Extending silly sequences

[Leroy Quet]

Joshua Zucker said:
>I have three questions for the list:
>
>1) If someone's submitted a sequence that I think is easy and
>deserving of the "dumb" keyword, but they only gave the first few
>terms, should I extend it (so at least it doesn't have the "more"
>keyword, and people trying to extend sequences don't have to see it)
>or should I ignore it (because I think it's not worthy of being in the
>OEIS in the first place)?  So far I'm tending toward the first option,
>extending lots of sequences just to get those "more" tags cleared off,
>so that other people trying to extend sequences can work on the worthy
>ones.  But if y'all think that extending the sequences gives them (or
>their authors) more credibility, maybe I'd rather not lend my name to
>that effort ... Still, since each one usually only takes me a couple
>minutes to program, it seems worth it just to fill up those three
>lines like NJAS wants.
>...

Speaking as someone who often submits relatively easily-calculated "more" 
sequences (I wonder if you are talking about MY sequences when talking 
about sequences deserving the dumb keyword!), I would say that extending 
the sequence CAN indeed encourage the original submitter.

But adding the "dumb" keyword might likely negate such encouragement that 
would otherwise be given a submitter because his/her sequence is extended.

In any case, while we are on the topic, I myself feel that the "dumb" 
keyword as well as the "nice" keyword are a matter of opinion, and so I 
never use either of these keywords for sequences I submit.

thanks,
Leroy Quet