User blog comment:P進大好きbot/New Issue on Traditional Analyses/@comment-39541634-20190825100759/@comment-35470197-20190825221319

I see. Since "ψ" is a confusing notation, I think that it is much better for people to always specify what ψ means when they use one. Nevertheless they still tend to omit to specify what ψ they are using in analysis... I remember that when I asked them "what is the ψ in your analysis?", they said "I do not know. Maybe some standard one by Buchholz/Rathjen/and so on". This answer confused me well, because the ψ is rarely sandard one in such a case. If they do not stop unspecifying ψ, the traditional mix-uping will continue, and prevent new-comers to study an OCF appropriately.