[mmmmpancakes]

I don’t know how much discussion one hopes to generate by simply posting links to recent arxiv pre-prints. Posters don’t even seem to be giving a reason for posting them. It is very non-sequiter and unengaging. Honestly i would never use this.

A better post format:

Title: not the title of the paper (which will almost always sound super specific) but something more general

abstract: a brief description at a high level of the discussion the poster hopes to generate, i.e. why.

Probably they should all be text posts with some ability to add an external link.

Also, posting some blogs would probably fare better for general discussion than just papers.

[whunting]

Sounds great. You can do that with a self post but it seems that arxiv url with auto fetched titled is the path of less resistance so far, not optimal for discussions, agreed. I'll probably change the submission format

[mmmmpancakes]

One thing that might be cool is to have extended discussions of some popular MO posts.

[whunting]

What are the most popular MO posts you are thinking of? I might add a comment on those posts to let people know that they can continue the conversation on Hessix

[genidoi]

I'm assuming that the value of these papers are self evident from the title if you understand the topic/context of the paper, much like HN with many of the white papers published here.

[throwawaymath]

I actually follow a lot of the math-y papers that get posted here, but I'm still routinely perplexed when I see them on the front page. Many of the math papers posted here do seem like they lack a context, especially since they mostly receive a huge number of upvotes but have almost no discussion.

I think it's a little weird on HN, and I can see why it seems like some of them are out of place even on a specialized math forum.

[whunting]

This is now implemented