The good news: We are mentioned in an official blog post!

The bad news: We are "yet another math site", with no further info provided.

What can we do to improve this image within the SE network?

  • $\begingroup$ The podcast itself contains a lot more detail on that, the "yet another math site" is somewhat tongue in cheek in the summary. $\endgroup$
    – user191
    Apr 25, 2014 at 10:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The part about this site starts at 6:51, for anyone who wants to listen to it. The whole thing is very positive about the site. $\endgroup$
    – user191
    Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had the exact same feeling. But I didn't hear the podcast, so I'll go listen to that. We're one of the most successful new beta sites in a long time! $\endgroup$ Apr 25, 2014 at 19:45

1 Answer 1


The description as "yet another math site" is likely not a fortunate choice of words, but I do not think it was meant negatively in some way.

Just looking at our site, and Mathematics and MathOverflow, I think it should become quite clear to everybody that this site is quite different from the two other math sites (that are also quite different among themselves but actucally this difference is harder to appreciate, and in view of what Mad Scientist said -- I did not yet here the podcast -- it might be a bit of a play on the perception of not few that those two sites are a bit redundant). Thus, I do not expect strong calls to merge us.

I am thus not sure there is any need to improve "this image," and you might read too much into the formulation. But, certainly, we should always try to improve.

Actually, I feel we are rather popular with the network and get quite a bit of contributions from lurkers from other sites. There is also a risk in this, as sometimes (though not always) the contributions are "just" somebodies opinion, often based on their own experience as a student.

Still, I feel we should be rather welcoming and friendly to these visitors. I do not mean to propose we accept everything, and especially I do not see any need to accept willful controversy brought by outsiders, but if somebody takes the time to write a contribution in good faith that adds a little then we should be rather nice to them.

Regarding image in the network I think a main risk is to be perceived as an unwelcoming or even hostile (to outsiders) site. We should try to avoid aquiring such an image. So as one goal we could have to be known as the nicest of all the mathematics sites in the network.

  • $\begingroup$ I think what motivated me the most to speak up was the skimpyness of our description. $\endgroup$
    – Roland
    Apr 25, 2014 at 10:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree that it being that brief can seem negative, and one half-sentence in addition could have avoided this. In any case, thank you for bringing this too our attention. I was not yet aware of it, and I now intend to listen to the podcast soon. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Apr 25, 2014 at 11:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .