16
$\begingroup$

There is a recent question asking for examples of exciting/ground-breaking new results being published from 2026 onwards. I find this question problematic for a couple reasons.

First, it usurps our yearly "end-of-year" question about the same thing.

Second, as time goes on, it will be harder and harder to find good answers. It is overly broad.

Third, it feels like a form of promotion for the author's books (even if this is not the intention), especially since the author is also the main contributor of new answers, which push the question to the front page often.

I'd ask the moderators to consider closing this and similar questions, even though they receive many positive votes, because there is already a (better) mechanism to get the same information.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 16
    $\begingroup$ I also don't really like these questions - but I think, unless they are really egregious and obviously violate policy or established norms, voting is the best way to get borderline questions closed. So I wouldn't want to intervene using moderator powers in this case. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2025 at 19:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins From the help page for MO: "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page." Next: "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." and again later "To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions..." $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2025 at 22:05
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ While I agree with some of the sentiments here, I’m of the opinion that, on a question with a high number of net upvotes, the moderators should never intervene to close it even if there’s a case to be made that certain policy are violated. After all, a high number of net upvotes makes it clear that the community deems the question interesting and/or useful. Policy is meant to facilitate the proper self-management of the community, not to impede the clear will of the community. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 3:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, these questions shouldn’t be closed even through review queues, since reviewing is a privilege less users have than voting. I’d say that these questions should only be closed if a community consensus is reached to close it via, say, discussion on meta. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 3:24
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @DavidGao The problem is that the upvotes on a question that made the HNQ often do not come from "the community", but from random passers-by. And, more generally, this policy is not robust against voting manipulation, e.g., sockpuppets. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 14:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FedericoPoloni One cannot upvote a post without first joining MathOverflow, so I’m not sure what you meant or who the “random passers-by” are supposed to be. As for voting manipulation, I believe moderators have the tools to revert any illegitimate upvotes, should that be confirmed to have happened. If, after reverting the illegitimate votes, the question ends up no longer having a high number of net upvotes, then certainly what I suggested no longer applied. So, this seems an easy issue to address under the policy I suggested. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 17:22
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ I am also of the opinion that moderators should only intervene in clear cases of abuse or violation of widely agreed-upon policy/convention. We expect the user base to constantly shift as new users (possibly up and coming mathematicians!) join and bring their own ideas into the mix. Moderators should not be strict vanguards of tradition, even if this is to the chagrin of long-time users. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 17:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @DavidGao (1) It's not like it costs money to join MO. Almost everyone can become a 101-reputation user. Does that make them part of the MO community in your view? (2) You are working under the assumption that illegitimate upvote detection systems are 100% effective. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 20:33
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I also think that cases like this should be decided by the community. In particular, I would only unilaterally close / delete a post with high net vote score if there are clear signs of abuse. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2025 at 20:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FedericoPoloni (1) That does, yes. Why should they not be? We are talking about upvoting here, so the relevant users have even engaged with the community by exercising their right to vote. Why should they be less of members of community than others like long-time and/or high-rep users? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20, 2025 at 1:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FedericoPoloni (2) I’m working under the assumption that, unless proven otherwise, results of voting should be considered legitimate expressions of views of the community, and moderators and/or review queues, which have less of a claim to represent the will of the community, should not impose their decisions over the result of a vote that the entire community can participate in. And if someone believes there is voting manipulation going on, the onus of proof lies with them. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20, 2025 at 1:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FedericoPoloni I certainly don’t believe detection of illegitimate upvotes will be 100% effective, but to claim that this justifies closing/deleting a question with high number of net upvotes is no different, in my mind, than saying that, because we have no way to be 100% certain that the result of any given election is not swayed by fraud, therefore authorities should be able to ignore votes and simply enact what they believe to be the best. Awfully anti-democratic argument, wouldn’t you agree? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20, 2025 at 1:25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ (Just to clarify: None of my comments are meant as personal attacks or to question anyone’s motives. Nor are they meant to defend the post in question. While I did not downvote it, I didn’t upvote it either. And, frankly, if this is just about the content of the post itself, I wouldn’t have cared if it gets closed. I actually agree with the OP’s statement that the usual end-of-year post achieves the same purpose in a better way. And essentially asking for results that are already proved but not published yet is quite weird to me. I just don’t think it’s right to ask moderators to close it.) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20, 2025 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Looking at the above comments about "random passers-by”, in case somebody wants to look at the previous discussions around that topics, here are some of them: The Association Bonus and other questions linked there, Measures to separate math overflow from the rest of the stack exchange network and other questions linked there. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20, 2025 at 6:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding David White's comment, I repeat mine here: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/6318/… $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2025 at 23:30

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
15
$\begingroup$

By my count, at this point 8/14 of the answers are by the OP. Early on I didn’t think it was a big deal, but this is reaching the point where I think it is time to close the question and re-think whether it was a good idea to allow it in the first place.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I came here to say the same thing, only to find that Andy Putman has beaten me to the punch. I just voted to close. I still think the post was okay initially, just not the repeated posting of answers by the OP, especially given that it is part of the OP's book project. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2025 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Also, now that it's December, I'm also anticipating that there may be a reprise of What 2024 results in your field have excited you? (updated to 2025 of course). Normally I'm in favor of such a question, but now it seems that there might be considerable overlap, so I'm not so sure any more. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2025 at 14:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow I personally would prefer having the reprise this year (and every year), and close any other questions that try to preempt it before the end of the year. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2025 at 22:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ One thing I like about how we did it last year is that a moderator posted it and the language was cleaned up to avoid eg references to "breakthroughs" or fancy journals. I think that this is how it should be done every year, including this one. And also that questions that resemble it aside from the yearly "official" one be closed. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2025 at 22:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's the same guy who asks every year. And when I took a stand against it in 2023, but the community didn't care, it empowered this guy. Things are playing out exactly as I predicted: meta.mathoverflow.net/a/5822/11540 $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 10, 2025 at 17:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I concur with Andy. Having an annual tradition like this, if carefully managed, and for a specified period of time (eg the question gets closed or locked at the end of January), feels like it can make things a bit more celebratory and fun. I agree that the open-ended 2026-and-beyond post got out of hand, though it was a slow increase until it became clear it wasn't really working. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2025 at 23:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidWhite It wasn't Bogdan Grechuk who asked in 2010, 2021, or 2022. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 16, 2025 at 13:37
8
$\begingroup$

I note the following comments, by myself and two other moderators:

I also don't really like these questions - but I think, unless they are really egregious and obviously violate policy or established norms, voting is the best way to get borderline questions closed. So I wouldn't want to intervene using moderator powers in this case.

Sam Hopkins

I am also of the opinion that moderators should only intervene in clear cases of abuse or violation of widely agreed-upon policy/convention. We expect the user base to constantly shift as new users (possibly up and coming mathematicians!) join and bring their own ideas into the mix. Moderators should not be strict vanguards of tradition, even if this is to the chagrin of long-time users.

Stanley Yao Xiao

I also think that cases like this should be decided by the community. In particular, I would only unilaterally close / delete a post with high net vote score if there are clear signs of abuse.

Stefan Kohl

This represents the opinions of half of current moderators. It is my feeling that the remaining moderators would also agree with this sentiment to some extent.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I concur with my esteemed colleagues $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2025 at 9:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I support this way of thinking, though my voice is certainly not the most important in the room here. Communities are what people make of them; not all posts will appeal to everyone. Posts that are widely enjoyed may be annoying to some but may still ultimately be harmless in isolation. To the extent such questions are problems, the community has both the tools and ability to revise policy; use 'em! $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 22:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.