# Too  many postings get deleted here



## Schmizzkazz

So one loses all motivation and any  of the  joy  in writing.

We are thinking persons.

We think before we post.

There is too much frustration if sensible postings get deleted here.


----------



## DonnyB

I do actually understand your point of view here, having once had a carefully thought-out post of mine deleted through (as I subsequently found out later) no fault of mine.

I'm sure I can speak for the other forum moderators in saying that we don't _like_ deleting posts, and contrary to what may be a commonly-held view amongst some members, we don't go round actively looking to see whose post(s) we can delete next.  

We only delete posts as a last resort and are always willing to respond to reasonable requests for clarification or explanations as to _why_ a post was deleted. 

Although we obviously can't go into details of particular instances here in a public forum, can you perhaps give us any general indication of what you have in mind by "sensible" postings which are getting deleted?


----------



## forgoodorill

DonnyB said:


> can you perhaps give us any general indication of what you have in mind by "sensible" postings which are getting deleted?


I think he means some excellent postings but deleted by reason of 'off topic' .


----------



## DonnyB

forgoodorill said:


> I think he means some excellent postings but deleted by reason of 'off topic' .


Possibly: this is one of the commonest reasons for deleting a post.

The goal, in most of the language forums, is to give good, clear answers to the specific question which was originally asked.  While an odd digression might not do any real harm, we have seen threads completely wrecked when successive posts start going off at a tangent - and that isn't fair to the OP as well as rendering the thread next-to-useless for anyone who might want to consult it in the future.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

forgoodorill said:


> I think he means some excellent postings but deleted by reason of 'off topic' .



Exactly!


----------



## Myridon

Schmizzkazz said:


> Exactly!


An excellent post in the wrong place is not an excellent post.  
I have an excellent building that I'd like to build on top of wherever you live.  You can't do anything about it because I am a thinking person and I have put a lot of thought into this very sensible building.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

Myridon said:


> An excellent post in the wrong place is not an excellent post.



What is on topic or off topic  lies often in the eye of the beholder.
One can be a bit liberal - and one can be very narrow-minded about it.

-------------

Btw: Nobody likes to write for the dustbin.
Moderators should realize that.


----------



## forgoodorill

Thanks for your reply, DonnyB, Myridon and Schmizzkazz.
I think we could change this question a little bit 'off-topic', because I think if I don't don't do this, maybe we just argue about this in our own view:
I think all of you said are very reasonable, but our goal here, I think, is to define what's called 'off-topic' posts?

Sure, no one just came here to experience the sense of sad--because he or she got deleted.
And it's also true that, if a gem in a very cheap box, will lower its price very much.(You know what I mean, sorry my poor vocabulary)

But as a foreign learner, this forum, is for learning. What are learning, definitely is to study something you don't know.
As far as I'm concern, and according to my experience, it's necessary to give some background knowledge for the OP, so, is this kind of 'off-topic'? I think, sometimes, a good explanation way much better than a straight answer.
If this kind of posts got deleted, I think everyone are sad, including the OP.

This example above just an example, I think people here have their own opinion. so *what do you think about what kind of posts are off-topic*?


----------



## Schmizzkazz

forgoodorill said:


> If this kind of posts got deleted, I think everyone are sad, including the OP.



So it is.

I find it OK, when postings get deleted that are offensive and aggressive and insulting.
But not when postings get deleted that were written in good will.
Just because somebody thinks that those postings were  "un-necessary".


----------



## Barque

Schmizzkazz said:


> What is on topic or off topic lies often in the eye of the beholder.


That's the answer. It's subjective. Different people will have diferent opinions. So someone has to decide what's off-topic and what's not, and that task has been given to the moderators. If everyone's allowed to decide for themselves what's off-topic and what's not, it'll mess things up quite a bit.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

I repeat: TOO MANY things are regarded as off topic!

Ich plädiere für etwas mehr Liberalität und etwas weniger Kleinkariertheit und Engstirnigkeit.

Unter der ständigen Androhung zu schreiben, dass der eigene Text von  einem engstirnigen Mod gelöscht wird, macht wenig Freude.
Das sollte ein Mod verstehen.


----------



## forgoodorill

All of us need to wait for the moderator's reply.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

It seems the Mods are much too aloof  to speak to ordinary members like you and me.
They are much too busy deleting posts here and there!


----------



## Circunflejo

forgoodorill said:


> *what do you think about what kind of posts are off-topic*?


Any post that doesn't address the OP's question, that barely address it or that address it from a not liguistic point of view.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

OK!

Then you may delete 99 % of all the postings!

What is this here?

A forum for normal people? Who like to TALK to each other in a normal way?

Or a prison?
Or a barracks?
Or what?


----------



## Barque

Schmizzkazz said:


> Or a prison?
> Or a barracks?


You're being allowed to participate in a forum set up and managed by others. You can't expect to have everything your own way. 


Schmizzkazz said:


> It seems the Mods are much too aloof to speak to ordinary members like you and me.


I don't think the mods enter into public discussions about why they do something. If you really want to know why they delete your posts, why don't you just write to the ones you have a problem with and ask them why they deleted them, instead of complaining about it here? I'm sure they'll reply to any direct messages.


----------



## Circunflejo

Schmizzkazz said:


> Then you may delete 99 % of all the postings!


I'm not a mod.


Schmizzkazz said:


> What is this here?
> 
> A forum for normal people?


I think so. If I thought otherwise, I would have already left the forum. Oh, and if I had thought the rules weren't for _normal _people when I read the rules before joining the forum, I wouldn't have become a member.


----------



## Assiduous student

Schmizzkazz said:


> So one loses all motivation and any  of the  joy  in writing.
> 
> We are thinking persons.
> 
> We think before we post.
> 
> There is too much frustration if sensible postings get deleted here.



Yes, Schmizzkazz, the forum is absurdly overmoderated. It must give quite a thrill to the moderators. Can you imagine the glee, dropping posts down the memory hole? If you follow my policy, if any of your posts is deleted, delete every single one of your posts in that thread, regardless of how much helpful information is deleted.

When I see interesting threads in the English forum here, sometimes with poor or inaccurate replies, I don't bother replying myself now in case my reply is deleted. I think you could stick to subforums with less self-aggrandising moderators and ignore the rest?


----------



## DonnyB

Schmizzkazz said:


> It seems the Mods are much too aloof  to speak to ordinary members like you and me.
> They are much too busy deleting posts here and there!


I can really only re-iterate what I said at the beginning of the thread, which was that we don't (contrary to what some members seem to think) enjoy deleting posts, nor do we trawl through all the threads looking to see what we can delete next.  

We're more than willing to respond to reasonable requests for explanations of individual deletion decisions, but neither I nor any of the other mods can do that in a public forum.

The bottom line, basically, is that our forums are not chat boards and the person who asked the question is entitled to expect courteous, helpful and _relevant_ answers to it.


----------



## Peterdg

Schmizzkazz said:


> Or a prison?


I think you do not understand the concept "prison". In contrast with a prison, you are free to leave this forum if you don't like it.

But, on the other hand, if you want to stay, please have the courtesy to follow the rules of the house and don't try to impose your view. It is not your house.


Schmizzkazz said:


> It seems the Mods are much too aloof to speak to ordinary members like you and me.
> They are much too busy deleting posts here and there!


And also, as a matter of pure politeness, you just don't insult the people that host you.


----------



## Myridon

Replying to the post that any thing posted "in good will" should not be deleted regardless of the content, if I want to post the full text of Moby Dick in good will, it would be outrageous for the moderators to delete it.  How dare they suggest that I should abide by rules of any sort as long as I have good intentions.  After this, I'm going to go kill some people that I think are bad because I have good intentions about improving the world.  No one should be able to arrest me.  They can't make rules that control my behaviour as long as I do it "in good will."


----------



## tunaafi

When we join WRF to participate in the English Only forum, we know that it is not a democracy, we know that we are expected to follow he rules, and we know that we are free to leave at any time we wish.

It takes money and  a great deal of time and work to keep a site like this up and running, and yet some members seem to feel it perfectly acceptable to drop in and tell the people running it how unreasonable they are. Moderators on a forum such as this are usually unpaid - they give up a lot of their own time to help keep the forum running as smoothly as it does. To suggest that they arbitrarily delete posts for the thrill of it seems to me to be an unpleasant and unjustified whine from a few people who are unlike the many hundreds of us  who are extremely happy with the usually civilised atmosphere in the English Only forum and who are prepared to follow the rules to keep it that way.


----------



## Assiduous student

Peterdg said:


> I think you do not understand the concept "prison". In contrast with a prison, you are free to leave this forum if you don't like it.
> 
> But, on the other hand, if you want to stay, please have the courtesy to follow the rules of the house and don't try to impose your view. It is not your house.
> 
> And also, as a matter of pure politeness, you just don't insult the people that host you.



In that case, you should have the right to delete your profile and all your posts. I don't expect Wordreference is hosted in the EU, but it is accessible in the EU, and the EU's right to be forgotten law apparently doesn't apply to forum posts, but does apply to forum profiles. In other words, in EU law, you would have the right to have your profile deleted. Apparently EU law does permit the posts to be retained but anonymised under a random username. Eg if Wordreference altered your profile to Zog123456 and all your posts appeared under that name, that would satisfy EU law. I don't expect Wordreference complies with EU law. But the company does behave badly in a moral sense in claiming ownership of your posts.


----------



## Assiduous student

tunaafi said:


> It takes money and  a great deal of time and work to keep a site like this up and running, and yet some members seem to feel it perfectly acceptable to drop in and tell the people running it how unreasonable they are. Moderators on a forum such as this are usually unpaid - they give up a lot of their own time to help keep the forum running as smoothly as it does. To suggest that they arbitrarily delete posts for the thrill of it seems to me to be an unpleasant and unjustified whine from people who, unlike many hundreds of us  of us, are extremely happy with the usually civilised atmosphere in the English Only forum and who are prepared to follow the rules to keep it that way.



Unfortunately, the moderators do not own the website either, and some of them should be let go by the actual owners. I find your claim that moderators do not delete posts for the thrill of it to be wholly out of synch with reality. There is such a thing as a Little Hitler syndrome and some moderators (on all websites) suffer from it. I'm clicking Unwatch now - so knock yourselves out (although I find it doesn't always stop every notification coming).


----------



## Peterdg

Assiduous student said:


> Unfortunately, the moderators do not own the website either


But they do work for and under the authorization of the site's owner.


Assiduous student said:


> There is such a thing as a Little Hitler syndrome and some moderators (on all websites) suffer from it.


So, anyone who imposes the rules (to which you have subscribed by entering the forum) is showing some "Little Hitler syndrome"???? So, also a police officer who gives you a fine because you have parked your car where it is not allowed, but you think it is perfectly OK to park there, is also a Little Hitler. Or not???


Assiduous student said:


> But the company does behave badly in a moral sense in claiming ownership of your posts.


Again, you agreed to that. Moreover, that policy is completely justified.  Removing all posts belonging to a user, will make all threads in which that user particpated, unintelligible.


Assiduous student said:


> Eg if Wordreference altered your profile to Zog123456 and all your posts appeared under that name, that would satisfy EU law.


First of all, your username does not disclose who you are, so there is no privacy problem whatsoever. If you want to leave the forum, you can delete all identifiable information from your profile (including your e-mail address). If you get banned from the forum because of bad behaviour, the moderator team will remove all identifiable information from your user profile.
Changing your username will also not solve your issue. Your old username will remain visible in any post in which  you were quoted.


----------



## aldonzalorenzo

Schmizzkazz said:


> I repeat: TOO MANY things are regarded as off topic!


I agree with you.
When I first started here, 10 years ago, you could tell a joke while answering a thread, both things being possible: it was fun and a learning experience at the same time. 
Afterwards they just started deleting EVERYTHING that doesn't answer the issue directly. I don't think it's a good rule because it doesn't allow to speak one bit, and language is about relationships. But that seems to be the rule.


----------



## wildan1

Myridon said:


> How dare they suggest that I should abide by rules of any sort as long as I have good intentions.



Realize that the Forum rules, which you and every other member agreed to follow when registering, are clear:


> 2. If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to another member, use the forum’s private message ('Conversations') feature. No chatting.
> 
> 16. Moderators are forum members who supervise individual forums. They may edit, delete, or modify any posts in their forums.


It's pretty straightforward!


			
				aldonzalorenzo said:
			
		

> Afterwards they just started deleting EVERYTHING that doesn't answer the issue directly. I don't think it's a good rule because it doesn't allow to speak one bit, and language is about relationships.


But ten years ago the Forum was just a few years old and still defining itself. After more than 15 years now, we are in a much more mature, clearly defined atmosphere that tens of thousands of people consult daily for help. They are not looking for your personal comments or jokes--many are working seriously on a translation project or language-learning assignment, and that's the main clientele of the Forums.

Plus, for Senior Members there are now other opportunities for the kind of broader exchanges you mentioned.


----------



## Peterdg

wildan1 said:


> Realize that the Forum rules, which you and every other member agreed to follow when registering, are clear:


Wildan,

I'm sure this was an ironical rethoric question to highlight the absurdity of what some people in this thread are saying.


----------



## velisarius

I think the mods do a great job, and I'd welcome threads that are even *more* on topic than they are at the moment. Not because I don't enjoy a bit of banter and well-intentioned meandering down interesting byways, but because I'm a learner myself. 

I'm not going to disclose which forums I visit as a learner, but I admit it sometimes fills me with despair when I see how some members seem to be more intent on displaying their impressive scholarship than helping a beginner-learner with basic explanations. It has certainly put me off asking questions myself. If a learner is not very expert in the language, it's very difficult to follow a loose, rambling thread. I sometimes come away feeling more confused than I was to begin with.

I think it's important to remember that members come here in good faith, looking for answers to their questions.  Most of the time they get the information they need. I'm in favour of short, to-the-point answers, since if the OP needs more detail and depth they can go ahead and ask for it.  After all, we do ask the OP to give specific examples of their problem, with context. This keeps the discussion focused, and I find that these are the threads that are the most helpful when I come across them in a dictionary search. 

Each language forum plays a slightly different role, and this one seems to have achieved a good balance between impersonal, strictly language-focused posts and those with more personal, friendly interaction between members, between strict adherence to the topic and excusable brief digressions. It's a difficult balance.


----------



## TheCrociato91

I fully subscribe to velisarius' comment above. Which is part of the reason why some time ago I asked on this subforum whether we should consider setting a stricter limit to post length so as to discourage off-topic strays.

In my opinions mods do a great job. Some are stricter, some are more liberal. To me it's simply a matter of getting used to the type of moderation that is enforced in the forums you visit.


----------



## Myridon

aldonzalorenzo said:


> When I first started here, 10 years ago, you could tell a joke while answering a thread, both things being possible: it was fun and a learning experience at the same time.
> Afterwards they just started deleting EVERYTHING that doesn't answer the issue directly. I don't think it's a good rule because it doesn't allow to speak one bit, and language is about relationships. But that seems to be the rule.


I don't think you've read English Only lately.  If you can find a recent thread with more than 10 posts in it that doesn't contain a bit of banter or an off-topic comment or three, I'll be amazed.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

aldonzalorenzo said:


> I agree with you.
> When I first started here, 10 years ago, you could tell a joke while answering a thread, both things being possible: it was fun and a learning experience at the same time.
> Afterwards they just started deleting EVERYTHING that doesn't answer the issue directly. I don't think it's a good rule because it doesn't allow to speak one bit, and language is about relationships. But that seems to be the rule.




Good point!
Yes, one can do the one thing (answering the question)  and at the same time do  the other thing: (telling a little joke).
That's human!


----------



## TheCrociato91

Schmizzkazz said:


> Yes, one can do the one thing (answering the question) and at the same time do the other thing: (telling a little joke).


This is the way I see it:
Relevant   (your post is never going to be deleted)
Funny  (it may or may not get deleted)
Relevant and funny  (in my experience, it won't get deleted; worst case scenario is that the funny part is removed)
Not relevant but funny  (it's likely to get deleted, but it may not depending on the mod)
Not relevant and not funny  (very likely to get deleted, but then again, it depends on the mod)


----------



## aldonzalorenzo

Myridon said:


> I don't think you've read English Only lately.  If you can find a recent thread with more than 10 posts in it that doesn't contain a bit of banter or an off-topic comment or three, I'll be amazed.


You are right. You can say that not only lately but almost never. 
I'm talking about "Spanish-English" and "Solo español" forums: those are the ones I usually visit. Nothing allowed: just go to the point and answer the guy who's asking.


----------



## DonnyB

Schmizzkazz said:


> Good point!
> Yes, one can do the one thing (answering the question)  and at the same time do  the other thing: (telling a little joke).
> That's human!


Yes indeed: we mods do have a sense of humour and a light-hearted 'aside' in a post which otherwise answers the question is likely in most cases I would say to be left untouched.

The big problem with actually telling jokes is when someone doesn't 'get' the joke and asks _in the thread_ for it to be explained - which can (and on occasion does) wreck the thread. The other problem is when other members start adding to the joke rather than to the question - which has the same effect of derailing the thread. So it can be just a judgement call on the part of the moderator as to how likely that is to happen, and the point at which to curtail it if it does.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

May I repeat my statement:

I find it OK, when postings get deleted that are offensive and aggressive and insulting.
But not when postings get deleted that were written in good will.
Just because somebody thinks that those postings were  "un-necessary".
----------------------

What does  "un-necessary" mean?
It is really an Insult.
If we as writers are "un-necessary" - what about the forum?


----------



## MattiasNYC

DonnyB said:


> We only delete posts as a last resort



I think some have a problem with the above, because the steps prior to "last resort" aren't visible, at all. If you write something and it just gets deleted there's really nothing "last resort" about it. It would have been relatively easy to hide the content (or similarly preserving it) and contacting the poster asking them to modify the post to bring it in line with forum guidelines... and if that fails (and everything else) you are actually left with deletion as a last resort.

Just as an example: I've had a case where someone brought up a car analogy to make a point. I explained why I thought the car analogy didn't apply. My post got deleted because cars weren't applicable to the topic. The original analogy was left.

Now, you tell me how that makes sense.

Hint: It doesn't.


----------



## DonnyB

MattiasNYC said:


> I think some have a problem with the above, because the steps prior to "last resort" aren't visible, at all. If you write something and it just gets deleted there's really nothing "last resort" about it. It would have been relatively easy to hide the content (or similarly preserving it) and contacting the poster asking them to modify the post to bring it in line with forum guidelines... and if that fails (and everything else) you are actually left with deletion as a last resort.


By "last resort" I really mean that that's the only realistic option that a moderator _has_ (after other alternatives have been _considered_, not necessarily that other solutions have been _tried_ in that particular instance).  I'm assuming here, by the way, that we're talking specifically about deletions for off-topic content: posts which are rude or insulting are normally just deleted come what may.

There is an option, obviously, to simply leave the post 'as is'.  In cases where a post represents a minor digression which is unlikely to lead to anything which will sidetrack the thread and wreck it, it will often be left untouched.  We do also have an option to simply edit a post to remove potentially destructive off-topic content while leaving the bulk of the post intact, or alternatively, if that would prove awkward to do, contacting the OP as you suggest and asking them to do it.  The difficulties there are that the OP only has 24 hours in which they're able to edit a post themselves, and in the meantime the discussion may well have moved on.  There's normally no objection to a member replacing a deleted off-topic post with one where the content is relevant. 

It's difficult to me to comment on your specific example without seeing it, which we can't do here.  My best guess is that the moderator concerned felt that a continuing discussion of whatever it was by analogy with cars was likely to generate further responses in the context of cars which would then detract significantly from the core topic question as originally asked. 

All these things are for the most part the result of a judgement call on the part of the moderator.  We do our best but we're human and we don't claim to always get it right.  As I said right at the beginning of this thread, we'll willingly respond to any reasonable request for clarification of a post deletion.


----------



## Matonkikí

😊I agree that too many posts get deleted and too many threads get closed, sometimes without giving any reasons.Sharp register is frequently used as well.Not nice.
I do feel that  personal issues might be interferring too often.
I doubt we are likely to see any changes for the better because  imagination can link any post to any of the rules,no matter how twistted the link needs to go.


----------



## Circunflejo

Matonkikí said:


> I agree that too many posts get deleted and too many threads get closed, sometimes without giving any reasons.


You joined the forum less than 5 days ago and there've been lately more posts and threads deleted than usual but, of course, I don't have any idea about what % of deleted posts and threads you expected to find.


----------



## Matonkikí

Circunflejo said:


> You joined the forum less than 5 days ago and there've been lately more posts and threads deleted than usual but, of course, I don't have any idea about what % of deleted posts and threads you expected to find.



I was not expecting a particular percentage of deletion but for someone who sees this with new eyes the frequence of deleted posts or threads in the past five days is noticeable,  just like the fact that sharp answers and remarks tend to come from the same people.


----------



## TheCrociato91

Matonkikí said:


> I was not expecting a particular percentage of deletion but for someone who sees this with new eyes the frequence of deleted posts or threads in the past five days is noticeable, just like the fact that sharp answers and remarks tend to come from the same people.


Threads and posts can only be deleted by moderators, who only do so when the post or thread goes against the rules of the forum. Pretty simple. It's not like mods randomly delete stuff.


----------



## Circunflejo

Matonkikí said:


> for someone who sees this with new eyes the frequence of deleted posts or threads in the past five days is noticeable


Yes, many internet forums are barely moderated and this one is way more moderated than them. However, I don't think it's relevant the % of posts and theads that are deleted. For me, the relevant piece of info is whether those posts and threads really broke any of the forum rules. Do you think that many of them didn't break any of the forum rules? or do you think that many of them broke one (or more) of the forum rules?


Matonkikí said:


> the fact that sharp answers and remarks tend to come from the same people.


If you think that any post doesn't meet the forum rules, you can always report it. On the other hand, if those _sharp _(whatever that means) answers and remarks don't break the rules, you'll have to deal with them.


----------



## MrMuselk

Matonkikí said:


> 😊I agree that too many posts get deleted and too many threads get closed, sometimes without giving any reasons.Sharp register is frequently used as well.Not nice.
> I do feel that  personal issues might be interferring too often.
> I doubt we are likely to see any changes for the better because  imagination can link any post to any of the rules,no matter how twistted the link needs to go.


Also, depending on the severity and the moderator, they sometimes don’t get deleted, but they get blocked from future replies.


----------



## rarabara

I recommend to administration/moderation to work in team manner especially when the reason is not clear.
this might be more suitable:
when; first moderator 1 checks the thread/post then,
(if) he/she believes that it should be deleted,then requesting another moderator (moderator 2) might be more suitable for check. I do not / am unable to define the count of moderators (how many, to check it)
but please be informed in case we open/send many threads or posts, then most of them  get deleted (by one moderator),then we (automatically) suppose like this (at least I suppose so):
"we are in the target region of one or more moderator(s), to be shot whenever it is suitable!" even if this is not a case or unreal 
so, I recommend working with "team manner"
you can also use this automatical message attached to the reason for deletion: "this post was deleted by moderation team" in such (unclear) cases.


----------



## Andygc

These forums have been running perfectly well for years. The moderators' touch has varied a bit over those years and there is some variation between the different forums. I was a moderator here some time ago. We deleted some posts straight off, we closed some permanently, we closed some temporarily for discussion. Most of the time there was no need for discussion. Other times there was a lot of discussion. 

If you have had a post deleted or a thread closed and have not been told why, you can send a message to the mod who deleted it, or to another mod for that forum, and ask for the reason.

The moderators are appointed by the owner of the site. If he's unhappy he'll let the mods know. He doesn't appear to be unhappy. The system works. Nobody pays to use the forums. If anybody doesn't like the way it is run they can go somewhere else.


----------



## DonnyB

rarabara said:


> I recommend to administration/moderation to work in team manner especially when the reason is not clear.
> ....
> so, I recommend working with "team manner"
> you can also use this automatical message attached to the reason for deletion: "this post was deleted by moderation team" in such (unclear) cases.


Thank you for your suggestion.

Because of the sheer volume of reports we receive, and the fact that the decision is clear-cut more often than not, the majority of post deletions are made straightaway by whichever moderator looks at them first.  We always record what action we've taken, and why, and while we can always seek a second opinion, as a general principle only the potentially controversial or contentious ones are left for further discussion.  To leave _every single deletion_ (or other decision) for another moderator to check first - given time zone differences - would simply clog up the report files and delay action for no good reason.

The point of attributing a deletion (or other action) to an_ individual_ named moderator is to give you, the member, a contact point in case you have any queries: all decisions can then be re-examined and, if necessary, reversed. We do aim for a measure of consistency as far as we're able, and are happy to respond to any reasonable requests for clarification of a particular decision, to help you understand why it was made.


----------



## Circunflejo

Andygc said:


> He doesn't appear to be unhappy.


I read an interview in which he didn't seem to be happy with the overall number of users of the forum. He blamed Google for it though.


Andygc said:


> The moderators' touch has varied a bit over those years


It has varied more than a bit. Maybe not the mods' touch itself (I'm not old enough here to know it) but the rules. Some time ago someone resurrected an old thread created more than a decade ago and a moderator closed it at the moment because even though it met the rules that ruled the forum when the thread was started, it was light years away from the current regulations. The obvious question is why such a big change of rules happened if


Andygc said:


> These forums have been running perfectly well for years.





Andygc said:


> Nobody pays to use the forums.


And nobody is paid either but there's a guy that makes money out of them (the owner) so comments like


Andygc said:


> If anybody doesn't like the way it is run they can go somewhere else.


 can be as true and honest as you could get but let's say that they don't sound nice enough and they aren't really encouraging.


DonnyB said:


> The point of attributing a deletion (or other action) to an_ individual_ named moderator is to give you, the member, a contact point in case you have any queries


It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.


----------



## Sowka

Circunflejo said:


> It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.



It was with the old software, several years ago. 

I normally use the message field to explain to the poster why I edited their post. In this way, they know the reason, and the one who did it. As far as I know, this will appear as an alert on their screen.


----------



## swift

Sowka said:


> It was with the old software, several years ago.


Yes, that’s something I miss from vB. “Reason for editing” enables transparency and permanent visibility into what actions were taken and their rationale. I wonder if it’s something that could be implemented programmatically, just like the reason for deletion.

P.S. For those who have been around for a shorter period of time and would like to understand the evolution of WRF Rules, you’ll be amazed to realize that we used to have 56 rules back in the day! See: Revised list of rules. What’s more, many of the current rules changed overtime thanks to feedback from forum members (e.g. rule 4).


----------



## Schmizzkazz

What I see here;

Assiduous student agreed with me.
And he criticised  the forum for  too much deleting.
Now he himself got deleted.

What do others say to that?

I think a forum is a forum is a forum.

In a forum the members are allowed to talk to each other.

This thing here is more like a workshop, where  you  get tasks to do.

And if you talk to your collegues your words get deleted - and in the end you yourself  get  deleted.

Does the administration here think that OK?



Matonkikí said:


> I doubt we are likely to see any changes for the better because  imagination can link any post to any of the rules, no matter how twistted the link needs to go.



So it is ..... so it is .....

I have had enough of these completely humourless "moderators" and "admins" here.

Tschüss!

Ich bin weg hier.


----------



## DonnyB

Circunflejo said:


> It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.





swift said:


> Yes, that’s something I miss from vB. “Reason for editing” enables transparency and permanent visibility into what actions were taken and their rationale. I wonder if it’s something that could be implemented programmatically, just like the reason for deletion.


Yes, I send the author of the post a personal, individual note explaining what I've edited and why.  But in a lot of cases - the majority, probably - it's not necessary or useful for anyone else to know why a post was edited, for instance to correct mistakes or faulty formatting.  We do sometimes post public edit notes, but those are always 'signed', so as to be attributed to the moderator concerned, just like deletions are.


Schmizzkazz said:


> Assiduous student agreed with me.
> And he criticised  the forum for  too much deleting.
> Now he himself got deleted.
> 
> What do others say to that?


No moderator is going to say _anything_ to that in a public forum.  I've responded to several of your queries earlier in this thread, but I'm afraid I can't add anything to what I've already said.

Bottom line:
"If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question  posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread. 
If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to  another member, use the forum’s private message ('Conversations') feature. No chatting." 
(Rule 2)

That's one of the rules _everyone_ agrees to when they sign up for an account.


----------



## Circunflejo

DonnyB said:


> Yes, I send the author of the post a personal, individual note explaining what I've edited and why.


In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.


swift said:


> you’ll be amazed to realize that we used to have 56 rules back in the day! See: Revised list of rules.


That didn't amaze me. What amazed me is that 





> The idea was to make them much more readable, not really to change the content of the rules.


 So we have the same 20 rules that back in 2008 (that basically convey the same content that the 56 rules that existed previously) but threads that were fine back in 2008 are totally unacceptable nowadays... Surely, I must missing something. Could you put some light about it?


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> but threads that were fine back in 2008 are totally unacceptable nowadays…


Well, you only joined ten years later, so how can you tell for sure?  If anything, I would say that a lot of threads we see nowadays would’ve been closed or removed back in 2008. Rules have changed, in many ways, for the better. Rule 4 is a good example. Rule 3 as well.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> Well, you only joined ten years later, so how can you tell for sure?


 Shooting the messenger won't change the facts. Yes, I joined ten years later but I, and anyone else, can read all the content previously posted in the forum if it hasn't been deleted. Moreover, I stumbled with situations like this one that I quoted on a previous post on this thread:


Circunflejo said:


> Some time ago someone resurrected an old thread created more than a decade ago and a moderator closed it at the moment because even though it met the rules that ruled the forum when the thread was started, it was light years away from the current regulations.


Are you suggesting that the closure of that thread was a bad decision of the mod that made it? Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been deleted as well as many similar resurrected old threads aren't deleted even though they didn't meet either the current regulations? Are you suggesting that the mods that had the forum back then (2008) didn't make a good job not deleting that thread and all the similar ones that are still available? Are you suggesting that the mods that delete similar threads opened nowadays aren't doing a good work?  


swift said:


> If anything, I would say that a lot of threads we see nowadays would’ve been closed or removed back in 2008.


If I had to make a judgement based on the resurrected old threads that I read, I wouldn't agree with you.


swift said:


> Rules have changed, in many ways, for the better.


The user that wrote post 27, who joined a decade ago, doesn't agree with you.


----------



## swift

Good luck with your straw man fallacies, Circunflejo. I won’t play that game.


----------



## swift

rarabara said:


> this is a personalised idea:
> I think for a multilingual one (like me), it is neither aestethetical nor is it expected occasion to have many posts deleted.
> ....


That’s interesting. Deleting threads is not a matter of aesthetics. It’s about housekeeping and maintaining the forums focused on their mission, which is to be an extension to the dictionaries.

Once a forum member becomes a frequent visitor and participant, having a post or a thread deleted shouldn’t be unexpected if they really understand the forum rules and dynamic. Sometimes you may be surprised. I’ve seen some of my posts been deleted and some of my threads been closed for reasons I didn’t understand right away. However, I’ve always had an opportunity to address the situation directly with the mods and this has helped clarify their rationale. In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> That’s interesting. Deleting threads is not a matter of aesthetics. It’s about housekeeping and maintaining the forums focused on their mission, which is to be an extension to the dictionaries.
> 
> Once a forum member becomes a frequent visitor and participant, having a post or a thread deleted shouldn’t be unexpected if they really understand the forum rules and dynamic. Sometimes you may be surprised. I’ve seen some of my posts been deleted and some of my threads been closed for reasons I didn’t understand right away. However, I’ve always had an opportunity to address the situation directly with the mods and this has helped clarify their rationale. In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.



that is personalised idea and points out "having many posts deleted" I did not enjoy really , therefore,I will presumably  leave.


Andygc said:


> The moderators are appointed by the owner of the site. If he's unhappy he'll let the mods know. He doesn't appear to be unhappy. The system works. Nobody pays to use the forums. If anybody doesn't like the way it is run they can go somewhere else.


----------



## Sowka

Circunflejo said:


> In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.


I sign my messages.


----------



## elroy

Circunflejo said:


> In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.


 The moderator may or may not choose to sign it, but even if they don't, you can always contact any moderator of the respective forum and they will be able to ascertain who did the edit (we have those records).  Same thing if you're not given a reason at all.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> Good luck with your straw man fallacies, Circunflejo. I won’t play that game.


Straw man fallacies? That's funny. You objeted to a comment made by me because I wasn't old enough on the forum (discrimination based on age at its best, by the way) but it turned out that my comment was based on an action took by a mod and the comment made by that mod to support his/her action so you were not only objeting my comment but also the mod action and comment that backed my comment. To point that out is a straw man fallacy for you and that's really funny. I won't say why I'm not surprised of your reaction though, because I guess you wouldn't like to hear it.


swift said:


> In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.


You are a lucky man. In more than 2 years that I've been on the forum, I've just seen one thread reinstated. And even though it was deleted due to a blatant misunderstanding by the mod that deleted it, it took several days to get it reinstated.


Sowka said:


> I sign my messages.


But you don't moderate any of the forums that I frequent most.


elroy said:


> The moderator may or may not choose to sign it, but even if they don't, you can always contact any moderator of the respective forum and they will be able to ascertain who did the edit (we have those records).


And then you can contact the mod that made it, you can address your question to him/her and then you may or may not get an answer and... It doesn't seem pretty straightfoward, does it? I wonder how many users actually do it.


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> discrimination based on age at its best, by the way


Ageism has nothing to do with this, Circunflejo.  That, too, is a straw man fallacy.


Circunflejo said:


> And then you can contact the mod that made it, you can address your question to him/her and then you may or may not get an answer and... It doesn't seem pretty straightfoward, does it? I wonder how many users actually do it.


I wonder whether you have read this FAQ about Moderators. There is clear guidance on how to proceed in case you disagree with an action taken by a moderator.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> Ageism has nothing to do with this, Circunflejo.  That, too, is a straw man fallacy.


You are being really funny today.


swift said:


> I wonder whether you have read this FAQ about Moderators. There is clear guidance on how to proceed in case you disagree with an action taken by a moderator.


Yes and it doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions. It just says to contact the mod that made it (impossible if s/he didn't sign the action) or a mod in which you trust (as if all users had a mod in which they trust) so it seems pretty obvious that the text is thought for cases in which the moderators sign their actions because, otherwise, the first opcion wouldn't be included. By the way, option two (to contact a mod in which you trust) seems to be (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved...


----------



## elroy

Circunflejo said:


> what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions


 I already told you what to do.


----------



## Circunflejo

elroy said:


> I already told you what to do.


Yes, I was answering to @swift who questioned if I had read the FAQs of the forum about moderators when they don't address that question.


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> Yes, I was answering to @swift who questioned if I had read the FAQs of the forum about moderators when they don't address that question.


And since you confirmed you have read the guidelines, it’s up to you to follow them or proceed as @elroy suggests.  An alternative could be to use the _Report_ button in the relevant thread and that way any active mod will be able to take a look at it. This works even if your post has been deleted: you can also submit a report using the “show post” feature.


----------



## elroy

The FAQs assume you know what mod performed the action you would like to dispute.  If you don't, then you take one extra step, which is to ask which mod did it, and once you know, you proceed as described in the FAQs.  


Circunflejo said:


> (as if all users had a mod in which they trust)


 Don't take this so literally.  If you don't have a moderator you specifically trust, then contact any moderator you at least don't distrust.  If you distrust all the moderators, there's probably a much bigger issue than the particular deletion or edit you want to dispute. 


Circunflejo said:


> seems to be (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved


 That restriction is about _public _comments/discussions.  It's okay to discuss Moderator A's action with Moderator B _in private_.


----------



## DonnyB

Circunflejo said:


> Yes and it doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions. It says to contact the mod that made it (impossible if s/he didn't sign the action) or a mod in which you trust (as if all users had a mod in which they trust). The later is also (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved...


Deletions are automatically attributed by the forum software to the moderator who made them.  The individual edit and other notes that we send out privately aren't: we have to sign those ourselves manually.  If you get an unsigned one, it's _probably_ going to be because whoever sent it simply forgot: we don't send out anonymous communications deliberately just to annoy members: what would be the point of it? 

Any moderator can look at a thread or a post and see which mod has intervened in it.  If people ask me, and it wasn't me who did it, I simply look to see who it was and pass the query on to them.  I don't mind at all: it happens, it's really not a big deal.


----------



## Circunflejo

elroy said:


> The FAQs assume you know what mod performed the action you would like to dispute.


Yes, I knew it and, of course, I keep knowing it. It's @swift who didn't seem to know it.


elroy said:


> Don't take this so literally.


That's exactly what it's made by most users that have their posts deleted. They don't take it so literally and they get their posts deleted as a result.


DonnyB said:


> The individual edit and other notes that we send out privately aren't: we have to sign those ourselves manually. If you get an unsigned one, it's _probably_ going to be because whoever sent it simply forgot: we don't send out anonymous communications deliberately just to annoy members: what would be the point of it?


I can tell you that I've seen many posts with a note at the bottom of them saying_ edited by a moderator at X time_ (no idea if the user that got his/her post edited got any communication saying the mod that edited it). No idea what's the point of not specifying the moderator that made it but it's not that rare (or so I think) to see a post edited by a moderator in which it isn't stated the moderator that edited it.


----------



## DonnyB

Circunflejo said:


> I can tell you that I've seen many posts with a note at the bottom of them saying_ edited by a moderator at X time_ (no idea if the user that got his/her post edited got any communication saying the mod that edited it). No idea what's the point of not specifying the moderator that made it but it's not that rare (or so I think) to see a post edited by a moderator in which it isn't stated the moderator that edited it.


I covered that in post #53 (or at least, I thought I had).  We don't want to clutter up threads with public edit notes which are of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread.  In the cases you've come across, the author of the post which was edited will probably have received an explanatory note, if only as a courtesy - but in the case of for example just a simple correction to a typo or a formatting problem, I probably wouldn't bother with one.

If I may say so, it's a mistake to read anything sinister or suspicious into those _edited by a moderator at X time _annotations: in the vast majority of cases they're of no particular relevance to the rest of the discussion.


----------



## User With No Name

DonnyB said:


> f I may say so, it's a mistake to read anything sinister or suspicious into those _edited by a moderator at X time _annotations: in the vast majority of cases they're of no particular relevance to the rest of the discussion.


Then put your (user) name on any changes.

I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.


----------



## DonnyB

User With No Name said:


> Then put your (user) name on any changes.
> 
> I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.


We can't because we don't write those messages: they're added automatically by the forum software, using the same process which adds the _'Last edited' _timestamp you see when the author edits their own post themselves. 

If you glance back at the previous posts in this thread, quite a number of them have got that particular message in the small print at the bottom of the post: why would it be "better" to have the reason/details of the edit(s) made public?  What benefit would accrue from _everyone_ _else_ knowing that the member concerned had spotted a spelling mistake or remembered something else they'd meant to say?


----------



## Sowka

User With No Name said:


> Then put your (user) name on any changes.
> 
> I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.


Dictionary users read the threads like dictionary entries: They want to learn something about the expression stated in the thread title.

This is the main purpose of the threads.

Additional Text like "edited by Sowka: Quote tags repaired" or "edited by Sowka: Special characters added" would make reading more difficult.


----------



## User With No Name

Deleted by Sowka
6 minutes ago
Reason: At the request of the author
For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?



DonnyB said:


> would it be "better" to have the reason/details of the edit(s) made public



I do understand your point. Sincerely. But honestly, and based on my own experiences, yes, I think it would.


----------



## Peterdg

User With No Name said:


> Deleted by Sowka
> 6 minutes ago
> Reason: At the request of the author
> For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?


----------



## Sowka

User With No Name said:


> Deleted by Sowka
> 6 minutes ago
> Reason: At the request of the author
> For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?


I have reinstated my post; had technical problems with my smartphone.


----------



## User With No Name

Peterdg said:


>


It was a post, made by moderator @Sowka, in this thread, which was apparently immediately deleted (apparently by said moderator, @Sowka), and which now seems to have disappeared entirely.

Harmless enough, obviously, but I think it proves my point. It would be preferable if moderators' actions were signed.


----------



## swift

It looks like Sowka deleted her post accidentally and then reinstated it.


----------



## User With No Name

A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site. 

They really need to dial it down a bit, or they will risk losing members who have a lot to contribute. (I have already seen that happen in several cases, and it's a shame.)


----------



## Peterdg

User With No Name said:


> A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site.
> 
> They really need to dial it down a bit, or they will risk losing members who have a lot to contribute. (I have already seen that happen in several cases, and it's a shame.)


Honestly, I don't understand a thing of what you are saying. What is "A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site."?

I have been here for over 10 years, with a lot of contributions and I never had an issue with any moderator. Did I have posts of mine deleted? Yes. Were they deleted for a good reason? Probably.  Do I care? No!

It's not about me or my self esteem here.

If you think you are important, this is not the right place to be. If you are here, it should be because you want to help other people and want to contribute to the objectives of the site.  The moderators are here to see that the site objectives, and the money the site owner invests in his site, are protected.

I am not a moderator and I will probably never be. I was asked once to be one, but I refused. I know myself pretty well and I know I would not have the political correctness to act as politically correct as the current staff does.


----------



## User With No Name

I think my post was clear enough in the context of this discussion, in which assorted people have been expressing concerns about posts that are automatically/anonymously modified by moderators.



Peterdg said:


> If you think you are important, this is not the right place to be.


I'm not entirely sure what "if you think you are important" even means in this context.

While I make no claim to any particular linguistic knowledge, I think that I have contributed enough to these forums to prove that I try to be helpful and to play by the rules.


----------



## elroy

The topic of this thread is whether too many posts get deleted.  Whoever thinks the answer is “yes” should give evidence in support of that claim.  If the purpose of this thread is not just to argue but to be productive by reducing the number of deletions perceived to be unjustified, please give us something concrete to consider.


----------



## Peterdg

User With No Name said:


> I think my post was clear enough in the context of this discussion


No, it wasn't, at least not for me.


User With No Name said:


> I'm not entirely sure what "if you think you are important" even means in this context.


Why is someone upset when a  post (his/her post?) is  deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important.  If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.


----------



## User With No Name

Peterdg said:


> Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted?


I was in no way referring to any particular post of mine.

I feel frustrated sometimes because I think the moderators of this site often delete legitimate conversations out of an exaggerated desire to keep all discussions "on topic."

I think some longtime foreros agree with me. Others, who are probably more numerous, don't.


----------



## rarabara

Peterdg said:


> No, it wasn't, at least not for me.
> 
> Why is someone upset when a  post (his/her post?) is  deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important.  If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.



probably someone (most commonly moderators) try to tell us that it was normal action to have (many (!)) posts deleted. but assume please the owner of website comes and some of (or many of (!)) his/her posts get deleted, then what happens?


----------



## Circunflejo

DonnyB said:


> I covered that in post #53 (or at least, I thought I had). We don't want to clutter up threads with public edit notes which are of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread.


Let's see. A note saying edited by moderator X at X time would be of more interest than the current notes saying edited by a moderator at X time and it wouldn't clutter up the thread more than what the current notes clutter it up. If the note saying the post has been edited is _of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread_, what you should consider is to not put any (public) note at all.


Peterdg said:


> Did I have posts of mine deleted? Yes. Were they deleted for a good reason? Probably. Do I care? No!


 That's fine but there are other users that do care about the reasons that meant the deletion of a post made by them in order to not break that rule again.


Peterdg said:


> Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important. If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.


Well, if you think your post met the rules but it got deleted and you didn't get an explanation about it or the explanation that you got isn't satisfying for you, it makes sense that you could get upset.


elroy said:


> The topic of this thread is whether too many posts get deleted. Whoever thinks the answer is “yes” should give evidence in support of that claim. If the purpose of this thread is not just to argue but to be productive by reducing the number of deletions perceived to be unjustified, please give us something concrete to consider.


I don't think the answer is yes but I do think that providing something concrete to consider would break the rule saying that deletion of posts shouldn't be discussed on the public forums out of respect for the mods and users involved. Therefore, I'm not sure how someone who thinks the answer is yes could fulfill your request if s/he had any interest in fulfilling it.


----------



## Sowka

Circunflejo said:


> A note saying edited by moderator X at X time would be of more interest than the current notes saying edited by a moderator at X time and it wouldn't clutter up the thread more than what the current notes clutter it up


Please read post #73 and #74.

As far as I know, the software does not allow to change the current notifications ("edited by a moderator") to ones that indicate a moderator name. I would like such a change, too -- it would be like it was with the old software.

But, as far as I know, this is currently not possible.


----------



## Circunflejo

Sowka said:


> Please read post #73 and #74.


Yes, you can't do it because the software doesn't allow it but this is the comments and suggestions forum so it's the place to ask for that sort of changes because, as far as I know, there's no indication saying that comments and suggestions involving changes on the software can't be posted on this forum.


----------



## swift

For XenForo software improvements, there’s also a XenForo community: XenForo suggestions.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> For XenForo software improvements, there’s also a XenForo community: XenForo suggestions.


 Who's asking for XenForo software improvements? I'm not. I'm suggesting improvements on the WR forums. I don't care about how they are implemented if through a Xenforo software improvement or through other means. But it seems that actually addressing the suggestions and debating whether they would be useful or not isn't the point of this forum although it should be it. In post 49 I made a suggestion:


Circunflejo said:


> It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.


 I got in post 50 an answer saying that it was possible in the past and what that mod made personally. On post 53 another mod told me what he personally made but no one told about the pros and cons of my suggestion, the pros and cons of bringing it back (as it seems it was available in the past)... Later on 55, I made a comment based on my experience because it didn't match what was said on some of the comments made before:


Circunflejo said:


> In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.


 On 60 I got, once again, info about what a mod personally makes and on 61 I got an answer explaining what are the options available now for the mods and providing some unrequested info about how to act if a mod doesn't sign his/her action. But nobody addressed the question of the pros and cons of unsigned notes, if deleting the option of not signing them would be a good or a bad idea... And In 64 I said that the FAQ about moderators page


Circunflejo said:


> doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions.


 I got an answer on 65 saying that I had already been told what to make in those cases and another one in 69 explaning how the system works but, once again, nobody addressed the pros and cons of including the missing info on the FAQ about moderators page. So I guess that what I got as answers could be called straw man fallacies and, definitely, they show an evident absence of interest in the suggestions made. And I've just sticked to the answers that I got from mods because the ones I got from @swift were even worse but he's neither a mod nor part of the staff. The owner of the forums, after more that 90 replies, doesn't seem to have anything to say...


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> I'm suggesting improvements on the WR forums.


WRF run on XenForo software. According to Sowka, it isn’t technically possible to make the change you are requesting. I take that to mean that Mike and team don’t have the ability of implementing the change. So the next step would be to wait for the next software update or request the change to XenForo.


----------



## velisarius

There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of  a post by  a mod. 

I seem to remember that, on English Only, a member who has their post *deleted* will normally receive a note from the mod with a brief explanation and of course it will be signed by the mod in question. Perhaps it would be  a good idea if mods in other forums adopted this practice.


----------



## swift

velisarius said:


> There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of a post by a mod.


Yes, and let’s remember the blanket statement that triggered the whole conversation and its spin-offs : too many postings get deleted here. No one has supplied any evidence to support that claim, and proof takes precedence over presumption.


----------



## Nanon

velisarius said:


> I seem to remember that, on English Only, a member who has their post *deleted* will normally receive a note from the mod with a brief explanation and of course it will be signed by the mod in question. Perhaps it would be  a good idea if mods in other forums adopted this practice.


In my humble experience, they do. Earlier today I had one of my posts *edited *by a moderator (adding a quote from the link I posted, to prevent dead links). I received a personal note through Conversations. I appreciated the mod taking the time to inform me and replied with thanks. That was in the French-English forum. I understand that some forums are busier than others, so I wouldn't ask for personal notifications at all times, but still, I liked it.


----------



## Circunflejo

velisarius said:


> There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of a post by a mod.


Both issues are interconnected because there are editions of posts that involve the deletion of part of the post. 


Nanon said:


> Earlier today I had one of my posts *edited *by a moderator (adding a quote from the link I posted, to prevent dead links).


On the forums that I frequent most, your post would have been directly deleted for putting a bare link so you should be grateful of having such a nice mod on the French-English forum.


----------



## swift

Rule #13:





> Read the Rules
> Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> Rule #13:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Rules
> Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way.
Click to expand...

As you didn't quote the rest of rule 13, I'll make it. The full test of rule 13 is: 





> 13. *Read the rules.*
> Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way. Before posting in a forum, please read the guidelines for that forum --they are listed in one of the first threads at the top of the page.



Now, if you read the Guidelines of the English/French vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:





> Please don't answer with "bare" links to other websites (rule 3); your reply needs to be useful even if your link stops working at some point in the future.


And if you read the Guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96: 





> Do not post "bare" links to external sites without explaining the content of the link and/or quoting the contents of the linked page.



As you can see both of them ban "bare" links. The "slight" difference on the application of the rule is that on the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, such links are deleted because they don't comply with the rule and on the English/French vocabulary forum, there's a nice mod that took the time to quote part of the text of the bare link in order to guarantee that the post met the rules. The later also shows that the deletion of posts including bare links isn't the only option available to make those posts comply with the rules... but the difference it's neither the rule nor the guidelines but the mod that applies them.


----------



## DonnyB

Circunflejo said:


> As you didn't quote the rest of rule 13, I'll make it. The full test of rule 13 is:
> 
> Now, if you read the Guidelines of the English/French vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:
> And if you read the Guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:
> 
> As you can see both of them ban "bare" links. The "slight" difference on the application of the rule is that on the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, such links are deleted because they don't comply with the rule and on the English/French vocabulary forum, there's a nice mod that took the time to quote part of the text of the bare link in order to guarantee that the post met the rules. The later also shows that the deletion of posts including bare links isn't the only option available to make those posts comply with the rules... but the difference it's neither the rule nor the guidelines but the mod that applies them.


So what are you suggesting we actually do about this?

I can't pass an opinion because I'm not a mod for either of those forums, I didn't see the post in question, and we can't re-examine it in a public forum anyway.  But if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that.  We do our best to be consistent, but there are quite a large number of different factors which come into play in determining whether a post is deleted or not, whether it is edited, and also an individual mod (based on his or her previous experience) has to judge whether a particular post/thread is worth trying to salvage or not.

If the inference of what you're saying is that_ all_ the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.


----------



## swift

The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.


----------



## Circunflejo

DonnyB said:


> if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that.


Yes, that was the main point of my reply to @swift who, once again, insinued that I didn't know the rules of WR. The point of the post that originated swift's reply (post number 96) was that the perspective of an user about the subject of this thread surely isn't the same if you deal with mods like the one quoted by @Nanon than if you have to deal with other sort of mods (see below).


DonnyB said:


> If the inference of what you're saying is that_ all_ the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.


I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction. Definitely, I occasionally post on one in which most posts wouldn't be allowed at all in the forums in which I most frequently post. If a regular of that forum who never posted on the other forums had to open a thread for the first time in any of the other forums, surely s/he would be shocked when her/his opening post was deleted if s/he had made previously tons of identical posts in the other forum without any problem whatsoever and s/he may get the impression that too many posts get deleted on that other forum. On the other hand, someone used to _tight_ moderation may find the other forum moderation too lax -even though the forum seems to work nicely with that lax moderation- and may get the impression that too few posts get deleted on that other forum. However, unlike you, I do think that the_ thigh versus harsh_ difference is made by the mods involved; not by the forums themselves. That becomes plainly evident when you find that sort of differences within the same forum (or so I think).



swift said:


> The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.


That's not my case. Only once I had a post deleted due to what a moderator considered a "bare" link. I complained saying that I had explained the content of the link (as the guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum say; see post 98) but the mod said that a literal quote was required even though neither the guidelines (see post 98) nor the rules (in this case, rule 3) say it. Of course, I had to deal with it. That's stuff that happens when being harsh and restrictive is the common rule but I can understand that not everybody is fine dealing with that sort of stuff.


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> That's not my case.


I was using the _generic you_. 

And it may be dangerous to over-generalize moderation actions based on a single instance. Nanon’s case might as well be a one-off, with the expectation that she will avoid posting bare links in the future.


----------



## Peterdg

Circunflejo said:


> I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction.


As far as I can see and as far as I know, you mostly post in the English-Spanish forum and in the Sólo español forum. If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> And it may be dangerous to over-generalize moderation actions based on a single instance.


 I agree but, as far as I can see, nobody here made that.


Peterdg said:


> If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.


Yes, lack of consistency among mods (and sometimes even within the same mod) results in some posts being luckier than others. And depending on the luck you get, you get an impression or a different one. I already said all that. I'll add that random rule application is even worse that harsh rule application because you never know what's going to happen and if you happen to be the _exception _(usually there isn't just a single exception), you'll wonder why the rest of the users don't get the same treatment and you'll wonder even more about it if you bother to report a "bare" link and no action is taken.


----------



## DonnyB

Circunflejo said:


> Yes, lack of consistency among mods (and sometimes even within the same mod) results in some posts being luckier than others. And depending on the luck you get, you get an impression or a different one. I already said all that. I'll add that random rule application is even worse that harsh rule application because you never know what's going to happen and if you happen to be the _exception _(usually there isn't just a single exception), you'll wonder why the rest of the users don't get the same treatment and you'll wonder even more about it if you bother to report a "bare" link and no action is taken.


I'm honestly not sure what the answer is to this, or whether there even _is _an answer to it.  I can tell you how I approach the problem of posting bare links, but that's not going to be much help if the Spanish forum mods are doing it differently.

You've probably got two options, I think.  You can either open a group conversation with those mods whose decisions are coming across as inconsistent and ask them politely, with examples, to just clarify for you what their policy is on this, or simply accept that in our imperfect world there are going to be things which aren't as you (or indeed, we) would like them to be.


----------



## L'irlandais

Circunflejo said:


> ...I don't care about how they are implemented if through a Xenforo software improvement or through other means.


If one shows no empathy for WR’s predicament, then one shouldn’t expect much empathy either.
I have moderated on other forums, related to both my work and my leisure.  I think the mods to a great job on WR.


----------



## suzi br

Wow.
What a lot of words.

But at the end of the day “so what?”

*OK - I am editting this because I realise I contravened the rules with my own tone -  and am probably  in danger of getting my own post supporting the mode deleted by the mods  from a post discussing deletions by the mod, so the ironies pile up!  *

I’ll admit, I have had posts deleted (in fact, most recently by Donny, who is labouring hard in this thread) where I have internally rolled my eyes and muttered an expletive or two to myself. But I don’t let it spoil my day, because: “so what?”

No-one got hurt* and ultimately I’m glad we have this fabulous resource with all its quirks and occasional inconsistencies. The mods work hard and keep the ship afloat so we can interact with a fascinating multitude of people from different backgrounds and experiences. The adverts are minimal and unobtrusive, WR basically a VERY GOOD THING. That bigger picture is more important than my tender spots.

So, if occasionally, a moderator is a annoying me for one reason or another my personal response is to take a few days off. Simple as that. I remove myself from the source of my irritation.

The mods aren’t robots or algorithms, they can be tired or irritated or at the edge of their patience sometimes which can lead to inconsistency,  but “so what?”   I don’t know what’s made one of them seem more “trigger-happy” or inconsistent than usual. It’s a strange view of the world to expect perfection in any sphere of it, especially one that’s essentially fuelled by goodwill, I certainly don't expect it in here.

* hurt:  More on “hurt”:  It seems that one or two of the contributors to this thread have low pain thresholds. Obviously their giving a few minutes of time to an issue signifies a great lot to them.  It's hard for me to share that sentiment about theirs, or any individual's post, tbh. 

Of course, this sarcastic and caustic edge of mine (since editted slighty to keep within the rules!)  is the biggest reason why I am NOT moderator material. Trying to engage politely  about such, ultimatrly,  trivial matters would *never* get from me the patient understanding and tolerance that the mods engaging in this thread have shown.

The idea that if you get one response deleted you should then remove all your others really made me LOL. Really? Well to be honest, so what if you did?  None of us make any contributions that are so unique, in my many years of being in here, when I take a break and come back there are NEVER any questions that have been left with no answers awaiting some precious gem from me.

In English Only I know there are at least twenty other contributors who could give “my” answer to any question I answer. We’re worker ants with a great range of skills but it’s very, very rare that I have something to say that a colleague couldn’t equally say. Ultimately this thing is much bigger than any of us.

If you really don’t like it, LEAVE. And the rest if us will go “so what”?  You are in control of your own responses. It’s a philosophical thing.  You cannot  control everything and everyone else. You can *only* control your own response.   Your choice. Really.


----------



## swift

Great points, @suzi br! This whole discussion has been unproductive because no one has provided evidence to support the claim that “too many posts get deleted”. And all the digressions seem to be a mechanism to complain about something that is bothering one or two individuals without explaining clearly what is going on. There have been lots of allusions to things that may or may not have happened to those individuals—anytime they’re asked for examples, they say “well, it’s not really my case”, and then go on to make another point about yet another topic that could be discussed with the moderators if only they followed the guidance provided by the rules and the Mod FAQ—.

Donny provides clear answers to the original claim that too many posts are deleted. I’ll quote a couple excerpts with straightforward information:


DonnyB said:


> I can really only re-iterate what I said at the beginning of the thread, which was that we don't (contrary to what some members seem to think) enjoy deleting posts, nor do we trawl through all the threads looking to see what we can delete next.
> 
> We're more than willing to respond to reasonable requests for explanations of individual deletion decisions, but neither I nor any of the other mods can do that in a public forum.
> 
> The bottom line, basically, is that our forums are not chat boards and the person who asked the question is entitled to expect courteous, helpful and _relevant_ answers to it.





DonnyB said:


> There is an option, obviously, to simply leave the post 'as is'. In cases where a post represents a minor digression which is unlikely to lead to anything which will sidetrack the thread and wreck it, it will often be left untouched. We do also have an option to simply edit a post to remove potentially destructive off-topic content while leaving the bulk of the post intact, or alternatively, if that would prove awkward to do, contacting the OP as you suggest and asking them to do it. The difficulties there are that the OP only has 24 hours in which they're able to edit a post themselves, and in the meantime the discussion may well have moved on. There's normally no objection to a member replacing a deleted off-topic post with one where the content is relevant.


If after reading this and the moderators FAQ you still don’t know how to proceed, you may want to ask yourself if you’re as smart as you think.


----------



## Nanon

Oh, my God! I didn't plan to create a storm in a teapot!
Parenthesis: sometimes you_ (generic you, says my politically correct superego, aka my PCS)_ get scolded by other forer@s - I am not talking about mods here - for not capitalising god. Or God.

Back to topic: OK, mea culpa, I will write 100 times "Thou shalt not post bare links, et nemo censetur ignorare legem"  . Now, seriously, who reads _all _general forum rules _plus _the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?
And, yes, the FR-EN mods are nice but the French are not renowned for being particularly nice _(warning: generalisation, says my PCS)_.

Neither being nor having been a mod, I can only answer from an outsider's point of view, but I don't have the feeling of mods having KPI's (key performance indicators, the stuff you use in a job appraisal) or earning awards for killing posts and threads. And yes, I did have deleted posts. Mostly for answering a deleted question or digression, as far as I remember. Fine by me. Housekeeping is necessary _(warning: don't try being a mod's pet, says my PCS )._


----------



## swift

Nanon said:


> Now, seriously, who reads _all _general forum rules _plus _the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?


Possibly not a whole lot of people. But you can be sure that if you break the rules or need to avoid a specific behavior, the mods will let you know exactly what set or rules you’re breaking or tampering with, pointing you to the forum-specific guidelines where applicable.


----------



## Circunflejo

DonnyB said:


> You can either open a group conversation with those mods whose decisions are coming across as inconsistent and ask them politely, with examples, to just clarify for you what their policy is on this


Being there, done that. Among the minority of mods that actually bothers to comment and provide feedback explaining why things are as they are, the bottom line was that they have too much work so some posts are overlooked (even when reported). There hasn't been any change in the mods staff of those forums so I guess the problem remains. However, I didn't make the remark to look for a solution or explanation about that question but to point out that although I don't think that too many posts get deleted here, I can understand that someone may think so. You don't get the same picture if you post 4 posts with bare links and all of them are deleted that if you post 4 posts with bare links and none of them are deleted; just to quote an example.


L'irlandais said:


> If one shows no empathy for WR’s predicament, then one shouldn’t expect much empathy either.


 Sorry, I don't get how your reply relates with my post.


L'irlandais said:


> I have moderated on other forums, related to both my work and my leisure. I think the mods to a great job on WR.


It's, for sure, better moderated than most forums but there's room for improvement if there was willingness for it.


suzi br said:


> Trying to engage politely with grown adults whining like toddlers about such trivial matters would *never* get from me the patient understanding and tolerance that the mods engaging in this thread have shown.


 The key here is the perspective of the user. What could be a trivial matter for you, it could be something relevant for another user. For example, continuing with the example of the bare links, you could think that getting a bare link posted by you deleted is a trivial matter while other user might see on it, for example, unfairness due to diseaquility on treatment bearing in mind that other bare links posted by other users don't get deleted. In my opinion, both points of view have a point and therefore deserve respect. Sympathizing (more) with one of them doesn't mean that you have to disregard the other one.


suzi br said:


> The idea that if you get one response deleted you should then remove all your others really made me LOL.


 That was said so early on the thread that I had to look for it. It seems that that user got banned so I don't think you'll get an answer from him.


suzi br said:


> But at the end of the day “so what?”


 I understand your point but if we fully applied it, this forum wouldn't exist because most of the comments and suggestions made here are pretty trivial so at the end of the day "so what".


swift said:


> And all the digressions seem to be a mechanism to complain about something that is bothering one or two individuals without explaining clearly what is going on.


Not the ones that I've made. I made them in order to try to show that even though I don't think that too many posts get deleted here, I can understand that some users may think so. It's all a matter of perspective and that means that you have to forget about your own perspective and try to put yourself on the shoes of the guy/gal that's complaining.


Nanon said:


> who reads _all _general forum rules _plus _the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?


I did it when I joined and I do it from time to time (as they don't change daily) now as well as I do it each time I see a bunch of posts at odds with one them (just in case they had been changed). That's why I'm well aware of when a post is rightly moderated, overmoderated or undermoderated. And that why soon after I joined the forum I made the staff realize that the guidelines of the forums in which I posted the most were at odds with the rules of WR and they _fixed _it. The later wouldn't have happened I had had a "so what" approach but it's true that there wouldn't have been a relevant difference in the daily working of the forum. So, once again, personal perspective is the key.


----------



## User With No Name

Okay, at the risk of getting myself into even more trouble, since people are complaining that nobody is providing specific examples, I will give you a trivial one, that just happened to me. A discussion was going on about how to translate something, and aside from the original topic, the original poster asked about how to spell a particular word. (I'm pretty sure the word had come up in the discussion of the translation, but I can't confirm that, because the post was removed. At any rate, that's what I assumed at the time.)

I answered, saying that it was an AmE/BrE difference.

My answer, and the question, were deleted, and I received a little note saying please not to break forum rule 2. 

Now, the post probably didn't take me 30 seconds to write, and I'm sure that 95% of the English speakers on this site could have answered the question just as well as I could. So I have no emotional investment in the post whatsoever. And I certainly don't feel that its deletion somehow harmed me or anyone else. And I do realize that technically, the moderator was correct.

Still, I persist in thinking that this level of nitpicking and overzealous enforcement of rules is harmful to this site and the community.


----------



## Peterdg

User With No Name said:


> Still, I persist in thinking that this level of nitpicking and overzealous enforcement of rules is harmful to this site and the community.


On the contrary, I would say.

If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the description: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?

I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries. So, someone who is using the dictionary to search for a specific term, does not need any side conversation that is irrelevant to the word/expression he/she is looking for and that is exactly the reason why these side conversations are deleted from threads/posts.

Furthermore, these additional topics will never be found with a dictionary search as the forum threads are linked to dictionary entries by the thread title and since it is a side conversation, it will not appear in the thread title, so basically it is a useless waste of space and a loss of time for users who are consulting the dictionary.


----------



## S.V.

Only have a vague sense of this thread, but even on Xenforo, just as you hide links from public users(1), you could hide off-topic chat.

I don't mind my posts being deleted. I think it's often I answer to new users, because they don't know the rules, and I don't want them to leave forever.  But I understand moderators have to delete & ask for a sentence.


----------



## Sowka

Peterdg said:


> On the contrary, I would say.
> 
> If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the decription: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?
> 
> I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries. So, someone who is using the dictionary to search for a specific term, does not need any side conversation that is irrelevant to the word/expression he/she is looking for and that is exactly the reason why these side conversations are deleted from threads/posts.
> 
> Furthermore, these additional topics will never be found with a dictionary search as the forum threads are linked to dictionary antries by the thread title and since it is a side conversation, it will not appear in the thread title, so basically it is a useless waste of space and a loss of time for users who are consulting the dictionary.


This is exactly my reasoning when I delete this kind of off-topic contribution.

@User With No Name  If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation. It's the same effort, with much less friction and frustration.


----------



## swift

S.V. said:


> you could hide off-topic chat.


Or you could abide by the rules and refrain from making off-topic comments. Easy and no moderator action needed. You seem to be suggesting that off-topic rambling be preserved at all costs for internal use. That’s not how these forums work. What’s the point of having rules against off-topic comments if you get away with them through an “off-topic” code?


S.V. said:


> Though it’s a bit sad knowing the new user I answered to might not come back.


Well, that happens all the time and it’s not a big deal. There are 735,143 registered members as of right now. 8,308 users online right this minute, out of which only 120 are members.


----------



## S.V.

Yes, I am suggesting people will do social things.    And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.

I don't like sounding too direct. But I'm not feeling too well, sorry. Otherwise I would read the thread, as well.


----------



## L'irlandais

S.V. said:


> Yes, I am suggesting people will do social things.    And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.
> 
> I dont like sounding too direct. But I'm not feeling too well, sorry. Otherwise I would read the thread, as well.


No one is stopping you from sending a private message to the new member.  Just try to understand that off topic chatter is white noise on a forum that supposts dictionaries.


----------



## swift

S.V. said:


> And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.


I’m not going to ask you to elaborate on that because it’s really pointless. You need you look at the bigger picture:


Peterdg said:


> I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries


----------



## S.V.

On the contrary, the bigger picture would be fomenting a vibrant community.  A human dictionary is more valuable than the definition at the top of any search engine.


----------



## Sowka

S.V. said:


> On the contrary, the bigger picture would be fomenting a vibrant community.  A human dictionary is more valuable than the definition at the top of any search engine.


As a dictionary user, I disagree. It's a nuisance having to wade through threads that are largely off-topic when you are searching for something particular.

That precisely is why I joined WordReference (and not another forum where there are large amounts of chat) as a user more than eleven years ago.


----------



## S.V.

Yes, I understand, Sowka. But we are social animals, and a modern website can do both at the same time. That was all I came to mention. 

As with other things in life, instead of going against biology, you work with it in mind.


----------



## elroy

S.V. said:


> a modern website can do both at the same time.


 Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.


----------



## S.V.

elroy said:


> Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.


Yes, what we want and what is are often different things. I believe Solo Español could be a vibrant forum. But in the end, attachment to permanence becomes suffering. We have to move on.


----------



## swift

elroy said:


> Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.


Some people have started their own forums, looking for that kind of social message board experience. They have invited members of the WRF community to join their brand new websites where they can finally be themselves and share their thoughts without all the moderation they disagree with. And they have ended up creating a private chatroom with very low engagement and virtually 0% growth. The funny thing is they always copy and paste the WRF rules about chatting and staying on-topic almost verbatim.


----------



## Rocko!

S.V. said:


> just as you hide links from public users(1), you could hide off-topic chat.


That's a wonderful idea, and maybe it could be added to these hidden posts: "this off-topic post will be deleted in 1 day", and to invite someone to be a moderator in charge of these "1 day posts", in order to delete all of them. I know some users that are eager-eager-eager to be a mod .
Or the forum could remain as it is at the moment and take as normal that people say "too many postings get deleted" or "few postings get deleted".


----------



## swift

Some forum members seem to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with. Experience has shown that they never outsmart the mods.


----------



## Circunflejo

Peterdg said:


> If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the description: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?


It would be indeed a nice addition. In fact, in Spanish, the dictionary of the RAE (the regulatory body of the Spanish language in coordination with the counterpart academies in the other Spanish speaking countries) quotes different spellings (without quoting geographic areas) on some entries on its online dictionary (not sure about the last paper edition but this is an online forum so it shouldn't matter). For example, if you look for _enseguida_, you'll se a note saying that it's also spelled _en seguida_: enseguida | Diccionario de la lengua española


Sowka said:


> If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation.





L'irlandais said:


> No one is stopping you from sending a private message to the new member.


 I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.


swift said:


> You seem to be suggesting that off-topic rambling be preserved at all costs for internal use. That’s not how these forums work.


 I guess that he knows that's not how the forums work but this is the comments and suggestions forum so I guess he can make a suggestion, can't he? We could discuss whether making it as a reply on this thread is the way to go or if a new thread should have been opened but if suggestions can't be made on the comments and suggestions forum, it's about time to close the comments and suggestions forum.


elroy said:


> Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.


 A website by itself doesn't want anything. It's the owner of the website who wants things to be one way or another. No idea of what he (the owner of this site) would think about @S.V.'s suggestion.


swift said:


> Some forum members seem to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with. Experience has shown that they never outsmart the mods.


 The last statement is at odds with this previous post by @Peterdg (by the way you agreed with Peterdg's post):


Peterdg said:


> As far as I can see and as far as I know, you mostly post in the English-Spanish forum and in the Sólo español forum. If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.


----------



## swift

Circunflejo said:


> I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.


 That is a nice feature of these forums.  People are free to decide whether they want to receive PMs or not, and if you(*) realize someone you are trying to contact has turned off that feature, then let them be and move on.


Circunflejo said:


> A website by itself doesn't want anything.


Synecdoche - Wikipedia 


Circunflejo said:


> The last statement is at odds with this previous post by @Peterdg (by the way you agreed with Peterdg's post)


It is not. 

Overall, your last post is so absurd it really makes me wonder whether you are trying to help. This is the Comments & Suggestions forum, all right. The whole point of a forum is to discuss and provide arguments. Disagreement does not mean silencing or asking people to refrain from speaking up their mind. The amount of logical fallacies you are able to produce is amazing. 
(*)  Generic _you_ = anyone.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> It is not.


Do you mean that the users that made all those posts with bare links that weren't deleted didn't outsmart the mods? Well, I don't see it that way. On the other hand, if you mean that those users didn't intend


swift said:


> to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with


you might have a point.



swift said:


> Overall, your last post is so absurd it really makes me wonder whether you are trying to help.


It's not absurd at all (or so I think) but I think it's pretty obvious that you are struggling to identify the helping aim behind my posts. It also happened to me with some of your posts on this thread. For example, I too wondered whether by replying in the comments and suggestions forum _that's not how these forums works _(post 116 of this thread), you were really trying to help. Stuff that (sometimes) happens when different users have different points of view about a subject and those different points of view have little in common.


----------



## swift

Dude, try harder. Your reasoning is flawed and you’re not proving anything.


----------



## L'irlandais

Circunflejo said:


> I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.


Why on earth might that be?


----------



## Sowka

L'irlandais said:


> Why on earth might that be?


It is a possible setting, and everbody is free to choose the setting they feel comfortable with. Someone might find private conversations unnecessary, others might fear that they may get spam messages... Ultimately, it's a personal choice that we should respect.

In this case, however, my suggestion 


Sowka said:


> If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation.



would not be applicable, and we all would have to live with that.  Because we all want to adhere to forum rule 2.


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> Dude, try harder. Your reasoning is flawed and you’re not proving anything.


Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## merquiades

Perhaps in the future there could be a function, say right-clicking on someone's name in a given thread with a small window opening up to write a private message, so a certain forero/a could be contacted immediately for comments not dealing with the topic of the thread. It would be easy and maybe deter people from starting unrelated side discussions. This could be used for providing an extra translation, correcting spelling, giving any other type of comment, feedback or social interaction you so want that would otherwise break the rules if you wrote it in the open thread.  Maybe it might even be possible to right-click on several people and have a multi person chat, all private and behind closed doors/ never being published nor deleted.  That could bring sheer joy for the foreros/as wanting a vibrant social forum but would preserve the true threads from side chats so tomorrow's people can read them and get precise answers.
Again if someone has his/her private messages turned off for whatever reason, that's just too bad.  You'll know he doesn't want this extra social help/aspect/interaction.
I don't know what functions can and will be possible as I am far from the geek type of person.


----------



## swift

I think that functionality is already available, Merq. You just need to click on/hover over the user’s name and a smaller contact card will appear, which will let you start a convo with them. Moreover, you will know immediately if that person has turned off conversations because the private message button will not appear among the regular options (follow, ignore, start conversation).


----------



## merquiades

swift said:


> I think that functionality is already available, Merq. You just need to click on/hover over the user’s name and a smaller contact card will appear, which will let you start a convo with them. Moreover, you will know immediately if that person has turned off conversations because the private message button will not appear among the regular options (follow, ignore, start conversation).


Yes, indeed.  I had never tried to hover over someone's name before.  So I guess there really is no reason anymore for side chat.


----------



## elroy

I don't think the problem is an unavailability of alternatives.  The problem is that it's often very, very hard to resist wandering off-topic.  It's human nature: as participants in the conversation, we have a tendency to, well, treat it like a real conversation and go with the flow, tangents and all.  Speaking for myself, even as a moderator and one of the most veteran members of this forum (I joined two weeks after the forums opened!), I still sometimes have to consciously stop myself from posting an off-topic comment.


----------



## Circunflejo

elroy said:


> The problem is that it's often very, very hard to resist wandering off-topic. It's human nature


I don't think it's so hard to resist it but if to wander off-topic is human nature, the forum would be against human nature... and I think we'll agree that's not the best presentation letter for the forum.


----------



## swift

156 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes, 30 seconds, 140 posts, and countless different topics later, there is still 0 evidence to support the claim that ‘too many posts get deleted here’. But, more importantly, we have focused on the moderators’ actions, while, if proven to be true, the fact that ‘too many posts get deleted here’ could also say something about the foreros’ behavior.


----------



## Peterdg

Circunflejo said:


> but if to wander off-topic is human nature, the forum would be against human nature... and I think we'll agree that's not the best presentation letter for the forum.


Driving too fast is human nature (apparently especially, but not exclusively, true for younger male civilians with too much tostesteron flowing through their bodies) and yet, it is forbidden and it has consequences.

So, what kind of argument is that? Is speed limitation not "the best presentation" for the the world we live in?


----------



## Circunflejo

swift said:


> 156 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes, 30 seconds, 140 posts, and countless different topics later, there is still 0 evidence to support the claim that ‘too many posts get deleted here’.


Two comments:

Nobody asked for it (for evidence) till post 94 even though 3 mods had already answered on this thread and you yourself had made 9 posts without requesting it. By the way, post 94 was made more than 5 months later than the original post when the original poster and most of the users that agreed with his point of view seemed to have left the thread (some of them maybe even the forum).
It's evident that the users that claimed that too many posts get deleted here perceived it to be a reality/evidence. Perception of reality is as relevant as reality itself so we shouldn't overlook it.



swift said:


> But, more importantly, we have focused on the moderators’ actions, while, if proven to be true, the fact that ‘too many posts get deleted here’ could also say something about the foreros’ behavior.


You are free to talk about the foreros' behavior whenever you want (or so I think).


Peterdg said:


> Driving too fast is human nature (apparently especially, but not exclusively, true for younger male civilians with too much tostesteron flowing through their bodies) and yet, it is forbidden and it has consequences.


It's debatable whether driving too fast is human nature as well as it's debatable whether wandering off-topic is human nature but to compare the consequencies that may have wandering off-topic in a forum with the consequences that may have driving too fast is... well, I think it's better if I don't qualify it.


----------



## L'irlandais

It was quickly made evident (#5) that the OP was talking about off topic posts.  Since it is clear in the rules that these are not allowed, there is no discussion.  Either he sends a pm to the members he wishes to chat with, or ceates a new discussion thread to discuss whatever topic he wishes. In answer to #139 - neither option is very difficult to do.  I suspect that those who strongly object to having the very occasional post deleted, try running an online forum for a while.  Why would anyone ask a software house for expensive code changes to accommodate those who choose not to obey the forum rules, as they currently stand?

That the OP reverted to his native language (#12) getting his point across may hint at the underlying difficulty.  Also citing banned members (#52) in one’s defence is probably not very convincing.


----------



## machadinho

How about this: instead of deleting them, moderators could simply fold off-topic messages and parallel conversations out of view? Any user who wished to read them anyway would then just click on an "expand" button or something to bring them back temporarily into view.


----------



## DonnyB

machadinho said:


> How about this: instead of deleting them, moderators could simply fold off-topic messages and parallel conversations out of view? Any user who wished to read them anyway would then just click on an "expand" button or something to bring them back temporarilty into view.


Thank you for the suggestion.

We can already do that up to a point in that we can split a thread and give a substantial off-topic digression a new thread of its own.  However, to have 'concealed' off-topic posts in the way you're suggesting would entail adding the capability for us to do it to the forum software - and given that its purpose would be to enable members to specifically break Rule 2 ( *One topic per thread / No chatting* ) I can't somehow envisage Mike [the Administrator] regarding that as a productive use of his time.


----------



## machadinho

Thanks for having replied, Donny. Deleting posts for being off topic and summarily closing threads for being chatty hurt our feelings. The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.


----------



## Sowka

machadinho said:


> Thanks for having replied, Donny. Deleting posts for being off topic and summarily closing threads for being chatty hurt our feelings. The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.


Only if the feature is equipped with an automatic chat detector that can autonomously hide the chatty posts. 

The absence of rule 2 would increase the number of chat posts, of course, and thus increase the workload of the mods. Honestly, I also have... a balcony to take care of, books to read, dishes to do, ...


----------



## machadinho

I see. Well, maybe we could allow senior members to do (and to undo) post hidings by other senior members, though not by moderators. In this way the burden would be on the shoulders of a larger community.


----------



## Sowka

machadinho said:


> I see. Well, maybe we could allow senior members to do (and to undo) post hidings by other senior members, though not by moderators. In this way the burden would be on the shoulders of a larger community.


I can assure you: This would increase the number of complaints to moderators / the administrator because many people would feel that their posts were unchatty enough not to be hidden.

So, if "Senior Members" could hide "Senior Members'" chatty posts, why not take the easy path and simply use conversations for our chats?

(BTW, I've done that several times -- and found several friends that way with whom I share a whole lot of thoughts )


----------



## machadinho

Sowka said:


> why not take the easy path and simply use conversations for our chats?


Because conversations are private?


----------



## DonnyB

machadinho said:


> Because conversations are private?


I'm afraid I don't really understand the logic behind this idea of setting up a system to enable posts to be concealed from general view, with an elaborate extra added facility for senior members to be able to hide and unhide posts (which I think from our existing experience of members trying to 'moderate' each other would generate endless squabbles and bad feeling), when the sole object of this would be to allow members to circumvent a rule which is quite clearly set out in the terms and conditions that everybody had to agree to when they join.

Rule 2 clearly says that if you want to make unrelated comments or chat, then you're supposed to do it in a 'conversation': that's what they're provided for.


----------



## Sowka

DonnyB said:


> which I think from our existing experience of members trying to 'moderate' each other would generate endless squabbles and bad feeling


My sentiments entirely.


----------



## machadinho

DonnyB said:


> I'm afraid I don't really understand the logic behind this idea [...] when the sole object of this would be to allow members to circumvent a rule which is quite clearly set out in the terms and conditions that everybody had to agree to when they join.


You're able to understand this:


machadinho said:


> The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.


Therefore, you're actually able to understand the logic behind that idea. But I won't insist. I just wanted to help.


----------



## swift

machadinho said:


> the logic behind that idea


To turn the forums into chat boards? To walk away from the original vision for these forums, which is to complement the dictionaries?


----------



## machadinho

swift said:


> To turn the forums into chat boards?


Where did I say that?


----------



## swift

That would be the outcome if rule 2 becomes obsolete.


----------



## L'irlandais

Concealing posts would be removing them from the public view.  Add to this that a private message can be sent multiple members at the same time.  Surely that provides all the aspects you are looking for, apart from momentarily posting an off topic chat/comment in the public forums.


----------



## machadinho

swift said:


> That would be the outcome if rule 2 becomes obsolete.


Not if it becomes obsolete _thanks to_ a new piece of code that fulfills what Rule 2 enforces.


----------



## swift

machadinho said:


> Not if it becomes obsolete _thanks to_ a new piece of code that fulfills what Rule 2 enforces.


Ok, so the off-topic comments will be hidden. That stills fundamentally changes the nature and purpose of these forums.


----------



## Circunflejo

Sowka said:


> This would increase the number of complaints to moderators / the administrator because many people would feel that their posts were unchatty enough not to be hidden.


I'm not fully convinced about @machadinho's idea but, definitely, the expected increase on the number of complains to moderator shouldn't be a reason to disregard it because that problem has an easy solution: more staff. 



swift said:


> To turn the forums into chat boards? To walk away from the original vision for these forums, which is to complement the dictionaries?


I thought you didn't like that sort of answers but I'm glad to see that you too like them.


----------



## Nanon

machadinho said:


> Because conversations are private?


Yes, they are: Conversations Privacy


----------



## swift

Hey, @rarabara. It looks like the purpose and vision of the forum you refer to are substantially different from those of WRF. I think learning a new language could be a side benefit of engaging in WRF threads, but the main goal of these forums is to work as dictionary entries. In fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is high, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> Hey, @rarabara. It looks like the purpose and vision of the forum you refer to are substantially different from those of WRF. I think learning a new language could be a side benefit of engaging in WRF threads, but the main goal of these forums is to work as dictionary entries.


that is ok. but some speculative conversations ,I think, are warmer and more modern in style. modernity/modernism requires good communication. 



> In fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is high, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.



this does not mean that, that forum (also) did not include such members.


----------



## swift

rarabara said:


> but some speculative conversations


I would love to understand what you mean by that. Would you mind describing what kind of conversations you are looking for?


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> I would love to understand what you mean by that. Would you mind describing what kind of conversations are you looking for?


I mean some side specifications might be good for this website if a revision is considered.


----------



## swift

rarabara said:


> I mean some side specifications might be good for this website if a revision is considered.


I see. Well, to your point:


rarabara said:


> this does not mean that, that forum (also) did not include such members.


Imagine how challenging and frustrating it would be for a newbie to identify the straightforward answer to their questions if the thread contains side comments that are unrelated to the main topic.


----------



## machadinho

... unless they're hidden, though not deleted...


----------



## swift

machadinho said:


> ... unless they're hidden, though not deleted...


Which requires 1) implementing a code (with increased operating cost); 2) replacing an existing mechanism that works perfectly fine for hundreds of forum members and dozens of moderators with a new mechanism that could potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary churn and endless back-and-forth discussions between Senior Members and moderators. You didn’t explain yet how you envision Senior Members implementing the code you’re advocating for. Could other Senior Members or the post author remove the code and undo the changes? How do you prevent misuse of those powers?


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> I see. Well, to your point:
> Imagine how challenging and frustrating it would be for a newbie to identify the straightforward answer to their questions if the thread contains side comments that are unrelated to the main topic.


not for the whole of forum, maybe some specific part(s) be set for that. I cannot provide very clear or transparent suggestion but the thing I imagine might provide an option to the website to be more crowded and more qualified.
I can develop websites only for presentations (not forums) in the current position. therefore, I cannot provide a very clear suggestion.
but to me, as you are about to repeat a point or already repeating that point, I also would like to remind one of my honest and parallel idea to my previous expression: "it does not seem aesthetical also to let a door remain open, amongst multilinguals  for argument. "


----------



## swift

rarabara said:


> not for the whole of forum, maybe some specific part(s) be set for that.


Over the years, the forums have expanded their capabilities to a wider scope of discussions in some contained areas. You may want to explore some of those within a few months, because they require you to be a member for at least 6 months, which allows a reasonable window for you to become more familiar with the overall WRF atmosphere, rules and culture, provided that you are a regular participant. 


rarabara said:


> "it does not seem aesthetical also to remain a door open, amongst multilinguals for argument. "


I am afraid I don’t fully grasp this portion of your post.  Perhaps you could tell us in your native language?


----------



## machadinho

swift said:


> Which requires 1) implementing a code (with increased operating cost);


Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.


swift said:


> 2) replacing an existing mechanism that works perfectly fine for hundreds of forum members and dozens of moderators with a new mechanism that could potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary churn and endless back-and-forth discussions between Senior Members and moderators.


Perfectly fine?  Please have a look at the OP.


swift said:


> You didn’t explain yet how you envision Senior Members implementing the code you’re advocating for.


I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.


swift said:


> How do you prevent misuse of those powers?


I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.


----------



## machadinho

Nanon said:


> Yes, they are: Conversations Privacy


Yep. That's why the PM system is unsuitable for side comments.


L'irlandais said:


> Add to this that a private message can be sent multiple members at the same time.


Multiple members, but not all members, including future or otherwise uninvited ones.


----------



## swift

Thanks for your effort to make your thoughts more transparent, @rarabara. I appreciate it.  If I understand you well, you are saying some debates you have witnessed are unpleasant? I believe many users can relate to what Velisarius mentioned some time ago:


velisarius said:


> I'm not going to disclose which forums I visit as a learner, but I admit it sometimes fills me with despair when I see how some members seem to be more intent on displaying their impressive scholarship than helping a beginner-learner with basic explanations. It has certainly put me off asking questions myself. If a learner is not very expert in the language,* it's very difficult to follow a loose, rambling thread. I sometimes come away feeling more confused than I was to begin with.*


That’s an unpleasant experience as well.


machadinho said:


> I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.


OK, so do moderators, which is why they only intervene when there are violations! Wouldn’t the same self-regulating principle apply with the current rules? Think of it.


machadinho said:


> I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.


That’s even worse! It would require a sophisticated AI that also understands the psychology of forum members who think their side comments are so precious they need to be preserved at all costs. Imagine the number of complaints to moderators because the code is acting up or “censoring” reasonable content.


machadinho said:


> Perfectly fine?  Please have a look at the OP.


Yes, it works perfectly fine for the vast majority of the forum members. Those who insist in circumventing the rules will face the consequences, as it is explained in the forum rules they agreed to upon joining. 


machadinho said:


> Multiple members, not all members, including future members and otherwiser uninvited ones.


What makes you believe that those side comments will be relevant to all the participants or future members?


----------



## L'irlandais

Circunflejo said:


> ... that problem has an easy solution: more staff.
> .


Are you volunteering to moderate ? Because I don’t believe moderators are paid staff, but rather enthusiastic volunteers.  The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers. Like I said earlier, a complete lack of empathy for Mike Kellogg and his team.


----------



## swift

L'irlandais said:


> The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers. Like I said earlier, a complete lack of empathy for Mike Kellogg and his team.


----------



## DonnyB

machadinho said:


> Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.
> 
> Perfectly fine?  Please have a look at the OP.
> 
> I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.
> 
> I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.


The problem, though, with what you're suggesting, is that Mike has no incentive to do it.  WRF is run as a business: the forums are a free adjunct to the dictionary part of the site which pays the bills,  and like any astute businessman, he likes to keep his customers happy and part of the purpose of this forum is to facilitate feedback. 

But the 'trade-off' is the cost of implementing any software upgrades against the benefit in terms of making the site run more smoothly and efficiently.  I'm afraid making Rule 2 "obsolete" doesn't enter into that equation.  Allowing users to regulate themselves is a recipe for disaster: if they could be relied upon to do that, there would be no need for moderators and all posts would conform to the rules which are in place.


----------



## machadinho

swift said:


> What makes you believe that those side comments will be relevant to all the participants or future members?


I don't believe that. Side comments are irrelevant by definition.


swift said:


> That’s even worse! It would require a sophisticated AI that also understands the psychology of forum members who think their side comments are so precious they need to be preserved at all costs. Imagine the number of complaints to moderators because the code is acting up or “censoring” reasonable content.


I failed to make myself clear. The additional computer code would simply allow senior members to hide or unhide some posts for newcomers to a thread. That's all.


DonnyB said:


> The problem, though, with what you're suggesting, is that Mike has no incentive to do it.


Maybe he does. This thread makes me wonder if moderators and the administrator acknowledge the issue to begin with.


----------



## Circunflejo

L'irlandais said:


> The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers.


Do you mean that there wouldn't be enough volunteers to moderate the forums with more traffic? I don't think so. (Less that) 5 days (with a week-end in between) were enough to create a group of volunteers to build WR's Catalan/Spanish dictionary (still under construction) and the number of potential candidates was way way lower than those that you would have in any of the forums with more traffic and the extra staff that you would need to cope with the extra reports would be lower too that the number of members of the group of volunteers building the quoted dictionary. Sincerely, I don't envision a shortage of candidates to moderate as a possible problem but maybe I'm too optimistic and a previous step would be needed to play it safe: to see if you have enough candidates to increase the moderators team. However, if people really like the new feature but don't want to volunteer to make it a reality, they don't really deserve the new feature. Anyway, that's not the main point here, I think the main point is if @machadinho's idea would be a good one and I'm not sure yet.


----------



## swift

Creating a dictionary is substantially different from moderating a forum.


----------



## DonnyB

machadinho said:


> This thread makes me wonder if moderators and the administrator acknowledge the issue to begin with.


Well, having contributed a total of _fifteen_ of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".


----------



## machadinho

DonnyB said:


> But the 'trade-off' is the cost of implementing any software upgrades against the benefit in terms of making the site run more smoothly and efficiently.  I'm afraid making Rule 2 "obsolete" doesn't enter into that equation.  Allowing users to regulate themselves is a recipe for disaster: if they could be relied upon to do that, there would be no need for moderators and all posts would conform to the rules which are in place.


I agree. I meant to say to regulate _each other_ instead of themselves.


DonnyB said:


> Well, having contributed a total of _fifteen_ of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".


Sorry. I shouldn't have said that.


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> Thanks for your effort to make your thoughts more transparent, @rarabara. I appreciate it.  If I understand you well, you are saying some debates you have witnessed are unpleasant? I believe many users can relate to what Velisarius mentioned some time ago:
> That’s an unpleasant experience as well.


that was presumably different implication. but I am unsure what you expect by your this wording ["high"]:



swift said:


> in fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is* high*, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.



if you expect me  to write rather literal poems ,then sorry,I think I can't
but if you expect me to write academic articles in refereed and trusted journals,I think I can do that perfectly (in english)
just one point; when the flow is too fast here or at some other forums, some failures are happening but generally are corrected by my revision/edition.

meanwhile, turkish and kurdish are my native languages.I am highly professional in these languages.


----------



## swift

I would say learners with at least a B1+ or B2 level, @rarabara, would benefit the most from these forums, considering the style and other speech elements.


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> I would say learners with at least a B1+ or B2 level, @rarabara, would benefit the most from these forums, considering the style and other discursive elements.


well, my english is about to B2-C1.


----------



## L'irlandais

A couple of interesting pages publicly available on WR
We currently have a team of 44 moderators(+ 1 lapsed moderator)
Staff members

The dictionaries have 20 editors listed
Dictionary editors
There is some cross over, with 2 mods on that team.

Only one person (outside of Mike) is listed as WR staff.

I have no idea how many active members there are on WR, but suggest that those advocating increasing the moderator team to cater for off topic chat are totally out of touch with the aims of WR, this is no chat board.  I suggest that far from being easy to increase the number of moderators, the reality is it is far from simple to retain existing moderators, due to members not respecting the forum rules.


----------



## swift

rarabara said:


> well, my english is about to B2-C1.


Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:


> Can eliminate repetition and digressions in a text in order to make the essential message accessible.
> 
> https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989


----------



## rarabara

swift said:


> Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:


check the point for you given in my #182nd post in this queue.


----------



## bandini

The moderators here are out of control.  I don't participate much anymore for that reason.


----------



## DonnyB

bandini said:


> The moderators here are out of control.  I don't participate much anymore for that reason.


I hope you'll forgive me for repeating the answer I give in post #179:


DonnyB said:


> Well, having contributed a total of _fifteen_ of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".


If we (the mods) were, as you evidently feel, "out of control" we wouldn't bother.  We'd simply delete your post and probably the rest of the thread as well, and have done with it.  The reason we haven't done is to try and address members' legitimate concerns over all this.  You may or may not see it, but I _care_ about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.

Having said that, it's entirely up to you, obviously, how much you choose to participate in the forum.


----------



## rarabara

DonnyB said:


> If we (the mods) were, as you evidently feel, "out of control" we wouldn't bother. We'd simply delete your post and probably the rest of the thread as well, and have done with it. The reason we haven't done is to try and address members' legitimate concerns over all this. You may or may not see it, but I _care_ about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.
> 
> Having said that, it's entirely up to you, obviously, how much you choose to participate in the forum


I shall also not be participating so much until some time.

FREEDOM=MODERNISM 

(but this website (surely) lacking)


----------



## MattiasNYC

DonnyB said:


> I _care_ about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.



I shall put this to the test.


----------



## Kelly B

rarabara said:


> FREEDOM=MODERNISM


Well, there's freedom _to_, and freedom _from. _In this instance, they are in conflict. One person's freedom _to _chat and derail interferes with another person's freedom _from _chaos and disorder that would interfere with finding valuable information. For me, the moderation in my favorite forums *increases my freedom to find the information I need.*

I'm a heavy forum user who seldom asks questions, because I can usually find answers. This is a direct result of strict moderation, combined with moderator responsiveness to reports_._ If I find a useless thread that's five years old, I report it, and it goes away. If I find three threads where one would suffice, I report it, and if the moderators agree with me it's tidied up (and if not, that's fine too - they can judge that better than I can.) If a response is deleted that I think was actually useful, I report that too, and sometimes it comes back! What might seem heavy-handed is accompanied by a will to work to the benefit of most users. Truly.


----------



## MrMuselk

I find the moderation to be at a level that is needed in other forums I've frequented; I have found that it can scare new users with it being, as I just stated, at a much higher level. Nevertheless, I find the system quite efficient.


----------



## User With No Name

In case anyone hasn't figured this out, the basic fact is that nothing of substance is going to change about its moderation. Least of all based on users' comments. The model is established and the personalities entrenched. 

Is the moderation often too agressive? Yes, I think so. Just a day or two ago I saw a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate. A moderator immediately slapped it down. And then, a few minutes later, another moderator came along and slapped it down some more. That's a bit much, as far as I'm concerned.

But you know what? It's not going to change. It would be more productive to complain about the weather.

Once I figured that out, I started feeling less frustrated.


----------



## DonnyB

User With No Name said:


> In case anyone hasn't figured this out, the basic fact is that nothing of substance is going to change about its moderation. Least of all based on users' comments. The model is established and the personalities entrenched.
> 
> Is the moderation often too agressive? Yes, I think so. Just a day or two ago I saw a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate. A moderator immediately slapped it down. And then, a few minutes later, another moderator came along and slapped it down some more. That's a bit much, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> But you know what? It's not going to change. It would be more productive to complain about the weather.
> 
> Once I figured that out, I started feeling less frustrated.


It seems to me that the point of this thread, and certainly the aim of all the posts I've made in it, is to try and change that perception.

Obviously, given the core purpose of the forums, the basic framework of rules is unlikely to change significantly.  You're complaining about moderation being too "aggressive", citing as an example "a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate".  Forgive me, but that is a subjective judgement.  What would you have preferred us to do?  Turned a blind eye on the basis of_ 'He/she meant well' _or _'It's the thought that counts'_?  I will say that it's comparatively unusual for a moderator to edit a post and then another moderator to edit it further or remove it altogether, but it does happen, especially where subsequent posts have referred to it or we find it's sidetracked the thread.

I can't say any more than that without knowing which post it was and why it was 'slapped down' as you put it - and I can't do that in a public forum.  But I will say this: we're not psychic, and nothing is likely to change unless people _ask_ for a change to be made.  I don't necessarily mean _complain_, but I've said repeatedly that I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be encouraged to ask _why_ we take the decisions we do.  In the long run, a better understanding of the whole moderation process, and how it works, is likely to lead to a less frustrating experience for members and ultimately, less work for us.


----------



## Kelly B

User With No Name said:


> a day or two ago I saw a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate. A moderator immediately slapped it down. And then, a few minutes later, another moderator came along and slapped it down some more. That's a bit much, as far as I'm concerned.


In a case like that, if you are convinced the decision was wrong, I suggest you report the post (or the one above it, if it was completely removed) to describe why you thought the information in the post was valuable. What seemed obvious to you might not have been obvious to the moderator, and (s)he can consult with the rest of the forum team to confirm the decision. Or they can help you understand the basis for it, in private.


----------



## bandini

It's amazing that there are posts getting deleted even on THIS page.


----------



## User With No Name

DonnyB said:


> It seems to me that the point of this thread, and certainly the aim of all the posts I've made in it, is to try and change that perception.


I do appreciate how much time and effort you are expending on this thread. But note that you are explaining and justifying. Both admirable activities, but not the same as really considering the validity of the concerns expressed.

As far as the specific post I mentioned... It wasn't anything important, and it wasn't even deleted. It was just a reasonable question that didn't quite conform to the rules. So one moderator replied pointing out that fact. Ok, sure. Fine. Then, a while later, another moderator also criticized it. That seems like piling on. Hardly tragic, but representative of the zeal with which moderators tend to approach their duties.

Let me ask you this: When, in your experience, have user comments led to a substantial policy change on this forum? 

Again, as I said before, even though I find the situation frustrating, I accept it. (No choice, obviously.) When it starts getting to me, I go away for a while. So far, I have come back.


----------



## DonnyB

User With No Name said:


> I do appreciate how much time and effort you are expending on this thread. But note that you are explaining and justifying. Both admirable activities, but not the same as really considering the validity of the concerns expressed.


There are two main concerns which have been coming across to me in this thread.

One is that a number of members clearly feel that the forums don't operate in the way in which they think they ought to, or the way in which they would like them to.  I think the point has already been made that the forums are a free service provided by the owner Mike Kellogg to fulfil the purpose of enhancing the dictionaries which are the core element of WRF, and that imposes constraints on how the forums can be run.  The goals - the vision, if you like - that he's set out as being what the forums should aim to do are unlikely in my view to be altered significantly.  There are quite a large number of other language forums out there which people can use, which have different aims and policies, and I know we have a number of members who use other forums as well as ours.

The other concern seems to be the way in which moderation is carried out.  I will put my cards on the table and say that in my opinion there is never any justification for a moderator to be rude to another member.  We are all real people (despite the impression some members seem to have to the contrary  ) and we express ourselves differently.  I think most of us make determined efforts to explain why we do things the way we do in a way which treats members as valued participants in a collaborative community.  The prospect of anything resembling a mass boycott, leaving us to answer all the questions ourselves, has got to be every moderator's worst nightmare: we just couldn't do it, the forums would collapse under the strain.  So it really isn't in our interests to antagonize members unnecessarily.

Over a period of time, we've experimented with making certain adjustments to the way moderation is done.  The majority of communication is now done by private 'conversation' with the individual member and the amount of visible intervention in threads is, by and large, kept to a minimum.  This is done with the aim of keeping the thread looking neat and tidy, (I personally think it looks awful to have a thread with a whole load of deleted posts in it) but also opens up an avenue of communication for a member to query anything they don't like, don't understand or don't agree with.



User With No Name said:


> Let me ask you this: When, in your experience, have user comments led to a substantial policy change on this forum?


The example which springs to mind is the introduction, in the majority of forums, of "reactions".  These had been requested by members on a number of occasions before being introduced following a successful trial in half a dozen or so forums last year.


----------

