Timeline for Why did Theoretical Physics fail?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2012 at 22:24 | comment | added | Phira | MO allows lower-level and broader types of questions than TP.SE. | |
| May 1, 2012 at 0:49 | comment | added | Logan M | +1. I participated a lot at first, but it was clear that most of what was being discussed was over my head. For everyone below advanced graduate students, it would be difficult to ask a question that a lot of people found nontrivial. | |
| Apr 30, 2012 at 15:57 | comment | added | E.P. | +1 on graduate students in physics freaking out when seeing the site - I for one did. | |
| Apr 28, 2012 at 4:31 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 155 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2012 at 6:28 | comment | added | Cody Gray | My point wasn't really that Google duplicates the functionality of SE, but rather that it is "yet another half-hearted attempt by a for-profit company who knows absolutely nothing about the culture of the sites under its network". | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | @TheEstablishment Probably not in the way that would lead to good numbers for the site. The problem with these sites is that once you're past the easily Googlable undergrad/textbook stuff, it's hard to come up with the right search terms to get exactly what you want (unless you're talking of something that is distinctive). Moreover, each person tends to write/formulate the problem very differently that Googling isn't of much help. Lines of thought and reasoning cannot be easily Googled either... | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 6:21 | comment | added | Cody Gray | @yoda: So these people "in academic circles", do they not use Google either? | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 6:18 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | Since all these folks on MO have a common background and culture (and I don't mean internet culture), they hit off very well, just like how SO became a hit with programmers. All said and done, at the end of the day, the sad truth is that an SE site is viewed as yet another half-hearted attempt by a for-profit company who knows absolutely nothing about the culture of the sites under its network. | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 6:16 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | @TheEstablishment In academic circles, a lot of trust is based on credibility. MO was created by a mathematician, with hosting charges paid for by a mathematician, and it spread by word of mouth to other mathematicians, and was eventually publicized at math conferences etc. as a place for research level math discussion. None of the academic SE sites can even come close to achieving that level of technical expertise and being considered the equivalent of SO for programmers, because there is no common interest in the survival of the site or the common desire for the existence of such a site | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 5:53 | comment | added | Cody Gray | MO = Math Overflow? Why is it not striken by the same problem of "too many experts"? | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 5:28 | history | answered | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |