# Members flooding the forum



## Paulfromitaly

Hello Mods,
I've noticed that lately there's an increasing number of members of WRF who tend "flood" the forum with maybe 10-15 new threads a day, often splitting a long paragraph they need to get translated or checked in many one-sentence threads (you just need a quick glance to understand that all the threads topics are linked and about the same subject..).
Is that fair? 
Is it against any WR rules?
Isn't it a sly way to get a free translation service?

Shouldn't all the members wonder if the question they are going to ask is in the general interest and useful for the other foreros before opening a new thread or am I the only fool who think about that?
(For the record, these members never help or post in threads they haven't personally opened..)


----------



## ElaineG

Hi Paul,

If I feel that someone is "crowding out" other users, I'll take steps.  If the person posts their text at odd hours, when others aren't posting (we know who we mean), it doesn't bother me as much.

My preference in such cases, however, would be for the forum community to collectively ignore the miscreant.  But there is always someone who wants to help, no matter how unhelpful and annoying the other poster's behavior is.

This is a mystery of human nature that I will never understand.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> My preference in such cases, however, would be for the forum community to collectively ignore the miscreant.



* The point is that apparently not the whole community see them as miscreants..*


> But there is always someone who wants to help, no matter how unhelpful and annoying the other poster's behavior is.


*they just want to show off..*


> This is a mystery of human nature that I will never understand.


 *Snap.*


----------



## Philippa

ElaineG said:


> Hi Paul,
> If I feel that someone is "crowding out" other users, I'll take steps.  If the person posts their text at odd hours, when others aren't posting (we know who we mean), it doesn't bother me as much.
> My preference in such cases, however, would be for the forum community to collectively ignore the miscreant.  But there is always someone who wants to help, no matter how unhelpful and annoying the other poster's behavior is.
> This is a mystery of human nature that I will never understand.


Elaine, how would we necessarily know about what the forum community should be ignoring in this sort of case? In Spanish-English there are so many threads that it would be difficult to know if a person had posted the sort of thing that Paul describes and if a forero or a mod had made a critical comment in a thread about this sort of thing, we're unlikely to have read it and taken note.
Hope this makes sense!
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## ElaineG

Philippa said:


> Elaine, how would we necessarily know about what the forum community should be ignoring in this sort of case? In Spanish-English there are so many threads that it would be difficult to know if a person had posted the sort of thing that Paul describes and if a forero or a mod had made a critical comment in a thread about this sort of thing, we're unlikely to have read it and taken note.
> Hope this makes sense!
> Saludos
> Philippa


 

Well, if there are so many threads, then one person can't be flooding!  Flooding is when one person dominates the forum, which can happen in IE, but not in Spanish, I guess.

But, my larger point really is, there's no rule against posting a lot, and it doesn't require mod action if it doesn't get in the way of another poster.  If you don't like someone's style, you should ignore them.  I would ignore these chronic help-seekers, who never give in return. But obviously that's not everyone's preference.

But if someone likes helping them, even if they are not helpful, I don't see why the mods should stop that one-way exchange, SO LONG AS IT IS NOT HURTING OTHER FOREROS.


----------



## maxiogee

The problem being referred to often means that the context is totally lost in the individual questions. They may start off together, but as some generate more answers than others they drift apart and one loses the gist of what is being spoken of.
I don't mind it - I've taken to ignoring some posters who appear to be doing it. There does seem to be a blossoming season to these noxious weeds  I take it that if these people don't get what they want they will go elsewhere and we will resume normal horticultural services 

- all together now …
*"How many kinds of wild flowers grow, in an English Only country garden?"

*


----------



## LV4-26

Paulfromitaly said:


> *
> they just want to show off..*


Now here's a gratuitous assumption if I've ever seen one.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

LV4-26 said:


> Now here's a gratuitous assumption if I've ever seen one.



Come on the EN-IT forum and you'll notice people who don't even take the time to read the thread topic just because they want to be the first ones to post an answer..how would you call that if not "showing off"? (I remember someone calling them "willy-nilly" answers..).


----------



## Coyoacan

So, is mister Pablodeitalia speaking of all forums, or really, was he more sharing a pet peeve he has with certain foreros in the EN-IT forum?
New, that's the real question...

Saludos de un nuevecito a los foros _(who hopes isn't committing the pecado of all pecados described by mister 3,286 posts)

_Regards!


----------



## cuchuflete

From the viewpoint of an active forero, who also sometimes puts on day-glo orange mod socks, there are many kinds of forum flooders.

I'll begin with one of the better varieties:  The (over?) active student of a language.  Some of these people give good background and context, and ask difficult, interesting questions about usage.  They may need a PM reminder to try to limit the number of threads posted in an hour, to give others a chance at front page visibility.  That's a matter of courtesy and training.  In general, their contributions are good, in that they provoke some serious posts by both native speakers and advanced learners, and go well beyond dictionary questions and into actual usage.

Some just post schoolwork questions, with no or little context, and often less than a full sample sentence.  When asked for context, they reply, "There is none. That's just the way it is in the grammar book."  In EO, we frown on this, and usually the foreros force at least an idea or two from the original poster before offering any advice.  As a forero, once I recognize the pattern and the name associated with it, I refuse to respond to any such threads.

Third are the schoolwork cheats.  A few days ago I closed a long text posted by one of these, and cited the rule demanding specific questions or doubts.  When I came back an hour later, I found the entire long paragraph, divided into many posts, with what seemed to have been random selections of words, in red, representing the "specific doubts".

Should that forero return, the reception will be like a day in Maine in February.  


The best medicine for all of this would be self-control by the foreros, but as has been noted, some people like to reply to anything and everything, ignoring rules, manners, circumstances and common sense.  I don't know if there is a cure for this sort of thing.  

If you are aggravated by flooding behaviour, use the red triangle, and leave it to the mod team to try to figure out a solution.  At very least we will demand background, context, and full sample sentences.  That is sometimes enough to send a flood-maker to a different forum. 

On a related note, the Campaign for Context in the English Only forum, with your good help, has begun to improve the quality of many threads. Newbies are easier to train than veterans, it appears.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> From the viewpoint of an active forero, who also sometimes puts on day-glo orange mod socks, there are many kinds of forum flooders.
> 
> I'll begin with one of the better varieties:  The (over?) active student of a language.  Some of these people give good background and context, and ask difficult, interesting questions about usage.  They may need a PM reminder to try to limit the number of threads posted in an hour, to give others a chance at front page visibility.  That's a matter of courtesy and training.  In general, their contributions are good, in that they provoke some serious posts by both native speakers and advanced learners, and go well beyond dictionary questions and into actual usage.
> 
> Some just post schoolwork questions, with no or little context, and often less than a full sample sentence.  When asked for context, they reply, "There is none. That's just the way it is in the grammar book."  In EO, we frown on this, and usually the foreros force at least an idea or two from the original poster before offering any advice.  As a forero, once I recognize the pattern and the name associated with it, I refuse to respond to any such threads.
> 
> Third are the schoolwork cheats.  A few days ago I closed a long text posted by one of these, and cited the rule demanding specific questions or doubts.  When I came back an hour later, I found the entire long paragraph, divided into many posts, with what seemed to have been random selections of words, in red, representing the "specific doubts".
> 
> Should that forero return, the reception will be like a day in Maine in February.
> 
> 
> The best medicine for all of this would be self-control by the foreros, but as has been noted, some people like to reply to anything and everything, ignoring rules, manners, circumstances and common sense.  I don't know if there is a cure for this sort of thing.
> 
> If you are aggravated by flooding behaviour, use the red triangle, and leave it to the mod team to try to figure out a solution.  At very least we will demand background, context, and full sample sentences.  That is sometimes enough to send a flood-maker to a different forum.
> 
> On a related note, the Campaign for Context in the English Only forum, with your good help, has begun to improve the quality of many threads. Newbies are easier to train than veterans, it appears.



I agree with each single word you're written in your post.
I hope that also some other members who pretend to have never noticed    what I was talking about will eventually agree too.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I am sorry, am I being silly but I do not understand what you are talking about. I understand you are displeased with people asking for too much help or...? But isn`t it what this forum is for? Many people need help with their language and I myself often need to translate a text and have many places there which I am not sure about. I might post up 10-12 question a day (though it is rare), so am I in danger of angering the mods? 
  And as for dominating a thread, I guess I do sometimes in the Slavic forum when it comes to Slovak (Czech) but if I quit doing that, those branches would probably become almost extinct.


----------



## cuchuflete

Setwale_Charm said:


> I am sorry, am I being silly but I do not understand what you are talking about.   Don't be so kind as to assume that we do, either.
> 
> I understand you are displeased with people asking for too much help or...? But isn`t it what this forum is for? Many people need help with their language and I myself often need to translate a text and have many places there which I am not sure about. I might post up 10-12 question a day (though it is rare), so am I in danger of angering the mods?
> And as for dominating a thread, I guess I do sometimes in the Slavic forum when it comes to Slovak (Czech) but if I quit doing that, those branches would probably become almost extinct.



I was referring to people who may, usefully in some cases, and painfully in others, open five, or ten, or more threads in an hour.  Their posts fill most of the first page menu.  That is, regardless of need and motivation, a discourtesy to other members of the community.  The first example I gave was of a good and very prolific forero, who posts lots and lots of good questions.  Sadly, there are other people with an affliction — verborrhea of the keyboard—that try to use the foreros as a resource to do someone else's work.

I don't recall any mention of dominatrix issues.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Setwale_Charm said:


> I am sorry, am I being silly but I do not understand what you are talking about. I understand you are displeased with people asking for too much help or...? But isn`t it what this forum is for? Many people need help with their language and I myself often need to translate a text and have many places there which I am not sure about. I might post up 10-12 question a day (though it is rare), so am I in danger of angering the mods?
> And as for dominating a thread, I guess I do sometimes in the Slavic forum when it comes to Slovak (Czech) but if I quit doing that, those branches would probably become almost extinct.



Read carefully Cuchuflete's post and you'll get what I'm talking about..
I'm not criticising members who simply open many threads, as they could be a great resource for the forum when those threads concern interesting topics, but members who just ask for a translation of a long paragraph, trying to be sly by just splitting it in many one-sentence threads, posting them all in 10 minutes and pretending to provide their own attempt (which is often just the result of an online translator). 
I'm not against very active members, but against members who just exploit this forum without giving anything in return..


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> Should that forero return, the reception will be like a day in Maine in February.


 From you, perhaps, and from those who are alert. But there are so many people who are eager to be helpful (most of Paul's "Willy Nillies", I suspect) that they may dive in despite the apparent obviousness of such do-my-work-for-me ploys.  How do we educate our collaborative active contributors who are a little too helpful** for our own good?

**disclaimer below


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> From the viewpoint of an active forero, who also sometimes puts on day-glo orange mod socks, there are many kinds of forum flooders.
> 
> I'll begin with one of the better varieties: The (over?) active student of a language. Some of these people give good background and context, and ask difficult, interesting questions about usage. They may need a PM reminder to try to limit the number of threads posted in an hour, to give others a chance at front page visibility. That's a matter of courtesy and training. In general, their contributions are good, in that they provoke some serious posts by both native speakers and advanced learners, and go well beyond dictionary questions and into actual usage.
> 
> Some just post schoolwork questions, with no or little context, and often less than a full sample sentence. When asked for context, they reply, "There is none. That's just the way it is in the grammar book." In EO, we frown on this, and usually the foreros force at least an idea or two from the original poster before offering any advice. As a forero, once I recognize the pattern and the name associated with it, I refuse to respond to any such threads.
> 
> Third are the schoolwork cheats. A few days ago I closed a long text posted by one of these, and cited the rule demanding specific questions or doubts. When I came back an hour later, I found the entire long paragraph, divided into many posts, with what seemed to have been random selections of words, in red, representing the "specific doubts".
> 
> Should that forero return, the reception will be like a day in Maine in February.
> 
> 
> The best medicine for all of this would be self-control by the foreros, but as has been noted, some people like to reply to anything and everything, ignoring rules, manners, circumstances and common sense. I don't know if there is a cure for this sort of thing.
> 
> If you are aggravated by flooding behaviour, use the red triangle, and leave it to the mod team to try to figure out a solution. At very least we will demand background, context, and full sample sentences. That is sometimes enough to send a flood-maker to a different forum.
> 
> On a related note, the Campaign for Context in the English Only forum, with your good help, has begun to improve the quality of many threads. Newbies are easier to train than veterans, it appears.


 

I think, you are being too harsh on them. Nobody can be infallible all the time and those people are not terrorists. They might unconsciously violate some of the rules at times but I doubt that they do it with any malicious intent and we can be just forgiving if somebody is exhausted by the amount of schoolwork and needs some help, esp. if there are people willing to help - nobody forces them to do so. 
After all, our mission is to help, not educate and bother with other people`s sins and intentions.  Our rules are Draconian, it feels like : do not breathe here, do not breathe there. It takes more time trying to figure out whether you are not accidentally violating one of the 1001 laws with your actions. The forum might lose a lot of people because of that.


----------



## fenixpollo

**I am not referring to anybody in particular. Every one of us has unwittingly aided people like the ones cuchu mentioned above. Most of us, myself included, have done it _wittingly_, until being educated by fellow veterans or simply waking up and realizing that not all threads are created equal.


----------



## cuchuflete

Setwale_Charm said:


> I think, you are being too harsh on them.   Who is "them"?  I praised some, noted that some others need guidance, and gave an example of one who behaved in a consciously devious manner.  Which of these three are you defending?
> 
> 
> After all, our mission is to help, not educate  That logic flies up it's own oriface.   and bother with other people`s sins and intentions.  In the English Only forum, we have a clear statement that we will not help people misrepresent their abilities in English.  We will work with them to improve those abilities.
> 
> Our rules are Draconian, it feels like : do not breathe here, do not breathe there. It takes more time trying to figure out whether you are not accidentally violating one of the 1001 laws with your actions. _The forum might lose a lot of people because of that._ We might lose a lot of people if we support, aid and abet cheating on homework.  If we lose those who come here to have others do their work for them, that is an amenable loss.



The great majority of foreros never have any problem with rules, whether they have read them or not.  We ask for serious collaboration, with a congenial tone.  The forum Guidelines say it all briefly and simply.  




> I. WordReference.com provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics.
> 
> II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


The Rules were written to help explain those simple statements to people who use the forums for other purposes, or in conflicting styles.   Doing a student's homework for them does not "promote learning".  Helping a student understand the mistakes they make does.


----------



## Benjy

Just as a post script I guess to what chuchu D) has said:

The rules are not hard. There might be a lot of them but most of them just turn around the same principle: Use yer noggin (non-BE users: your head).

Don't ask people to do work for you. Don't ask a bajillion questions an hour. Don't ask questions without the information necessary to the formulation of a meaningful answer. I would have thought that these were reasonable 

As an aside, about 2 years ago, when I first started my uni course I recommended WR as a resource to go on the School of Modern Languages web resources page. My head of departement took one look at it and said "Students will abuse that. No." I would feel a lot more confident repeating that request (not that I think I would want a huge influx of lazy students pouring onto the forums mow that I am a mod ) with the rule set that we have in place.


----------



## geve

Setwale_Charm said:


> It takes more time trying to figure out whether you are not accidentally violating one of the 1001 laws with your actions. The forum might lose a lot of people because of that.


I agree with that. (as a matter of fact, someone just posted as a reply to one of my posts "i am sorry for not posting correctly *I am still learning rules*" ... do we deliver degrees in rules&guidelines studies? )
Now I am NOT questioning the rules here, and yes Benjy, the rules are reasonable, but I've said elsewhere that I think it would be a good thing to find a way to emphasize and explain *some* of the rules that really are core to the forum's activity and might not appear that obvious to all (and even to the most well-meaning members).

My point is, we keep having these "for good members only" discussions about educating newbies and senior members, and we keep saying that some common sense could do them good and that we can't do much if they're not willing to understand... Thinking "They don't get it? Well then they're either dumb or ill-intentioned" might be a bit cynical or bitter. Why not reformulate the statement in a more constructive way: "They don't get it? Maybe we explained it wrong".

Of course there will always be *some* dumb members who will prove me wrong, but at the risk of being called a hopeless naive I choose to believe that there cannot be *that many* stupid or ill-intentioned members. 

I do realize we all get tired of saying the same things over and over again, and that when we say it for the 10th time of the day our annoyance might show. But the misbehaving member doesn't know (s)he's the 10th member to misbehave, so chances are that he won't understand why we're so dry and will just think we're a real PITA - or at least, not very friendly people. (Which of course is totally untrue as we all know).

And now I also realize that this is more on the general topic of "how to deal with people who just don't get it" - which is not exactly the topic of this thread.  But I mean this as a reminder to think twice about the tone we use when informing people how things work around this place and why.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Benjy said:
			
		

> Don't ask people to do work for you. Don't ask a bajillion questions an hour. Don't ask questions without the information necessary to the formulation of a meaningful answer. I would have thought that these were reasonable



If only everybody did that..


----------



## panjandrum

Paulfromitaly said:


> If only everybody did that..


Fortunately for the sanity of mods, well me anyway, Benjy's common sense - 





> Don't ask people to do work for you. Don't ask a bajillion questions an hour. Don't ask questions without the information necessary to the formulation of a meaningful answer. I would have thought that these were reasonable


- seems to come instinctively to most people.  Many others pick it up quickly.


----------



## Coyoacan

_*"seems to come instinctively to most people.  Many others pick it up quickly..."*

_This is what I meant by my first comment to Paul. Things generally do arrange themselves when left alone in a place like this where there are so many talented, intelligent people from whom to learn. Yes, annoyances exist, abusers explode every which place and this beloved forum is no exception. But these slackers and freeloaders will eventually project themselves so easily that most of the people that matter will identify them and ignore, or sound the alarm creating a hedge around them, until we 'lose' the pests from the forums. Others will just learn the rules and either abide by them wholeheartedly, upon a couple of posterior reflections, or at the very least refrain a tad by perhaps feeling a charge when tempted to abuse the rules.

On the other hand though, I do appreciate the space to reflect upon these matters, and have Paul to thank ..perhaps for just bringing this up to the table and making us all, young and old, ponder such matters. And thanks to Banjy and Panjandrum for their conciseness. They fulfilled the old Mexican saying: _"Conciso, y con seso"_.

Warm regards to all from a very new (yet willful to learn) member.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Coyoacan said:


> But these slackers and freeloaders will eventually project themselves so easily that most of the people that matter will identify them and ignore, or sound the alarm creating a hedge around them, until we 'lose' the pests from the forums.  Others will just learn the rules and either abide by them wholeheartedly, upon a couple of posterior reflections, or at the very least refrain a tad by perhaps feeling a charge when tempted to abuse the rules.


And those who don't are booted out. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Coyoacan

Okay Trentina!  (so much passion..)


----------



## AuPhinger

Coyoacan said:


> _*"seems to come instinctively to most people.  Many others pick it up quickly..."*
> 
> _... Things generally do arrange themselves when left alone in a place like this where there are so many talented, intelligent people from whom to learn. Yes, annoyances exist, abusers explode every which place and this beloved forum is no exception. But these slackers and freeloaders will eventually project themselves so easily that most of the people that matter will identify them and ignore, or sound the alarm creating a hedge around them, until we 'lose' the pests from the forums. Others will just learn the rules and either abide by them wholeheartedly, upon a couple of posterior reflections, or at the very least refrain a tad by perhaps feeling a charge when tempted to abuse the rules.....



I am a newcomer to the forums---I participate almost exclusively in the Spanish-English forum, though I do try to eye the Culture and Spanish-English Grammar forums as well.  There is just too much really GREAT material to absorb!

Based simply on what I have seen, primarily in the Spanish-English forum, what Coyoacan says above, along with the prodding of the moderators, seems to keep things flowing remarkably well!

Considering the amount of traffic, I think that the comportment and management of this site is beyond magnificient!!!


----------



## lsp

Coyoacan said:


> Warm regards to all from a very new (yet willful willing to learn) member.


If it didn't make a big difference vis-à-vis the thread topic I would have left it alone. Willful means either deliberate (willful disobedience), or headstrong and obstinate (a willful, unmanageable child)! Willing means ready, inclined or amenable. Like you and your inclination to learn here at WR!


----------



## Coyoacan

Dear Lsp,

GRACIAS! I thought my use of the word was within desired meaning (as I was trying to convey deliberate intention to learn) ...nevertheless getting a second opinion (_and from a 7000+ posts Senior member too!_) is to me VERY groovy baby, YEAH! (not to mention an honor) 

Again: thank you Lsd!

Saludos!


----------



## piripi

> Originally Posted by *geve*
> Now I am NOT questioning the rules here, and yes Benjy, the rules are reasonable, but I've said elsewhere that I think it would be a good thing to find a way to emphasize and explain *some* of the rules that really are core to the forum's activity and might not appear that obvious to all (and even to the most well-meaning members).


I think this is a GREAT idea. If we can communicate the top 3 or 4 rules before someone opens a new thread, we may be able to cut down on the number of posts that have no context or are entitled “help!” (my personal pet peeve  ). 

How about having a brief message appear when a new thread is being opened? Something like...



> *Welcome!* Before opening a new thread, please look for the answer in the WordReference dictionary. (It's at the top of every page.) Also, use the Search function at the top of the page to search for existing threads on your topic. If you find that you need to open a new thread, please follow these important rules:
> 
> Put the word or phrase in the title when asking a question. (Avoid "translation please", "how do I say this?", "does this word exist?", "I'm new", etc.)
> *Always* provide an example sentence to show the context. When it comes to context, the more the better.
> In the bilingual forums, you should always make your own attempt at translation first. The forum members will be happy to help you improve it.
> Except as a topic of discussion, chatspeak and SMS style are not acceptable. Members must do their best to write using standard language forms.
> Click here to view the full list of forum guidelines and rules.


Un abrazo.  

P.S. Here’s a mock-up of what it might look like from a user/forero perspective (don’t laugh!)...


----------



## cuchuflete

You will be happy to know that Mike Kellogg is working on some things that will help guide people in this direction.

Please note a serious correction to your suggested text.  As often as we have said this here, many people continue to invent a non-existent rule.  The Search function, in C&S, will provide you with more details.



> Put the word or phrase in the title when asking a question. (Avoid "translation please", "how do I say this?", "does this word exist?", "I'm new", etc.)
> *Always* provide an example sentence to show the context. When it comes to context, the more the better. If you are unsure what "context" and "background" mean, click here.
> 
> In the bilingual forums, you should always make your own attempt at translation first. The forum members will be happy to help you improve it. *This is ONLY true for schoolwork!*
> Except as a topic of discussion, chatspeak and SMS style are not acceptable. Members must do their best to write using standard language forms.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I am not sure one can always say what is taken from schoolwork and what is not. But cuchuflete probably sees deep into the wicked minds.


----------



## piripi

That’s true. (The first sentence, anyway. ) Unless the person tells us that they are doing schoolwork, we have no way of knowing. Since one of the objectives of the forums is to promote learning, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask people to make their own attempt, especially when it appears that they’re trying to use the forum as a free translation service (e.g., someone who posts a long love letter to be translated).

Saludos.


----------



## cuchuflete

I haven't seen many wicked minds around here lately-- they are all off in cyberspace saying "lol" and "Roflmao".

Off course we should ask for a first effort in obvious cases of schoolwork.  Unfortunately, many people have taken that homework rule, and used it to bludgeon every innocent grandmother asking for help with a birthday message for a five year old.  

There are nice ways to ask—without demanding—for a first effort when we are unsure if it is schoolwork.  The problem we have seen in some forums is the false assumption that there is a rule that a first attempt is always required.

No such rule exists.


Those who enjoy being constables are ever-vigilent, just waiting to pounce on a rule breaker.  We had an amusing case of that yesterday, when a diligent forero reported a "blatant case of schoolwork".  I checked the link in the report.  Yes, it was schoolwork—of a sort.  It was a teacher asking for help in designing an excercise for his or her students!

The good news is that the thread was reported, rather than a case of a forero jumping ugly with a newbie schoolteacher.
My concern is that the spirit behind the rules sometimes gets obscured behind the zealous enforcement.


----------



## maxiogee

I like piripi's mock-up and would suggest one improvement. Instead of just mentioning the search feature there should be a hyperlinked button which would call it up. If the various language forums can have links at the bottom of the dialogue box then why not a button calling up the search function. It would get people into the habit of searching before posting.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> You will be happy to know that Mike Kellogg is working on some things that will help guide people in this direction.


Good news! 

It's good that you didn't let us ramble too long in this thread and the other one asking for something that's already being developed.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just in case anyone was wondering why the default siggy color isn't green.​


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> Just in case anyone was wondering why the default siggy color isn't green.


You mean this was all to deliberately mislead people???


----------



## cuchuflete

Newbies get clarity.  Veterans get misled. Mods get confused.
Which thread are we in?



________________________________________
It isn't easy being green. Blue is beautiful.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> Newbies get clarity. Veterans get misled. Mods get confused.
> Which thread are we in?


Of course mods would be allowed to view the reminder too.  Or we could have a map that says "you are here".



cuchuflete said:


> _______________________________________
> It isn't easy being green. Blue is beautiful.


Still not the right shade of blue I'm afraid.  (<= green green green =>)


----------



## Coyoacan

cuchuflete said:


> My concern is that the spirit behind the rules sometimes gets obscured behind the zealous enforcement.



My heart exactly.  

Cuchu always so pertinently dispensing his sage.

And Mike!  Mike, the one who could be actually complaining about this (not that he would be that obvious and nickname himself "mike" on these forums, duhh, I just realized this)  but, man, Mike just silently plowing thru and working on solutions while some of our best minds are bickering over whether the next door neighbor or newcomer is violating "homeowner's association rules" by not adhering to the 'approved colors' code!

Even as important (for the good development of the forum..yada, yada, ) as it is that basic rules are kept; I just *beg *of some of you: let's not become the self-appointed sanctimonious marshals of the WR forums (whom no one likes) when clearly, this blessed *cyber-haven* has come to be SUCH a blessing in learning to so many of US!  Let us just enjoy the ride, play it by ear, and things will sort themselves out naturally...

Otra vez: Gracias Mike and Mr. Cuchu.

Salud!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I am surprised the actions of others seem to bother other people so much.
Doesn't seem like a big deal at all to me.


----------



## LV4-26

Alex_Murphy said:


> I am surprised the actions of others seem to bother other people so much.
> Doesn't seem like a big deal at all to me.


Right, Alex. You can count me in as well, among the easy-going irresponsible people.


----------



## Benjy

Mphf..

The reason that these forums are the way that they are is precisely because we care about how people act on here. Whilst I am very much for the minimum of moderation necessary to the futhring of this forum's ends I am grateful that people do think about how the things we do on here affects the community, even if we all just end up shrugging our shoulders at the end of it and uttering "c'est la vie" 



Alex_Murphy said:


> I am surprised the actions of others seem to bother other people so much.
> Doesn't seem like a big deal at all to me.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't mean in a "I don't care" way, I mean... I do care, but it's really nothing big that should bother/worry/offend anyone.

You can care loads about this community and still this is a tiny issue worth little thought, I wish this whole "pessimistic" attitude would go from the forum though, "he thinks it's a small issue so he doesn't care about the community, irresponsible etc"

Come on!


----------



## Veentea

I just stumbled on this thread (rereading the rules or a sticky again).  I am not sure that I would know if I answered posts "willy-nilly".  Perhaps I have been guilty of that.

I get on the board in seasons (off a few weeks/months, on a week, etc) and when I am on I try to answer a number posts in the limited time I have because the forum has been helpful to me so I want to help someone else out.  I try to look for the ones with 0 replies but maybe that's not a good idea.  Perhaps those of you who are more familiar with the names and practices of some of the members would know to ignore those people but I am not so sure that it would be obvious to me.

Also, how would I know if a member was always posting and never helping?  View all their posts?  What if they help with the language project?  Does that show up somewhere?


----------



## Veentea

One more question:
Would it be unreasonable, then, for a member to conclude that he/she is being deliberately ignored if he/she gets many views but no or little response to his/her threads?


----------



## Sowka

Hello Veentea 

I wouldn't worry too much about these questions..

I think the problem that was addressed initially in this thread has been solved meanwhile: We have the no-flooding rule (part of rule #8, if I remember correctly right now).

Whenever I can and feel like it, I will answer a question (provided that it complies with the rules). I don't worry about the behaviour of the other member. There are so many members.. so many people to worry about   Moreover, each helpful reply serves not only the member who asks but also those who will look up the word later on.

And I don't think that no or few replies to a thread would mean that a member were being ignored. Maybe there is simply nobody around who could give a responsible answer. Since we all adhere to the "one topic per thread"-rule, answering a question simply with "sorry, I don't know" would not be the best solution.


----------

