation, then it seems to clearly be within scope.
If a similar question from a student leads to discussion of the faculty perspective and options for engagement, then it seems like having at least some questions and answers of this sort would be appropriate. Certainly, recent reaction seems to show that the community is quite happy to speak at length on the subject...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I routinely see graduate students in my own university
* study,
* cheat on exams and homework,
* submit plagiarized homework,
* get upset because others are cheating,
* dispute grades,
* complain that a class is badly organized,
and all the other things we accuse "undergrads" of doing.
Therefore, I believe questions about conduct in university-level coursework should be on topic.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> is there anything undergraduate-specific about questions on exams, studying, **cheating**, **disputing grades**, or other aspects of university-level coursework?
>
>
>
For what concerns the above highlighted points, I've never seen any difference in behaviour between undergraduates and graduates (immaturity propagates across degrees).
So, yes, I think that questions about conduct are on-topic.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/10/31 | 1,087 | 4,529 | <issue_start>username_0: I know that extended comment discussions are discouraged and by SE rules they should be continued in chat. A prime example of this situation was the recent [I was caught cheating on an exam, how can I minimize the damage?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30539/i-was-caught-cheating-on-an-exam-how-can-i-minimize-the-damage)
On the other hand, I consider Academia SE one of the more "civilized" SE communities, where trolls are almost non-existent and due to the smaller size of this community, they are immediately "shot down in flames" before even attempting to troll. On this assumption, deleting or wanting to delete comments, because they state that "a cheater should be punished" or "welcome to adulthood" as JeffE said, for me really has no meaning. This too-much moderation is unnecessary here and it only resulted that a valued member (at least for me) of the community (Omen) has left. Was it really worth it? It has happened before (I think Pete was a little bit offended after some of his comments were deleted) and it will happen again. I am not saying anything **bad** about StrongBad (get the joke) because he was very polite, but still why do we need this extended moderation here? Why can't we leave the comments as they are, if they are not simply trolling.<issue_comment>username_1: Couple of things. I don't believe I deleted any comments. I simply moved them to a chat room. I left a few comments that I thought were directly relevant and not yet addressed by answers.
As for Omen. I asked in chat about the comments and what we should do since at that point there were not a lot of flags on the question, but I felt uncomfortable with the comments. I was not singling him out. He chose to delete his comment and leave. It would have been nice had some other community members jumped in at that point to help out and either let Omen know that we loved him and/or let me know that we wanted the comments left.
As to why I moved the comments to chat, it was in response to comments and flags. The question itself has been flagged 25 times and a number of the answers have had multiple flags also. To give you an idea of what 25 flags means, there have been a total of 127 flags in the past week on the entire site. Most of these flags are for either obvious spam or obsolete comments. Most of the flags on the question in question were for rude/offensive and not constructive comments. I took that as an indication that the community wanted to do something. I felt moving the comments to chat was a nice compromise as it cleaned up the question while still preserving the comments.
**EDIT** I just look through the comment history and I was wrong. I deleted half a dozen comments that were truly offensive and personal attacks. Those comments were so inappropriate that I will not repost them here, or even hint at the content. I what I will say is they were so bad that I also took additional moderator action at the time of deleting them and warned the user that future comments like that would result in a suspension.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my relatively short experience with the site, I haven't noticed significant problems with comment deletion. I do, however, find chat very problematic to deal with. At least as my browser presents the site to me, there is no equivalent to the comment inbox for chat, and so I never know whether there is something worth paying attention to going on there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Comments are ephemeral. They are there to ask for clarifications on a question or an answer. Once they've served that purpose, they can be deleted. If they don't attempt to do that, they can be deleted.
That's how comments are designed here on Stack Exchange.
There are occasions where a comment can help point out an egregious error in an answer; often, a better route is just to post a better answer; that better answer could include a summary of why it is better, including mention of the egregious error.
Deletion of comments is a routine bit of tidying up.
Discussions belong in chat, nowhere else. Well, they belong here on meta, in contained form, if they're about the operation of academia.SE itself.
If something's worth preserving, find where it belongs, and put it there. Not in comments. Put it either in a question, an answer, or a tag-wiki. If it doesn't belong in any of those, put it in a blog post on your own site, or in a journal paper, or a monograph, or a book. But not here.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/11/01 | 367 | 1,618 | <issue_start>username_0: I want to ask a question about a standard syllabus for a **research methods and technical writing** course; but I am not sure whether it is on-topic for this site or not.
I seek advices on how the course should be arranged and what topics should be covered in it.<issue_comment>username_1: It's hard to say definitively without seeing the specific question.
My intuition would be that just as a question about your work as a student in a particular class would be off topic (e.g. a question on mathematics for a mathematics class), so would a question about organizing/developing a particular class. The reason being that it's more a question about X (where X is the subject of the class) than a general question about teaching.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is the perfect site, potentially, to ask a question on what might go into a course on "research methods and technical writing." This is effectively what nearly every STEM academic spends a lot of time doing. I disagree that this is like asking a question about what math topic should be covered in a math class. The class could almost be titled "How to be an academic" perhaps you can phrase the question less about what belongs in your class specifically (as username_1 does have a good point, you don't want it to be too specific) and more about academic writing in general. I think this potentially works as question.
However, username_1 is right in general about the question in your title. I think it is the specific type of course you are talking about that offers an exception here.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/11/02 | 603 | 2,364 | <issue_start>username_0: I see questions from time to time about citation styles. For example,
* [Should the fullstop go inside or outside the brackets for Harvard in-line citations?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31024/should-the-fullstop-go-inside-or-outside-the-brackets-for-harvard-in-line-citati)
* [How should 'van'-names be ordered in a bibliography?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8870/how-should-van-names-be-ordered-in-a-bibliography)
I have never really seen these as on-topic for this site, but I could not find discussion about them on meta, and they don't seem to be closed very quickly.
It seems to me that:
1. Many of these questions apply equally to writing at all levels, particularly basic questions about particular styles, such as this question about APA style: [APA: How to cite chapter and edition in book](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13801/apa-how-to-cite-chapter-and-edition-in-book) . These are not really about *academia* any more than questions on proper grammar would be.
2. When there is more than one reasonable possibility for how to format something, the answer will almost always be "follow your discipline's style manual" or "follow the instructions of the journal"<issue_comment>username_1: These are indeed almost always off-topic, as they're simply reference questions; the questioner can (and should) look up the answer and go on. As you suggest, there is nothing about these questions that suggest they're about academia, they're about grammar and/or writing in general.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I, at least, see these as borderline but fairly harmless. There are many questions about citation practice that I feel are clearly on topic (e.g., [this recent question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30982/how-to-cite-from-a-book-with-more-authors/) that I answered), because they deal with issues that aren't simply and routinely settled by style guides. Even something that may seem cut and dried like the "van Names" question that you reference ended up teaching me something interesting about how customs differ in different countries. I don't see them showing up at high frequency, and they usually seem to get answered pretty quickly and non-contentiously, so I see no harm in letting them stay even if some are a bit borderline.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/11/03 | 2,526 | 10,311 | <issue_start>username_0: We seem to have a very inconsistent policy with respect to questions on legal issues related to academia.
I am not referring to questions asking for legal advice for a particular situation (these would certainly be off topic as "too localized" or "seeks advice for a very specific situation, so that only someone close to the situation can give an objectively correct answer.") I am referring to questions asking more generally, "Is [specific behavior related to academia] legal?" or "What are the legal issues surrounding [some academic behavior]?"
There are many examples of such questions in the [legal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/legal-issues "show questions tagged 'legal-issues'") tag. There are also examples of legal questions in other tags, e.g. [visa](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/visa "show questions tagged 'visa'").
At the same time, we've closed questions that seem just like those, for being off topic as legal questions. For example,
* [Are there any laws against professors publishing scientific papers without acknowledging student's contributions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31052/are-there-any-laws-against-professors-publishing-scientific-papers-without-ackno)
* [Panelist hacks my system during a defense, is this legal?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/28530/revisions) (this was closed, then reopened after it was changed from "legal" to "ethical")
In both of these examples, the behavior in question is clearly related to academia. The close reason for the first one also mentions that it is a hypothetical question; but we don't generally close hypothetical questions if they are perfectly feasible, as this one is. So the issue appears to be that it asks about legal issues.
Inconsistency like this is bad; it makes it difficult for new users to understand whether their question is on topic, and it makes it difficult for not-so-new users to judge when to vote to close. I would therefore like to raise this issue for community discussion:
**Are questions on legal issues related to academia on topic?**<issue_comment>username_1: Certainly, random Internet users should not be considered authoritative on legal matters. People needing legal advice for a specific situation should consult a lawyer. The tag excerpt for [legal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/legal-issues "show questions tagged 'legal-issues'") says as much:
>
> Note that Academia.SE, like any SE site, cannot offer specific legal advice; consult a lawyer for such questions.
>
>
>
On the other hand, SE sites should also not be considered authoritative on moral and ethical matters, but I don't see any complaints about the [ethics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ethics "show questions tagged 'ethics'") tag.
I believe questions asking for general legal background about a particular academic issue *should* be considered on topic here.
For example, I think [Could research data fall under the Freedom of Information Act?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30391/could-research-data-fall-under-the-freedom-of-information-act) is an excellent question. [Is it illegal to share publications not in the public domain with collaborators?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10340/is-it-illegal-to-share-publications-not-in-the-public-domain-with-collaborators) has quite a few upvotes. And I think [Are there any laws against professors publishing scientific papers without acknowledging student's contributions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31052/are-there-any-laws-against-professors-publishing-scientific-papers-without-ackno) should be reopened.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with your self-answer that random internet users aren't legal authorities. However, that doesn't stop people all over the internet from giving their opinions. People working in an area (e.g., academia) often have some awareness of relevant legal issues, and I think a site like StackExchange can benefit from the legal *knowledge* that people have through experience, even if it carries no official imprimatur.
In other words, I think it's perfectly fine for people to ask about legal issues, and perfectly fine for anyone to give their perspective, with reference to situations they've encountered in the past, and where possible citations to external resources (e.g., legal disclaimers on university websites). If people feel the need to hedge their statements with "I am not a lawyer"-type remarks, fine. It's up the answerer to do that if they feel it necessarey, and up to the questioner to take the advice for what it is (free advice from non-lawyers), and people who don't want to get involved can just not ask or answer such questions. The mere fact that a question happens to deal with legal matters has no bearing on whether or not it should be closed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this is a tricky question because:
1. Even taking IANAL into account, the correct answer to a legal question is often determined by small details that make it hard to answer generally.
2. In academic disputes, law is often the nuclear option. Many of the legal questions that I have seen down-voted and closed should really be asking about ethics, policy, or various other sub-legal regulatory mechanisms.
3. Legal questions can often be complicated, time-consuming, or contentious to answer.
I think that #1 and #2 are good reasons to close legal questions, and #3 is a good reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny than fast and [simple things like citation style](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1332/are-questions-about-citation-style-on-topic).
Thus, for example, I voted to close the question about laws regarding publishing without acknowledging a student when I learned that it was just a theoretical question and thus failed both #1 and #2 in my view. I feel that for that question to become high enough quality to be answered meaningfully, more information would have been required about the situation and the reasons for considering the nuclear option in the dispute. Since it was theoretical, however, that couldn't really be provided. A similar but more general topic, however, like, "Are there circumstances where you should resolve a publication dispute legally rather than by working with the journal?" might well make a good question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I always have a hard time with *general* questions related to the *law*. I believe they are unanswerable without
1. Pointing out the context (i.e. country or educational system)
2. Seeking general advice.
This is different from ethical questions. In which, the questions can be general or specific and the answers would give general advice (about the ethicality of the behaviour) and the OP has to verify it against the local law.
Compare a general law-related [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31052/are-there-any-laws-against-professors-publishing-scientific-papers-without-ackno)
>
> Does this violate any laws at all?
>
>
>
to another legal-issue [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29315/can-a-us-university-force-a-foreign-student-to-obtain-health-insurance-from-a-specific%20provider?)
>
> Can the university legally impose this on us, or are they just trying
> to take advantage of us being foreign? Is there anything we can do?
>
>
>
The first one is very general (without any context) and asks explicitly for a law, which makes it unanswerable. The second question can be answered in general and the OP has to verify it.
>
> Are questions on legal issues related to academia on topic?
>
>
>
If the question is about a specific educational system and seeks *general* advice about the legality of something, then it should be on-topic. Otherwise it should be off-topic (as in too-localized or too-broad question).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I am one of the users who voted to close one of the questions (the contribution one) linked in this meta question and I just voted to leave it closed. I think I owe some explanation.
First of all, I agree with username_4's answer here.
The main reason I voted to close and leave it closed is because the OP did not specify the location. As we know, the law varies in different locations.
The following is what I know about Taiwan-specific cases. A few years ago, a graduate student sued a professor for stealing her contribution in a paper. The judge's decision (note here, the judicial system is very different from US.) was that the professor was guilty because the prof had financial gains due to the plagiarism. The financial gain was due to the fact that the prof used the paper to get the promotion (from assistant professorship to associate professorship), thus the salary was increased. Had the professor not used the paper for the promotion, the decision would be different. There was a similar case, the result was different. The judge determined that the student lost the case because the student sued the prof only because the student did not pass the oral exam. Therefore, there was no case. Please do not ask me for the details. The above was what I read from the local news report (in Chinese).
So, you can see that the legal issues are complicated even in the same location. To me, this question is too broad to ask.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: These questions are quite dangerous, simply because it is *impossible* to give cogent legal advice on a situation without full details of jurisdiction, applicable policies and laws, details of agreements, factual and evidentiary details, etc. Even for a trained lawyer, you would not give legal advice with the information available in these questions.
While I appreciate that users can contribute some legal knowledge, and there is also a [warning to users](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/legal-issues/info) (which they probably are not even aware of), the danger is that answers might induce a questioner to act on legal advice on the site, which turns out to be wrong or inapplicable to their situation, and leads them to suffer harm. That would be a great shame.
Upvotes: 0 |
2014/11/04 | 484 | 1,729 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/31065/12378) is now protected due to supposed "low-quality answers", and the banner says that I cannot answer it until I have "10 rep on this site".
I have 101 rep, 1 of which came from joining and 100 of which is association bonus. Surely this bonus ought to count? The entire point of it is that it was granted because I am "trusted elsewhere in the network".<issue_comment>username_1: This is intentional, [the association bonus is ignored for the check](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52764/what-is-a-protected-question).
>
> Users with 10 or more reputation can answer a protected question. However, the +100 account association bonus is ignored for this check, so you must have earned 10 or more reputation on that specific site to answer a protected question.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This a network-wide policy. It has been discussed (although not extensively) in some posts on the SE meta:
[Can the protect feature be made to block "101" users as well?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109117/can-the-protect-feature-be-made-to-block-101-users-as-well)
Some explanations are available here:
[Undocumented change to reputation threshold for answering protected questions?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/116494/undocumented-change-to-reputation-threshold-for-answering-protected-questions/116667#116667)
The argument seems to be that at least one vote on the current site is required to be able to answer protected questions, presumably to prevent newcomers to pollute questions before having understood a bit about the specific community they just joined.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2014/11/05 | 1,597 | 6,181 | <issue_start>username_0: The question [Free, open-source substitutes for Mendeley?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5352/free-open-source-substitutes-for-mendeley/8476#8476) attracted several answers, included one by the OP <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/8476/102>, which combines both a commercial solution (for hosting) and a free open-source solution. I can't help but think that the entire question was a disguised advertisement for that product, although it could be perfectly genuine.
Should we delete answers linking to commercial solutions, in order to avoid disguised advertisement?<issue_comment>username_1: I find anything mentioning a commercial solution extremely dubious, especially if it is one that I have not already heard of. In fact, in my short time at the site, I've already been involved in the cleanup of one apparent commercial spammer. On the other hand, some prominent and well-known products like Web of Science are often brought up in reasonable contexts. The question is, how do we determine the difference between marketing and legitimate recommendation?
My thoughts:
* If something is already large and significant (e.g., has its own wikipedia page), then it is an established fact of the scientific world and there is no need for special scrutiny.
* For anything else, a heightened level of scrutiny is important, and in particular a person needs to make a clear and convincing disclaimer about their relationship (or lack thereof) with a product. Only posts by a convincingly unrelated advocate should be retained. New pseudonymous posters may have a hard time being convincing...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If a commercial product is a relevant answer to a question, then it *should* be posted as an answer. I'd rather err towards more complete answers (with possibly some hidden advertisements) than less complete answers. I care more about the end result (is it a good answer?) then the motivations of the person posting it.
I consider a product mention spam only if it's *not* a valid answer to the question (in which case, it should be flagged and deleted).
Certainly, users should follow the disclosure policy; but I don't think a heightened level of suspicion is a good thing. It leads to comments like the one on [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/31165/11365), which I find unfriendly and not particularly helpful.
Now, if an answer mentioning a commercial product was getting upvotes from sockpuppets to make it appear more popular than it really is, *then* I would be concerned.
Note: the description of the spam flag says that it should be applied to a post that is:
>
> effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.
>
>
>
An answer that is useful or relevant is not spam.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think our primary concerned should be to get good answers to our questions. Answers that show how a product is the best at solving the problem should be encouraged regardless of if the answer is posted by a regular user of the site, a new user, or a representative of the company that sells the product. If someone who has a vested interested in a product provides a good answer, great. One line link answers, as always, should be discouraged by down votes. Answers touting products that do not provide an answer to the asked question should also be down voted.
It would be nice if answers always state if there is/isn't a conflict of interest, but that is hard to enforce. I see no issue with leaving a comment asking for a statement about potential conflicts of interest when the answer is not clear about it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As long as it's not **shameless self-advertisement** and done in good faith, I don't believe there is any issue with providing a full disclosure and software as an option, in accordance with most SE policies.
I know that a lot of research benefits from using open-source technology, but commercial technology is also useful and practical, and helpful to the user, and sometimes a person may have made software that genuinely is beneficial for the user.
That being said, the product should be addressed to be as close to the request as possible.
### Appropriate
>
> Question: How can I farm potatoes?
>
>
> Answer:
>
>
> Potato Farmer, which I made, can help you since it plants, cultivates and harvests potatoes. It uses patented technology based on astrology to determine the best time to plant. It is capable of planting 4000 potatoes a minute. Harvesting is based on echo location and the free *Potato Farmer 1000* can only harvest 1 potato a week, but the full version *Potato Farmer 2000* can harvest 42 potatoes a day. Note that it really isn't helpful for carrot farming.
>
>
>
### Inappropriate
>
> Question: How can I farm pumpkins?
>
>
> Question: How can I make mashed potatoes?
>
>
> Question: Where can I buy potatoes?
>
>
> Question: Can someone explain to me the benefits of potatoes?
>
>
> Answer:
>
>
> Potato Farmer, which I made, can help you since it plants, cultivates and harvests potatoes. It uses patented technology based on astrology to determine the best time to plant. It is capable of planting 4000 potatoes a minute. Harvesting is based on echo location and the free *Potato Farmer 1000* can only harvest 1 potato a week, but the full version *Potato Farmer 2000* can harvest 42 potatoes a day. Note that it really isn't helpful for carrot farming.
>
>
>
The software should be **directly** applicable to addressing the problem for me to be okay with it.
A few weeks ago, we had a user promoting a sort of *course management system* of some sort. On some questions, it worked, but on others, it was noted that the user had searched for the tag and submitted the answer as the product, without ever addressing the question. For some, it was an appropriate solution. For others, it was way off mark or ignored the question entirely and proposed an alternative.
Also, if the only thing the person is doing is answering about *Potato Farmer*, then that falls into the spam category for sure.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/11/06 | 1,056 | 4,574 | <issue_start>username_0: I know we've had a few questions in the past similar in concept, but [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31265/my-professor-is-rigging-data-and-plagiarizing-what-can-i-do) indicates one of the potential issues with open naming.
Other Stack Exchanges like Stack Overflow, where legal issues and real ethical issues are not being presented, don't have this issue. We can use our real names there, and so on.
In this one, where there are both real and hypothetical situations with major implications, people have been using their real names, their websites, their real pictures, and everything they shouldn't be potentially posting in their questions.
Is there a practical way of reminding the user before the question is posted? I know it's relatively easy to trace a user history back for most people on the site, but when Google caches this question almost instantly, the anonymity factor is immediately gone.
I assume this warning can be provided when a tag is provided, such as ethics, legal issues, or any sort of misconduct. I know StackOverflow has such a feature for tag synonyms.
<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure how this would be accomplished. Having a warning present *every single time* a user posts a question leads to the warning being ignored. Users see their name and image every time they log in, which reminds them that their actions are associated with their ID.
Any time a user wishes to submit anonymously they can simply create a throwaway account and post from that. If they forget to do so, or if a question becomes problematic only after comments/answers are posted, users can flag their question and request that it be dissociated from their account; Community Mods (i.e., Stack Exchange employees; not the Academia mods) have the capability of doing that. I would personally advocate that users used those approach rather than add extra text that users are likely to ignore anyways to the question page.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From a personal experience, in some cases you would want to anonymize the post after exchanging some comments or making some edits or updates.. In other cases people are not even aware of the severity of not being anonymous.
Moreover, I don't think that users should be obliged to choose between either keeping and raising their scores, badges and points on one side, or being anonymous.
If adding a customized feature in Stackexchange Academia is possible, I would suggest a voting feature (similar to that of closing questions), such that a question is made anonymous after certain number of votes in addition to being either approved or initiated by the asker.
For example, X posts a question, Y and Z think it should be anonymous, so they vote for that and then X approves or rejects. Or X publishes a question and states his desire that it should be anonymous, then Y and Z would see the asker's desire, and could vote to anonymize it as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In so much as the poster needs to have common sense to realize they may not want their name attached to something on the internet, I am not sure how much responsibility the site bears towards informing them. It is, in the end, up to the individual to assume as much risk as they want. Although comments to the poster, warning them, might be appropriate. For example, this question [How to intentionally get denied entry to the US, without getting into trouble](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/24540/how-to-intentionally-get-denied-entry-to-the-us-without-getting-into-trouble) had implications that it was important that no one from the OP's family find out. The account was a throwaway but a lot of people (including me!) posted to warn the OP of being tracked on her computer. In this case it was advice from answerers, rather than a policy of the site.
Giving people the option to post anonymously could help those who do not want to be identified so that they do not have to create throwaway accounts. However, the privilege should be fairly strictly monitored. I am thinking that moderators would be able to see how many flags a person has, if not for what, and strip the user from being able to post anonymously in the future (this would NOT remove anonymity from anything currently posted but these could be deleted), and any further action taken (like putting the user on suspension) would happen as normal except the moderator would not know who it is.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/11/11 | 780 | 3,206 | <issue_start>username_0: It seems SE users that are not particularly involved in AC.SE are often confused that while questions pertaining to undergraduate students, classes and degrees are relevant to academia, we generally consider them off topic at AC.SE. I was hoping that we could develop a nice summary statement that explains why our [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) says:
>
> please do not ask questions about undergraduate-specific issues that could not apply to graduate or post-graduate academicians
>
>
>
Potentially, this could be added to [Welcome to Academia.SE!](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/welcome-to-academia-se), but at this time, I am not sure what to say.<issue_comment>username_1: My impression nowadays is that we don't really need the undergraduate closing reason as such. Most questions that are closed for being "undergraduate-only" could also fall under the "too specific" label.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: My take, from what I've seen so far, is that most things to do with classes and general struggles with learning seem to apply equally well to graduate and undergraduate. I suppose that 'undergraduate-only' is a good filter for not having to deal with questions about undergraduate admissions, or about all of the folderol that is often very important for undergraduate life and has virtually nothing to do with academics (sports, underage drinking, living in dorms, being able to make your own choices for the first time, etc.).
My feeling, then, is that it's a good policy to maintain, but that it's reasonable to be pretty inclusive about what might still be pertinent to graduate and post-graduate life.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I actually like that there's a no undergraduate-only rule, despite often protesting it's (imo) misapplication. My reasoning, such as it is:
1. There are some thing that, while generally applying to undergraduates, are very *specific* to undergraduates, and don't so much apply to the rest of the academic landscape. Because of the nature of most academic systems, one would suspect there are many more of these questions than there are questions about graduate programs and professorships. I think there's some value in keeping the scope of the site somewhat limited, as you can see in some other SE sites that "expert" questions are quickly overrun by non-expert questions. The Biology site comes to mind immediately. I think there are ample resources for undergraduates elsewhere.
2. Allowing "undergraduate questions" is something of an "Is this on-topic" hydra, because more than other parts of academia, undergraduate education is this odd fusion of academic and social issues. Are roommate issues on topic? The sundry issues of administration? Student loans? "Only some bits of undergrad" is likely as hard and ambiguous to enforce.
3. That being said, I do often vote against "You have typed the word undergraduate, and now you shall be closed!" for questions where there's a pretty clear answer to the question if you pretended for a moment that the questioner was a new graduate student - most often it seems authorship questions.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/11/15 | 932 | 3,624 | <issue_start>username_0: I see that my question <https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/31701/452> received 3 close votes for being too broad. It seems that close voters complain that I am asking for all countries instead of just one.
Should I ask one question per country, or otherwise how can I improve the question?
---
The question got on hold so I deleted and created a country-specific question (<https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/31806/452>). Below is the original question:
>
> Title: In which countries is consent required by law to take a picture
> or to record audio / video of a conference talk?
>
>
> Body: Provided that the conference does not explicitly prohibit
> unauthorized audio and visual recordings of the presentations, and
> ignoring ethical/political/any other non-legal issues.
>
>
> I am aware of the question
> [Is consent required to record audio of a conference talk in the US?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/17005/452), but as the question
> indicates it focuses on the USA only.
>
>
> I'd also be fine with a list of countries where consent is not
> required to take a picture or to record audio / video of a conference
> talk.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The basic issue is that questions asking for list-based answers are considered poor fits for the Stack Exchange format. Asking a separate question for every country would mean you'd post 200 questions would compound the problem.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that it would help if you refined the question based on *why* you want to know the answer to the question. Do you really care whether Bolivia, Fiji, and Uzbekistan require legal consent for recording conference talks (nothing special about those countries, just picking a few at random)? If you are just asking a very broad question out of idle curiosity, it seems like a lot of effort for little reward.
I think an appropriate way for this to get dealt with *would* be on a case-by-case basis, but in a [lazy-evaluation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_evaluation) manner. In other words, when somebody cares about a particular country, they can ask about it. We've got a good answer for the US now; tomorrow somebody might ask about an EU country that they have particular reason to care about, and the answer might turn out to cover many countries given their similarities and the large number of community members from who hail from the EU. It might be a while before somebody asks about North Korea or Zimbabwe, and that's OK.
In this way, the questions are likely to find an appropriate granularity and rate of asking on their own, rather than as either a single "big list" question or a big list of questions all at once, neither of which is likely to be addressed satisfactorily by the community in the near term due to lack of sufficient expertise in the less-well-represented countries.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I see a four issues with this question:
1. It seems like a big list question where there would be one, likely trivial, answer for each country
2. It does not seem particularly relevant or unique to academia
3. Ignoring the ethical/political/any other non-legal issues makes the question even less relevant to academia
4. It seems a little hypothetical to me and I would hate to see one of these questions for each country/region/state
I guess my point is that as individual questions, I am not sure they are great question(s) for us. As a big list, I think it is an awful question for us.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/11/20 | 892 | 3,202 | <issue_start>username_0: In 2014, Stack Exchange will continue its tradition of the ["Winter Bash"](http://stackexchange.com/promos/12/winter-bash). Winter Bash is an annual event that can run on any Stack Exchange site that chooses to participate. Users earn “hats” for their gravatars by completing certain tasks (analogous to badges). Certain actions trigger the user receiving a hat, which their gravatar can “wear”. We track everyone’s progress earning hats in a leaderboard that looks something like this:
Stack Exchange sees Winter Bash as a a fun and lighthearted way to celebrate the amazing people who make the sites awesome, as the year draws to a close. Three things to note:
* **Any user can opt out** (clicking an option in your profile means you won't see *any* hat at all).
* Apart from the wearing of hats by avatars, the site is otherwise unaffected (there is no “holiday” theme of the site's design, for example)
* After the event ends, the hats disappear without a trace.
You can see FAQs from last year's promotion [here](http://winterbash2013.stackexchange.com/faq).
---
This being said, we (as a community) also have to choice to opt out entirely and have the Winter Bash completely disabled on Academia Stack Exchange (not hats for anyone). In 2012 and 2013, we chose to participate.
To decide whether we will participate in the Winter Bash 2014 Edition, **I've created a “poll” below this post**, with two comments. **Upvote one of the comments according to your preference.** If you want to discuss further, leave an answer or comments to other answers.
The poll will close on November 28, 2014.<issue_comment>username_1: Call me a stick-in-the-mud if you wish, but I have to say I find these sorts of seasonal promos rather dreary and artificial. It's like when people wish you happy birthday because Facebook told them to, rather than because they actually remembered and cared on their own.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Related: [Meta StackOverflow's thread about hats](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/277407/do-we-want-hats)
If you want to see how a relatively chaotic Meta site handles the question.
It's in the same vein as how during April 1st, [people got generated unicorn avatars](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/37328/my-god-its-full-of-unicorns). It's just a bit of harmless fun for StackExchange. With hats.
Edit: Hats are now live. You can opt out by selecting the snowflake in the top left and selecting "I hate hats"
[This is where you can enable hats](http://winterbash2014.stackexchange.com/)
[This is where you can track our hat-domination progress](http://winterbash2014.stackexchange.com/leaderboard)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have said it before and since the time of year is back and the question of hats is back, I will say it once more: **Put whatever stupid thing you wish on your smart heads, as long as you make it such that I don't have to look at it.**
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it is a good fun idea. Life without any fun is not a life. Smile, make others smile and laugh. Go for hats friends!
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/11/23 | 607 | 2,296 | <issue_start>username_0: I like Academia's site design. It is very pretty.
I don't like the link text color. It does not stand out very well. Perhaps it is my computer so here's a snapshot Tell me if you can see the link text without having to see the image that underscores it below.
>
> 
>
>
>
If everyone sees roughly this shade I recommend increasing the contrast a bit. A lot actually.
Related: [Not enough distinction between visited links and unvisited in the questions list](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1070/not-enough-distinction-between-visited-links-and-unvisited-in-the-questions-list)<issue_comment>username_1: I say, bump the contrast! I too find it slightly too subtle for my taste.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Not sure what's going on, but the cyan on my screen is much more clearly distinct from the main text than what you're showing. I think it might be something to do with your browser, perhaps?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: By default, here are the colors of links from Academia, pulled from the CSS:
Unvisited: `#5e939f`
Visited: `#252525`
Hover: `#DB786A`
The hover color is the red of the leaning book in the logo, which is actually quite noticeable.
Instead of increasing contrast, increasing the saturation by increasing the blue, similar to the cyan that is used in meta, should be sufficient in differentiating the links from the text. Making the text darker and keeping the link the same color, or making the link darker or brighter, will be less noticeable if they are the same relative saturation. It is relatively easier to notice differences in color and contrast than solely differences in contrast.
Also possibly problematic, *mousing over a link in Academia Meta makes it turn the same color as the text.*
Edit: Does this go to a web developer for Stack Exchange? Do we need to do anything special? I know on Stack Overflow, the web devs literally fix things within seconds. This isn't crucial, but because we have no feedback, there's really no way to tell whether a person who can change this (and it's not a big change AFAIK) has actually seen it <\_<
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/11/28 | 5,506 | 23,471 | <issue_start>username_0: Questions on Academia.SE are often closed, and then reopened after they have been edited and improved (either by the original poster or by other users). Usually this involves an extended discussion in comments about whether or not the question should be closed, reasons it should be reopened, how to improve it, etc.
Once the question has been fixed and reopened, the comments are no longer pertinent for purposes of improving the question. They don't directly relate to the subject of the question, and they make it more difficult for readers, who have to review a long, obsolete comment thread before getting to more recent and relevant comments. Therefore, they are typically flagged as obsolete and deleted, or deleted proactively by a moderator who happens to see them.
However, <NAME> has suggested in an edit to [another post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/805/is-deleting-comments-a-form-of-censorship) that this may not be desirable behavior:
>
> A comment of mine was recently deleted without warning or acknowledgment. This comment was pertaining to a question that was unilaterally closed by a moderator. My comment expressed -- wholly civilly -- an opinion about in what circumstances moderator closure was appropriate. It included the information that I had been typing an answer while it was unilaterally closed (another user had just said the same). Thus my comment about how moderator intervention literally wasted my time and nullified my actions on this site was deleted by a moderator. I have made my views on this clear in this question. When moderators delete relevant comments which pertain to them, they participate in the most troubling form of censorship.
>
>
>
I think this is a sufficiently important question to be asked separately from the post it was just added to. So:
**Should moderators delete comments that are about moderation, once they become obsolete with respect to the question they're posted on?**
For the sake of transparency, here is the relevant comment thread (from [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32394/how-can-i-tell-whether-a-mathematics-journal-seems-reputable)). The pink comments are the ones that were deleted by me after I reopened the question:
<issue_comment>username_1: Obsolete comments relating to moderation of questions are one of the primary reasons why comments should **not** be viewed as permanent. Comments such as "I think this should be reopened" serves no use once the question has been reopened.
If there is "non-meta" content in the comment, that's a different issue, but purely meta comments shouldn't be regarded as "privileged."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In my interactions on this site last night, twice in one hour I spent time and effort putting content on this site, and both times that content was nullified or erased by immediate, unilateral moderator intervention.
This started with a question that was closed by one person as "unclear" while two other people were answering it. That one person then proceeded to explain precisely what steps the other two people could do in order for her to reopen the question. When moderators unilaterally close questions and then administrate the reopening process, they take away the agency that is supposed to lie with all sufficiently experienced users of the site. Whether questions get closed or reopened is supposed to be a **vote**, after all. The model of a site in which moderators feel that they know better than the other users which questions should be opened or closed and act immediately and unilaterally to me is strikingly different from the other SE sites on which I've been one of the most active participants over a period of five years: too much so for me to want to participate.
I then expressed concern over unilateral moderator closure in a comment recorded above (and described how my time was wasted by the closure). This comment was deleted within an hour without being responded to. In my opinion, it is alarmingly disrespectful to remove someone's comments while they are engaged in a discourse with you and others -- comments which express civil, reasoned criticism of your own recent actions in a way which obviously has a larger scope than any one question. I'm not going to argue that anymore: I think that the moderators here understand this opinion and just disagree with it. I am also not going to further argue that "comments need not be permanent" is very, very different from "Any moderator who feels in the moment that a comment is no longer relevant or on-topic -- even if the comment pertains to them or to something they have been directly involved with -- can freely delete it without consultation or notification of the commenter". I am aware that the current SE party line is **Comments are ephemeral**, and I think that people here are aware that I and many other users find that position to be highly obnoxious: deal-breakingly so in some cases. If you want to delete my comments, ask me first: that way, at least I get a chance to preserve my own text for my own use!
I feel a bit like I have a World of Warcraft avatar who is a math professor named username_2. I can play whatever character I want, but I am still subject to the local and changeable metaphysics of the site, just as any orc (or whatever: in case it's not clear, I have never played WoW) would be. The similarity between my SE avatar and its controller may well have lulled me into a category error: I think of this site *as being part of my professional life*. Because of that I expect to be treated as I would in my professional life (which is not with any kind of royal respect, but in fact with the same courtesy that all academics are accustomed to, no matter their seniority). Every once in a while I get singed by a fireball and realize that this is not the real academic world. When that happens, I think the only sane response is to **log off**. I will now do so for a period of time. If anyone wants to have further discussion with me, I will be happy to have it in the real world, where my name is also username_2, I am a professor at the University of Georgia, and my contact information is publicly available. My only requirement is that since I use my real, professional name, I ask you to do the same, in order to receive a response.
P.S.: Since this will be my last content posted on this site for (at least) a little while, let me say that I do not think that ff524 is a bad person, a bad academic or even a bad moderator. The first two things I really don't know about but the available evidence is to the contrary. For the last, I think that 99.5% of the time she is an excellent moderator: she puts in so much time and effort into this site. The moderators here do a lot of great work: they just seem to fall into the practice, from time to time, of doing too much. When you spend time doing something that nullifies actions, deletes content or wastes the time of some other experienced, committed user, you're spending your time working against someone else. From one academic to another: it's so easy to work against each other, and the effect is always one of at least partial cancellation of time and effort. Please just do a little less: this leaves room for other people to be involved in a way which feels meaningful to them, and after all there is always more academic work to do.
---
**Added**: Thanks to all those who have responded. I wanted to further respond to some of these issues.
1. There is an issue contained in the very title of this post. When do comments become "obsolete with respect to the question they're posted on"? This is not obvious. In the case at hand, I think that comments which discuss the history of closing, editing and/or reopening a question do not soon become obsolete: certainly not in the space of less than an hour and while the question is experiencing all three of these activities. The sentiments expressed in comments like these -- should the question be closed *again*, etc. -- may or may not be supported by others who come across the question later. Expressing carefully and politely why you think a question should be closed, for instance, takes time and effort. I don't think it should be deleted immediately after the question is reopened.
The site has a mechanism for *users* to express that comments are obsolete: they can flag them for that purpose. (Unfortunately users cannot see how many flags a comment has and thus cannot precisely express the opposite opinion. They can upvote, which is not exactly the same thing.) The comment in question was there for well under an hour and had received one upvote. How many users flagged it as obsolete? If the answer is *more than one*, then that is something I will have to take into account. But if the answer is *none*, then that means that moderators are taking it upon themselves to decide what content is acceptable for the site or when an interchange has run its course. That's certainly unnecessary, and to me it's unacceptable.
2. EnergyNumbers wrote "Comments are designed as ephemeral."
I have two issues with that statement. My comments are created by me, so I get to say whether they are designed as ephemeral. I have been clear that they are not. What is probably meant is that the platform was designed so as to make comments ephemeral. I don't think that is quite historically accurate: I have been using SE sites for more than five years, and the push to limit the number of comments is much more recent than that, but that seems more like a quibble. The point is that the platform itself doesn't want anything. This site was created by a specific set of users for a specific purpose, so we get to decide how to use it. There are several other SE sites -- highly correlated to be the ones most closely tied to academia -- where comments are handled in the way I am used to. So it is obviously our choice how to treat comments: it is not an issue of "design".
3. D.W. wrote that I have misunderstood something about how SE sites work. He doesn't explain exactly what I've misunderstood or why he thinks that. In my line of work, it would be a little less than collegial to suggest misunderstanding so casually. All I can say is that I've been involved with four different SE sites over a period of five years. The idea that I simply "don't get it" after all this time simply does not seem very plausible to me...so much so that I do not feel compelled to further defend myself or rehearse the depth of my experience here (you can certainly see it for yourself).
However the comment that "It's entirely standard for moderators to unilaterally close or re-open questions; that is not illegitimate in any sense. The moderators job is to act to enforce the site policies, as set by the community." seems at the very least to lack nuance. Yes, it is entirely standard for moderators to unilaterally close *certain* questions: they should (ideally: this is a service they provide for us, after all) do this when it is completely clear that in doing so they are enforcing the site policies. They should not take a role as people who understand the on-topicness or off-topicness of a question better than any other experienced individual user. But that's what has happened. Other users have called attention to the problematic nature of this, and there has not yet been any response.
4. I am aware that I (or someone) could write a script that would save my comments. Or this could be done in other ways: I could create a separate account Pete\_L\_Clarks\_Comments, direct every comment to this account, and in this way have the SE engine automatically mail me all my comments. I think this is a bit of a hack and a use of a site that would be at least somewhat disruptive to other users, so I would hesitate to do it, but I suppose it is an option. But doesn't it say something that the site already has all this infrastructure for others' comments to get emailed to me, but it doesn't even save my own comments?? I find that totally bizarre. Also this approach would not alert me to the deletion of my comments. The fact that I am not even alerted to the removal of my content is very jarring.
5. Others have emphasized that the model pursued by the moderators here is similar to that of most other SE sites. They have said this so much that I feel that I should reply: yes, I know. Not all SE sites though: I have been active on MathOverflow, math.SE, mathematics educators, and the moderation style is the one I prefer. To all accounts the same holds on the tcs site (I say this because one of the formerly top users on our site is <NAME>, who is a moderator on tcs. The last time these issues came around, he expressed great surprise that on-topic comments ever needed to be deleted. I note that he is no longer very active on this site). Many people seem to hint or occasionally implicitly say that the moderators *have* to behave as they are or the site could not thrive. I think it's clear that is not the case. It is our choice.
6. I don't think we know how the majority of users feel on this issue, because the majority of users are not at all active on meta. We had a recent poll on "winter bash", and the number of participants was obviously a tiny minority of the total number of users of the site. The people who show up to vote on meta may be those who are used to frequenting SE meta sites (that includes me). For instance one of the answers to this question is from someone who has zero questions and three answers on the main site. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it is coming from someone who has put in a lot of time on SO itself and orders of magnitude less time here than I have. So my honest appraisal of the community response to these issues is: the community as a whole does not have strong feelings either way. I haven't heard anyone say that they would not like to participate in a site in which deletion of comments is done more rarely and gingerly than is currently the case.
7. I find the sentiment "I'm also pretty uncomfortable with setting a precedent where threatening to leave becomes a way to influence site policy" a bit surprising. My leaving this site could only be a "threat" if my contributions are so valuable that leaving it would jeopardize the site's well-being. I think that is clearly not the case: I am one of the most active and highly reputed members of this site, but not the most and not uniquely so, and my particular areas of expertise are represented by others. Rather I think that when someone has been a member of a group for a long time and had a significant amount of group interactions, it is the honorable thing to do to vocalize any discontent they have with the group that reaches the level which makes them seriously consider leaving the group. That is what I am doing here. If no one else feels the way I do about these issues, then the mere matter of my departure is no great tragedy to anyone. I am slightly disappointed not to have heard from anyone about these issues "in real life". It would be nice to hear personally from people who are involved in doing what they certainly think is in the site's best interest. I would like to think of the serious users of this site as being my academic colleagues.
It seems that I still have some things to think through.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Comments are designed as ephemeral. So deletion is almost always a valid option, and very often the preferred option, with some exceptions.
Any comment should stay, as long as it doesn't break any guidelines, if and only if:
* it requests clarification, and that clarification hasn't happened yet;
* it identifies a significant extant flaw in a question or answer;
* it provides guidance on editing, and that editing hasn't happened yet
* it forms a *live* part of a short live discussion about the post's status (on hold, to be reopened, to be deleted)
* it is addressing some other live aspect of the post that is better served in comments than in meta or chat
(I might have missed some other corner cases - I'll be happy to add other sensible exceptions, so please suggest some in comments below)
But in this particular case, a prolonged discussion took place about a question's status: that might be best placed here on meta, where the moderators and the rest of the community can have space to explore the issues.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Pete wrote in his answer:
>
> I am aware that the current SE party line is Comments are ephemeral, and I think that people here are aware that I and many other users find that position to be highly obnoxious: deal-breakingly so in some cases. If you want to delete my comments, ask me first: that way, at least I get a chance to preserve my own text for my own use!
>
>
>
My impression is that if you have content in comments that is so valuable to you that you desperately need to preserve it, it maybe really shouldn't have been a comment in the first place. I don't find the SE mandate that important stuff should go into answers "obnoxious", but a pretty nifty design decision.
That being said, I really don't have a strong opinion on this. By and large, I think removing comments is perfectly in line with how SE sites are supposed to work, but I also have to say that generally leaving comments in place does not seem to have a huge downside either. If it is in fact the case that this policy keeps valuable, high-profile users such as Pete and JeffE (as indicated by his support in the comments) from contributing, I could definitely see this just not get enforced on Academia.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Removing the comments was *entirely* appropriate, specifically because of the quantity of comments on the question. If there were two or three total comments it would make sense to leave them for a while perhaps - but with 10+ comments on the question, removing the ones that don't really provide useful context *immediately* makes the remaining comments more useful.
ff524 wasn't hiding anything, after all; the edit history clearly shows who closed the question. If Pete's comment was intended to convince ff524 to not close questions quite so quickly in the future, well, in order to delete it she must have read it - so it served its purpose.
If the point was to have a larger discussion about when it is appropriate to close or not close a question, that should happen in meta and not in comments on a single question.
Either way, it needed to go (as did most of the other comments about closing/reopening) once the question was improved and reopened.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I only come to Academia occasionally, but I moderate on another SE site.
I think moderators have the right to edit comments in a way that they deem best for the site, and I don't think they should be handcuffed into making a group decision before deleting a comment. The Stack Exchange is pretty clear on this one: answers are permanent, comments are [temporary](https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/comment).
When I'm moderating, I treat each situation as its own case. Sometimes I'll delete an obsolete conversation, sometimes I'll leave it as a helpful guide for new users. (Comments explaining why a question was closed might help new users learn more about the standards for a site, even when there's some disagreement and debate among regulars.) Sometimes I'll leave part of the conversation there, and trim the excess. Every once in a while, I'll combine two comments into one.
Overall, occasional deletion of comments is healthy for the site, particularly when they become too "chatty," too distracting, too hostile, too lengthy, too sidetracked, or unconstructive. Of course, everyone has their own dividing line. One man's trash is another man's treasure (or, as <NAME> once remarked, "Ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"). The crowd doesn't always agree with the umpire behind home plate, but the game would take forever if everyone had to vote on each pitch. In the same way, some moderator decisions won't please everyone.
In short, I try to do what's best for the site as a whole. My vote would be for that to be the prevailing guidance: let the moderators do their job, and don't make mountains out of molehills when comments get deleted.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: To look at the specific situation, ignoring comments made by ff524, the comments that were deleted are:
>
> *User A*: Did you submit a paper to the journal, or did the email come unsolicited? If you did not submit to the journal, I would not recommend doing so.
>
>
> *OP*: yes , i submitted my paper to this journal online , after 10 days i received the cited email below
>
>
>
Note that user51189 is the OP and he/she made an [edit](https://academia.stackexchange.com/revisions/32394/2) that appears to address the comments making them obsolete. I don't see any question that they should have been deleted.
>
> *OP*: I see it a spam
>
>
> *ff524*: ["Spam" is unsolicited communication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming) (by definition). If you submitted a paper to this journal, than their email to you is not "spam," because you contacted them first. Please [edit] your question to clarify what you are asking.
>
>
> *OP*: ok, thank you . Then i can pay to this journal for publication
>
>
> *OP*: and telling me pleas , what do u know about the publisher cited , is he a predatory ?
>
>
>
I am not sure where the "I see it a spam" comment originated from, but the question was [edited](https://academia.stackexchange.com/revisions/32394/2) to remove references to spam and after ff524 deleted her comments, the remaining comments seem obsolete.
>
> *User B*: I have voted to reopen. The OP has asked whether a particular mathematical journal is reputable or not and also how to tell whether a math journal is reputable. These are both good questions for this site, I think.
>
>
>
This comment is clearly valuable while the question is closed and votes are being made to reopen the question. Once the question is reopened it seems obsolete to me.
>
> *User B*: Let me say that I was also writing an answer to the question when it was closed, and in my opinion the question is not so clearly inappropriate as to warrant moderator closure. Moderators should close questions only when the vast majority of serious users of the site would agree that the question should be closed or when there is something truly exceptional or pressingly problematic. If a question is really "unclear", then five users of the site will think so. There is no hurry to close it unilaterally.
>
>
>
This comment is very chatty and discussion oriented and not directly related to the question. Any discussion arising from that comment would be better held in meta or chat. Since the relevant portion of the question is on the closing of the question, once the question is reopened, the comment seems obsolete.
While I agree that moderators need to exercise caution when deleting comments, I really do not see any comment that was deleted that should have been left.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/12/03 | 1,095 | 4,520 | <issue_start>username_0: When I ask a [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request) question, before asking I generally Google + Google Scholar a bunch of words I put in the question. It sounds a bit tedious to list all queries I have made, and it might be counterproductive as results for a given queries depend on the location, time, etc., I only look at the few first pages of results, and I may miss some interesting results.
However, some commentators [asked me](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/32510/452) provide evidence of my efforts so far.
How can I provide evidence of my efforts when asking reference questions for which I have found no useful information so far?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that the push-back you are getting may have to do with the fact that you ask a *lot* of questions of this type. Of the 41 questions currently marked as [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'") on the site as a whole, 19 were asked by you over the last few months, and you've only accepted an answer on one of them. These are also nearly half of the questions that you have asked.
So far as I can see, this site is generally an excellent source for informed opinion, and people will often provide references voluntarily if they have them readily available. Moreover, many of your questions (e.g., [on visit weekend weather](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30031/impact-of-the-visit-weekend-weather-on-the-admitted-graduates-grad-school-decis), or on [ESL vs. conference acceptance](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30090/how-does-the-authors-native-language-impact-the-likelihood-of-having-his-public)) draw good answers that are *not* references.
Insisting on references only when good informed opinion is available can make one wonder about the motivation. Are you asking the site to "do your homework" on literature searches? This can feel especially dubious given that you work in large-scale ML / data-mining, and a lot of your questions are for information where, if a study exists, it would likely be generated by one of your colleagues in the field.
So: is there a reason that you really need to tag so many of your questions as[reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'")? Are these questions out of curiosity, or are you trying to use the answers to formulate research questions or related work sections of your own?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not sure that it is useful to provide evidence about how you have searched for a topic. Even if a Google/Pubmed/Arxiv search turns up references, it doesn't really provide any expert insight. I think the value of making a reference request on AC.SE is that experts, or at least others with experience, can help guide you and refine the search. I would hope that reference request type questions are receiving better answers than just the first relevant hit in some search engine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It's true that questions on SE sites are supposed to show at least a minimum of effort.
However, I think in the case of a [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'") question, the way to show that kind of effort is to
* write a well-defined, specific question
* give context for the question (i.e. explain the motivation or inspiration for the question)
* explain why you think that a reference on the subject of your question might exist
This last point is, I think, where the pushback might be coming from - a couple of your questions are about things that I'd be *very* surprised if anyone had actually studied.
I don't think it's necessary or helpful to list Google Scholar search terms.
Regarding your comment on opinion-based questions, please don't abuse [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'") like that. It's perfectly valid to ask "why," "how," "how often," etc questions here without insisting on references. Use [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'") and insist on supporting citations for questions where you really need the supporting citations.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/12/04 | 1,274 | 4,801 | <issue_start>username_0: I am going to do research in Japan for 4 months, as such I want to ask questions about Japanese academia. How broad can I make my question?
For example:
>
> What do I need to know before travelling to Japan for an academic fellowship?
>
>
>
is an open ended question, that has an infinitude of potentially correct answers, and thus doesn't really fall inside your guidelines.
>
> How does British academia differ from Japanese academia with respect to etiquette and other social niceties?
>
>
>
is a very broad question, but is likely to give long, high quality answers that explain "how", and invites experience based answers. However it doesn't really tell me what I need to know (i.e. what's going to trip me up when I go there), and if you remove the 'academia' part, it's non-obvious that the question remains specific to the site (as presumably the differences between Japanese academia and British academia are massively overshadowed by the general differences between British and Japanese culture).
>
> Do I need to bring omiyage for my host on a first meeting?
>
>
>
is specific, but as I am unfamiliar with Japanese culture I don't know what questions I need to ask, so it doesn't answer my real question of what do I need to know. Furthermore I'll end up asking a large number of questions, most of which will have insignificant answers, as I don't know in advance what will be different.
>
> What questions should I ask on Academia.SE before I go to Japan for 4 months to prevent embarrassing myself?
>
>
>
technically fits your guidelines (although it is a bit poll-y) but it's a bit too meta for my taste and is likely to give bad answers.
>
> What are some good resources for preparing to study in Japan?
>
>
>
is obviously just asking for short, link-based answers, and even though it is probably helpful to me (although Googling hasn't really found me anything massively helpful) it isn't a high-quality question.
How can I ask my question in a way that I get answers that are useful to other people planning short-term study in Japan (something the Japanese government is actively promoting, and thus something useful to a large number of others)? Is this an appropriate venue for such a question at all? Is this question always going to fall under the category of too-localised?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> What do I need to know before travelling to Japan for an academic fellowship?
>
>
>
Travel Stack Exchange would be a better bet for you with a question like this. Probably stuff like health insurance, visas, documents, immunizations. Nothing academic-specific comes to mind in relation to a topic like this.
>
> How does British academia differ from Japanese academia with respect to etiquette and other social niceties?
>
>
>
This seems okay for the site when you frame it "as a fellowship student from a foreign country" I think. Might not get a lot of responses since it's a small subset. Removing "British" might yield more responses.
>
> Do I need to bring omiyage for my host on a first meeting?
>
>
>
U wot mate? (Very low yield question, since probably 99.5% of us don't know what an omiyage is. Is it tasty?) Might be better to use Travel.SE, or Japan.SE if one of those actually exists. Or even a travel website.
You should target for questions that are applicable to more than you, in the vein of the second question. The country of destination will likely matter little in terms of actually coming up with an answer, except for very culture-specific questions, which will likely belong on a different SE entirely.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a similar [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/984/whats-the-etiquette-for-a-short-visit-to-a-us-university-department) about a short-term visit to the U.S. that seems to be well-received:
>
> What's the etiquette for a short visit to a US university department?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> In May, I'll be visiting a department at Columbia University in the US for a few days. What's the etiquette on visiting (answers relevant to US in general are welcome, to prevent this question getting too localised)?
>
>
> I'd like to spend some time with quite a few of the researchers, and compare notes on ongoing work. I'll read their recent publications in advance. Should I be inviting staff out for a coffee and a chat; or dinner; or a talk in the lab?
>
>
> Context: I'm a faculty researcher, and would be looking to spend a bit of time with postdoc researchers, and those professors whose jobs are primarily research, rather than admin or teaching.
>
>
>
Any reason an analogous question for Japan would not be suitable for you?
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/12/10 | 2,684 | 10,730 | <issue_start>username_0: The content in [this meta answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1385/929) is being disputed. The dispute revolves around an individual being singled out in the answer. The sentence in question, without the individual named is:
>
> There is simply no need to close questions (e.g. as in potential duplicates) unilaterally; any moderator can leave a comment, suggest the potential duplicate and leave the community to decide.
>
>
>
As it is a moderator who is being named, I think it is important to let the community voice be heard. Despite the titular question, I would like to keep the discussion/answers focused on the content of the particular answer so that we can reach a resolution and unlock the valuable answer. I would be happy to see a more general discussion in another meta question, but as this is a moderation or moderator issue, we need a resolution.
What I need to know before unlocking the question is: **Does including the name of the individual who is being "accused" of closing questions too frequently add value to the question**<issue_comment>username_1: As I said in my comment, remarks about the behaviour of a specific moderator should be brought up to meta, in a clear question, rather than as a "by the way" statement in an answer to a different question (even though the question is related). The question where the post is should be answered regardless of the identity of the moderator.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I consider it perfectly acceptable to make meta posts about the behaviour of specific moderators while naming them. Calling out regular users is problematic, but I think moderators can deal with some additional scrutiny.
There is a very closely related issue of how constructive the complaint about a moderator is written. Posts like "Moderator xzy is a fascist because he removed my post" tend not to result in anything constructive, the language often becomes a distraction and the real issue is not actually discussed. In my experience, complaints about moderation get much better results if they're written reasonably neutral, and don't assume malice. And often this means that not even naming the specific moderator, but simply the actual issue is a good idea (unless there is a recurring pattern with a specific moderator).
As a moderator on two other SE sites, I personally tend to allow even very non-constructive criticism of the mods on meta sites, and I answer them calmly with some facts and an explanation of the relevant policies. The way a user complains reflect more on them than on me as the moderator, and I won't prevent clearly unreasonable users from demonstrating that fact.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, let me say I have nothing about username_4 or any other moderator. In fact, I have recently added a praising comment about username_4's excellent answer in [Protocol for writing a recommendation letter for someone you only know on a personal basis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32938/protocol-for-writing-a-recommendation-letter-for-someone-you-only-know-on-a-pers/32939#comment73856_32939). And I am not buddies with PeteLClark since I have never met him in my life. I have multiple times agreed, disagreed and downvoted by or upvoted by multiple power users such as username_4, JeffE and Pete. On all these times, I was civil and respected their different opinions. I expect the same courtesy from moderators.
This too much moderation is something that I have also mentioned in the past ([Comments deletion in Academia SE](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1327/comments-deletion-in-academia-se) and [What is this question asking about](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1071/what-is-this-question-asking-about/1074#1074)). Since both my questions and answers were highly upvoted, this is also an interesting issue for the entire community and one that the moderators should take into account. On my answer to [What is this question asking about](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1071/what-is-this-question-asking-about/1074#1074), I think @StrongBad was convinced that the SE Academia does not really need moderator protection against controversial questions and that the community would quickly "shoot down in flames" any troll.
But what you moderators have done in my answer in [Should moderators delete comments that are about moderation, once they become obsolete with respect to the question they're posted on?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1380/should-moderators-delete-comments-that-are-about-moderation-once-they-become-ob/1385#1385) is not nice at all. I have expressed my civil opinion about moderation of a specific individual. If I do not like this individual's style of moderation I must be allowed to freely and publicly express my opinion. I can do that for any government official in any public news blog and SE academia moderators are somehow beyond any criticism? This is wrong by any SE policy or in any democracy.
And then getting my answer edited by another moderator (who BTW has only posted one answer in the last 5 months and only ghost-appeared for this edit) is plain rude. I could appreciate a comment, such as "could you please remove the personal name of the moderator" and I would gladly do it. But doing it "just because we can do that" is wrong. And even when Pete and me rollbacked again, then @strongbad locked the post AFTER keeping the version he prefers. Why? Was this really necessary? For whom?
You do not like my answer. I get it. Downvote. But changing the answer without consulting the original OP and changing its actual content is considered extra rude in any SE community. @StrongBad's answer to the same question refers to Pete. What if I removed the content referring to Peter, because he "targets the specific user". Would that be normal behavior? No, it won't. That is why, I do not do it and I never edit answers of those I disagree with. **Especially those I disagree with**. And so should moderators.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: 1. I don't think there is any reason for *someone other than the OP* to remove a moderator's name from a meta post, as long as it's (a) civil in tone, and (b) related to the moderator's activities on the site. In this case, both conditions are met.
2. I agree with [username_2](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1407/11365) on the subject of whether someone should name a moderator in their *own* post. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it isn't.
3. I did not find [that particular post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1385/929) useful, for reasons having nothing to do with being named. I asked a specific question about moderating comments; the post was about moderating questions. It's hard to interpret the downvotes on that post, because I can't tell whether they signify "I disagree with this post" or "This doesn't answer the question." It would be much more useful to bring up the issue of moderating questions in a new post, to resolve this ambiguity and so that we can discuss it properly. But if the OP believes for some reason that his post adds something to the thread about moderating comments, I have no problem with that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The original question:
>
> Should moderators delete comments that are about moderation, once they become obsolete?
>
>
>
The contentious part of the answer that was edited out:
>
> Of all the 4 moderators, I also think that @username_4 moderates a little too much. There is simply no need to close questions (e.g. as in potential duplicates) unilaterally
>
>
>
This was off-topic and out in left field; it had little to do with the original question. More importantly, a reasonable explanation was given:
>
> that is a fine topic for discussion in a separate post, but not as an answer on this question
>
>
>
Those who have made exaggerated allegations of misguided censorship, demanded apologies, and engaged in a childish rollback war could have simply opened a new meta post about the issue of unilateral closures by moderators. Both discussions would have stayed more on-topic, and less barbs would have been thrown.
Rumors of moderators overusing their powers have been greatly exaggerated. This has nothing to do with a crumbling of democracy; rather, a couple people felt slighted and irate because a few of their words got removed from a discussion. Too bad cooler heads didn't prevail.
This meta question:
>
> Does including the name of the individual who is being "accused" of closing questions too frequently add value to the question?
>
>
>
Because the context of the remark was closing questions – not deleting comments – **I believe the moderator acted appropriately by toning down the answer**, and inviting those involved in the debate to open a separate discussion on meta.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Naming a moderator when it is relevant should be *encouraged*. If a person doesn't know why something has occurred, and isn't allowed to ask why a moderator action was performed, he will likely continue the activity.
That being said, moderator issues should be dedicated their own question, so that they can be resolved separately. An answer like the one presented would be "Not an Answer" and the member needs to be informed as such.
The following examples from StackOverflow demonstrate that questioning moderation helps to improve member/moderator relations, establish an understanding (may not be mutual), and reach a resolution.
[Exhibit A](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/277031/deleted-comments) and [Exhibit B](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/278763/erratic-moderator-behaviour-on-this-question-and-on-the-grub-tag-in-general)
On SO especially, I do recall several examples of moderators actually revealing the name of the moderator who performed the action and pinging them to resolve the dispute. If people are unwilling to ask for clarification, we'll continue to have moderation disputes indefinitely.
I don't believe editing of a user's post on meta in such that it alters the *intent* is appropriate, regardless of whether it is an answer or not, though. Some of us here have the requisite 2k rep to be able to edit instantly. However, edits that are made typically should follow this rule, which is seen in the Suggested Edits queue: *This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.* If the intent of the user is to name a user, removing that name is technically altering the intent.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/12/14 | 781 | 3,328 | <issue_start>username_0: Given some of our recent discussions on meta, it seems the community is particularly sensitive to moderator deleting comments that are related to moderator behaviour. [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7774/how-do-academics-reconcile-simultaneously-collaborating-and-competing-with-colle) has a "not constructive" flag raised against one of the comments, which has brought it to my attention. It seems to me that all the comments form a discussion that is not relevant to the question, but may be the basis of a useful chat/meta discussion, unfortunately the only options available to moderators is to leave the comments or delete the comments. Should the comments be deleted?<issue_comment>username_1: These *without a doubt* meet the [criteria for deleting comments](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237978/a-guide-to-moderating-comments/237982#237982):
>
> they offer nothing of value to either the author of the post or to future readers.
>
>
>
These are meta-comments about the potential closure of the question. The only vote to close the question has long since aged away. There is no ongoing debate over closing the question (and the question never even came close to bring closed, by moderators or anyone else). The entire conversation is almost two years old. The person who posted those comments was invited to bring the concerns to meta, and declined to do so.
Given the current vote counts on [this question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1380/should-moderators-delete-comments-that-are-about-moderation-once-they-become-ob) which was about a *much* more borderline case, I don't think there's any reason to believe that the community majority would want to keep those comments around.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Here is a second shot at posting what really is an answer to the question. That answer had a feature which proved to be distracting and controversial, so I am trying again without it.
---
Moving comments to meta is much less potentially objectionable than deleting them outright. It would be easy enough to keep one or more meta questions open for the purpose of transferring comments that pertain to moderation (and/or other meta issues).
The point of the meta site is to provide a platform for discussions of site mechanics. It is natural that many discussions of site issue begin on the site itself, and I don't like to see discussions which begin there deleted outright. However, "I have moved this discussion of site issues to the dedicated place for site issues" ought not to be problematic to anyone.
Note also that moving such discussions seems easier and faster than wondering whether or not to delete them and especially to having discussions about the suitability of deleting questions.
I do not myself see much of value in the present comments, and deleting comments that are more than a year old and have not been acted upon is not a problem to me. But I think that the general practice of moving comments to meta rather than (or technically speaking, along with) deleting them is a good one. I hope it does not take much more work for moderators to do this. If it does, a streamlined way to move comments to the meta site seems like a eminently reasonable feature request.
Upvotes: -1 |
2014/12/15 | 3,661 | 15,487 | <issue_start>username_0: **Edit**: This was not intended to be a "Choose #1 or #2 proposal." This was intended to be a prompt for discussion about *what the current community wants from this site.* #1 and #2 are just things I've heard from users in the recent past. I am looking for answers that address the general idea of "What should Academia.SE be?" whether they relate to these themes or not.
Recently, we've had several disagreements on meta that I think stem from slightly conflicting views of what this community is (or should be). Broadly, these are:
1. **We are building up a library of concise, clear and correct questions and answers as an archive for interested readers.** The main goal of this site is to help both those asking questions *and* future Google users. We want to make it as easy as possible for others to get/find accurate, focused answers to questions and problems that are within the scope of this site.
2. **We are facilitating "on-the-record" problem-solving between academics/researchers with questions and academics/researchers with answers.** The goal of this site is mostly to connect users with questions to other users who want to answer those questions. The main purpose of a thread is to help the people who participated in it, with the entire thread preserved for the benefit of participants *and* future viewers.
Both of the sites I've just described can be extremely useful and valuable resources (I think [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/) is an example of the former, and [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/) is an example of the latter), but trying to be both at once causes some friction. For example,
* **Editing**: The first Academia.SE encourages editing - improving question titles, removing "noise" ("sorry for the dumb question," extended thanks, over-lengthy and irrelevant personal information, and pleas of desperation) while still preserving the intent of the OP. The second Academia.SE has a hands-off approach to other people's content, in which edits are discouraged unless a post is made CW to explicitly signal that edits are welcome.
* **Closing questions:** On the first Academia.SE, questions that are outside the scope of the site (as defined on meta) are "noise" and should be closed and/or edited to fit the scope of the site. On the second Academia.SE, if a question is broadly relevant to academia and *someone* is willing to answer it, it should stay open/be reopened if it's closed.
* **Comments:** To the first Academia.SE, comments that no longer add any value to the author of a post or to future readers are distracting, and should be removed (once they no longer serve a useful purpose). To the second Academia.SE, comments are a part of the historical record of the communication, and should preserved (except for offensive comments).
* **Answers:** On the first Academia.SE, answers that might be useful to the OP but are not really answers to the question should be downvoted, converted to comment, or deleted, so as not to distract from "real" answers. On the second Academia.SE, answers that aren't really answers are useful content, and should be treated as such.
I don't think either of these approaches is especially bad - but trying to be both at once, or to be different things to different users, is (I think) not healthy. As a moderator, it makes it difficult to act on the community's wishes (which part of the community should I follow in acting on flags)? It is confusing to new users, since the site policies are so inconsistent (both in action, and as expressed on meta). And I think it leads to conflict between users (in a bad way, not in a healthy way).
We have grown [quite a lot](http://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/161411/site-activity-and-votegraph?Weeks=180#graph) (and graduated!) in the last year, and I think it's well past time to revisit what this community is and what *primary* role it serves. Do we want to tend more towards Academia.SE #1 or Academia.SE #2? How far do we want to go in whatever direction we choose? What goals are most important to us, as a community?
---
Note: this is not a question about a specific scenario or a specific site policy. This is a general question about the future direction of the site, please answer accordingly.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that the question presents a false dichotomy. We do not have to choose one option vs the other. Also, as users or moderators we are exactly like comments. **We are ephemeral** (as moderators tend to remind us about comments). Who knows which one of us will still be around to answer questions or moderate this forum in ten years from now? Why do we need to strictly enforce one policy or the other, based on our "vision" we have for this site. Why do we need to actually have a vision for this site, instead of letting it evolve naturally? Why can't we decide on a question-per-question basis or on comment-per-comment basis? Why do we actually need to have a prevailing policy after all? We are mostly scientists and there maybe more than one correct and viable approaches to the exact same problem exist. Why must we enforce the prevailing one? Academia SE really does not have to be our little science project where we calibrate the results to best fit our theory.
The SE policies have been tested multiple times on many sites and they really work. They are harsh but they help avoid the disintegration of SE sites into a mash of newbies who ask silly questions and chase away the serious users who really want to contribute. But here, we do not have any of those problems. We do not have newbies who want to solve their homework. We do not have "Java HasMap. Plz hlp" questions. We do not have **help vampires** who answer their questions to increase their rep. The high-rep users are established people who just want to contribute and would never waste their time to answer idiotic questions for increasing their rep. As such, this community has none of the problems of Stack Overflow as pointed in many meta questions there (e.g., [here](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/251758/why-is-stack-overflow-so-negative-of-late) and [here](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252506/question-quality-is-dropping-on-stack-overflow)).
Also, on a personal view, I am not very interested in rounding different questions and answers so that all the different use cases are rounded to the exact same problem, to be marked as duplicates to facilitate easier Google searching. 90% of the answers in this forum may be answered by canned answers like, "Ask your advisor", "Do not walk, run", "Do research as an undergraduate and get good grades to get a good PHD position", "You are not too old for a PHD" and so-on. Do we really need rounded / identical questions and canned answers or we need personalized, high-quality advice from Academia professionals? This is the real question and what we should decide after all. And to that end, option 2 is a a far better choice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **tl;dr: vigorous maintenance and weeding help make this site the success it is**
Stack Exchange software and guidelines are all designed for "building up a library of concise, clear and correct questions and answers".
That's not the only way to do things. As userxxxx noted in a now-deleted answer, places like the [Ask Academia sub-Reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/) provide a great venue for other approaches.
But expert Q&A about Academia is what we do well - better than anywhere else on the web, IME. It's how we do things on Stack Exchange - that's why most of us are here rather than somewhere else. There are other places for long discussions all over the web, and have been for many years. There are other places for opinion pieces, for mutual support groups, and so on. We don't need to try to provide those platforms as well as being a Q&A site, because there are already plenty of places on the web for those, with software platforms tailored for them.
The software platform here is tailored for expert Q&A. That's what we've been so far, that's what we're good at: we've got a great web niche, and we fill it really well.
We don't have help vampires, precisely because we are a type #1 site: we close and delete nonsense quickly and efficiently.
We have the tools to close duplicates; to close opinion-based questions; to keep discussions contained to chat. And we use them. Academia.SE has one of the lowest ratios of questions in limbo (closed, but not deleted) of the whole network.
I agree with username_1 that we're not here to maintain a tiny number of canonical questions and close everything else as duplicates. At the same time, having a hundred answers scattered across fifty questions that all boil down to variants of the same answer is an unmaintanable mess, and that would get in the way of us helping each other.
We've had the discussion about comments here several times, and every time we come back to yes, comments are designed to be ephemeral, and that's what works.
There's a lot of experience across over a hundred Stack Exchange sites about what works in the short run and in the long run. Those are embodied in the guidelines that are common to almost all the sites. They all point to building a library of concise, clear questions and answers. Not discussion. So that means deleting comments once they've served their purposes of seeking clarification or pointing out egregious errors. That means closing questions that are not clear, are off-topic, are too broad, that are primarily opinion based; and then getting those closed questions either edited and reopened, or deleted.
This is about whether we continue with the meticulous weeding and maintenance tasks, or let the site get overgrown with whatever happens to self-sow here. There are already plenty of briar patches all over the internet, and it would be a real waste to take on of the web's best-maintained academic gardens and let it decay into just another briar patch.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Honestly, I think that we can *and should* effectively serve both goals.
I see the aim of this site as consistent with #1: providing consistent, clear, and correct answers.
Because of the nature of the questions and answers, however, there is inherently more subjectivity and personal perspective involved in creating a good answer than there is for a question on programming or statistics. For this same reason, I believe that in many cases even answering a fairly question can provide a much more general value in the answer: it is for this reason that I typically take pains to explain the principles and reasoning process that I use to arrive at an answer, because I think that in many cases those are more of the takeaway than the answer itself. I see many others doing the same, and suspect it may be for the same reasons.
From these basic principles, I would propose the following approaches to the various policy questions:
* **Editing:** Removing "noise" is fine, but should be careful to preserve as much of the original intent and also *voice* of the OP as possible.
* **Closing questions:** Off-topic questions should be closed, but when a question is borderline it is best if it closes more slowly, rather than getting a mod-jump to the end. I see a lot of questions that get a quick answer and/or de facto answers in comments that probably adequately address the OP's problem, even though the question is then deemed not worth of retention. I think this is a good balance between problem solving and curation.
* **Comments:** Many comments serve as good "footnotes" to the original posts, as well as information about how an edge case is best resolved. We should definitely remove obsolete comments, but be slow about it and generous about what we consider a footnote.
* **Answers:** Again, I think we should be fairly generous in what we consider to be an on-topic answer, because many times the exact question asked is not actually the question the person actually wants answered, often due to some degree of ignorance on their part. Anything that doesn't fit a fairly generous reading, however, should be downvoted, converted, or deleted.
As you may notice, I think that in principle we should hew to #1, but in practice due to the nature of the comments there will be a lot of #2 as part of the reality of providing good answers to many issues, especially around judgement and ethics.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It depends on who you want to get as targetted audience, both as active contributors to the site AND as "passive" external readers.
If the goal is, as the name **Academia** of the site implies, to have a high expert-level site useful to and used by academics such as professors, active researchers, posdocs, ect you have to treat these folks and their generous contributions with the appropriate respect and appreciation. The schedule of academics and researchers is often very time constrained, which means that the time and effort they voluntarily offer to contribute to something such as this site, can not be taken for granted. If they dont get something back from contributing to Academia themself and dont think the site is of use and helpful to them, they simply dont come or leave again.
So if the targetted audience of Academia is academics and active researchers, the only appropriate (and demonstrably successful) way to moderate the site is the **MathOverflow** **model** **(Option 2)**, which is in addition to MathOverflow also successfully applied (adopted exactly) by the research-level [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/) site in the SE network.
From an academics/active researchers point of view, option 1 is orthogonal to any high-level academic community, it just wants to lure academics and experts in to write a dead online book useful for an as large as possible general audience of random external viewers for free, without giving anything back to them or allowing the site to be useful to the people who actually offer their time and effort to write the content.
**In summary: if a high density of accomplished academics and active researchers is important for Academia, the SO model (option 1) is not suitable and the MathOverflow model (option 2) should be adopted.**
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Academia in generally is pretty harsh and we all have a lot of things to rant about. What I really like about AC.SE is that we are NOT a discussion board and we have a low tolerance for ranting. Many of our questions are "soft" and our answers are our opinions driven by our experience. While our answers may be our opinions, I think sometimes others can better express *MY* opinion better than I can. I would like to see AC.SE as a community driven site where we all work together to improve the questions and answers by freely editing them to be as helpful and clear as possible. I think that adding an answer that simply tweaks the meaning of another answer just adds noise to the site. We need to be able to edit things. If answers and comments are not directly relevant, they should be improved or deleted.
I think closing questions is the biggest issue. Keeping AC.SE rant free is important to me. Questions should be closed if they are outside our scope and most definitely if they are discussion oriented. It doesn't matter if someone wants to answer the question or not.
Upvotes: 3 |
2014/12/19 | 643 | 2,661 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question on differences between two types of German doctoral programs](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34431/stuctured-vs-individual-german-doctoral-program) was originally rightfully put on hold as being unclear. The original poster then added information, and the question edited such that it appears to me to now by a quite clear and useful question. Its reopen vote, however, doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Is there a reason for this?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know why people where not voting to reopen it. Sometimes the process is slow and you just need to alert people, on either meta or chat, to issues. The question had two reopen votes, and I added mine to reopen it. I think your edit made the question much clearer.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Well, the reason is that the whole `close -> improve -> reopen` strategy is not exactly working well all the time. In my opinion, the strategy `comment -> edit -> problem solved` works better. It is just necessary to decide whether you prefer some good questions staying closed or some bad questions staying open. I prefer the latter.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, let's go back to the Revision history of the question linked to this meta. See <https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/34431/revisions>
I was the one who cast the first Reopen vote after the OP edited the question. Then jakebeal edited it again to make it better and voted to Reopen. Then the question just sat there until username_1, one of our mods (I was going to say our excellent mod, but all of our mods are excellent), reopened it.
The reason I casted the Reopen vote was because I am a regular **Review** queue user. I saw it in the Review because the OP edited it. I examined it and decided to vote to reopen. I believe jake is also a regular Review user. He probably saw it in the Review and then did the Edit and Reopen.
Now, here is the problem I have observed. Not too many of our users use the Review queue. As far as I know, only a handful are regular non-mod Review users. You can check the stats for each Review category. For example, only <NAME> and I have three digits number of Reopen reviews. I believe this is one of the reasons the subjct question stayed on limbo stage for so long. Had many users seen it in Review, it would be reopened (or left closed) without mods' intervention.
My answer here naturally raises a question, how do we encourage our users to use Review which is a very good moderating tool? I don't have a good answer for this question. I just keep doing Review myself.
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/12/26 | 1,385 | 5,627 | <issue_start>username_0: In [this recent answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/34817/958), user [Aubrey](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/26682/aubrey) speaks about the use of images from Wikimedia in posters.
I think that she should disclose the fact that she is president of the Italian branch of Wikimedia; this bit of information currently appears on her profile, but not in the answer itself.
In the comments, she seems to disagree with my view, so I think I should ask for further opinions from users and moderators.<issue_comment>username_1: My opinion is that full disclosure of this potential conflict of interest is **necessary** in the answer itself.
* The question is "would use of Wikimedia images be considered unprofessional"; it is a subjective question, and it is clear that being president of a national Wikimedia branch affects significantly her view on this topic. The fact that she is not paid for this position is irrelevant.
* Disclosure of this fact in her profile is *not* sufficient: first of all it is information that should not be one click away from the answer, and more importantly profiles (unlike answers) can be changed at any time without notice.
* Her answer is (unnecessarily) apologetic of Wikimedia images in several passages:
>
> it is possible to find great images in Commons
>
>
> There are great pictures on Commons.
>
>
> There are many professionals who use their free time to provide Commons (and hence Wikipedia articles) with illustrative, clear graphics.
>
>
>
It should be made clear that this is not the opinion of an independent academic user, but the one of a person who is significantly involved in the project.
* "Should I always disclose my opinions beforehand?" -- this looks like a straw man from her part.
I have nothing against her, Wikimedia or her answer, and I welcome her contributions to this site, but I think that an user should disclose this kind of information whenever they reference explicitly an organization in which they are actively involved. We have had some cases of advertising of one's own projects on this site, and it is always better to err on the side of transparency.
(full disclosure: I have [contributed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fph) to Wikipedia by editing a few pages in the past.) :)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there's a huge conflict of interest here, as the user in question is not in a position to profit directly or indirectly from increased Wikimedia Commons usage.
That said, it certainly doesn't hurt to provide that information upfront when one is talking about something that could *appear* to be a conflict. However, I would be careful about making more *requirements*. I think the existing rules are sufficient.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't think there is any significant problem with the answer as it stands. Here is why I differentiate it from the "advertising" posts that have been problematic in the past:
* Most advertising posts introduce the subject that they are advertising (e.g., "problems with students cheating on exams? why not use Cheat-Be-Gone, now with lemon scent!"). Here the OP introduced the subject, and simply drew an answer written by an expert.
* I found the post mostly simply adding clarification and information, rather than advocating Wikimedia vs. other sources. This is a post that could easily have been written by anybody familiar with the resource---in fact, much of it are things that I would consider nearly "common knowledge."
That said, disclosure never hurts, and in this case would probably be nice simply in adding to the authority of the answer. For example, when I write an answer to a post about how journals work, I will often mention the service I have done as an editor simply as part of credentialing my answer. I thus think that this answer could be enhanced by disclosure, less for ethical reasons and more to make clear the expertise of the author.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I would like to make some clarifications.
* my name is Andrea, but I'm a man :-) (not a big deal, but let's set things straight)
* I'm no Wikimedia executive. I'm a volunteer in Wikimedia projects, and I'm also a volunteer in the no profit association called Wikimedia Italia. I actually wrote it [in my comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29863/is-it-unprofessional-to-use-graphics-from-wikipedia-in-a-poster/34817#comment77336_34817).
The Wikimedia movement is a complex thing, but what is probably necessary to know is that being the President of Wikimedia Italia it's not my "job".
My paid job is being a "digital librarian": in the past, I also worked for the University of Bologna in their open access journals library service.
Of course, and that is probably the thing we want to discuss, I am *biased* towards open access and open knowledge. I'm an advocate (someone would consider me an activist), and I understand my answer is not neutral, because I'm not.
I alsways try to ground my answers and comments with reason and facts, but I do have a strong opinion regarding certain topics. I cannot help it :-)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: As an addendum to other answers, my perspective is that once the conflict of interest is fuzzy enough, there is a benefit to leaving it out: people don't care too much, and would rather spend their time reading something else. As an analogy, academic talks also often omit details in proofs to maximize the information/time tradeoff. Those details are relevant, but not worth people's time.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/12/27 | 338 | 1,515 | <issue_start>username_0: This is probably OT, but I'm curious: why there are so many mathematicians here? It seems to me that the overall community is made by people who study/research math. Even undergrads post questions. Given that (at least in my country), math workers are a tiny fraction of the (academic) population, this seems an exception.<issue_comment>username_1: The general "tilt" of SE sites is towards math and computer science, so it's not much of a stretch that such disciplines would be well-represented here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Mathematics is certainly disproportionately represented here, although it's only a minority of the site.
One reason is [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which is arguably the most successful stackexchange site devoted to research-level academics. As a consequence, the stackexchange network probably has more visibility within mathematics than in any other academic field except computer science itself. When non-technical questions come up on MathOverflow, people are often advised to come here instead, so we get a steady stream of visitors interested in mathematics.
A second reason is critical mass. If a mathematics student or professor visits this site, they will quickly see that it's a welcoming and useful place to ask/answer questions, while this may be less apparent in some other fields. The net result is that first-time users in mathematics are probably more likely to become active participants.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2014/12/27 | 895 | 3,315 | <issue_start>username_0: Yesterday, we closed [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/34723/7734) about an individual conference’s reputability, i.e., as to whether the conference is a scam or not. The author correctly remarked that [a similar questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10261/7734) remained open and there are comparable questions about individual publishers ([1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2513/7734), [2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5466/7734), [3](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/15570/7734)).
I thus think, we should have a clear decision as to whether such questions are welcome here or not.
An important related discussion is: [Should we name names when talking about bad publishers and researchers?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1297/7734)<issue_comment>username_1: I think that there is an important distinction between "Is this a good conference?" vs. "Is this a scam?"
The first is often a matter of opinion and perspective ("good" as evaluated by which community?), and may also change over time, so I think it is not appropriate for this forum. The second is both more objective and less likely to change, but the boundary between the two may be fuzzy regarding certain for-profit venues. Thus I think that the question may be appropriate, but should be approached gingerly and only answered with independent evidence rather than opinion.
I therefore think we ought to accept "is this a scam?" questions on a trial basis, and if they prove to be problematic reverse the policy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As I've said [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1298/11365), I believe it is much more useful to *characterize* a publisher (or conference, university, etc) than ask about it by name.
Consider the question ["Is a university that grants me a PhD for $1000 and a copy of my unpublished book fake?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23406/is-a-university-that-grants-me-a-phd-for-1000-and-a-copy-of-my-unpublished-book), which has a great, general answer that someone put some non-trivial effort into. There are dozens of diploma mills out there. If this question is asked dozens of times (once for each diploma mill, by name), either (a) they won't all get such great answers, or (b) a lot of effort will be duplicated providing essentially the same answer to dozens of questions.
So I am in favor of the following policy for questions that ask about reputability of X:
* If there's an existing question about a Y which has essentially the same characteristics of X (for purposes of the question), close as a duplicate1. Indicate to the OP in a comment that while the name is different, X and Y have the same relevant characteristics and so the answers still apply.
* else, edit the question to ask about *something with the characteristics of X*, not just X itself.
---
1 I prefer closing as a duplicate over closing as 'too localized' in this situation. Duplicate questions are not usually deleted. So it's still searchable by name (i.e. will still show up in Google results for "Is X a scam?"), and also, can be reopened by the community if, in the future, somebody decides that X is different from Y in a way that affects the answer to the question.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2014/12/28 | 991 | 4,008 | <issue_start>username_0: I have searched the website for the questions about manuscripts and I find [39 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=title%3Amanuscript) which have this keyword in their title and [796 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=manuscript) which have this keyword included.
Should we have a separate tag for questions about manuscripts?<issue_comment>username_1: I am not confident enough about what a manuscript ([What are the boundaries between draft, manuscript, preprint, paper, and article?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13089/what-are-the-boundaries-between-draft-manuscript-preprint-paper-and-article)) to want it as a tag. As long as the tag wiki was clear enough, it might be helpful ...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In short, I don't think it would be helpful to introduce a new, very broad, tag that does not have a clearly defined scope distinct from existing tags.
There are three reasons I am not in favor of this proposal:
1) There is not much consistency in how people understand the word "manuscript," which makes it a bad choice for a tag name. We've even had a question asking about the distinction, as username_1 brought up.
In my field, for example, I never hear people use the word "manuscript." People use "paper" when they are talking about an article in any stage of the publication process (both before and after publication).
Tag wiki excerpts are great, but underused, so if we think very few people will correctly understand a tag without referring to its excerpt, it's probably going to be a badly used tag.
Good tags should be easy to use and understand; "manuscript" vs "publication" is a distinction that means different things to different people, so it's not a good distinction to make in a tag.
2) We already have tags *more* specific than "manuscript" that I think would make the manuscript tag redundant. Questions about a manuscript would probably be about
* writing them, in which case they'd be covered by the [writing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing "show questions tagged 'writing'") tag
* circulating them, which would be covered by [preprint](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/preprint "show questions tagged 'preprint'")
* submitting them for review or publication, which would be covered by [paper-submission](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paper-submission "show questions tagged 'paper-submission'")
* etc.
When the more specific tags are used, they implicitly include "manuscript" - e.g. if a question has [paper-submission](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paper-submission "show questions tagged 'paper-submission'"), it is obviously about a manuscript.
You mentioned in a comment that it is *wrong* to use [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'") together with these tags. I don't think it is wrong. People use [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'") to distinguish between, e.g., [questions on writing content that is intended for publication](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing+publications) and [questions on writing content that is intended for a thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing+thesis). It's a useful distinction.
3) Massive changes to the tag taxonomy need massive benefit to justify. This change would apply to a lot of questions, and I don't see massive benefit to this proposal.
It's not very disruptive to suggest and apply changes to tags on a small scale (i.e., less than a dozen questions). Changes on a large scale are more disruptive to existing users, and I prefer not to do them unless there's a very good reason. (And of course, large changes should preferably have a *lot* of support on meta before anyone undertakes them.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2014/12/28 | 528 | 1,955 | <issue_start>username_0: Users of this site sometimes flag comments that say
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
or
>
> +1, good answer
>
>
>
for moderator deletion as 'too chatty.'
There are [varying](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126180/is-it-acceptable-to-write-a-thank-you-in-a-comment) [opinions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/169994/should-a-thank-you-comment-be-flagged) on MSE as to when such comments should be deleted.
* Some say they make the community more human and friendly, and are nice to keep around
* Some say they are useful if they also offer constructive criticism or highlight something useful in the post (e.g. "+1, especially for the very useful link")
* Some say they should be removed if there are other, more useful, comments on a post, and the thanks get in the way of the more useful comments.
* Some say they should always be removed.
Right now, there is very little consistency on this site - a flag on a "thank you" comment might be declined by a moderator one day, then the same comment might deleted by another moderator the next day if the same user raises a flag again.
On Academia, under what conditions should "thank you" comments be deleted by moderators?<issue_comment>username_1: My quick thoughts:
* I would definitely leave in comments that highlight parts of the answer, as they reinforce the message of the answer and indicate why it's important.
* A simple "Thanks!" or "+1. Nice answer." that doesn't really contribute anything probably can go.
* Comments should at least be left up for a day or so, unless it's clear that they've already been seen and responded to.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If it's been flagged, and there isn't a really good reason for it to stay, just delete it.
What would be a really good reason? If it's asking for clarification, and that clarification has not yet been made. Or if it's pointing out an egregious error in an answer.
Upvotes: 1 |
2014/12/29 | 1,262 | 5,021 | <issue_start>username_0: On the website, we have many brand names in form of the website's names, publishers, etc. exists; however, we have a more general tag each of them. For instance, we have [elsevier](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/elsevier "show questions tagged 'elsevier'") with only 6 questions tagged or [scopus](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scopus "show questions tagged 'scopus'") while we have a [publishers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publishers "show questions tagged 'publishers'") tag with 52 questions tagged. The same also situation exists for [facebook](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/facebook "show questions tagged 'facebook'"), [twitter](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/twitter "show questions tagged 'twitter'"), etc. with no more than 10 questions tagged; while we have a more general tag [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'").
My question is, what is the role of having such brand name tags on the website, while we have good general tags as well? And, what can we do to have more orginised tags when we can have a general tag *and* we already have brand or website names tags on Academia?<issue_comment>username_1: Specific tags have some benefit, as long as they're used appropriately.
Someone looking for information about [elsevier](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/elsevier "show questions tagged 'elsevier'") policies in particular isn't necessarily interested in general practices of [publishers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publishers "show questions tagged 'publishers'"). Specific tags allow for finer distinctions when searching for questions of interest. Synonyms destroy those distinctions.
Tags that are a brand name also have the benefit of name recognition and SEO-friendliness. Nobody asks Google, "Can I cite a wiki-type website in an academic paper?" They ask, "Can I cite Wikipedia?"
Some other SE sites use brand-specific tags very successfully. For example, on [Travel](https://travel.stackexchange.com/), there is the general [airlines](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/airlines), but also [ryanair](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ryanair), [jetstar](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/jetstar), [qatar-airways](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/qatar-airways), etc.
There may be individual tags on Academia that are too specific to be useful and should be re-evaluated. But I don't think making all brand-specific tags synonyms of a broader tag is useful as a general rule.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not an expert of the SE software, but I think the answer to your question boils down to the role of tags in this website.
My impression (correct me if I'm wrong), is that tags are:
* used by users for *browsing* and finding Q&As they are interested in
* used by the community to *organize* Q&As, clean up the mess, have a coherent taxonomy
* used for *SEO* purposes by the SE devs (meaning: search engines look at tags)
From a librarian point of view (which is mine, and it's not neutral :-) findability is very important, and tags are useful and helpful when they actually are. I agree with username_1's answer: sometimes specific tags are useful and sometimes they are not.
I'm not a fan of perfect, coherent taxonomies that do not help the user (especially, the new ones). They are beautiful to see, but they serve no other purpose than be consistent. [The world is fuzzy](http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html) (even a small world as academia.SE) and thus there is no taxonomy that can be created *bottom up*, as we do, that can maximize consistency and usefulness. We need to pick one :-)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: To me, the critical question is this: what resource is expended by tags?
Infrastructure-wise, there is no limit on number of tags in the database. There *is* a per-post limit, so we cannot have a general taxonomic policy without needing to allow for frequent truncation. There is also a limit on citation time expended by the community and on rate of change that does not disrupt the front page.
I thus see it as better to think of tags as identifying clusters rather than creating categories. The value of a tag is then not defined by how broadly it is used but by how informative it is: frequency of use times specificity.
Brand name tags, such as Elsevier and IEEE thus make sense when there is a large number of *people* who are likely to find the direction highly specific. A much more specialized brand name like IJCAI or CACM, however, is much more dubious because we are starting to get into non-generalizable territory.
At the end of the day, though tagging is fuzzy and bottom up, and we aren't going to be able to have a completely precise policy no matter what we do.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/01/01 | 2,388 | 7,938 | <issue_start>username_0: The dawn of a new year, 2015, now approaches, or has already approached, either way it means that it is now time for the site's first new cycle of Community Promotion Ads!
### What are Community Promotion Ads?
Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.
### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?
This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:
* the site's twitter account
* academic websites and resources
* interesting campus story blogs
* cool events or conferences
* anything else your community would genuinely be interested in
The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join.
### Why do we reset the ads every year?
Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.
The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.
### How does it work?
The answers you post to this question *must* conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored.
1. All answers should be in the exact form of:
```
[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]
[1]: http://image-url
[2]: http://clickthrough-url
```
Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.
2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [community-ads](/questions/tagged/community-ads "show questions tagged 'community-ads'") tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.
### Image requirements
* The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**
* Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)
* Must be GIF or PNG
* No animated GIFs
* Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB
### Score Threshold
There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.
You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/1478).<issue_comment>username_1: [](https://twitter.com/StackAcademia)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: [](http://phdcomics.com/)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: [](https://pubpeer.com/recent)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: [](http://retractionwatch.com/)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: [](http://apod.nasa.gov/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: [](http://what-if.xkcd.com/)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: [](http://arxitics.com)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: [](http://expatriates.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: [](https://productivity.stackexchange.com/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: [](https://archive.org/web/)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: [](https://scirate.com/)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: [](http://arxiv.org)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: [](http://opensciencefederation.com)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: [](http://thecostofknowledge.com/)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_10: [](http://ropensci.org/community/#join-us)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_11: [See all questions with active bounties http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/academia.stackexchange.com/bounty.png](https://academia.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: [](http://opendata.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_13: [](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/academic-writing)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: [](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_15: [](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_16: [](http://earthscience.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_17: [](http://health.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_18: [](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_19: [](https://law.stackexchange.com/)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_20: [](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90327/geomatics-and-remote-sensing?referrer=8G2asYAyI_To9RoVf1VtPg2)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_21: [](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75409/latin-language?referrer=A4jGyZ0h5Q1OXgEW5Vh1eQ2)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_17: [](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82841/language-learning?referrer=sg-MbJAGOjNnNFDS7ptHjQ2)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_17: [](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=kJpAFl8x1jOj1x29D-RukA2)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_22: [](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/91841/crystallography)
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/01/06 | 1,505 | 6,390 | <issue_start>username_0: Similar to [this question from two years ago](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/410/sudden-influx-of-close-votes-on-old-questions), I've noticed a rapid sequence of close votes over the past little while, many of which I have disagreed with since the questions have a number of up-votes and answers. My questions:
1. Is somebody doing a systematic purge?
2. If so, what is your system?
3. It seems to me that it would be courteous to announce it on meta or at least in chat. Would others agree?
---
Edited to add the reasons for my concern:
1. As I am not a moderator, the review software does not tell me who the traffic in the queue is coming from. Also, the review queue presents things one at a time and makes it difficult to go back once you have finished with a review, so it is difficult to consider a set of actions as a batch. I thus cannot readily tell the difference between a batch of curation work by an established user, trolling by a rep 15 user who has gotten annoyed about something, or a mixture of the two.
2. When there are a *lot* of items coming through for review, I *run out* of reviews that the software will allow me to make and cannot review any more items (this happened to me yesterday). Thus, if long-term curation work occurs at too high a rate, it can inhibit the ability of the community to deal with new questions.
I very much appreciate the work being put into curation: it's an extremely important function on this site, and one without a huge amount of reward. My request is simply that people give a heads up (either or meta or in chat, whichever seems most appropriate) when they are about to take a large number of closing or flagging actions, and that they limit such actions to ~10/day, so those of us reviewing can carry out our own portion of the tasks more effectively.<issue_comment>username_1: A user1 has raised a large number of close flags2. Posts on which close flags have been raised are pushed into the review queue.
Some *other* users tend to vote to close fairly aggressively in the review queue, so these posts typically accrue at least one or two close votes.
Anyone with sufficient rep (10k+) can see the vote history [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/close/history). Feel free to review the review history and edit/cast reopen votes for questions that are worth saving. (Either because the question itself is good, or because the question itself can be made "good enough" and the answers are good.)
Regarding your point:
>
> It seems to me that it would be courteous to announce it on meta or at least in chat. Would others agree?
>
>
>
Yes, I agree that large and/or systematic curation efforts should be announced on meta first.
These efforts - no matter how well intended - can often have unforseen and undesirable effects on the rest of the community. It's a good idea to get feedback first and make sure your specific efforts are actually helpful and wanted by the community.
---
1I'm not at liberty to say more (i.e. name names), although the user who raised the flags is welcome to out him/herself here and explain what's behind it.
2 Possibly badge-hunting? Note that if even one reviewer agrees with the flag (which often happens whether it's warranted or not), the flag is marked helpful. Also, declined/unhelpful flags don't have any negative impact on site privileges or badge progress. So there's an incentive built into the platform for users to keep raising these flags, regardless of what the community does in response to them or whether they're *actually* helpful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In answer to your sub-questions above, I should mention that from about three month ago, I went on the process of reviewing the older posts on the website. My edits include the following activities:
1. Edit on the title of the questions; some of the questions posted in the past had no clear title to help the user recognize what the content of the question is. As an example, I edit the title of the questions from something like `On doing something` to `How should I do something in somewhere situation?` to help the newer users find questions easier.
2. I Edit the tags of the questions to improve the searchability of the questions. My edits to the tags is systematic: I choose one tag and once in every 12 hours, I only edit 5 or 6 questions to avoid having many questions bumped to the top list. (At this edit level, I also edit the questions titles and content only if they need some edits.)
In the recent days, I have started to review the content of the older posts. By saying the older posts, I have sorted the display of questions from new to old; and I am checking the older questions one by one. On this process I check the following things:
1. I check whether the questions is on-topic or not.
2. I edit the question if it *really* needs it. To avoid bumping questions to the top-list, I only edit the questions on my tag edits, not at this review process.
3. I control and raise flags for un-useful comments such as `+1` or `Thank you` comments. Also, for the comments which are obsolete, for instance the ones which are now part of answer to the question.
4. I raise flags for answers which I think they are not helping the questions.
These are the reasons which I think our older posts need curing:
1. Older posts should be reviewed sometimes. It is good for the website to dynamically check newly posted questions as well as the questions and answers which are posted in the past.
2. The users can see the older posts too and if they have something new and helping to the question; when they see those old questions, they will post their new points of view to the questions. So the answers will be updated.
3. Problematic parts of the posts will be reviewed. Off-topic questions will go for another review process and people again, think about the questions.
Based on the introduction above, in the recent days I have reviewed about 100 questions or more; and I raised some flags on the un-useful answers and comments. However, it was just due to making this website's questions in better shape and quality, not for badge-hunting or making trouble for the site. Also, as far as I am an ordinary user on the website and I really do not know whether another user/s have also raised any flags or not.
Upvotes: 0 |
2015/01/07 | 860 | 3,449 | <issue_start>username_0: Since I obtained closing priviledges and can thus use custom close reasons, I find myself typing the following sentence on a daily basis (and before, I flagged questions to which this would have applied regularly):
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the content of an academic discipline and not about academia itself.
>
>
>
It thus seems to be useful to me to have a predefined close reason for such cases which then can also be used to give the askers some help at hand where to ask their question (if at all).<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest for the text of the close reason:
>
> Questions about the content of an academic discipline are off-topic here. They may be on-topic on [a Stack Exchange site pertaining to that discipline](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday), though.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: We can only have 3 custom off-topic close reasons. They are currently:
>
> Questions that cannot be generalized to apply to others in similar situations are off-topic. For assistance in writing questions that can apply to multiple people facing similar situations, see: What kinds of questions are too localized?
>
>
>
>
> Questions about problems facing undergraduate students are off-topic unless they can also apply to graduate or post-graduate academicians as described in What topics can I ask about here?
>
>
>
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, and it's likely that only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able to provide an objectively correct answer.
>
>
>
So if you want a new reasons, it comes at the cost of deleting one of the current reasons (or begging the SE team to [create more](https://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/6994/can-we-have-more-than-3-custom-close-reasons-pretty-please) for us). The first and third close reasons are similar, but a [previous discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1097) suggested we liked it that way. At that time, there was no proposed third custom reason, so it might be worth revisiting that discussion. While it would be desirable to know the usage of the custom close reasons, [usage data are unavailable](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/194378/how-can-i-search-for-custom-off-topic-close-reasons).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Personally, I am in favor of rethinking *all* of our close reasons. Some are underutilized, some are badly misutilized, and there are some that I think are conspicuously missing.
I think we should start a CW thread here on meta in which each answer has:
* proposed text of a custom close reason
* a description of the kind of questions it would apply to
* some examples to demonstrate the need for this close reason
* links to any discussion threads on meta relevant to this close reason.
We can post the existing current close reasons, as well as any new ones that people would like to propose. Upvotes on the answers (after a sufficiently long period for discussion) could indicate which close reasons the community *currently* finds most important and applicable.
Also, if we want to request an additional custom close reason, the meta thread I'm proposing would position us to do so. The SE team likes to see discussion on site meta and demonstrated need before approving such requests.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/01/08 | 782 | 3,103 | <issue_start>username_0: Tags are meant to collect questions on a single subject, so a tag that applies to several completely different kinds of questions is a bad tag.
The [statistics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/statistics "show questions tagged 'statistics'") tag is one of the worst offenders. I've seen people apply it to:
* Questions on "standards and conventions specific to statistics as an academic discipline, and programs leading to a degree in this field." For example, [Should I do a PhD or Master in Statistics for a career in Data Science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34508/should-i-do-a-phd-or-master-in-statistics-for-a-career-in-data-science)
* Questions on "the use of statistics in academic research. Statistics is the science of collecting, analyzing and drawing inference from data." For example, [Should I cite all R packages I used?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27921/should-i-cite-all-r-packages-i-used) This is the use currently specified by the tag wiki excerpt, which reflected the actual use of the tag at the time that I last edited it, but doesn't seem to now.
* Questions asking for statistics about research or academia. For example, [Can you get statistical data on research paper submissions and publications?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/can-you-get-statistical-data-on-research-paper-submissions-and-publications)
I believe the best way to disambiguate is to have differently-named tags to address these different use cases. The tag names should clearly indicate which usage the tag is referring to, since people don't always read the tag wiki excerpt (they're not easy to get to while posting a question on mobile site, for example).
Any suggestions?
(I believe tags are limited to 24 characters on this site.)<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like we need something along the lines of [stats-depts](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/stats-depts "show questions tagged 'stats-depts'") for the first case, [stats-research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/stats-research "show questions tagged 'stats-research'") for the second, and [stats-on-academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/stats-on-academia "show questions tagged 'stats-on-academia'") for the last. I'd prefer to keep them all starting with "stat" for convenience in the tag browser.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd prefer [statistics-discipline](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/statistics-discipline "show questions tagged 'statistics-discipline'"), [statistics-in-research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/statistics-in-research "show questions tagged 'statistics-in-research'"), and [statistics-meta](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/statistics-meta "show questions tagged 'statistics-meta'") as an alternative naming convention. The discipline covers the subject, in-research covers the practice, and meta covers meta-statistics that are not related directly to research.
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/01/09 | 526 | 1,963 | <issue_start>username_0: Here is my original question: [How can physicists help in theoretical biology, besides math and fresh perspectives?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34941/how-can-physicists-help-in-theoretical-biology-besides-math-and-fresh-perspecti)
As stated in [jakebeal's answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1486/where-is-the-line-between-a-question-about-doing-research-and-a-question-abou/1493#1493) in the meta question I ask:
>
> Your question was then a bit borderline because it asked about classes of content interacting with this idea. I'm pretty liberal about how I think about scope on this site, though, and so tend to feel that if something is borderline but we can answer it well, that it is better to include than to close.
>
>
>
Since there is no other answer, is it safely to conclude that this is the official answer? If yes, should my question be reopened?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, many of the answers are posted in comments rather than answers, which means we can't see who would have downvoted. However, it does appear that there is a sense that the question is off-topic due to it's being about a specific research topic rather than relating to academia itself. Personally, I agree with that assessment. In that vein, I think it's remaining closed is probably the best path on this site.
Regarding other venues, the main one that comes to mind is reddit. Hopefully other people can provide other good suggestions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For me, it sounds more like a Quora-question. I mean, it's great, but a bit open-ended [I didn't cast a close-vote, thought].
Alternatively, you can try asking on <http://biology.stackexchange.com>. But even with that it can be too general - depending on discipline the answer may vary. (In short, it is usually applied mathematics, understanding of models, numerics and analogies from physical system.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/01/12 | 540 | 2,182 | <issue_start>username_0: This question [Can I reference the abstract?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/27179/17966) is a duplicate but I found it by searching and the title confused me. It's actually about "Can I reference other things in my abstract?". I wanted to suggest an edit of the tile but the question *is* a duplicate.
Should I suggest edits to duplicate and/or closed questions?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, we will only correct questions placed "on hold" (or closed, or duplicate, etc.) if **the title** has a grammatical error or typo, which should *always* be corrected, as the question titles are the main "interface" presented to visitors. Other edits are likely to be unproductive.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would distinguish between duplicate question, non-duplicate questions that on hold and could possibly be reopened, and non-duplicate questions that are on hold and have no chance of being reopened (e.g. are wildly off topic).
* **Duplicate questions** are not going to be deleted; they should reflect the quality we expect of all questions on this site, and if they do not, edits are perfectly valid. As with other questions (including open questions), edits should *significantly* improve the post.
* **On hold/closed questions that are not duplicates and could be improved** *should* be. That's the point of putting them on hold in the first place.
* **On hold/closed questions that are not duplicates and will never be reopened** in anything resembling their current form (for example, because they are shopping questions, or wildly off topic for this site) and are subject to [automatic deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that) shouldn't be edited in most cases (removing offensive content or profanities is a notable exception). Editing closed questions pushes them into the [reopen queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work). It seems pointless to create unnecessary work for reviewers, for questions that are certainly going to be deleted soon anyways.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/01/14 | 734 | 2,574 | <issue_start>username_0: In the "low quality" review queue:
Most of the time what I really want to be doing is *downvote* the answer. Look specifically at [this example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27936/is-it-normal-for-an-advisor-to-expect-80-hour-workweeks-from-phd-students-and/35200#35200). The post is (sorry to the poster) just bad. I don't want to edit it and none of the **Delete** reasons applies. However, I definitely want to downvote it. There is no button that actually lets me do that. What I need to do is press **Looks Ok** (which it doesn't), click the tiny **Link** button on the right, and downvote outside of the review queue.
This is the case for me for 2 out of 3 entries in this queue. I would like to see buttons for up- and downvoting here on the level of **Edit** and **Delete**.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a Stack Exchange-wide "feature," which I imagine would have to be implemented at that level, rather than just on Academia.SE.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This is how we've been explained to interpret stuff in our queues on Stack Overflow, which gets a much higher volume of questions. The goal is to check whether the answer passes the smell test as an answer, not whether it holds water as an answer.
[Here's an example of usage from Stack Overflow over the use of "Looks Okay".](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok)
*Looks Okay* does not mean *Is Correct*.
Consider the following example question:
>
> What is 1 + 1?
>
>
>
And the example answers, with the correct(ish) response in parentheses
* Two (Looks Okay)
* 1.99999 (Looks Okay)
* I like turtles! (Not an Answer)
* example.com (Link-only Answer)
* Has anyone figured it out? (Not an Answer)
---
As awkward as it may seem, the second answer, 1.99999, based on what the LQPRQ is looking for, should be marked as "Looks Okay." The answer may be categorically *wrong* (in which case you would downvote it), but the goal of the queue itself is to get rid of content which do not meet the guidelines to be considered an answer.
So long as it is an attempt at an answer, the correct action we're supposed to do is mark it as "Looks Okay" from an Answer perspective.
After that, we can go to the page and downvote, comment that this is wrong, unsafe, insane, etc.
Answers that get downvoted because they are wrong and answers that get deleted because they are not answers fall in different buckets.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/01/15 | 2,362 | 9,665 | <issue_start>username_0: When browsing this site, I see a lot of questions like
>
> Should I let a senior student/professor/etc be a coauthor on my paper when he didn't do any work/made only negative contributions to the project?
>
>
>
Or
>
> What should I do if someone asks me to write my letter of reference myself?
>
>
>
The answers usually encourage the OP to be ethical, and say stuff like
>
> You shouldn't write your own letter because that would be academic fraud
>
>
>
or
>
> You shouldn't let your colleague be a coauthor because coauthorships are supposed to reflect the contribution you made to the project
>
>
>
Now I think if I asked these questions to academics in real life, their answers would be something along the lines of "of course you should let him coauthor your paper/write your letter of reference yourself, because doing otherwise would be career suicide, and you are in no position to take the moral high ground here." Why is the prevailing opinion on academia.SE so different (and is this a problem)?<issue_comment>username_1: Many of the questions that we get on Academia related to ethics necessarily involve "grey" areas, since what is the most ethical choice, as you suggest, may not be the most practical choice.
However, I believe we would be remiss if we, as a board, did not encourage **best practices**—what we believe *should* be done in a given situation. Of course, people reading the answers need to weigh the advice given against their own personal situations. There may be circumstances in which following the advice given may be detrimental. It is better, though, if the reader knows what is appropriate, so that they can try to avoid having to do something less ethical in the future.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The following is a good paraphrase of a conversation I had with a junior colleague yesterday:
**I**: I just wanted to say that I would have discussed the issue of coauthorship of this paper with you if I thought there was any chance that you would consider it.
**She**: I didn't contribute any of the results of the paper.
**I**: Yes, but I've seen cases where people get added as coauthors with less involvement than you've had, in some cases just by being in the room when the work was done.
**She**: [reddening] There is no way that I would agree to that!
**I**: I know. So I didn't ask.
Or, from the other side, here is the last paragraph of a recently accepted paper by [<NAME>](http://www.math.uga.edu/~jhicks/research.html) (my PhD student) and Dr. <NAME> (a 2014 PhD from my department):
>
> All of the computer implementations and almost all of the mathematics was done by the named authors. P.L. Clark’s mathematical contributions were (only) the statement and proof of Theorem 4 and the proof of Corollary 1. The statement of Corollary 1 is due to the named authors and was (earlier) proven by them via a different and more computational method making use of quaternions. Clark also contributed to the writing of the paper, working off of an early draft of the named authors.
>
>
>
I had been invited by the named authors to be a coauthor, but I declined.
Or let's switch it around again: twice in recent memory I wrote papers that benefited substantially from conversations I had with more senior academics (one of whom is many years older; the other is not *that* much older but many times more famous and eminent); in the latter case there was no way I could have written the paper without the ideas this guy gave me. It happened that the ideas were difficult *for me* to implement, required some variations, and I finished the paper years after I had the conversation, but I have no reason to believe that he could not have carried through what he proposed to me. I offered coauthorship to both of these people and got turned down both times. And, to come full circle, in the former case I did coauthor the paper with a (different) student in my department. I wrote the whole paper and contributed the majority of the results: still, what he contributed was the best part, and his name comes before mine (alphabetically!).
I could go on, but you get the point: when it comes to issues of coauthorship, in every coauthorship situation I have been directly involved with, all parties involved have taken what the OP calls "the moral high ground". I don't really like that term because it makes the practice sound different from the norm. Speaking for myself, i would rather say that I have always acted according to the ethical standards that I was taught and that are followed by the majority of my colleagues the vast majority of the time. My career is alive and reasonably well. In fact I would like to think that I have a reputation for acting honorably and that reputation *helps* my career.
So my recommendations that other academics uphold professional ethics no matter which way the power flows are not only unhypocritical but sincere: I really do think that following these recommendations are in junior academics' best interests.
I have never directly witnessed a refusal to compromise on these kinds of professional ethics end anyone's academic career. Perhaps I've been very lucky, been in the best places, surrounded by unusually great people. Perhaps mathematicians are more samurai-like in their codes of honor than other academics. Perhaps. But overall my reaction to such questions on this site tends to be the diametrically opposite one: I find it shocking that so many young people are being placed in situations where they feel like they have to choose between their professional integrity and their career. When no one around you is behaving well, it seems hopeless to take an ethical stand *even when it actually isn't*. So having people on this site firmly steer questioners in the direction of "best practices" seems very, very important.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I like a lot [an answer by Suresh to Are we presenting an idealised view of academia?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/959/49), i.e. that we should make a split:
>
> * what we would all like to happen
> * what typically happens
> * what should NOT happen under any circumstances (even if it's sadly not rare)
> * what is completely abnormal.
>
>
>
I understand that [survival bias, etc] many profs here may never had to write a recommendation for themselves or were never in situation where presence and positions of authors reflected other factors than thier contribution.
(And I am sure that they would not set their advisees in these conditions.)
Yet, to answer: **Why do people on academia.SE often suggest courses of action that are very different from what most people would do in real life?**, I think that:
* some people didn't met these problems in person,
* idealizing academia, advisor-advisee relations, etc (survival bias + wishful thinking),
* it may be dangerous to put under one's name an advice for a breach of ethics,
* "lesser evil" doesn't sound well plus may be an excuse for others as a normal, acceptable behaviour.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Apart from the other good arguments, I think that we should answer “what should I do?” questions from the point of view of ethics and academic standards, because that’s the only point of view from which we can give a useful answer to most of these questions.
Let’s take this question for an example:
>
> Should I let my supervisor be a coauthor on my paper when he didn't contribute anything to the project?
>
>
>
The decision that the asker eventually has to make strongly depends on the following questions:
* How high is the risk that not making the supervisor a coauthor has negative repercussions of what kind?
* How high does the asker value the damage done by these repercussions?
* How high does the asker value the ethics involved?
The first question obviously strongly depends on the supervisor and can only be answered by somebody knowing this person; the other two questions can only be answered by the asker.
We cannot make the decision for askers of such questions; we cannot even give direct advice for such situations; we can only help them to make an informed decision. To this end, the main thing we can do is to inform askers about ethics and academic standards. We can and should also inform them about possible repercussions originating from them being expected to breach ethics – but in most such questions that I am aware of, the askers are already aware of possible repercussions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think some reasons may be
1. People on academia.SE don't truly care about anonymous Internet posters in the same way they care for their family and friends. They would rather uphold ethics than side with a random person, but in real life they would side with their friends rather than upholding ethics.
2. Many people on academia.SE post under their real name, and they wouldn't want to endorse unethical behavior where people could see it. On the other hand, never endorsing unethical behavior may be one of the things that make them comfortable posting under their real name in the first place.
3. As others have said, people who stay in academia have generally been screwed over less than people who don't, and have good relations with their colleagues and supervisors. They can afford to disapprove of writing letters of recommendation themselves, because they've probably never been in a position where they had to write one.
**Is this a problem?** Personally, I think it is okay as long as questioners are aware of this community bias.
Upvotes: 4 |
2015/01/16 | 820 | 3,011 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question about confusion in science from language differences](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/36887/possible-causes-of-confusion-and-mistakes-in-technical-terminology-in-bilingual) got some really interesting answers before it was put on hold. I think putting it on hold was a good thing, as it doesn't fit the normal question model. I do think, though, that it could be a good community wiki question, curating an informative list of just how much difference and confusion can occur from seemingly precise terminology. Would others agree?<issue_comment>username_1: (This is not an answer to the discussion prompt, but a suggestion on how to proceed following said discussion.)
* I have converted the question to CW in the interim.
* The question can now be handled by the usual community reopen vote/review process. If you believe the question has sufficient value to be kept around, you can vote accordingly. If you previously refrained from voting to reopen because you felt it should be kept, but only in CW form, now there is nothing holding you back.
* If there is a consensus as a result of this meta discussion that the post should *not* be made CW (regardless of whether it is reopened or not), flag and a mod can change it back.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: This *[is](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1528/11365)* an answer to the discussion prompt :)
/**takes off mod hat**/ Also, this post is my opinion, not some dictate of policy or anything like that.
I am *not* in favor of reopening the question under consideration.
I am in favor of using CW to keep otherwise unsuitable posts *very, very* rarely, when a question and its answers are expected to be very broadly useful to most users of this site.
For example, see the current CW questions:
* [What do you wish you knew as a student before you became a researcher?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13355/what-do-you-wish-you-knew-as-a-student-before-you-became-a-researcher)
* [Software to draw illustrative figures in papers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1095/software-to-draw-illustrative-figures-in-papers)
* [What do publishers provide to authors in different disciplines?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1593/what-do-publishers-provide-to-authors-in-different-disciplines)
* [What does first authorship really mean?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2467/what-does-first-authorship-really-mean)
* [Compiling ethical standards for coauthorship across academic fields and regions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20901/compiling-ethical-standards-for-coauthorship-across-academic-fields-and-regions)
I am *not* in favor of expanding use of CW to keep posts around that are inappropriate for a Q&A model, and *wouldn't* be expected to be very useful to most users of this site. (Also see [The Future of Community Wiki](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/).)
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/01/21 | 1,906 | 6,605 | <issue_start>username_0: I am interested in learning what users of this site look for and appreciate in an answer.
* On this site, what are the characteristics of a good answer? (Examples of exceptionally good answers, and what makes them so exceptional, are welcome!)
* What are the characteristics of a bad answer on this site? (if such a thing even exists...)
Possible aspects to consider include but are not limited to: length, content, style, tone, disclosing background of answer-er or not, citing outside sources, addressing question in general vs situation-specific way, answers from users with or without specific relevant experience, bias, etc.
Of course, not all questions benefit from the same kinds of answers, and responses addressing subtleties like this are also very welcome.
---
(This post is shamelessly stolen from [Biblical Hermeneutics meta](https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/520/what-are-we-looking-for-in-answers). Yes, I read other SE sites' metas, including those of sites I don't participate in at all.)<issue_comment>username_1: **What I look for in answers:** (i.e., what I typically upvote)
* A neutral, down-to-earth tone
* A fresh take on a question (i.e., don't make your answer start with "I agree with XY")
* Substantial answers (very short answers are not typically very useful to me)
* A user that, based on her/his bio and SE habitus, seems trustworthy to answer the question
* Sources, if appropriate for the question
The last-but-one bullet likely requires more explanation: given that we usually deal with rather subjective topics, I usually take into account *who* posts an answer if it goes against my own opinion or seems counter-intuitive. Yes, that's unfair towards new users, but I have certainly seen new users post, well, stupid things much more frequently than high-rep users, who, often, also happen to be senior academics.
**What I hate in answers:** (i.e., what I typically downvote)
* Agenda answers ("this clearly shows that [professors|students|...] are just ..." - we had a few of those recently)
* Answers that seem to fall into the "uninformed opinion" category ("I don't have experience with this, but clearly ...")
* Excessive strong language, uncalled-for attacks towards the OP or somebody else mentioned in the question
* Circumventing the actual question asked, and instead answering what the answerer thinks "should" be the question (although there is definitely a substantial grey area here)
Bonus point: **What I hate in questions:**
* More than everything, I hate questions where the OP has clearly a pre-formed opinion, argues with everybody who answers differently, and then goes ahead to accept the first answer that validates her/his opinion no matter how much more votes all the other answers had.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know if this question asks about what we *should* look for or what we *are* looking for. I ran [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/259715/most-upvoted-answers) and extracted the answers that received 100 votes or more\*.
Here are the links to the best voted answers to date in decreasing order of vote count:
[232](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/35160)
- [182](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2221)
- [156](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/18496)
- [154](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/28339)
- [152](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/30547)
- [151](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/30552)
- [147](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/17245)
- [128](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2222)
- [120](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154)
- [118](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/8196)
- [113](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/16281)
- [106](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/18493)
- [102](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/28679)
- [101](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/30499)
- [100](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/21969)
Some observations (listed in the order used by [username_1 in his answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1545/10643)):
1. Most have a polite, down-to-earth tone. One ('Mind your own business') has had its tone disputed and one politely questions the good faith of the original question.
2. None of them are 'support' answers repeating or confirming an existing answer. One is even clearly at odd with the others.
3. The average answer length on Academia.SE according to [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/64725/average-length-of-answer-bodies) is `1212` characters. The character count in the listed answers (obtained with a Firefox plugin) are: `376 2234 5964 1098 2354 3389 6303 3091 3476 1692 2535 793 3686 2100 279` in the respective order. Mean: `2624.66`; standard deviation: `1791.99`; and median: `2354`. They are substantially longer than average, with a few exceptions.
4. High-rep users are well represented: 3 are from [JeffE](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65/jeffe), 9 out of 15 are from 20k+ users. But there are exceptions and some are even almost the only answer given by the poster. It seems like we are still pretty open to newcomers inputs.
5. Only one cites a reference document (a policy description on a university website), 2 give links to Wikipedia articles, and one to a book. None cite scientific publications or data. Citing sources does not seem to be a criteria for success.
\* I know it's more a measure of popularity than quality, but I think it still shows which answers we *are* looking for. There is an obvious bias due to the popularity of the *question*, two questions have actually multiple answers in this list. Popular questions attract popular answers, and it's not a surprise.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Adding to the other things already said, I also think it is very valuable when an answer delves into the principles and reasoning the lead the poster to answer in the way that they did. I think that this is particularly valuable because many answers are derived from a broader scientific or pedagogical ethos. Communicating that ethos helps beyond the specific situation in the question, and helps to build and reinforce the better elements of academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: username_1's answer is great, just want to add one thing to that: **answers should be concise.** Many answers here tend to have lots of examples or stories or other stuff that's relevant but not required, and it almost always makes the answers much harder to read with little benefit. Shorter is almost always better.
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/01/25 | 496 | 1,847 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, I find that in the writers.SE, there is a [academic tag](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/academic-writing). Its description says:
>
> Writing texts in a scientific or educational setting: peer-reviewed articles, theses, text books, and others.
>
>
>
I think that it is completely overlap with this academia.SE site. So if I have a question about writing, which site will I get the best answers if I ask in? Can I cross-duplicate my question to get the best from both worlds?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that Writers.SE is a better place to ask about general style and grammar, while Academia.SE is a better place to ask about substance and academic customs.
There's a big grey area where a question might legitimately be asked on either (e.g., these [two](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20046/switching-between-active-and-passive-voice) [questions](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/14266/what-voice-active-passive-is-most-suitable-for-literary-academic-papers-liter) on active vs. passive voice).
Do *not* however, post a question on both: that is considered a Bad Thing on SE sites. Pick the one you think will give you the best answer, and your question can be migrated to the other if necessary.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When it comes to academic writing, several SE sites other than Academia.SE might give you a good answer, at least *in principle*: Writers.SE or, even, for the usage of English, ELU.SE and ELL.SE.
I'm a bit hesitating, however, in suggesting to ask there questions about academic writing in technical fields (in case you are from a technical field) because I have the impression that there are not many academics who participate in the sites I've listed, especially from technical fields.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/02/01 | 441 | 1,754 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently involve more in Reddit, and surprisingly find out a subreddit named [AskAcademia](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/). I know that Stack Exchange is not Reddit, and the way Reddit works is different to the way SE works. In SE, people ask and answer. In Reddit, people post a link/thinking and comment. However, in Q&A subreddit like AskAcademia, I see no different to here. Bad questions may never be closed, but they will never be raised. Can you tell me when should I ask questions on Reddit rather than Stack Exchange?<issue_comment>username_1: You should ask a question on Reddit whenever you feel like it, regardless of whether you ask the question on Academia.SE.
Academia.SE doesn't make any claim to be the only site you should ask a question on. It only asks that you not ask the same question on any other SE site, because that is general SE policy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Reddit
======
* Born for open-ended discussions
* After 6 months posts are automatically locked so discussions are "fossilized" to reflect what happened in that time
* No way for users to improve others' posts
* Downvotes can (and usually?) mean "I don't like this" or "this is uninteresting"
* The only way to have links to relevant posts within the subreddit is by having other users provide
* More active users in my opinion
Stack Exchange
==============
* Born for Q&A
* Posts can always be improved until the Sun dies
* Contributions from users are encouraged and peer-reviewed
* Downvotes mean "This post is wrong/not useful"
* Have tag system, related questions to categorize and discover more questions/answers
* Posts can have images, HTML. The site overall is nicely designed
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2015/02/03 | 1,179 | 4,559 | <issue_start>username_0: There's been a couple of questions along the lines of "Can I get into X program with x.xx GPA?"
* [Is it possible to get into a good masters program in computer science with a 3-3.5 GPA?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34767/is-it-possible-to-get-into-a-good-masters-program-in-computer-science-with-a-3-3)
* [Can I get a scholarship from graduate school in physics if my GPA below 3?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31812/can-i-get-a-scholarship-from-graduate-school-in-physics-if-my-gpa-below-3)
Should these questions be allowed? My concern is that are too broad or too particular. Thoughts?<issue_comment>username_1: My immediate emotional response is well summarized by [Ripley's line from Aliens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q).
Putting things in a somewhat less inflammatory way: I think these are terrible questions and epitomize the "specific advice for a very specific situation" closing reason. The reason why they are terrible is because:
1. They are almost never generalizable (how many people are there with a 3.7 GPA from a mid-ranked Elbonian institution who double-majored in electrical engineering and llama-wrangling but did two semesters of research in an unrelated area with a nice professor who probably still remembers their name)
2. The answers pretty much always boil down to "It will probably be pretty hard, but not necessarily impossible."
Because of this, I generally vote to close these questions whenever I see them, except in the unusual circumstance that neither problem #1 nor problem #2 applies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> My concern is that are too broad or too particular.
>
>
>
Hmm, how can they be both too broad and too particular :) ? Honestly, I think they are neither. The first question talks about getting into *any* CS program with mediocre grades, the second one about getting *any* physics scholarship with terrible grades. Both seem not super-specific to me. The only thing that is probably "wrong" with those questions is that it is very unlikely that there is a good, objective answer to them, more than "it's unlikely, but you can always try".
I personally don't find these questions overly interesting, but there is probably a large number of students out there for which they are relevant. So **I would just let these questions be**.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would like to see one nice CW question asking how to get into grad school with answers that would cover low GPA, low GRE, low TOEFL, limited research experience, bad references, bad undergraduate school, etc. A single answer with subsections might be better than multiple answers, just because a lot of information would be the same. We could then close these types of questions as duplicates.
I have created the CW question and started an answer: [How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-us-phd-programs)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I think these questions should be closed due to the fact that there are now such varying types of graduate/masters programs in these fields (e.g., Computer Science, the MBA, Law, MSIS (MBA + CS), etc).
At some schools it is implicitly known that the masters program is much more like the bachelors program, and at other schools, this may be explicitly made known (along with some requirement that remediary courses be taken the first year exclusively). While at others still, the curriculum may be designed to be totally soul-crushing from the beginning. There is a wide-range of hand-holding from 0-100 at institutions, and it hasn't really been quantified anywhere.
Thus these kinds of questions aren't really apples to apples unfortunately.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I have taken the liberty of adding [a generic question and answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114130/is-a-general-gre-score-of-x-sufficient-for-entry-to-postgraduate-degree-y) for the questions we get regarding the GRE level required for entry to programs. There were a lot of these questions and they were very specific to the student, so I have tried to give a general answer that allows students to assess any GRE score against the data on their cohort. This could be a useful question to link to as a duplicate for questions of this kind. Hopefully that contributes something to this issue.
Upvotes: 0 |
2015/02/17 | 1,141 | 4,633 | <issue_start>username_0: I did a search to find unanswered questions on website and found about [141 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=answers%3A0%20closed%3Ano%20duplicate%3Ano) which have no answers and are still open, these are the questions which seem to be on-topic on site because they are not closed as off-topic or duplicate.
How can users be encouraged to take a look at these questions and answer them, or review them to find out whether there duplicates of them available on website? Should some of these questions reviewed to find out whether they are eligible to remain opened?
In my opinion, some of these questions are good ones, however some other may not be so good to remain opened.<issue_comment>username_1: My immediate emotional response is well summarized by [Ripley's line from Aliens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q).
Putting things in a somewhat less inflammatory way: I think these are terrible questions and epitomize the "specific advice for a very specific situation" closing reason. The reason why they are terrible is because:
1. They are almost never generalizable (how many people are there with a 3.7 GPA from a mid-ranked Elbonian institution who double-majored in electrical engineering and llama-wrangling but did two semesters of research in an unrelated area with a nice professor who probably still remembers their name)
2. The answers pretty much always boil down to "It will probably be pretty hard, but not necessarily impossible."
Because of this, I generally vote to close these questions whenever I see them, except in the unusual circumstance that neither problem #1 nor problem #2 applies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> My concern is that are too broad or too particular.
>
>
>
Hmm, how can they be both too broad and too particular :) ? Honestly, I think they are neither. The first question talks about getting into *any* CS program with mediocre grades, the second one about getting *any* physics scholarship with terrible grades. Both seem not super-specific to me. The only thing that is probably "wrong" with those questions is that it is very unlikely that there is a good, objective answer to them, more than "it's unlikely, but you can always try".
I personally don't find these questions overly interesting, but there is probably a large number of students out there for which they are relevant. So **I would just let these questions be**.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would like to see one nice CW question asking how to get into grad school with answers that would cover low GPA, low GRE, low TOEFL, limited research experience, bad references, bad undergraduate school, etc. A single answer with subsections might be better than multiple answers, just because a lot of information would be the same. We could then close these types of questions as duplicates.
I have created the CW question and started an answer: [How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-us-phd-programs)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I think these questions should be closed due to the fact that there are now such varying types of graduate/masters programs in these fields (e.g., Computer Science, the MBA, Law, MSIS (MBA + CS), etc).
At some schools it is implicitly known that the masters program is much more like the bachelors program, and at other schools, this may be explicitly made known (along with some requirement that remediary courses be taken the first year exclusively). While at others still, the curriculum may be designed to be totally soul-crushing from the beginning. There is a wide-range of hand-holding from 0-100 at institutions, and it hasn't really been quantified anywhere.
Thus these kinds of questions aren't really apples to apples unfortunately.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I have taken the liberty of adding [a generic question and answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114130/is-a-general-gre-score-of-x-sufficient-for-entry-to-postgraduate-degree-y) for the questions we get regarding the GRE level required for entry to programs. There were a lot of these questions and they were very specific to the student, so I have tried to give a general answer that allows students to assess any GRE score against the data on their cohort. This could be a useful question to link to as a duplicate for questions of this kind. Hopefully that contributes something to this issue.
Upvotes: 0 |
2015/02/18 | 1,802 | 6,853 | <issue_start>username_0: Following the suggestion of @Davidmh, I want to start a discussion about [this recently holded question.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39017/should-i-quit-my-phd-workload-self-esteem-and-social-life)
First of, the facts (as I see them):
* The question has been put on hold (with 5 community votes, no direct closing by a mod). I think given the tone and scope of the question as written, this is in line with our usual practices. One can argue that the question is currently all of unclear, opinion-based, and maybe also somewhat of a rant.
* However, the question has also garnered a lot of responses: there are 32 upvotes (2 downvotes), 2000 views, 9 answers, and many, many comments. We do not all that often have questions that trigger *more* community interest in such short time.
The second point makes me think that there *has to be* something relevant in this question, something that a good edit may be able to salvage. However, I am not entirely sure what the golden core is that makes this question more interesting to the community than all the other *"I hate grad school, shall I quit?"* questions that we usually close rather unceremoniously. I have the theory that it has a lot to do with the impression that the OP's self-esteem seems rather unhealthily tied to her grad student status, but I am not sure.
**What are your opinions on this question?**<issue_comment>username_1: IMHO, being to eager to close is not a good thing (especially for community-building):
* <NAME>, [My Love-Hate Relationship with Stack Overflow: Arthur S., Arthur T., and the Soup Nazi](http://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/741.php)
In the case of doubt, I would judge the question by answers it brings. If they make sense and are highly upvoted, I wouldn't close a question.
For this particular case, I voted to reopen (though, before answers, I wasn't so sure). This question is general enough (i.e. presents a general issue, rather than a very specific one).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **I'm in favor of closing it as soon as possible.**
It matches this closing criterion perfectly:
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek
> specific advice for a very specific situation, and **it's likely that
> only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able
> to provide an objectively correct answer**.
>
>
>
It attracted, and will continue to attract, all the worst of 'personal advice' that one gets in such a situation, ranging from pet-social theories to pseudo-psychology and plain old judgment (not to mention daunting [walls of text](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/40078/10643)). While one or two answers will eventually be sort of interesting for the OP, it's unlikely that the whole batch will be worth archiving.
Our site, IMHO, shouldn't be about telling people to loose weight, whether or not their use of dating websites is appropriate, or whether or not they should quit their PhD. *We don't know that*.
Example of content that I find utterly out of place:
From answers:
>
> "I think you should not quit your PhD. Not right now. There will be time for that, maybe."
>
>
> "You are smart, you can lose weight, you can dress better"
>
>
> "You can quit if you like."
>
>
> "Always be grateful, never compare yourself with people better then you, but think about people who are in worse situation then yours".
>
>
> "Don't quit. Quitting easily becomes habit forming."
>
>
>
From comments:
>
> "Research shows a high correlation between online dating and depression"
>
>
> "Diet is 95% of weight loss, you don't need to exercise"
>
>
> "Consider learning dancing. Dancing is really good exercise, is social, and is fun."
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I am torn because it is a terrible question (I was going to vote to close until I saw the responses) but it is a site of community-making in action (which is why I ended up voting to keep it open).
We have to admit that the 'chat' function of SE (at least A.SE) is broken and we don't use it for communal conversation. So popular questions like the one in question is really where we see community building.
That being said, it's still a bad question. But I would suggest rather than rapidly closing it -- we allow people to use it to build a sense of community -- and then when the number of answers starts to fade, that we close it for all the right reasons (it's off topic).
[I also wish we had a downvote option for comments given all of the bad personal advice being given through that vector].
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: *(Being the first one to answer and the one that got 39 upvotes for the reply, I think I have to weight in...)*
Yes, the question is probably out of scope.
Yes, my answer is probably out of scope.
The reason why I did it is that that was a cry for help and I would have been a terrible person saying: *sorry, your question does not belong here*.
I chose to sit in the "[Be nice](https://stackoverflow.com/help/be-nice)" part of academia.se, and this is the part why I love this site, more than others: it is a *safe space*, where people are treated like people.
I've read warm and honest answers, and many questions here are related to **how people feel in academia**.
This, to me, it's important for community building and thus for the project as a whole.
I've seen other projects go bad because the community felt they had to be stricter with rules. I would dare to say that is better to be a bit out of scope but more welcoming, but that is an opinion.
I would love to see some research confirming or refuting my insights (for example, what is the rate of male/female users in academia.se?)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd like to thank everyone for the lovely answers to my question. I was not in the best mood a couple days ago, and I'm feeling much better now, although still slightly miserable.
>
> However, I am not entirely sure what the golden core is that makes this question more interesting to the community than all the other "I hate grad school, shall I quit?" questions that we usually close rather unceremoniously. I have the theory that it has a lot to do with the impression that the OP's self-esteem seems rather unhealthily tied to her grad student status, but I am not sure.
>
>
>
I think it's because a lot of people feel (or have felt) the same way as me, so they have opinions and want to help. But usually people don't talk about this stuff, because it's taboo to do a PhD for any reason other than passion for the subject, let alone fear of being a fat loser. I think there's a general expectation that grad students not care too much about money (except research funding) or social status (except within the academic community).
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/02/18 | 438 | 1,699 | <issue_start>username_0: Next September I will be starting the most important part of my Ph.D in Mathematics: the "go and do something original!" part. To be honest, as someone who never did reseach before, I am a bit scared about it. As I am sure there are many many people in my situation, I would like to ask a question on Academia with the purpose of compiling a list of some of the most important things one can do to increase the chances of succefully going through (and completing) a Ph.D. Of course, I am not looking for general things like "work hard everyday"; ideally, it would be more specific and helpful things.
I am sure that the large experience of the community members would make this possible, and that some valuable tips would certainly arise; but is this question too broad and/ or too opinion-based to fit here?<issue_comment>username_1: *In its current form*, I do think this question is too broad/opinion based.
You write
>
> Of course, I am not looking for general things like "work hard everyday"; ideally, it would be more specific and helpful things.
>
>
>
But in order to avoid answers like that, you need to draft a more specific, focused question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From the [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):
>
> Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.
>
>
>
There *are* entire books that (attempt to) answer this question. For example: <NAME>'s [*A Mathematician's Survival Guide: Graduate School and Early Career Development*](http://www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=gscm).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2015/02/18 | 3,273 | 11,784 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently ran a simple Google search for instances of the word 'depression' on this site, and was shocked to see how frequent they were.
Does anyone else finds it surprising? Is it just an artifact, or does our site somehow *attract* depressed peoples? Despite what some say, I'm unconvinced that the prevalence of clinical depression amongst academics is higher than usual. I'm ready to change my mind when confronted to hard evidence of the contrary.
Questions where OP mention their clinical depression always make me uncomfortable, because they are often borderline off-topic and I sometimes don't have the hart to mention it. On the other hand I really think it's a bad idea to rely on random internet posts to handle serious nervous issues and don't want to be a part of a community that does that.
So I'm interested in your opinions about it. Should we do specific things in terms of moderation, or do we need a tag for it?
---
List of question mentioning depression (I stopped after 2 pages of search results)
Explicit mention of clinical depression:
* [What do I do as a depressed and incompetent TA?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/40739/10643)
* [Overcoming depression and getting back on rails with PhD work](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/28257/10643)
* [Should a postdoc talk about his depression with his mentor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/31855/10643)
* [Would most PhD supervisors stop working with a student who was unproductive due to clinical depression?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/37327/10643)
* [How to overcome feeling that published articles lack public interest?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/32562/10643)
* [What to do if one has had an unsuccessful PhD (because of others' fault)?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/7293/10643)
* [Is it possible to recover after a career setback such as this?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10381/10643)
* [Should I leave my PhD in year 6 or just take a bit of a leave and try to regroup?/ What is an "appropriate" level of angst to go through with a PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13133/10643)
* [Graduate without a job offer or delay](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/34963/10643)
* [Thinking about leaving a master's program](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/21089/10643)
* [Applying to grad school for mathematics with low GPA, but reluctant to bring up the health issues that caused it](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/29085/10643)
* [If I have an academic dismissal from a school should I ever go back there?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18082/10643)
* ...
Borderline questions:
* [Career advice: How can I move on from my probable PhD flop?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/33032/10643)
* [Should I quit my PhD - workload, self-esteem and social life](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/39017/10643)
* [How to cope with feelings of powerlessness on a PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38217/10643)
* [Is feeling lonely and uncomfortable in my (foreign) country of study a valid reason to drop out of a PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/35352/10643)<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think this is academia-specific. Depression is a common human condition. Evidence: Google search for [Workplace.SE mentions of depression](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:workplace.stackexchange.com+depression) (10 pages of results).
I don't think we need a separate tag; [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") seems adequate to me.
I also don't think we need to handle it differently than we currently do: close questions that are about depression itself, and answer questions that are about academic problems related to or caused by depression.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that there is probably a lot of selection bias in the questions that we see. There are a lot of depressed people out there, and people who are struggling with *something* (depression or otherwise) are a lot more likely to come and ask a question on this site. I'm not surprised that depression is one of our themes. I agree with username_1 that [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") reasonably covers it, though it's worth wondering whether we should add [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") as well.
It is also worth distinguishing between two major classes of depression:
* [Chronic depression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysthymia) is a condition that is long-term and people who suffer from it generally need some form of ongoing professional medical support. We cannot and should not help with this, other than to recommend that people take their depression seriously and seek help, and to make recommendations on professional actions that can help limit the damage that is a byproduct.
* [Situational depression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder) is a common response to situations of major and unusual stress, and graduate school is simply *full* of major and unusual stress. Just like with chronic depression, people experiencing situational depression can benefit strongly from professional help. Here, however, there is *also* a likelihood of significant benefits just from learning that their experience is common and hearing how others have gotten through similar difficulties---much like and strongly linked to [imposter syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome).
In short: I don't think depression is over-represented, and there are some ways that we can help, but we must not succumb to the temptation to play consequence-free internet doctor.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think there could be another factor.
Academia (especially in the US, I guess, but everywhere) is an highly competitive industry. There is *publish or perish*, seeking grants, fast moving disciplines, an overwhelming tide of new papers and results everyday. Research is hard. There are many people who struggle in academia.
This site is specific. It regards academia, and is full of clever people. All questions and answers are written correctly and there is a lot of work from everyone in choosing words. This make it valuable, for both Q and A.
The other point is that this site is welcoming. I see it as a positive thing, of course. I feel (and I can be refuted) that people find here a safe space and so they ask, because they know they will be answered politely. Politely and correctly.
All these things together make me think that there will be a good share of questions related to the emotional life of people in academia. Depression/discouragement is definitely a good share of that life.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Does anyone else finds it surprising? Is it just an artifact, or does our site somehow attract depressed peoples?
>
>
>
Not surprising at all. You get rants and voices of frustration on most Internet places. And I don't think that A.SE attracts more of such than other places for people related to academia.
>
> I'm unconvinced that the prevalence of clinical depression amongst academics is higher than usual.
>
>
>
@JeffE would say, *ex cathedra*, **No.** (vide [Why do PhD students complain so much?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20401/why-do-phd-students-complain-so-much)).
But I think that it might be:
* <http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/08/work-pressure-fuels-academic-mental-illness-guardian-study-health>
>
> or do we need a tag for it?
>
>
>
I did introduce tag [quitting](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quitting "show questions tagged 'quitting'") for situations where someone is quitting (whether dropping out or not continuing academic track) or considering doing so (for whatever reason). It may be worth to add a tag [psychological-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychological-issues "show questions tagged 'psychological-issues'") (there is already one for problems between people: [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'")).
And for reason mentioned in comments on other answers, I am in favor of [psychological-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychological-issues "show questions tagged 'psychological-issues'") (or something similar) rather than putting everything in [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") bag (as not all psychological issues are psychiatric).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Based on your sample, most of these questions seem to be coming from students in graduate programs, not from faculty. In my mind, this rules out the *pressure due to publish-or-perish* hypothesis.
However, getting through an advanced degree program can be hard, particularly at the PhD level.
Something else may be at play, too: take your average PhD candidate. Chances are this individual has largely excelled in academia – otherwise, they wouldn't be in a PhD program. But not all who enter these programs emerge with a degree, and that can be a tough pill to swallow, particularly when one has had 16 or more previous years of success. (The same is true for a master's candidate, too, though the failure rates probably aren't as high.) In short, some are dealing with failure in academia for the very first time. Throw in some other factors, too – students may have moved away from their hometown to go to school, they may be caught in the crossfire of departmental infighting, etc. – and it seems like a recipe for the blues.
Given that environment, I'm not surprised at all to find no small number of questions that at least mention some form of depression. In fact, I might have been surprised to find the opposite.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I dont find it surprising at all for two reasons:
1. Internet is where people go to complain, rant and whine...
2. Academia does leave a lot of people frustrated, sad, angry or depressed.
As a matter of fact emotional/mental health problems is [rather prevalent](http://qz.com/547641/theres-an-awful-cost-to-getting-a-phd-that-no-one-talks-about/) in academia. I want to take a specific paragraph out:
>
> A 2015 study at the University of California Berkeley found that 47%
> of graduate students suffer from depression, following a previous 2005
> study that showed 10% had contemplated suicide. A 2003 Australian
> study found that that the rate of mental illness in academic staff was
> three to four times higher than in the general population, according
> to a New Scientist article. The same article notes that the percentage
> of academics with mental illness in the United Kingdom has been
> estimated at 53%.
>
>
>
Also I think it's rather disturbing or insulting, when someone who's not having difficulties claims that there are no problems and PhD students (or any other generalized group of people) complain too much. The fact that you, specifically, do fine does not invalidate anybody else's troubles, worries or difficulties.
I have more than a couple of colleagues and friends that ended up with rather severe problems through-out their graduate studies, some still suffering from these problems after therapy and medication.
Without any intent to sound offensive, I suggest you revise your thoughts regarding the prevalence of psychological problems in academia.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/02/21 | 2,365 | 9,061 | <issue_start>username_0: Consider [Should I quit my PhD - workload, self-esteem and social life](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39017/should-i-quit-my-phd-workload-self-esteem-and-social-life). It is hard to see how this is other than a request for personal advice. Other sites in the network try hard to channel questions away from personal specificity towards more general interest. Is that the intent here? If not, why not?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think this is academia-specific. Depression is a common human condition. Evidence: Google search for [Workplace.SE mentions of depression](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:workplace.stackexchange.com+depression) (10 pages of results).
I don't think we need a separate tag; [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") seems adequate to me.
I also don't think we need to handle it differently than we currently do: close questions that are about depression itself, and answer questions that are about academic problems related to or caused by depression.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that there is probably a lot of selection bias in the questions that we see. There are a lot of depressed people out there, and people who are struggling with *something* (depression or otherwise) are a lot more likely to come and ask a question on this site. I'm not surprised that depression is one of our themes. I agree with username_1 that [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") reasonably covers it, though it's worth wondering whether we should add [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") as well.
It is also worth distinguishing between two major classes of depression:
* [Chronic depression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysthymia) is a condition that is long-term and people who suffer from it generally need some form of ongoing professional medical support. We cannot and should not help with this, other than to recommend that people take their depression seriously and seek help, and to make recommendations on professional actions that can help limit the damage that is a byproduct.
* [Situational depression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder) is a common response to situations of major and unusual stress, and graduate school is simply *full* of major and unusual stress. Just like with chronic depression, people experiencing situational depression can benefit strongly from professional help. Here, however, there is *also* a likelihood of significant benefits just from learning that their experience is common and hearing how others have gotten through similar difficulties---much like and strongly linked to [imposter syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome).
In short: I don't think depression is over-represented, and there are some ways that we can help, but we must not succumb to the temptation to play consequence-free internet doctor.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think there could be another factor.
Academia (especially in the US, I guess, but everywhere) is an highly competitive industry. There is *publish or perish*, seeking grants, fast moving disciplines, an overwhelming tide of new papers and results everyday. Research is hard. There are many people who struggle in academia.
This site is specific. It regards academia, and is full of clever people. All questions and answers are written correctly and there is a lot of work from everyone in choosing words. This make it valuable, for both Q and A.
The other point is that this site is welcoming. I see it as a positive thing, of course. I feel (and I can be refuted) that people find here a safe space and so they ask, because they know they will be answered politely. Politely and correctly.
All these things together make me think that there will be a good share of questions related to the emotional life of people in academia. Depression/discouragement is definitely a good share of that life.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Does anyone else finds it surprising? Is it just an artifact, or does our site somehow attract depressed peoples?
>
>
>
Not surprising at all. You get rants and voices of frustration on most Internet places. And I don't think that A.SE attracts more of such than other places for people related to academia.
>
> I'm unconvinced that the prevalence of clinical depression amongst academics is higher than usual.
>
>
>
@JeffE would say, *ex cathedra*, **No.** (vide [Why do PhD students complain so much?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20401/why-do-phd-students-complain-so-much)).
But I think that it might be:
* <http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/08/work-pressure-fuels-academic-mental-illness-guardian-study-health>
>
> or do we need a tag for it?
>
>
>
I did introduce tag [quitting](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quitting "show questions tagged 'quitting'") for situations where someone is quitting (whether dropping out or not continuing academic track) or considering doing so (for whatever reason). It may be worth to add a tag [psychological-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychological-issues "show questions tagged 'psychological-issues'") (there is already one for problems between people: [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'")).
And for reason mentioned in comments on other answers, I am in favor of [psychological-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychological-issues "show questions tagged 'psychological-issues'") (or something similar) rather than putting everything in [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") bag (as not all psychological issues are psychiatric).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Based on your sample, most of these questions seem to be coming from students in graduate programs, not from faculty. In my mind, this rules out the *pressure due to publish-or-perish* hypothesis.
However, getting through an advanced degree program can be hard, particularly at the PhD level.
Something else may be at play, too: take your average PhD candidate. Chances are this individual has largely excelled in academia – otherwise, they wouldn't be in a PhD program. But not all who enter these programs emerge with a degree, and that can be a tough pill to swallow, particularly when one has had 16 or more previous years of success. (The same is true for a master's candidate, too, though the failure rates probably aren't as high.) In short, some are dealing with failure in academia for the very first time. Throw in some other factors, too – students may have moved away from their hometown to go to school, they may be caught in the crossfire of departmental infighting, etc. – and it seems like a recipe for the blues.
Given that environment, I'm not surprised at all to find no small number of questions that at least mention some form of depression. In fact, I might have been surprised to find the opposite.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I dont find it surprising at all for two reasons:
1. Internet is where people go to complain, rant and whine...
2. Academia does leave a lot of people frustrated, sad, angry or depressed.
As a matter of fact emotional/mental health problems is [rather prevalent](http://qz.com/547641/theres-an-awful-cost-to-getting-a-phd-that-no-one-talks-about/) in academia. I want to take a specific paragraph out:
>
> A 2015 study at the University of California Berkeley found that 47%
> of graduate students suffer from depression, following a previous 2005
> study that showed 10% had contemplated suicide. A 2003 Australian
> study found that that the rate of mental illness in academic staff was
> three to four times higher than in the general population, according
> to a New Scientist article. The same article notes that the percentage
> of academics with mental illness in the United Kingdom has been
> estimated at 53%.
>
>
>
Also I think it's rather disturbing or insulting, when someone who's not having difficulties claims that there are no problems and PhD students (or any other generalized group of people) complain too much. The fact that you, specifically, do fine does not invalidate anybody else's troubles, worries or difficulties.
I have more than a couple of colleagues and friends that ended up with rather severe problems through-out their graduate studies, some still suffering from these problems after therapy and medication.
Without any intent to sound offensive, I suggest you revise your thoughts regarding the prevalence of psychological problems in academia.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/02/23 | 430 | 1,628 | <issue_start>username_0: My name is Stéphane and I'm the designer at Stack Exchange who made the design of this site. You may have noticed some updates to the design lately.
The updates are part of a SE network-wide update to a new base css framework (the code which display the design).
The updates allow us to:
* Have sharper / more beautiful design on retina displays
* Fix layout bugs
* More easily add new features to all of our sites in the future
If you see any bugs please let us know.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for the updates!
I have a singular concern.
I don't know if it's just me, but it appears that question titles now have serif font that is somewhat harder to read, because the characters seem to be wider than those of other StackExchange sites. It's also slightly disorienting as the rest of the page is in a sans serif font.
Probably need other people's opinions on this to verify.
Here's a site that hasn't got its changes yet from what I can tell, for comparison:
<https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't have a bug so much as an inconsistency. The answer windows use a fixed-width font, but the box to enter comments uses a proportional font. This is jarring to the user.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
---
There is no longer a downvoted-answer class, and downvoted answers are no longer greyed out. (As mentioned [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20218342#20218342)).
Is this intentional?
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/02/26 | 1,849 | 6,690 | <issue_start>username_0: My [question on DOIs for time series](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40634/how-are-dois-managed-for-ongoing-time-series) was migrated to Open Data. That's annoying. If I'd wanted it there, I'd have asked it there myself. I have an account there.
But instead of being here, where it will be seen by hundreds of academics, and get thousands of views, it's been migrated to a quiet beta site where it will get dozens of views, very few of which will be academics.
Across the whole Stack Exchange, a question doesn't get migrated just because it's a good fit elsewhere. It only gets migrated if it's not a good fit here. So why was this question not considered a good fit here?<issue_comment>username_1: For what it's worth, my own opinion on migration has not changed since [I wrote](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1018/11365):
>
> I would prefer to see a gray-area question be closed (and possibly migrated a little later) rather than migrated immediately.
>
>
> Migration is qualitatively different from other kinds of closure.
> Assuming we don't have accounts on the target site,
>
>
> ### Closed Questions
>
>
> * High-rep users can vote to reopen
> * Users can continue to discuss the closure in comments
> * OP can edit the question to make it a better fit
>
>
> ### Migrated Questions
>
>
> * High-rep users on the original site cannot vote to reopen
> * Users on the original site cannot comment
> * OP cannot edit the question to make it a better fit for the original site
>
>
>
In this case, the question had no close votes before it was migrated. It also had some upvotes and no downvotes.
Given [this meta post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1023/closing-migration-criteria), which seems to be the most recent "policy statement", I don't think this question should be migrated - at least, not unless it's closed by community first. If you delete the version on Open Data, I'll reopen it here.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As the guilty party, I'll just note that my primary justification for migrating the question was that the question was about how DOI's get applied to specific data sets. It's more a question about how data works—which is Open Data's specialty, than to Academia's. I'm OK if the consensus is otherwise, and apologize for the rash action.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I only saw this thread today, otherwise I would have weighed in earlier. I definitely think that migration was warranted in this case. I agree 100% with [username_2's rationale](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1608/4140):
>
> It's more a question about how data works—which is Open Data's
> specialty, than to Academia's.
>
>
>
Honestly, this to me would seem to settle the discussion. (Incidentally, I don't understand why username_2 adopts a rather apologetical tone in his answer.)
---
To comment on EnergyNumbers' original question:
>
> But instead of being here, where it will be seen by hundreds of
> academics, and get thousands of views, it's been migrated to a quiet
> beta site where it will get dozens of views, very few of which will be
> academics.
>
>
>
That can't be an argument in favor of not migrating. If a question is off topic, then it's off topic. (See below.) I don't see how "it may be off topic at Academia, but it'll get many more hits here" makes a lot of sense.
I am somewhat active on CrossValidated.SE, which is SE for statistics. They recently added a custom close reason for data requests, directing people to OpenData. Which makes perfect sense, given the missions of the two sites. Yes, of course there is more activity at CV than at OD. But if the number of hits were a criterion, we would post everything at StackOverflow, and beta sites would never get any traffic at all.
It seems to me EnergyNumbers argues that the question is of special interest to academics because the DOI explicitly aims at academics. (To quote the migrated question, "I'm familiar with DOIs been allocated to historic time series, to give academics a unique, citable identifier for datasets."). However, the [DOI Foundation's FAQ](http://www.doi.org/infokit/0607DOIFAQs.pdf) nowhere contains the word "academic" or variants. To quote from the FAQ:
>
> A DOI name provides a means of persistently identifying a piece of
> intellectual property on a digital network and associating it with
> related current data in a structured extensible way.
>
>
>
Intellectual property may be specially relevant to academics, but it is so for lots of other people, too. This discussion here reminds me of [boat programming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/14486/256777), with "DOI" in place of "boat", and "academics" in place of "programmers". And I'd argue that many people who are interested in how DOI deals with "evolving" datasets will not be academics (e.g., industry researchers, technical journalists etc.), and they'd likely rather expect such a question on OpenData than on Academia. (Thank goodness for search engines.)
>
> Across the whole Stack Exchange, a question doesn't get migrated just
> because it's a good fit elsewhere. It only gets migrated if it's not a
> good fit here. So why was this question not considered a good fit
> here?
>
>
>
Compare the [on-topic help for OpenData](https://opendata.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):
>
> Open Data Stack Exchange is for developers and researchers interested in open data.
>
>
>
with the [analogous page for Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):
>
> This site is for academics of all levels—from aspiring graduate and
> professional students to senior researchers—as well as anyone in or
> interested in research-related or research-adjacent fields.
>
>
> If you have a question about...
>
>
> * Life as a graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, university professor
> * Transitioning from undergraduate to graduate researcher
> * Inner workings of research departments
> * Requirements and expectations of academicians
> * University-level pedagogy
>
>
> ... then you're in the right place!
>
>
>
Looking back at username_2's rationale quoted above, I'd say that the migrated question fits *much* more comfortably into the first than the second category, although one can of course argue that it's "research-adjacent" and doesn't cover *open* data in particular.
---
(No, I'm not going to flag the question for re-migration, given that there seems to be a consensus that it should stay. As may be obvious, if the question had been posted today, I would have flagged it, for the reasons above.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/03/12 | 709 | 2,833 | <issue_start>username_0: I was surprised that we closed <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41557/how-much-of-your-p-value-do-you-report-in-a-publication>
It seems to be asking about formating a particular number and not about statistics itself. As a formating question it seems similar in nature to this non exhaustive list:
[APA style for program used in a study](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8090/apa-style-for-program-used-in-a-study)
[How should I cite a screenshot in APA style for my student paper?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32797/how-should-i-cite-a-screenshot-in-apa-style-for-my-student-paper)
[In text listing style - how to use? Any downsides?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12814/in-text-listing-style-how-to-use-any-downsides)<issue_comment>username_1: I disagree with the assertion that this is a "style" question. The precision of numbers and measurements is a vital part of the practice of statistics, and really belongs on a site like [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com) rather than on Academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the migration (and perhaps I was involved in it? I couldn't easily see tell the voters were on our end by looking at the question in its new destination). A few points:
1) Migrating a question from one SE site to another should probably not be viewed as equivalent to other types of closing. It is an attempt to give a question more activity, not less.
2) Similarly, I don't think migrating a question from site A to site B implies that the question is off-topic for site A so much as that it is much more on-topic for site B. We want questions to be recorded in places where they are most relevant, where they have the largest possible community to answer them, where they can be compared to other relevant questions, and so forth.
3) The question in question is one about statistical practice. By good fortune, we have an entire site for that. Let me remark that the Cross Validated site is not only or primarily for academic statisticians. It is a general site for questions and answers both about the academic field of statistics and its application in a variety of endeavors. (In other words, if I am not mistaken it is more like math.SE than mathoverflow.) It's better for questions like this to be asked on Cross Validated, in which the leading answerers are all statistical experts and in which the community as a whole is statistically savvy enough to up and downvote accordingly. In a similar way a question which required mathematical expertise -- rather than expertise with the mathematical community or profession -- to answer would be better asked on math.SE than here, even though there are mathematical questions which are of interest to academia as a whole.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/03/16 | 476 | 2,010 | <issue_start>username_0: In some questions, users write some greeting sentences like `thank you for your attention.` or `any advice is appreciated.` or other sentences like these by which the users want to express that they are thankful to the people who read and give advices on their questions; or they appreciate any comments or solutions and answers which are posted to their questions.
Most of the times, I edit such sentences because I do not find them really helpful, relevant or on-topic to the questions' text. But, should they really be edited or it is good to have them in the body of the questions?<issue_comment>username_1: They are not germane to the text of the question, and therefore need not be preserved. My preference is to remove such text.
If the question is "fresh," then I would think that an edit just to remove such text is appropriate. However, I would *not* edit an old question, as this is not a significant enough change to the question that would merit moving it to the top of the "active" question list.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I realize that across SE sites the accepted answer is what is increasingly recommended, or at least common behavior (certainly among those network sites I have frequented), but I find its reasoning dubious. On the one hand, the site [suggests](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/823/minor-edits-of-other-peoples-questions) that reasonably minor spelling or grammar errors go unaddressed (specifically mentioned: "...or two words"); but with the accepted answer staying unopposed, it is now searchable best practice to edit "Thank you!" out of a fresh question. I find that sad.
As with other issues, I see no reason why ASE should adopt habits I find unfriendly, not welcoming, and so questionable. The sub-sites are given leeway to be different from another, and academia always struck me as the "friendliest," for lack of a better word. Within reason, let people talk in their language.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/03/17 | 487 | 1,875 | <issue_start>username_0: I like one or two other Stack Exchange websites but they have really low user participation. I want to promote those websites by mentioning their names with a link in my User's Profile about me section. I have seen some users doing this on our site on their profiles.
Is it ethical to do such thing? Doesn't it conflict Academia's website policies?
related question, but not a duplicate: [Why no link in the header of the main site to our 'About' page?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/350/why-no-link-in-the-header-of-the-main-site-to-our-about-page)<issue_comment>username_1: From the [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/behavior):
>
> Your user page belongs to you — fill it with information about your interests, links to stuff you’ve worked on, or whatever else you like!
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To me, the question is this: where is the line between appropriate promotion and spam / single-purpose-accounts? I have noticed that when an account is *centered* on a link in its user profile, that can be considered evidence of inappropriate promotion. If the promotion is just a small part of an otherwise well-rounded account, however, I see no issue at all. For example, in your own case, you are a well-established contributor to this site who is known for doing a lot of different constructive work. Adding clear, transparent lines in your profile that say, "I like this stuff, and think you should check it out too" seems to me to be no problem at all.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Wow why would it be unethical are you selling something?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it ethical to promote another Stack Exchange website in about me section of the users' profiles?
>
>
>
It doesn't trigger an ethical question. It's fine.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/03/23 | 460 | 1,774 | <issue_start>username_0: When I look at the [tags](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/tags) and their wikis and excerpts on [meta site](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/) of [Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) on Stack Exchange and I compare them to other meta websites at Stack Exchange such as [meta.mathematics](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags), [meta.tex](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/tags) and etc., I can easily understand that we do not have so rich wikis for the tags on our meta website.
Should we review the tags, their wikis, excerpts and descriptions on the meta site of Academia? If yes, what policy should this review have?<issue_comment>username_1: The Academia.SE meta is a lot less active than many of those other ones, so I suppose it's not surprising it it's got less structured and organized tags as well.
I'd say: if you're psyched for it, go for it! As always, of course, it's a good idea to post your plans to chat and/or meta to get a sense of how well they agree with the rest of the community before making big changes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I basically have OSD about tracking, organizing, classifying, and taxonomy-ing stuff, and it has even leaked into my research. But what I have learned the hard way is that there is no point in providing a lot of organization if you are not actually using the resulting classifications. Basically, write-only metadata just produces overhead.
Hence, I would not ask what kind of tags we *do not* have, but rather what kind of tags are *missing* from a user perspective. Do we have indications that people are not finding the meta-questions they are looking for? If yes, I am all in favor of adding more and better tags. If no, why bother?
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/03/24 | 879 | 3,628 | <issue_start>username_0: In other Stack Exchange sites (mostly on [TeX](https://tex.stackexchange.com/) website), I have seen that the users with longer period of membership welcome newer users. I really like this action as this warms the new users' heart and helps them to feel safe to stay in a friendly environment website.
However, I can see that welcome comments are rarely found on our website. They are only posted when we want to inform new users that they have to edit their questions or improve their answers. Simply welcome posted comments are also in the danger of being flagged and deleted as a *too chatty* comment.
By posting this question, I want to ask users to welcome new users by posting a simple **Welcome to Academia website!** comment and we leave them and do not delete those comments. This will help our community be more friendly and have nicer look.
Please post your answers if you feel this suggestion is a bad etiquette for Academia, or how we can build a more friendly community.<issue_comment>username_1: I think welcoming new users with a comment is fine. I think it is also fine to flag welcome comments as "too chatty" a few days later. At that point the comment has served most of its purpose (i.e., welcoming the new user). I guess the argument for keeping it longer, is to let other new users know we are welcoming.
I tend to only welcome new users when I have something else to tell them. Typically, I welcome them as I am telling them I am deleting or closing their question/answer. Generally my welcomes include asking them to look at our help center.
I would have no problem with new users getting a welcome comment in general.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I usually welcome the OP if I have something to say in the comment. But I guess it's to everyone's taste. If this is to become a trend then the only annoyance would be skipping one more line of comments, which is not a big deal.
There are a few thoughts:
1. Most of the time when I see those "welcome" comments they are from users with, say, around 100-200 reputation and I feel kind of weird about that. Like someone just visited you in the morning and by afternoon he is running around welcoming guests for you.
2. It's a Q&A platform. I'd rather express welcome by putting more thoughts in the answers and comments, give them what they asked for rather than just a plain welcome. Sometimes I saw questions with no answer but a 100-reputation user's "Welcome!" comment, I couldn't help but felt kind of sad.
3. **Another more practical way to welcome newcomers is to upvote their questions** given their questions are good. This is a lot more welcomed (pun intended): by giving them more reputation they can unlock more functions and get to integrate into the forum faster.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I usually don't post these *Welcome* messages because, well, I see no real purpose to them, and if there is a policy to post them always, the entire exercise becomes incredibly fake and dishonest fast.
I have no quarrels with a policy of always welcoming new users, but frankly I remain unconvinced that this will make new users somehow feel more at home more quickly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I normally (on all SE sites),
post welcome messages of the form.
>
> "Welcome to **X.SE**. Your question is a bit too **Y** for our format. You could improve it by doing **Z**."
>
>
>
The welcome message is not there to welcome them, but to soften the blow when giving (constructive) criticism.
So as not to drive the new user away, while they are still learning the ropes.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/03/24 | 492 | 1,716 | <issue_start>username_0: The American Psychological Association (APA) publishes its *Publication Manual*, now in its sixth edition, documenting (among other things) the [APA Style](http://www.apastyle.org), a citation and referencing style. APA Style is pretty common. It is pretty much the only style used in psychology journals, but is also used in other fields. There are [BibTeX packages on CRAN](https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/2628/22201) to implement it.
We have quite a few [questions related to APA style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22APA+Style%22+is%3Aquestion).
I propose creating a new tag [apa-style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/apa-style "show questions tagged 'apa-style'") and retagging these questions (except for [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/24377/4140) and [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10963/4140)) unless there are objections.
Thoughts?<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I don't really think we need a separate tag for each [citation-style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/citation-style "show questions tagged 'citation-style'"). (Let the votes on this answer indicate what everyone else thinks...)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: APA style is *so* obnoxiously comprehensive (and generally obnoxious and different from other styles) that I think it's reasonable to have its own tag.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: What about a [style-manuals](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/style-manuals "show questions tagged 'style-manuals'") tag to cover things like APA, MLA, and the others, where the question is about things that go beyond citations?
Upvotes: -1 |
2015/03/27 | 513 | 1,980 | <issue_start>username_0: I just happened to come across [this question asking for journal recommendations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/47/19607). I was surprised about the large number of upvotes, considering the specificity and [these instructions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)
>
> However, please do not ask questions about
>
>
> * ...
> * Suggestions or recommendations for a university, journal, or research topic (a "shopping question")
> * ...
>
>
>
Possibly a lot of the votes come from supporting an open access sentiment, and/or maybe we have a lot of people on this site in theoretical biology.
Are questions like this considered acceptable, whereas other "shopping" questions are not? If so, can someone explain what the difference is? (Can having many upvotes be a reason for a question being acceptable?)
Note: there was a [similar meta question here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1566/19607) about why a certain question was not closed. However, the sole answer is not super-conclusive (conclusion: it's borderline) and the question in question was since deleted by the OP anyway, so I don't know that a community consensus was reached.<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I don't really think we need a separate tag for each [citation-style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/citation-style "show questions tagged 'citation-style'"). (Let the votes on this answer indicate what everyone else thinks...)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: APA style is *so* obnoxiously comprehensive (and generally obnoxious and different from other styles) that I think it's reasonable to have its own tag.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: What about a [style-manuals](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/style-manuals "show questions tagged 'style-manuals'") tag to cover things like APA, MLA, and the others, where the question is about things that go beyond citations?
Upvotes: -1 |
2015/04/03 | 481 | 1,911 | <issue_start>username_0: I wrote an answer to this question concerning how to verify whether someone went to the college/university that their resume says they went to:
[Fraudulent credentials](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42835/fraudulent-credentials/42836?noredirect=1#comment95307_42836)
The correct answer (in part) is to refer the OP to "National Student Clearinghouse" which is a non-profit that handles most of these type of student degree verification services.
I'm in a bit of a conflict because I'm not very happy that even my own university and alma mater have essentially sold my data to a third-party which then resells them to students and employers. I find this a morally distasteful business model and I don't want to reward NSC with a direct link to them.
But back in the Real World®, people do need to know about their existence.
Suggestions?<issue_comment>username_1: College is a business, unfortunately. I think that part of the 'agreed upon' in attending is that the university owns parts of your educational data that the institution itself grants (titles, transcripts, etc.). Sad, but that's how business works.
Personally I don't find that linking to NSC is distasteful in terms of adding the content to an answer because:
1. They have data on students that universities have the right to give (or sell) them
2. They are a verified not-for-profit entity.
Even if one has to pay for the service, it's NFP so it's not *as perverted* an operation in my view.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: The main criteria regarding mentioning third-party services are not to write anything that could be construed as an endorsement or advertisement, and to disclose if you have any direct or indirect involvement with that particular entity. It's completely fine to mention them and then explain why you don't like them, just as you did in your question here.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/04/06 | 1,247 | 5,013 | <issue_start>username_0: Today, I made a new [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag with aim to be pinned to questions about withdrawing papers in the process of their submission or withdrawing an academic position such as admissions offers. I suggested an excerpt for it which is now approved:
>
> Questions about withdrawal of books or papers from journals and
> conferences or withdrawal during admissions process to academic
> programmes.
>
>
>
However, after some hours, when I was reading the tags list, I found that we have a [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'") tag with similar scope.
>
> Ethics and logistics of withdrawing, refuting, or amending published
> work.
>
>
>
The [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'") tag seems a little vague to me, as it's scope may cover questions which are only about retraction of published work, not withdrawing manuscripts which are under review process or even questions about withdrawing an academic position such as withdrawal during postgraduate admissions.
I did some searches in the questions which include these word. By searching the website for questions having these word in their body and title, the following results are accessible:
72 questions have withdraw ([56 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=withdraw%20is%3Aquestion)) and withdrawal ([16 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=withdrawal%20is%3Aquestion)) in their body and 17 questions have withdraw ([15 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=title%3Awithdraw)) and withdrawal ([2 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=title%3Awithdrawal)) in their title.
39 questions have retract ([18 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=retract%20is%3Aquestion)) and retraction ([21 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=retraction%20is%3Aquestion)) in their body and 7 questions have retract ([4 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=title%3Aretract)) and retraction ([3 questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=title%3Aretraction)) in their title.
1. Making one of these tags synonym of the other and edit the main tag's excerpt. (Based on the search results presented above, I think that the [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag with its current excerpt is more popular word and can be the main tag and [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'") tag can be a synonym of it.
2. Having both tags on the site, but we can edit their excerpts to have [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag for questions which are about withdrawing academic positions such as a student withdrawing a PhD position during his admissions process, and to have [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'") for questions about withdrawing papers, books, etc. during their review and publication process.
3. Delete the newly proposed [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag and have previous [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'") tag as it was before without any edit to its excerpt and wiki.
Although I am so sorry for making a new tag without searching the tags' list carefully; I think that it does worth that the community think about these two tags with similar scopes and not just vote the [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag to be deleted. In my opinion, the first option discussed above is a better choice for the site.<issue_comment>username_1: Retraction and withdrawal are not the same.
-------------------------------------------
**Retraction** refers to expunging of papers from the literature, usually for reasons related to fraud or error.
**Withdrawal** of a paper can occur for any reason. Withdrawal can also apply to conference papers, posters, and oral presentations.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Withdrawing from a course in progress, withdrawing an application for admission, withdrawing from a degree program ([quitting](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quitting "show questions tagged 'quitting'")), and withdrawing a paper submitted for review are *not* the same thing.
There should not be an ambiguous [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag applied to all these different scenarios.
Upvotes: 1 |
2015/04/10 | 1,036 | 4,274 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, it seems that a number of questions are being flagged for migration because they are a better fit someplace else. My personal view on migration is it should only be used for questions that are off topic here. In other words, if a question is on topic here, it should stay even if it might be a better fit someplace else. What do people think about migration?
I am not sure what is up with the [migrated search](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&q=Migrated%3a1), but of the 10 questions I see there...
* <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41557/how-much-of-your-p-value-do-you-report-in-a-publication>
* <https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43331/link-to-article-using-a-download-or-view-online-symbol>
Although maybe better fits someplace else, seem on topic here.<issue_comment>username_1: If the question is on-topic, and the OP chose to post here, I believe we should keep the question here, even if it is a better fit somewhere else.
The one exception I can see is if the OP requests migration after becoming aware of that option.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that as a community we are a bit fast on the trigger for migration, and basically agree with username_1's post. I would add that the distinction I find useful is whether the question's answers will need to be highly technical vs. more about custom and practice.
Thus, for example, in the two examples that you give, I think the "p-value" question is definitely right to migrate, because the answer is deeply technical in statistics, whereas the "link to article" question could have stayed (though it might have ended up on hold anyway as opinion-based).
Mostly, though, I think we're migrating a bunch of questions because a lot of people turn up confused about the scope of this site, apparently feeling that "I encountered this in academia" means "I should ask about this on Academia.SE." Looking at some of the other sites on the network, though, I think our frequency of migration is pretty normal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't think we're necessarily migrating too many questions - because Stack Exchange is a network, I don't think there's particularly harm in seeing a question moved, and indeed the initial asker can benefit a lot from a prompt to go to a more appropriate venue for their question, and future questions like it.
I'll admit that I'm particularly pro-migration for questions that fit better on CrossValidated (the p-value question), because this *isn't* a question specific to academia, and *is* specifically a question in a technical area that has a SE site. I'd feel the same about questions about code, even if it was for a thesis (SO) or say a specific biology question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In my opinion, whether or not a question is on-topic on Academia SE (or on any other SE site) is a bad measurement for the decision whether or not to migrate it away.
The more important factor, I think, is where the question is *most* on-topic. That is for the simple reason that similar questions turn up over time, and only if we have each question flow toward the one site where it is "most at home", there is a chance that the various variants of one question are eventually merged.
I say this based on the following personal beliefs of mine (here expressed in a somewhat drastical way):
* Duplicate questions are a vicious evil to fight, even though it will be an eternal struggle and they can never completely be eradicated. When looking for some specific information, I vastly prefer *one* question with lots of different answers over having to open a dozen browser tabs, each of which contains what *might or might not* be another duplicate of the same question I am trying to solve.
* Reviving even old, seemingly inactive questions is nothing to be criticized for; if you know something to contribute to a question or answer, do it, no matter whether the respective post was added a minute or a decade ago.
In short: I prefer increasing chances of merging duplicate questions across the whole SE network, rather than have each SE site amass a pile of borderline questions that have already been, or will also be answered elsewhere.
Upvotes: -1 |
2015/04/12 | 1,034 | 3,989 | <issue_start>username_0: This is inspired by the close vote on [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/43423/10685), which asks whether one should put MOOCs on one's CV. The comments are:
>
> I would note that this was asked three years ago, [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2336/can-i-include-the-completion-of-udacity-and-coursera-classes-i-have-attended-in); I'm not sure if the answer hasn't changed a small (very small) amount since 2012 though, particularly as several MOOCs move closer to a kind of accreditation. [Joe](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12346/joe)
>
>
> [I]t is a duplicate. Etiquette is not to re-ask an old question for which the answer might have changed over time; but rather to add new answers, or update existing ones, on the old question. [...] [EnergyNumbers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96/energynumbers)
>
>
>
While I agree with the points raised, there are several problems here.
1. By construction, the asker of the new question cannot add a new answer to the old question or update an existing answer: they are asking because they do not know the answer. **Is there anything that a user can do to encourage new answers to old questions** that has approximately the same force as adding a new question?
2. Even if somebody does post a new answer to an old question, that new answer won't be noticed if there are high-scoring out-of-date answers. **How can new answers to old questions get noticed?** e.g.,
>
> +157 Giant lizards are the most important creatures on earth. – A. Dinosaur [200M years ago]
>
>
> 1 *Homo sapiens* is having a big impact. – <NAME> [13 mins ago]
>
>
>
3. Extensive editing of old answers seems misleading. People presumably upvoted A. Dinosaur's answer because they thought it was correct, not because they thought that anything he might change it to in the future would be correct. An unscrupulous dinosaur could, for example, change his answer to "The world is, in fact, controlled by a cabal of blueberries" which, now, apparently 157 people agree with. But, even after a reasonable but substantial change, the score no longer represents the community's view of the current answer.
**What should we do about high-scoring answers that are no longer valid?**<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest a perhaps rather unusual solution that hacks the SE model: for a case in which the situation has radically changed over time, create the new question and link to the old question as a possible duplicate with the explicit declaration that the new question has been created because the situation has changed. Then:
* If the community thinks things have really changed, close the old question as duplicate and add an edit at the top saying: "This is how things used to be, but see the new question because they have changed"
* If the community things things haven't changed, close the new question as duplicate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Adding a bounty to an old question asking for new answers will likely get it noticed. New answers to old questions get added to a special review queue, which increases the visibility. As for answer that are now outdated, adding a comment saying they are outdated is probably useful or even an edit which explains how thing shave changed and why the answer is now out dated.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Another possibility, similar to what username_1 suggests, is to simply ask directly if the answer is now invalid.
This is more or less the approach I took with my recent question:
[How has the application review process for NSF graduate fellowships changed?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40442/how-has-the-application-review-process-for-nsf-graduate-fellowships-changed).
It seems to have been well accepted by the community.
Of course, this could lead to questions whose answer is simply "No", but no one said all the question of our site had to be *interesting.*
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/04/13 | 356 | 1,506 | <issue_start>username_0: Sometimes, I come along a question here on Academia that I find interesting, or that I can strongly relate with. When this happens I tend to upvote it: I think of my upvote as saying "I consider this a good question" and/or "I would also like to have an answer for it". But sometimes these questions are (clearly) not a good fit for the site. So my question is: should I think about an upvote as "good question AND on-topic"? Am I creating more difficulties by upvoting an off-topic question? Or it just doesn't matter at all?<issue_comment>username_1: I'd say: we have the tools to make this statement explicit. Up-vote the question and leave a comment saying that you up-voted because it's a good question, but you think it is not on topic for reason X.
If it needs to be migrated, that is probably the end of it. If it has a different problem (e.g., being opinion-based), then you might also consider proposing edits to make it a more answerable question.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is your vote and you should vote as you see fit. I think of up votes as saying this is a good question that is a good fit for our community. I only like rewarding people for doing things that help our community. There is also a small reduction of work if closed questions are not up voted since closed questions with negative vote totals are automatically deleted. Questions with a score of zero or more require high rep users to vote to delete them.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/04/21 | 321 | 1,288 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask a question about seeking for a job. This job is outside academia, but require many academia skills (such as math, able to deep research, etc). Is this kind of question on topic here? If not, is there a site should I ask instead?<issue_comment>username_1: Broadly speaking, questions about job-seeking outside of academia are not on topic. You may want to try checking out [Workplace.SE](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/).
I'm sure there are some counter-examples where questions like this were on topic; if you find any that you want to have clarified, feel free to post in the comments and we can discuss.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are looking help regarding to an R&D job in which people engage in many of the same actions as academia (e.g., scientific research, peer-reviewed publishing, research funding applications), then that job is likely to be considered part of "greater academia" for the purposes of this site.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As a rule of thumb, I think that if a job entails publishing in academic journals or work that supports or eventually will lead to that goal, then it's on-topic. Anything that isn't at least tangentially related to that it probably isn't on-topic.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/05/15 | 1,071 | 4,432 | <issue_start>username_0: It's been a while since these have been looked at, but I think that it's appropriate to revisit the issue.
Right now, we have two custom close reasons that are very similar to one another in scope:
>
> Questions that cannot be generalized to apply to others in similar situations are off-topic. For assistance in writing questions that can apply to multiple people facing similar situations, see: What kinds of questions are too localized?
>
>
>
and
>
> This question appears to be off-topic because it seems to seek specific advice for a very specific situation, and it's likely that only someone with a good understanding of your situation will be able to provide an objectively correct answer.
>
>
>
I can't see any situation in which one of these could apply, but the other couldn't.
[The other close reason is the often overused "Undergraduate" reason.]
Personally, I find myself using a variant on the "shopping question" tag a lot more frequently. I would recommend replacing one of the tags above with something such as:
>
> We cannot offer recommendations or rankings of specific programs, courses, universities, or other similar requests, as these are primarily opinion-based.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I absolutely concur with the assessment that "cannot be generalized" and "very specific advice" are largely redundant.
If we are to do away with one of the two, I would suggest removing "cannot be generalized" because I find myself using the other very often for "Hi, here's my situation, help?" questions.
I also like the idea of a "no shopping questions" close reason, which I would suggest to tweak to:
>
> Suggestions or recommendations or comparison of specific universities, journal, research topics, etc (i.e., "shopping questions") are off-topic.
>
>
>
Mainly, I am suggesting we drop the 'primarily opinion-based' wording from your original suggestion for the "no shopping questions" reason because that is setting us up for argument that some distinctions are *not* just matters of opinion. Instead, I think it is OK to simply say that we do not do this as a matter of policy, since there are *many* good reasons to do so (opinion, "taking sides," unprofessionalism, tendency to gossip, overly broad libel laws, etc.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I second that there is no need to distinguish between *cannot be generalized* and *very specific advice* and would like to suggest the following new wording for the close reason to compise them both:
>
> The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only somebody familiar with these can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others.
>
>
>
I chose to phrase it like this as many cases it should give the asker a strong hint where they can find an answer to their question, namely:
* *a certain person’s preferences* → ask that person (in most cases: the advisor) or or somebody who knows them.
* *a given institution’s regulations* → ask that university.
* *the exact contents of your work* → ask somebody who is familiar with your work, namely your supervisor, colleagues or yourself.
* *your personal values* → ask yourself, e.g., as to how much risk you are willing to take.
---
I also second the demand for a shopping question and suggest the following wording:
>
> Shopping questions, i.e., questions that seek individual universities, academic programs, publishers, journals, research topics or similar as an answer or seek an assessment or comparison of such, are off-topic.
>
>
>
I chose this wording to slightly expand the scope (in comparison to the existing suggestions) and explicitly include such cases, where the asker is not explicitly asking for a recommendation but only for the existence of a program (but implicitly wishes recommendation). This should reduce certain complaints made by the asker (“I wasn’t asking for a recomendation, I just wanted to know if …”) I have witnessed quite often.
Also, at the end of the day, many close reasons (such as this) exist due to problem arising from the answers. Defining the problem via the answers directly addresses the problem and makes the close reason specific to what it needs to be specfic about.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2015/05/15 | 295 | 1,214 | <issue_start>username_0: A lot of prof and people in mathematics(and other fields too) have their own webpages. Now there can be a lot of questions that relate to academic blogging such as "Should there be a like button in your academic webpage or blog?"<issue_comment>username_1: I think this needs to be handled on a question-by-question basis. There are probably some issues that could be considered on-topic, but some things probably are too generic and would be considered off-topic.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think questions about academic websites are solidly on-topic. In fact, we have several highly up-voted questions on this topic, with good answers:
* [Should I host my academic website under my institution domain or under a domain of my own ?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/26130/8185)
* [What contents should I put on my academic website?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/3709/8185)
The answers highlight significant differences between academic websites and other personal websites. For example, it is very common for your institution to host your website, and there are cultural expectations about what sort of information you should and should not include.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/05/17 | 546 | 2,223 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently asked a question that was heavily down voted. I am not fairly convinced that the question that I asked was indeed off topic. I happen to provide a link to a question that was based on undergraduate academic internships.
>
> [Avoid spam filters when applying for academic internships](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45577/avoid-spam-filters-when-applying-for-academc-internships)
>
>
>
However, it applies to all the students from masters courses too and not just undergrad students.<issue_comment>username_1: The question you have asked is, at its root, **not** about internships. The reason you have asked it is based on trying to secure an internship, but I could just easily replace "applying for academic internships" with "hawking laboratory supplies" or "soliciting manuscripts for an open-access journal."
Your question can be reduced to "how do I avoid spam filters?" It can't be reduced to "how do I apply for an academic internship?"—at least not in its present form.
(For what it's worth, I've provided an answer for you in that question, but I suspect it's not one you're going to like.)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Personally, I disagree with the close votes on the question. There is a possible case to be made that it is only about undergraduates, but since such academic internships are frequently pursued with an aim towards graduate school, I think that still makes it sufficiently on topic.
I think that your question is based on mistaken assumptions and aims at a rather obnoxious behavior. My feeling is that many of those close votes may have been influenced by a dislike of internship spamming and the attitude that goes along with it (which is reflected in your question as well). **However, just because a question is wrong-headed or reflects an odious attitude doesn't make it a bad question.** In fact, I think that it is a very *good* question for that very reason, because maybe some fraction of students who go looking good methods of spamming professors will come across it and realize they are using the wrong tactic.
If others show agreement with this position, then I would vote to reopen.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer] |
2015/05/18 | 531 | 2,056 | <issue_start>username_0: A user recently posted [this question about the definition of "curriculum."](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45599/what-is-a-curriculum) The user was curious why the question was closed, and I'm posting this question to hopefully provide answers.<issue_comment>username_1: To me, the question was closed for a few reasons:
1. It is unclear what is actually being asked. It appears very abstract and philosophical in nature, which is typically not the type of question asked on these forums.
2. The question is also only tangentially related to academia. The concept of a curriculum exists in education of all levels; elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate, certifications, online trainings, etc.
3. The question has a pretty simple answer. A curriculum is:
>
> 1: the courses offered by an educational institution
>
>
> 2: a set of courses constituting an area of specialization
>
>
> *source: [m-w.com](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curriculum)*
>
>
>
It's not clear to me what your different subcategorizations even mean, and it's even less clear why I would want to begin a discussion using your classification scheme.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I voted to close the question as "unclear", because I have no idea what the OP is asking about. I have never heard of a curriculum as being described as a list of topics, never mind a prescriptive and/or descriptive one. The question in the body seems to be a yes/no question, while the titular question seems to require a pretty broad answer what a curriculum is. Neither seem a good fit and I think if he unclear part was clarified the good part of the question would emerge.
I did not vote the question down, because I think there is a good question in there, it just needs clarification.
I did not leave a comment to the OP because I thought the close reason was pretty clear and I saw that the OP he has 100k+ rep on the SE network so I figured if he was confused he would ask on meta, chat, or the comments.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/05/20 | 779 | 3,059 | <issue_start>username_0: This question is related to [Answering etiquette](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1753/answering-etiquette?noredirect=1#comment7510_1753)
After a helpful answer and some helpful comments to my other question, I realize I need to articulate an additional question.
On the flip side (and this is what motivated my inquiries):
Suppose I have written a careful answer to a question. It gets several upvotes. Then someone with a fancy academic position and a massive reputation score comes along and writes an answer which is (in my opinion, of course!) essentially equivalent to mine. His style is more authoritative than mine, but we are using the same logic and reach the same conclusion. Neither one of us cites any links. His answer gets upvoted like crazy. Is there anything I can do about it? Can I at least take the moral high ground in my own thinking? Or is this a perfectly ethical artifact of the SE system? Do I just need to be patient and slowly amass more points?
(Please note, I do realize there may be more differences between our answers than what I myself was able to perceive. But I'm trying to figure out how things work here, so for the sake of argument, could you please try to give an answer based on my premise? Thanks.)<issue_comment>username_1: To me, the question was closed for a few reasons:
1. It is unclear what is actually being asked. It appears very abstract and philosophical in nature, which is typically not the type of question asked on these forums.
2. The question is also only tangentially related to academia. The concept of a curriculum exists in education of all levels; elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate, certifications, online trainings, etc.
3. The question has a pretty simple answer. A curriculum is:
>
> 1: the courses offered by an educational institution
>
>
> 2: a set of courses constituting an area of specialization
>
>
> *source: [m-w.com](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curriculum)*
>
>
>
It's not clear to me what your different subcategorizations even mean, and it's even less clear why I would want to begin a discussion using your classification scheme.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I voted to close the question as "unclear", because I have no idea what the OP is asking about. I have never heard of a curriculum as being described as a list of topics, never mind a prescriptive and/or descriptive one. The question in the body seems to be a yes/no question, while the titular question seems to require a pretty broad answer what a curriculum is. Neither seem a good fit and I think if he unclear part was clarified the good part of the question would emerge.
I did not vote the question down, because I think there is a good question in there, it just needs clarification.
I did not leave a comment to the OP because I thought the close reason was pretty clear and I saw that the OP he has 100k+ rep on the SE network so I figured if he was confused he would ask on meta, chat, or the comments.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/05/21 | 529 | 2,079 | <issue_start>username_0: Lately I've seen a few questions asked on Academia that are academic in scope but might benefit from a little help from other parts of SE because of their technical nature. Some examples:
[Examples of research resources for which Wikipedia is known as being amongst top referrers?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41831/examples-of-research-resources-for-which-wikipedia-is-known-as-being-amongst-top)
[What is the best way to design a paper questionnaire to support scanning and converting to raw data?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43353/what-is-the-best-way-to-design-a-paper-questionnaire-to-support-scanning-and-con/44558#44558)
Pushing these questions over to, say, StackOverflow is (rightly) going to have the reviewers there closing them immediately due to being off topic, etc., but do we maybe lose the benefit of the entire community of StackExchange by not allowing for more cross-pollination? Because a lot of these questions go unanswered as a result of not being a great fit for either community, is there a better place to ask them? Chat, maybe? Something else? Is there a role for hybrid SE communities?
Just a thought...<issue_comment>username_1: You can always post a link to the question in the chatroom of a site that might be interested.
If you post the question URL on a line to itself in chat, with no other text on that line, then the chat system will create a onebox with a preview of the question, and a link to it.
Don't do it *often* in the same chatroom, because that will feel spammy. And do check the local customs of each chatroom beforehand.
And do add a sentence of explanation before or after the line with the URL on it, mentioning why you're bringing it to that particular chatroom's attention.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, there is no systematic way to cross-promote questions. It would be nice if there were a tab on the home page that might show "related" questions from across the network, but that's a feature request above our pay grade.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/05/23 | 785 | 3,181 | <issue_start>username_0: Inspired by recent meta questions ([Are question about job outside academia but related to on topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1713/are-question-about-job-outside-academia-but-related-to-on-topic) and [Are questions regarding academic internships off-topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1742/are-questions-regarding-academic-internships-off-topic)), I'd like to get some feedback on two very similar questions related to non-academic jobs/internships which were handled very differently.
The first question, [Does your university name matter?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34899/does-your-university-name-matter), was closed as off-topic.
The second question, [Does name of university matter for internships?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44685/does-name-of-university-matter-for-internships), was not closed.
These two questions seem to be quite similar to my mind (perhaps, one is a duplicate of the other, but that is another matter). However, the outcomes of the two questions above is inconsistent and, I must say, confusing (to me, anyway). Why were these two questions handled so differently by the "powers that be?"<issue_comment>username_1: You ask an excellent question. I don't know how they ended up with different dispositions; they should either both be left open or both be closed on the same grounds. I would tend to lean towards them both being left **open**.
One thing to note, though—the "powers that be" are all the users that have sufficient representation to cast close votes. Also, close votes expire after a certain window. So it may be the case that "critical mass" was achieved in one case but not the other.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am one of the voters who voted to close the first question and voted to leave the second question open. I feel obligated to answer your question from my own perspective.
However, I can only speak for myself. Please take my answer as my own opinion.
My vote to close the first question was because it is about an undergrad student seeking jobs outside Academia.
My vote to "Leave Open" the second question because of the word "internships". To me, an internship job is temporary. The OP will go back to school at the end of it. In my opinion, it's on the borderline between Academia and industry. This is what was on my mind at the time I was reviewing Close Votes.
If I remember it correctly, I did hesitate to leave open the second one because the OP is an undergrad student. It seems that it was an undergrad question. Then my thought was that the same could happen to graduate students. So, there was my vote.
Come to think of the whole thing, the first question deals with the issue "prestigious school vs. average school" while seeking industry jobs. This is an important question because everyone needs a job, whether in Academia or industry. We do have questions concerning Academians' job hunting in industry on this site. If expanding the question to undergrad students, I am not sure our community would accept it.
The above is my opinion and mine only.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2015/06/02 | 1,110 | 4,693 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29805/what-is-the-point-of-traditional-lectures) concerning the value about traditional lecture, which was posted by me a long time ago, was closed due to being too broad. However, recently the question was reopened and, judging from the downvotes, it is clear that the question is still not well-received. Would someone (maybe the person who reopened the question) care to explain the rationale behind reopening this old question?<issue_comment>username_1: Down votes are not "wiped out" when a question is reopened.
In general, though, any question that had an answer can be reopened if it is edited, made to fit site guidelines, and enough "reopen" votes are cast.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am the person who first nominated the question for re-opening. Questions typically should eventually progress toward either reopening or delation. I always did like the question (I am one of its up-votes), so I edited to try to make it more focused and neutral in tone, then reopened. Apparently enough others liked the question now to reopen it---though it seems to still be somewhat controversial, given the ongoing accumulation of up and down votes.
As the OP, of course, please feel free to further improve the question: I tried to preserve your intent as much as possible while decreasing the "rant" perception that helped cause it to be closed in the first place.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I didn't vote to reopen the question, but members of the community (with enough rep) are allowed to vote to re-open it at any time. The ethos here is that questions are owned by the community, and the community are free to vote on closing and re-opening questions based upon their own view about whether it meets the standards for this site. Folks who believe the question is a good question might have decided to vote to re-open it, on the basis that they believe the question is on-topic and suitable and helpful. Hopefully that answers your question about why people might have voted to re-open the question.
Of course, re-opening the question also bumps it back to the front page, which might cause it to be read by new people who didn't read it previously. That can cause it to receive additional votes (whether upvotes or downvotes).
I suspect your secondary question is: why am I getting these downvotes, and how can I avoid getting more of them? I can share some thoughts on that.
First off, remember that upvotes increase your rep more than downvotes decrease it. It looks like you have received more upvotes than downvotes, so just to keep things in perspective, any loss of reputation due to the downvotes is outweighed by the increase due to upvotes.
Second, the best way to avoid downvotes is to edit your question to improve it based upon the feedback. The #1 piece of feedback you got is: "The rant/question ratio here is quite high.". As I read the question today, I still feel that this feedback remains pretty relevant. So, if you'd like to avoid future downvotes, arguably the best thing you can do is edit the question to address this feedback. You might try deleting some of the opinions (they can sometimes be perceived as "rant", even if that was not your intent), and focusing on the specific question. At the risk of exaggerating and over-simplifying a bit, consider the difference between "I see a phenomenom that puzzles me, I assume there are probably good reasons behind it, I want to learn, can you help me understand?" vs "I see a phenomenom that is stupid, look how stupid it is, why are universities being so stupid?"; you want to be as close to the former as possible, and avoid any opportunity for people to misconstrue the question as an instance of the latter. This is a matter of tone, and tone is always delicate, but it can affect how people view your question.
The other thing you can do in your question is to show your research. We expect you to do a significant amount of research before asking and to tell us about what research you've done. As explained here:
>
> Have you thoroughly searched for an answer before asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!
> <https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask>
>
>
>
So, those are some concrete steps you can take that might avoid future downvotes, if that was part of what you were asking.
Upvotes: 2 |
2015/06/03 | 2,043 | 8,411 | <issue_start>username_0: What are this community's standards concerning the following behavior?
* I posted a question asking what would be a good journal to which to submit a paper arguing in favor or a certain proposition. I didn't try to argue for that proposition in the question; that would be off topic and would take far to long.
* Next time I posted a question on a different topic, a person who disagreed with the opinion that had been mentioned but not defended in my earlier question posted several comments in which he called the proposed, and in fact not yet written, paper a "rant", and "ranting". This about a paper he has not read, since it has not yet been written.
As far as I could tell, he made these comments only because he objected to something about an earlier question on a different topic. I told him I would not "stalk and harass" him like that. I did not report his behavior to the moderators at that time.
Then I got a message from the moderators saying someone, whom they did not identify, had complained that I was "stalking and harassing" him, using *my* words, not quite verbatim. Naturally this gave rise to a suspicion about who it was. The moderators suspended me for seven days. One lesson is the person more inclined to report things to the moderators does so first, and whoever does so first wins. It's all about timing. The moderators are anonymous and it is not possible to contact them except by flagging a posting (and you can't flag comments) and they cut you off from being able to reply to them when they inform you of their decision.
When the suspension ended I did flag a posting from the person who stalked and harassed me, explaining that my concern was not about that particular posting but about the behavior of the poster. After two days I've heard nothing. So it seems it is about who goes to the moderators *first*.
Are the behaviors described in the bullet points above considered appropriate by the participants in academia.stackexchange.com or by its moderators?
**PS:** I am told in an answer below that I omitted many relevant details. But I still don't *know* the nature of the complaint about me, and I am left to *guess*. I was explicitly told that the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainant would be kept from me.<issue_comment>username_1: There is a lot going on in this question and I will attempt to tackle it, but if I miss something, let me know.
>
> Then I got a message from the moderators saying someone, whom they did not identify, had complained that I was "stalking and harassing" him, using my words, not quite verbatim. Naturally this gave rise to a suspicion about who it was. The moderators suspended me for seven days.
>
>
>
To be fair you got a message saying that there were complaints about users harassing each other. You were told that we were contacting everyone involved and telling everyone to stop it and that we were not taking any further action. You then took what the mods decided was a combative and harassing response, and it was at that point we suspended you for 7 days.
>
> The moderators are anonymous and it is not possible to contact them except by flagging a posting (and you can't flag comments) and they cut you off from being able to reply to them when they inform you of their decision.
>
>
>
I am not sure what you mean by anonymous. We are listed here <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators>, but obviously I am not the real Strongbad. We watch meta and chat, so there are ways to contact us publicly. We also have a tool to contact users privately, and once contacted, you can reply privately. The ability to reply may expire at some point, I do not know. I am pretty sure you can flag comments.
>
> When the suspension ended I did flag a posting from the person who stalked and harassed me, explaining that my concern was not about that particular posting but about the behavior of the poster. After two days I've heard nothing. So it seems it is about who goes to the moderators first.
>
>
>
We saw the flag, discussed it amongst ourselves and the SE employees. We decided that it would be best if an SE employee handled the issue. I believe when the flag was cleared, you received a message saying essentially "give us some time". The SE employees are busy, but I am sure they will get to the issue.
>
> Are the behaviors described in the bullet points above considered appropriate by the participants in academia.stackexchange.com or by its moderators?
>
>
>
We are left to guess which question and comments you are referring to. You did raise a couple of flags saying you felt bullied, but they did not point out specific comments and did refer to the multiple down votes you received. Looking more carefully at the comments, some of them are less than nice and probably should be deleted. That said, no one specifically flagged the comments as rude. I am leaving them for now to aid the conversation, but if you flag them in a few days as rude, I will delete them. That said, the comments that I see are not over the top and while we discourage that type of behaviour, I do not think it is bad enough to require moderator intervention.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Your post is leaving out many, many relevant details of the actual story as it occurred, so much so that the case you state is a purely hypothetical situation.
As such, in response to the hypothetical question, no, that would not be an appropriate moderator action. Suspension is a fairly severe punishment, only used after a written warning (or rarely when the initial offense is particularly severe). Also, there's no such thing as a "who reported something first" concept; I'm not sure how that would ever actually play out in practice, but each flag is judged on it's own merit.
Additionally, you stated above that "moderators are anonymous and unable to be contacted." To address those two points:
* We are not anonymous; [we're right here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). Regarding who performed a particular action, we try as much as possible to discuss amongst ourselves when issues come up, and actions taken by one are fully backed by the rest of the group. You don't need to worry that what one person did cannot be defended or addressed by another. Even more so, in many cases, we frequently do respond to specific instances of moderator action (see [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1747/why-was-this-question-about-the-definition-of-a-curriculum-closed) and [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1606/when-did-doi-questions-become-off-topic-here/1608#1608) for two examples).
* We are very easily able to be contacted; you just did so! Posting to Meta is the correct venue, and as you can see by simply browsing questions, we post here a lot.
---
*Edit to add:*
* After I posted I remembered... almost every mod message ends with the name of the moderator who originated it. I just checked, and this case was no exception. You *were* aware of who contacted you, as it was stated explicitly on the email you received.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I see a Stack Exchange participant who perceives unfair treatment, and is wondering if things are working differently in practice from how things are supposed to work. Also, this participant is confused about some moderator actions.
I have a suggestion for you, @MichaelHardy. If you haven't yet tried this, hit the "contact us" button in the footer. Write as calm a letter as you can (mainly so you don't upset yourself further), and include links and quotes so that someone who is just coming into the story can follow what you're saying. You can include specific questions about things you haven't understood, and you can include specific complaints and suggestions.
I am a pretty recent arrival at SE, so I can't guarantee that this will be helpful, but I do think it's worth a try.
By the way, please do experiment with flagging comments. Here is a page that talks about comment flags: [How does comment voting and flagging work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17364/how-does-comment-voting-and-flagging-work)
I am a little confused about what that page says about downvoting comments. Maybe that part is obsolete. But what it says about flagging comments matches my experience.
Upvotes: 3 |
2015/06/05 | 848 | 3,289 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a bit unsure as to whether or not a question I have in mind is appropriate for Academia Stack Exchange, so I decided to ask about it on meta. It's possibly unique in that it is written by a student in high school looking at college curricula while considering how those curricula would be relevant to graduate school.
My question would be along these lines:
>
> I once talked with a professor of astronomy - my hopeful major/specialty - at a college. He said that the key to doing well in the field is to take as few astronomy classes in college as possible (and as many physics classes as possible) and to take as many astronomy classes in graduate school as possible (and as few physics classes as possible).
>
>
> This seems like wise advice - you need to focus on the basics before moving on to things that may be more advanced. The problem, though, is that I'd like to do undergraduate astronomy research as soon as possible in college - I'm already doing some independent work at the moment - and to do research in college, I need a solid block of astronomy courses.
>
>
> Is this recommendation a good one, or does the possibility of research make it inadvertently backwards?
>
>
>
My other concern - besides it perhaps not being relevant to high enough levels, though it does rest in part on graduate school - is that it seems a little opinion-based. I've read through many questions on Academia, and it seems like there is room for opinion in many of them. However, I can't tell if this is okay in the case of my question or not.
Is this question okay for Academia Stack Exchange?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, as you said, this is a very unusual question.
Questions asking about specific coursework preparing for research are considered off-topic, but this doesn't do that. It's not an "undergrad-only" question, since the focus is on research, rather than the coursework *per se*. It also avoids the "too specific" trap, but it may (legitimately, perhaps) be dinged for being opinion-based.
Personally, I wouldn't contribute an answer, but my comment would be:
>
> You should consider asking some people at a nearby research college what they would expect undergraduates to have studied before starting in their research group. You may need less formal coursework than you think.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you should start out asking the question that that guy was answering, and compare the answers you get with the answer you've collected so far.
How does this sound?
>
> I'm getting ready to start college with some kind of science major,
> with the plan of doing grad studies in astronomy.
>
>
> Q1: What sort of proportion of my undergrad courses should be physics
> and what proportion astronomy? I've heard that the best way to
> prepare for grad studies in astronomy is to get as strong a foundation
> as possible in physics, and that undergrad courses in astronomy might
> not be very helpful, and could actually be counter-productive!
>
>
> Q2: My hope is to get involved in astronomy research as an
> undergraduate. Is this a realistic goal?
>
>
> Q3: Would it be counter-productive, in the long term, to get involved in astronomy research as an undergrad?
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 |
2015/06/10 | 1,832 | 6,489 | <issue_start>username_0: We kind-of discussed this in a [related post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1588/4140).
We recently got two questions tagged [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"):
* [How to overcome these learning difficulties and progress in academia?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/46936/4140)
* [“Anonymous” is so distressed that he is having trouble functioning [duplicate]](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/46032/4140)
Then again, [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") [explicitly covers "cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, or developmental" impairments](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/disability/info). So [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") seems to be a proper subset of [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'").
---
Then *yet* again, most of the [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") questions really could be retagged [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"). Explicitly, I'd argue that out of 20 [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") questions, *all but the following* could be tagged [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"):
* [Does disability impact on prospects of employment in academia?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2901/4140)
* [Dismissed by my committee](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2808/4140)
* [Disclosing hidden disability to employer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/43062/4140)
* [How does <NAME> conduct his research?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/41576/4140)
(Yes, I'm putting speech impairments under the "mental" category here, since they usually involve language centers in the brain, unless there is some trauma to the vocal apparatus. Clinical psychologists, neurologists etc. are welcome to correct me.)
---
I see a couple of ways to proceed here.
* **Clearly separate physical and mental disabilities**, by tagging the 4 questions above [physical-disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physical-disability "show questions tagged 'physical-disability'"), retagging the other 16 [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") questions [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"), black-listing the [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") tag, and adding [mental-disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-disability "show questions tagged 'mental-disability'") as a synonym for [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") (so people find it when they type "disability" into the tag box).
* **Merge the two concepts**, by retagging the [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") questions to [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") and blacklisting [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'").
* **Do nothing**, and let nature take its course.
---
Given that I see three alternatives, the usual upvote=yes, downvote=no meta mechanism won't be useful here. So I'll create three answers corresponding to the three alternatives. Please vote your preference, and comment as appropriate.<issue_comment>username_1: **Clearly separate physical and mental disabilities**, by tagging the 4 questions above [physical-disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physical-disability "show questions tagged 'physical-disability'"), retagging the other 16 [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") questions [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"), black-listing the [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") tag, and adding [mental-disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-disability "show questions tagged 'mental-disability'") as a synonym for [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") (so people find it when they type "disability" into the tag box).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: **Merge the two concepts**, by retagging the [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") questions to [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") and blacklisting [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'").
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: **Do nothing**, and let nature take its course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") should be merged with [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'").
I'm reposting here a highly-upvoted [comment](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/is-the-seemingly-high-prevalence-of-clinical-depression-cases-in-a-se-askers-nor#comment7196_1592) on a related meta question:
>
> I am very much against a mental-health tag, just because I am concerned about contributing to the misconception that mental health issues are somehow not "real" medical issues.
>
>
>
See related discussion there.
Upvotes: 3 |
Subsets and Splits