A few years ago a nice paper surveyed the differences in quality between papers submitted to arXiv and those submitted to arXiv's rough cousin, viXra. However, that paper was about generic contributions to natural sciences, whereas this post on Quora is somewhat focussing on physics. Whence my question: what's the shape of maths on viXra? Should one ever bother to take a glance there, too? (I've just checked the contributions in analysis and I must admit I was a bit scared.) Are you aware of any mathematical article later quoted by, say, more than ten different peers and originally published on viXra?

28$\begingroup$ On the first page on number theory I see a purported proof of the Goldbach conjecture (vixra.org/abs/1601.0109), the Collatz conjecture (vixra.org/abs/1601.0299), and a disproof of the Riemann hypothesis (vixra.org/abs/1601.0281). The total length of these papers is 27. I would therefore boldly argue that this website is not at all trustworthy and people should be fine browsing just the arxiv. $\endgroup$ – Stanley Yao Xiao Feb 3 '16 at 23:19

12$\begingroup$ vixra.org/pdf/1208.0223v1.pdf is a set of lecture notes on combinatorics by de Bruijn taken by Nienhuys. I don't know if the scribes have tried taking it to the arXiv, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got rejected due to the scribes not being authors. That said, this is the only time I have found anything of use on the viXra... $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Feb 3 '16 at 23:56

5$\begingroup$ Also, the word "Scienceographic" is an abomination and whoever came up with it should be ashamed. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Feb 3 '16 at 23:57

13$\begingroup$ @StanleyYaoXiao: Certainly viXra has lots of garbage. But to play devil's advocate, since it was founded with the explicit intention of eschewing moderation or filtering, calling it "not trustworthy" kind of misses the point; it was never meant for anyone to trust it. It's a place where anyone can post mathish PDFs, and readers can make of them what they will. They're upfront about this, and have never claimed to be anything else. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Feb 4 '16 at 7:50

6$\begingroup$ I have deleted a bunch of comments having to do with whether this question should remain open, be deleted, and other assorted meta concerns (which belong at meta; there is a thread about this post if you want to comment on this, here: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2718/onthevixraquestion). Further comments here at main should be constrained to addressing the actual question. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble♦ Feb 5 '16 at 1:57
From a quick search I found Adjugates of Diophantine Quadruples by Philip Gibbs, which was originally posted on the viXra and has since appeared in INTEGERS. I do not think it meets the quota of being cited more than ten times, but according to Google Scholar, it has been cited by these two articles.
Aguirre, J., Dujella, A. and Peral, J.C., 2012. On the rank of elliptic curves coming from rational Diophantine triples. The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 42(6), pp.17591776.
Dujella, A. and Jurasić, A., 2011. Some Diophantine triples and quadruples for quadratic polynomials. Journal of Combinatorics and Number Theory, 3(2), pp.123141.

20$\begingroup$ Given that vixra was created by Philip Gibbs, out of what seems like a sort of altruism, he may feel perfectly happy hosting papers there. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Feb 4 '16 at 6:28