Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.


    Mark, I also suspect that people with higher reputations get more votes, in some strong sense: if "unknown (google) 1" and, say, "David Speyer 16.6k" wrote identical answers then David would get more votes. Of course, it would be a little tricky to set up a meaningful experiment.

    I think this comes about not through any kind of moral weakness, but a kind of fuzzy thinking about what voting is for. Imagine you're reading through some answers. You see a long, helpful-looking answer which you partly understand, but not fully. Should you vote it up? Well, maybe yes, because it looks helpful and probably correct, and maybe no, because maybe it's wrong. The deciding factor could be how much you trust the author. If it's either someone famous (Tao, Gowers, ...) or someone "locally famous" (i.e. a high rep MO user) then you might be more inclined to believe it's correct and vote it up. I'm sure I've done that.

    Tom, I think you're right. For precisely this reason I try to avoid voting up answers that I don't fully understand.
    Actually my behavior in this direction is that I have a tendency to try to vote up questions and answers from MO users who have high reputation in meatspace but not high reputation on MO (say Gowers when he first showed up). The point is to make sure such people get a good welcome and thus will be likely to stick around. Also it's good for MO inside the math community when the people who are high users on the site include people who are well-known. Fortunately, people who are top mathematicians tend to give awesome answers and so I don't think I'm really doing any harm voting them up even if I don't always completely understand the answer.

    On the other hand for people who already have high reputation (David and Greg for a while, Emerton and Poonen now) the above reasons stop applying and if anything I vote them up less than I would with a typical new user.

    "Of course, it would be a little tricky to set up a meaningful experiment." Easy enough, actually. You just need some high profile user to agree to, after writing a response, flip a coin to decide whether to submit that response while logged in or logged out. Sure, you can't get the same answer submitted twice, but you can get a random sample.

    I guess I'd be willing to do this, although I'd feel pretty silly about it.

    It just occurred to me that a discussion about whether MO is too competitive (and what can be done to make it less competitive) has turned into a discussion of whether the game is fair. I think the fact that people seem to care about who is getting voted up and why is good evidence that in fact there is a good bit of competitiveness in the community here.
    • CommentAuthorZavosh
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2010

    Just two cents: There will always be competition in some form. If you suppress it, it may manifest itself in ugly and unhealthy ways.

    Just do it, David! Don't feel silly: your proposal is the kind of hard, empirical science we all love.

    By the way, the very interesting questions discussed here are not restricted to mathematicians.

    A well known French author, Romain Gary, got the Goncourt prize in 1956: this is the highest literary award in France.
    Since he felt thereafter that his manuscripts were only accepted on his reputation (ha!), he submitted a new manuscript ("La vie devant soi") under the pseudonym Emile Ajar. And "Emile Ajar" got the Goncourt prize for that book in 1975!
    The guy was really, really good...
    @Noah: As I mentioned earlier, I see arguments on both sides about how visible to make reputation. Competitiveness is generally being viewed as an argument for making reputation less visible. I didn't really mean to (help to) divert the discussion away from that, but rather to point out one reason reputation may encourage competitiveness (since the rewards may multiply over time) and thus give another reason that making reputation less visible could help with that issue.

    Georges, +1 for the completely unexpected mention of Romain Gary on MO! In addition to reading the wonderful books, David might enjoy Gary's short biography to see what he has to live up to...


    Just two cents: There will always be competition in some form. If you suppress it, it may manifest itself in ugly and unhealthy ways.

    I'm mostly staying out of this discussion, but I agree with this. Obviously there's such a thing as too much competitiveness, but I don't see evidence of it on MO. People actually are competitive to some degree, and I think there's something to the argument that channeling that competitiveness into mostly meaningless reputation points frees people up to actually be more pleasant to each other.


    I would like to agree with Steve Huntsman, Zavosh and Anton here. I think a reasonable amount of competitiveness is necessary for MO to succeed, because that is one reason people try to write better answers and questions.

    Somehow it seems to me that MO is actually less competitive than in the real world, may be because it is more public, and most people realize that being seen as too competitive by many people may not be good.

    Finally, I am a little bit concerned about trying to act without much evidence that we have a real problem. I am not saying it does not exist, but so far we only have one comment by fpqc months ago as hard evidence. I like the fact that there is no badges displayed since it makes things less cluttered, but one can even make a case that the fix might make things worse. For example, since the only thing that's visible now is reputation, people will have less motivation to write a really nice answers than writing five ordinary ones.


    Qiaochu, can you expand on what you mean by "good user interface design"? And how would those design principles imply that one should display the user's reputation but not the other information available from their user page --- e.g. age, location, and how long they've been a member for?

    My understanding is that one of the main "points" of reputation is to give a very rough measure of how much you should trust answers from a person. If that's the case, it's information which is relevant to determining whether you should, say, put the effort into trying to understand an answer better. If I see an answer by Terence Tao use terminology I'm unfamiliar with, I'm more likely to try to learn about it and see if it's relevant to my question. If I see the same kind of answer from a user with reputation 1, I'm less inclined to believe that the unfamiliar terminology he uses is relevant to my question. Other information on the user page doesn't affect this decision as directly.

    Given that reputation is important information for the basic function of the SE software - asking specific questions and getting specific answers - it's information that should be readily available when you look at an answer. Of course, the argument can be made that these kinds of concerns apply more to SO, for example, than to MO.

    • CommentAuthorEmerton
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2010

    I think that I am speaking not just for myself when I say that I don't use MO reputation at all as a tool for judging the correctness of an answer. I am much more likely to use the actual (i.e. professional, not MO) reputation of someone when deciding to invest effort in an answer far from my field of expertise; and for answers in my own field of expertise, I can judge the quality for myself. In fact, I have discovered the existence of several very knowledgeable mathematicians in areas of interest to me (who I didn't know previously) from reading their high quality answers on MO. None of the people I have in mind have particularly high (MO) reputation; they just write good answers. (Some whom post anonymously remain an intriguing mystery.)

    If I see someone making contributions that seem interesting whose name I don't recognize, and I want to learn more about that person (including getting a sense of how much weight to give their answers, if I can't tell directly from the answers themselves), I do the standard things that all mathematicians I know of do: look at their web-page, look on MathSciNet, and so on. In other words, I investigate their actual (i.e. real-world) reputation.

    I would guess that this is a big difference between SO and MO: the (pure) mathematical community is fairly small, in the end (and surely much smaller --- maybe some orders of magnitude smaller --- than the entire programming community, which seems to be the audience for SO, if I understand things correctly). While MO reputation may serve some useful technical role on the site, I don't see why it should play much of a role in evaluating the actual mathematics.


    It's becoming apparent that there are certain types of people who handle MO better than others. Looking at the responses here, some are naturally competitive and enjoy this aspect of MO, some are oblivious to the competition and enjoy MO for the math. I suspect everyone mixes a little of both but those are the major trends. It seems that MO caters best to those who enjoy at least some competition and are comfortable enough to ignore any unpleasant side effects. Maybe that's the bottom line: some people are MO-types and others aren't?

    fgdorais, I doubt many people would disagree with your assessment. I think the question we've been implicitly dealing with is, can we and should we change anything about MO so that more people could be "MO-types"? (I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the answer is no.)

    Mark, my last statement was intended to mean exactly what you ask. I think that the mere mention of Romain Gary accidentally released some of my awkward French rhetorical style.


    I agree with fgdoris & Mark that MO is, like everything else under the sun, more suited for some people than others. What I'm personally a bit worried about, is that if we start making changes to MO to suit the needs of those who think MO is to competitive, we might be alienating some of the people who use the site right now. I have absolutely no idea how to cater to those people since I don't see the ugly side of the competitiveness on MO (of course there are going to be sporadic instances, but I don't see it as a general theme on MO) but I just want to point out that any big changes can have adverse effect on the people who are all ready users.


    I'd like to respond to Emerton's comment just above.

    I think that I am speaking not just for myself when I say that I don't use MO reputation at all as a tool for judging the correctness of an answer.

    I absolutely agree with this, and I hope that everyone does as well. The key word here is "correctness". Reputation, good or bad, should have no relevance what-so-ever on whether or not an answer is correct.

    I am much more likely to use the actual (i.e. professional, not MO) reputation of someone

    Here's where I find that I do the complete opposite. I have never (to my, admittedly poor, memory) looked up someone from MO on MathSciNet, nor even on the arXiv (which might be a bit fairer). On occasion, I've done an internet search but generally only when I've already formed an opinion on that person (good or bad) and am looking for some background to see whether or not I'm jumping to conclusions. In fact, I suspect that I have a bit of reverse snobbery. If I see someone here who has a high professional reputation but a low MO reputation (proportional to how long they've been active) then I'm more likely to ignore what they say - I get highly irritated by the sort of people who sit listening, slightly smugly, to a discussion and interject "wise" comments now and then "for the education of the others"; if they care about the discussion, they should get involved, if not then they should go away. (To be clear: I'm not accusing anyone of this attitude, just that that's the image that gets triggered in my mind when I see a mismatch).

    (As an irrelevant side issue, why MathSciNet? How does that help you? If that's how you judge me, then I'm sunk! As is every other young mathematician.)

    I don't see why [MO reputation] should play much of a role in evaluating the actual mathematics.

    Again, I completely agree. But I don't see why IRL reputation should play much of a role in evaluating it either!

    I use MO reputation to determine whether or not to invest time in reading an answer or question that I wouldn't have normally read. It says that, over time, this person has shown that they make positive contributions to the community. As an actual reward, I will show them the courtesy of reading something that they have written to see that I would normally simply dismiss.

    MO reputation is like money: by itself, it is completely worthless. What it is worth, is what it can be exchanged for (only unlike money, it doesn't actually need exchanging). What it can be exchanged for is attention, and that really is worth having.

    There is a finite resource here: which one could call "attention of experts". I only have a certain amount of time to devote to answering questions. If Joe Bloggs with reputation 1 asks a vague question, then I'm unlikely to waste much time answering because I see no guarantee that my investment of time is going to be made use of. If Theo JF asks a vague question, then I probably will take time to read it carefully and see if I can find some nugget of nougat there because I already know that he will read my answers carefully. Those two are easy cases. What is a little trickier is if, say, 'algori' starts asking questions that I can answer. Then I look at that person's reputation (and user page) and see that they are a "player" and deserve a little attention.


    the (pure) mathematical community is fairly small, in the end

    but very insular and very hard to figure out all the connections and rules and specialities. I've been waiting ages to ask some functional analysis questions because I've never figured out where to ask them before!

    Sorry to chime in on this interesting discussion on such a side issue, but:

    @Andrew: I don't understand your qualms about using MathSciNet to check up on mathematicians. (And, in the spirit of disclosure, this is certainly something that I do as well.) It's much better than the arxiv, since a substantial percentage of mathematicians never post to the arxiv. Of course you have to realize that when looking someone up on MathSciNet you are getting a snapshot of where they were 1-2 years ago, but that's usually a pretty accurate approximation. As a random sample [not really, obviously] I looked both of us up on MathSciNet and on the arxiv. We each have four more articles on the latter than the former. In my case, most of this discrepancy is due to time lag, but one of the papers is one which I have had trouble publishing. From my cursory glance, the same could be true for you. So what's the problem here?

    And for the record -- yes, I agree that MO is inherently -- but mildly and rather good-spiritedly -- competitive in a way which seems destined to be less appealing to women than it is to men, on average. This is after all a site where you get rewarded for giving better and faster answers to questions than those around you. More than gender though, there is a large portion of the spectrum of human temperament and mathematical style that does not want to participate in MO. I have one mathematician friend that doesn't want to go out on a limb and public with his answers to questions -- he would rather answer them in person -- and another mathematician friend who is not drawn into an endless barrage of questions that are unrelated to his current research interests. (Both men, notice.)

    It is a similar matter of pure personal difference, I think, to the phenomenon that some people don't feel comfortable using their full, real names on MO. Is there some modification of the site that would make these people more likely to volunteer this information? Probably not. MO is appealing to an excitingly large and broad subset of the mathematical population, but it's not appealing to everyone. Nor could it be, I think. Note that it is already much more successful than most preexisting loci of internet mathematical discourse, like sci.math.research, even though one would be hard-pressed to identify a structural feature of s.m.r which could be off-putting to anyone.
    • CommentAuthorRegenbogen
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    The senior mathematicians more or less know everyone in real life and attach more value to publications.

    Grad students etc on the other hand, are newer to the scene and might take the MO reputation more seriously.

    For an undergrad for grad school applications, or for a grad student for postdoc hunting, MO reputation might actually matter.

    I had taken many avatars in MO asking and answering questions; to be precise this is my fourth avatar. I am no major guy here; but I can tell you that life in MO becomes much much easier when you have a decent reputation. Each little bit counts, I would say. Maybe of course when reputation goes over 3000, it may not matter much. That is, there is not much difference between 5000 reputation or 6000 reputation. But, there is some significant difference in the site experience when your reputation is at the bottom levels. In fact it was precisely to distract myself from reputation hunting that I went through many avatars.

    I didn't want to rat myself out; therefore I had kept silent on this aspect so far. But it seems this bit of info might be useful to some people in this discussion without them actually doing a new experiment.


    Dudes, back the heck off. [Edit(Anton): this refers to comments which have been removed]

    @fgdorais: I'm sorry I missed your point. Perhaps I'm falling into the common internet affliction of reading only what's made appallingly explicit.

    @Grétar: I don't think the issue is one of specific unpleasant incidents. I think it's a question of whether a potential new user takes a cursory look at how things are done on MO and feels that it's just not for them (cf. comments by fgdorais, Tom, Pete, etc.) (although maybe when you referred to an "ugly side" of competitiveness you meant to include this general atmospheric effect as well).

    @Andrew: I see your concerns about MathSciNet, but I'm surprised at your suggestion that arxiv is better for the same purpose. I suspect that has something to do with differences between your field and mine. But it honestly never occurred to me to use either site to check out MO users; the most I've done is google for someone's home page a couple times.

    @David: +1

    I'm deleting a few comments (just above Davids "Dudes, back the heck off") where fpqc insistently says he knows who Regenbogen is and Regenbogen says she/he isn't that person. I think they're irrelevant to this thread.


    Not to mention extremely poor netiquette. If you have concerns that two avatars are the same person, and that this is causing mischief, email the moderators.

    Although the arXiv vs. Mathscinet thing is off-topic, I also think it's a very interesting topic. There's definitely a big culture gap between people who "came of age" (i.e. went to grad school) before and after the arXiv became prominent. This shows up in a lot of ways, for example people pre-arXiv tend to have knowledge and opinions about journals and to know which journal a given paper was published in. People post-arXiv typically only look at which papers were published in which journals when they've just finished writing a paper and are trying to figure out where to submit it to (or perhaps when stalking new hires to figure out how their research stacks up to ones own). But this is another place where it shows up, I certainly go to the arXiv before Mathscinet when looking up a mathematician. I'm also strongly disinclined to read a paper if it's not on the arXiv (this was slightly less true at Berkeley than at Columbia because Columbia has a very poorly designed setup for using library resources from home) and even more disinclined if it's not online at all. I think older mathematicians probably don't have such an aversion.
    It's not just older people! I tend to look at mathscinet before I look at the arXiv. I also tend to know what journal my favorite papers are published in, etc. I actually rarely look at the arXiv -- if I want a paper, I'll first look at mathscinet/the library, and if it's not there I will try to find the author's webpage, and only if that fails will I look at the arXiv. My experience is that the arXiv has out of date versions of papers. I'd much rather read the version incorporating the referee's corrections...
    Agreed, the older/younger dichotomy seems fishy to me. The arxiv has been around for my entire professional life. I probably download an average of one paper a week from the arxiv (quite optimistic; I have a really big folder of interesting papers), but it is certainly not my only source for papers.

    I wonder if subject area is a more telling division. In number theory, I would estimate the percentage of papers which do not get uploaded to the arxiv at about 35-40%. This is too many to pass up. Perhaps it is different in other fields?

    Whew! Lot's to respond to. And almost none on competitiveness!

    MathSciNet is my "search of last resort". Stuff there is old! Pete lays the foundation of my argument when he says it's a "snapshot of 2 years ago". Except that it's worse than that, some papers take two years, some take longer, some take shorter, it's fairly random. When I do find an article I like the look of, it's generally not available or only via some convoluted set-up that generally makes it not worth the bother. If someone really wants to make it possible for me to use their work, they should make it freely available. If they choose to lock it up, I'll look for some other way to find the information.

    I didn't mean it to be a "MathSciNet vs arXiv" debate; I was surprised that someone would use MathSciNet as a way of finding out about people's interests and reacted to it. I don't search either to find out about a person. I'll look for the author's webpage and that's about as far as I'll go. If you look at what I actually said, you'll see that I didn't claim the arXiv to be a better place to judge someone's reputation.

    (As for Andy's point about MathSciNet vs arXiv version, all I can say is "huh? Which papers have you been looking at?".)

    But back on track. I would want to see real hard evidence that MO is "too competitive" before trying to make substantive efforts to remove the reputation element of it because I think that reputation is extremely useful for the reasons I tried to give above.

    A 2-3 year old paper is "old"? What are we, physicists <grin>? Is it really that odd that I tend to read more papers that are 10-20 years old or more than papers that were written last week? I've never polled my colleagues, so I have no idea if this is a common opinion, but I always thought that one of the nice things about mathematics is that our literature lasts forever. There are forgotten gems scattered throughout the older literature...

    As far as there being substantial differences between published papers and the versions on the arXiv, I can assure you that there are many. However, it seems a bit rude to point out other people's (corrected) errors in public and I mostly keep my own arXiv posts up to date, so I probably shouldn't give any examples...

    I certainly read papers 10-20 years old, older than that even (I think my record is early 1900s), but I regard papers that old slightly differently to papers that are "current". In particular, I'm unlikely to email an author of a paper from a few years back to ask them about details but I would consider it for a paper that's just appeared on the arXiv. So I don't think I'm in danger of turning into a physicist! (I hope.) But I read "old" and "new" articles for different reasons (which is also why I'm much more forgiving with regard to mistakes in arXiv papers than journal papers, not that I'm complaining overmuch about the latter since at least one of my articles on MathSciNet came about from finding such a mistake ...).

    I think it's pretty rare in quantum algebra to run across papers from this decade that are not on the arXiv. But I guess that shouldn't be surprising given that .QA was the first math arXiv category. Also with the exception of a specific half-a-dozen famous papers (e.g. Vaughan Jones's early paper, Reshetikhin-Turaev's papers, Ocneanu, etc.) it's pretty rare for me to look up a quantum algebra paper that's more than 15 years old. It's been fun working on a number theory project recently because it's required reading papers from the 60s; quantum algebra didn't even exist then!
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    I guess we should just end the conversation about competitiveness, since at the moment, there appears to not be any hard evidence for it being an important factor, and nobody is willing to change the rules without such evidence.


    fpqc, I think that the discussion has been productive and has led to evidence of something but not excessive competitiveness. Leaving aside the interesting tangents on fairness of the game and optimal sources of reliable reputation, I've gathered the following:

    1. There is evidence that MO is unattractive (or even repulsive) to a potentially large population of mathematicians.

    2. Although this is a common perception of MO, the community is not excessively competitive in general.

    3. There is some desire to be attractive to a larger population base if doing so consists only of minor cosmetic changes.

    Points 1 and 2 are well established by now, there has been little discussion of 3 but the reaction to Anton's minor changes to the front page has been positive. I think 3 is worth discussing more and I would add another point of discussion.

    1. If not competitiveness, what are the main reasons for the occasional (or frequent?) unfavorable perceptions of MO? Should someone conduct a poll or a focus group? Is it too early to study the impact of MO?

    [@Mark, it clearly wasn't your fault. I don't think I would have gotten the point of what I wrote if I hadn't written it. I blame Romain Gary :) ]

    @Andrew: it's not a big deal here, and please don't think that I'm actually offended, but you say "he [Pete] says" and then you use quotation marks, but what you put in the quotation marks is not exactly what I said. This is a practice that could potentially get you in trouble...
    • CommentAuthorShevek
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010
    To be honest, I've been a bit disillusioned with some aspects of the mathematical community (and perhaps just academia in general). Prior to getting too involved I guess I was under the naive assumption that the mathematical community was valiantly working together as one whole, each individual making their (small) contribution and everyone collaborating together (with smiles on their faces) with the aim to advance our civilization's understanding and appreciation of basic foundational knowledge. But I've found that many mathematicians don't feel for such "lofty" ideals at all; in particular, some are extremely competitive. I guess it's just one face of the well-observed phenomena that in the real world people want money whereas in academia people want fame.

    Anyone have any opinions on this topic?
    • CommentAuthorrwbarton
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010
    @Shevek: Yes, I think even for meta.MO it's overly subjective and argumentative :)

    Beren/Shevek, I personally agree with many of your remarks. I think most would concur with the basis, though I expect some debate on whether this is positive or negative. In any case, I think this debate would stray us even more from the actual topic of this thread which is about MO and not the competitive nature of mathematics in general.

    [Aside: Why did my "4." get changed to "1."? That's a rather silly feature...]

    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010

    @Shevek, mathematicians are humans!


    [Aside: Why did my "4." get changed to "1."? That's a rather silly feature...]

    It's a markdown feature that when markdown recognizes something as a numbered list, it does the numbering, ignoring the actual numbers that you wrote.

    • CommentAuthorRegenbogen
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    And as a solution I used to put the numbers inside dollars, in MO. Here in meta, a change from markdown to plain text should do the trick.



    Although this is a common perception of MO, the community is not excessively competitive in general.

    My impression was that no consensus was reached on whether this perception is true or not. For one, I agreed with it.

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    Yes, but you failed to support any of your claims with anything more than vague nonarguments based on your assumptions about human nature, which I pointed out earlier. I, for one, have no intention of "taking your word for it". If it really is such a problem, you shouldn't have trouble finding concrete evidence.

    • CommentAuthorShevek
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010
    @fpqc: Please do not take offense, but I wonder whether it is a good thing to be unwilling to act or consider something until concrete "proof" has been given. I'm sure there are plenty of examples in life where it is not so easy to pin-down good concrete evidence for a potential negative effect. For example, it is quite possible that people stumble upon or are directed to mathoverflow only to be turned off by something about it and never come back. Even if this is true, it doesn't seem too easy for us to "present evidence" of it. But speculative arguments could nevertheless suggest that this might be happening (and such speculative "arguments" could be based on our experience and familiarity with different types of mathematicians, and our feelings about how they might feel about certain things about mathoverflow). Are such speculative arguments worthless?
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    Yes, they are worthless.

    Edit: And I've just noticed that you've tried to argue the same way, with your "I'm sure..." statement. This is a website for mathematicians, so I don't understand why you find it so hard to believe that we'd like some rigour in an argument about site policy.

    @fpqc: I'm probably going to regret going down this rabbit hole, but here goes. As I think you know, many of the examples of "extreme competitiveness" on MO can be traced to you. I don't want to rehash all the arguments on meta about this that have gone before, and thankfully much of the offending material has been deleted. However, it seems a bit rich for you to basically tell people to shut up (eg to "end the conversation") and stop talking about it. If I were you, I'd drop the hostile attitude and let the rest of us discuss this subject in peace.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited

    As I think you know, many of the examples of "extreme competitiveness" on MO can be traced to you. I don't want to rehash all the arguments on meta about this that have gone before, and thankfully much of the offending material has been deleted.

    This is not true. Whatever you want to say about the problems I've had, competitiveness has not been a problem.

    • CommentAuthorAndy Putman
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited
    @fpqc: Not true? Perhaps you can enlighten me : is it an act, or are you really as non-selfaware as this comment seems to indicate?

    EDIT : For the record, your constant attempts to show off how much more bad-ass you are than everyone else are, I suspect, a large part of what people are perceiving.

    My engagement with you ends here.


    Examples are different from proof. Most of us aren't looking a peer-reviewed study, just actual examples of this happening. Not many have been forthcoming.


    As far as I can tell this thread is degenerating into mostly consisting of tangents and the same people saying the same things multiple times. It's clear at this point that different people have different perceptions of the situation, which is probably just not going to change. Can we perhaps move toward actual suggestions for action (probably small action, but often small action can make a difference. Some people, at least, seemed to think that removing the reputations from the front page was a positive move).

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited


    If you'd like to make such statements, I insist that you provide evidence. Just because people have not agreed with my conduct in the past does not mean that every negative possible statement about my posts is true.

    Also, it's really not polite to make such statements then disappear without letting the other person answer. If you didn't want to "go down the rabbit hole", you shouldn't have attacked me.

    • CommentAuthorAndy Putman
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2010 edited
    @fpqc: See my above edit for what I am talking about. I think we both know what I mean there.

    Also, you have every right to respond, and I'm going to let you have the last word.