# Incompletely answered questions



## Porteño

There are many occasions when the only answer to a forero's question is either incomplete, incorrect or sometimes downright stupid. However, the subject remains on the list of threads and if at some other time, one is looking for a translation of the same word or phrase and searching on WR, time is unnecessarily wasted when you come across this kind of situation. I realise that it is not easy and presumably the mods are always hoping or waiting for someone to turn up with the correct answer, but isn't there some way whereby such threads can be erased?


----------



## jann

Hello Porteño, 

When you see an old, unanswered thread that is, in your opinion, a good candidate for deletion, please click the small red triangle (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) in the upper right corner of the post to alert the moderators of the forum where the thread is located.   Don't expect a personal reply, but if the mods agree with you, they will remove the thread. 

With nearly a million current threads, it's not possible for us to go through systematically and clean up old discussions, but we do often remove old, unanswered threads when we come across them. 

best,
Jann
French forums moderator


----------



## Porteño

Yes, I quite understand that, but what I am as much concerned (and sometimes angered) about are those where the replies are irrelevant or even nonsensical. Anyway, thanks for your comment and I will advise you next time I come across this kind of situation.


----------



## jann

> what I am as much concerned (and sometimes angered) about are those where the replies are irrelevant or even nonsensical.


You can report those too!  

Irrelevant, off-topic remarks are routinely removed.  We moderators are not content editors, so we often hesitate to remove wrong/nonsensical answers, preferring that other members reply in the thread to say, "Wait, that's not right!"  That said, we'll still be happy to take a look.


----------



## Porteño

jann said:


> You can report those too!
> 
> Irrelevant, off-topic remarks are routinely removed. We moderators are not content editors, so we often hesitate to remove wrong/nonsensical answers, preferring that other members reply in the thread to say, "Wait, that's not right!" That said, we'll still be happy to take a look.


 
OK and thanks. When I come across any again I will alert accordingly. Unfortunately, I can't now remember the particular case in point that set me afire in the first place, but I'm going to see if I can't find it.


----------



## Schenker

Tambien hay muchos casos en que gente contesta algo igual o muy parecido a lo que ya han dicho otros, ¿en ese caso tambien se pueden reportar?

Yo en todo caso veo que estos tipos de post y los otros que ha mencionado Porteño se dejan igualmente, aunque los observen claramente (es sólo mi percepción, espero que nadie se enoje).

Saludos


----------



## danielfranco

Schenker said:


> Tambien hay muchos casos en que gente contesta algo igual o muy parecido a lo que ya han dicho otros, ¿en ese caso tambien se pueden reportar?
> 
> Yo en todo caso veo que estos tipos de post y los otros que ha mencionado Porteño se dejan igualmente, aunque los observen claramente (es sólo mi percepción, espero que nadie se enoje).
> 
> Saludos












Just kidding! I find the "frivolous quoting", or the useless agreement, more annoying, but that has been discussed before in another thread. But as far as lone incorrect or downright moronic answers, I'm afraid I may be one of  several (hundreds? thousands?) people to blame.
In my case, I find zero answer questions that I think are interesting, so one way of bumping them is to offer my answer. Unfortunately, many times I actually, inadvertently, answer pure drivel. Most of the times I don't mean to, I swear! Anyway, sometimes I know I'm wrong, but I'm willing to give the unanswered thread one more chance so that other forum-members can see it on the top page again, and maybe they'll answer it.

Do y'all think that may be the case for other guys too? I mean, that's why they do it, too?

D


----------



## jann

> Tambien hay muchos casos en que gente contesta algo igual o muy parecido a lo que ya han dicho otros, ¿en ese caso tambien se pueden reportar?


I am sorry, but my Spanish is so rusty that I had better reply to you in English or you won't be able to understand what I want to say! 

As I said, moderators are not content editors.   If member B expresses in post #8 what member A had already said in post #4, this is not justification for moderator intervention, and we will not delete post #8.  Many people find it useful to see an answer confirmed.  On the other hand, if member B is just brainlessly repeating what was already said (or worse, didn't bother to read the thread before replying!), it is often helpful if member A replies to say, "Isn't that what I just said?  At least we agree!" 

On the other hand, there is another kind of duplicate that falls into a slightly different category.  If there are several threads that all discuss the translation of the exact same thing (e.g., an idiomatic expression), it is _possible_ that the moderators may wish to merge them into a single discussion.  I say "possible" because I believe the policy differs from one forum to another.   If you would like the moderators to condsider merging two threads, report one of them and copy the URL of the second thread into the report.  If you would like the moderators to condsider merging several threads because, e.g., a dictionary search returns several very similar threads with the same title, the report one of them and mention that there are several others on the same topic with the same title.

If this doesn't answer your question, please let me know.  I may have misunderstood (my Spanish really is virtually non-existent).


----------



## elroy

In an ideal world, we would have some sort of reliable mechanism to scan threads, verify their accuracy, and remove threads that contain nothing but answers we are certain are incorrect, incomplete, or misleading - so that dictionary users can be guaranteed that all threads they are led to via dictionary links provide helpful information.

In real life, it is not humanly possible for us to do that, and as Jann said, we do not edit threads for content.  All members have the right to post in any thread, as long as they abide by the rules and guidelines of the forum, regardless of how right their answers are.  The forums are not meant to be an indisputable reference work; they are a _human_ supplement to the dictionaries, and humans are not infallible, so yes, some answers are going to be wrong.  The wise dictionary user rarely takes forum threads at face value. 

When you come across a thread like the one you have described, you should either report it or post in it yourself to point out the error or supply missing information.

That said, if we notice that a member is _consistently_ providing information that is _obviously_ incorrect, we suspect trollish behavior and act accordingly.  After all, we do have a rule that says, "Any information, translations and definitions posted in these forums must be accompanied by a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. Give sources for extensive quotations. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so" (Rule 13).


----------



## alexacohen

danielfranco said:


> Just kidding! I find the "frivolous quoting", or the useless agreement, more annoying,


That's not fair, Danielfranco.

When there are several translations for one sentence one or two posts stating simply "I agree with this translation" may be helpful (and useful).


----------



## cuchuflete

Here's a contrarian view of "wrong answers".  Once upon a time, in a WR forum in which I'm an active participant, a certain member was seen agreeing with all sorts of bad constructions, often telling the thread starters, non-native learners, that their sentences were perfectly good.  This was useful.  Other members, sometimes a little indignantly, pointed out precisely why such agreement was wrong-headed and misleading.  They used the mistaken assertion that something was correct, when in fact it was not, as the basis for good explanations of why it was wrong.  

Such dialogs may be useful to students. That suggests an alternative to reporting a troublesome thread or post:  Join in, and address the mistakes.  So long as the conversation remains civil, it's perfectly ok to strenuously disagree with another member's comments.


----------



## Schenker

Hi 

(please sorry my english)


jann said:


> As I said, moderators are not content editors.  If member B expresses in post #8 what member A had already said in post #4, this is not justification for moderator intervention, and we will not delete post #8. Many people find it useful to see an answer confirmed.
> I'm totally agree.
> On the other hand, if member B is just brainlessly repeating what was already said (or worse, didn't bother to read the thread before replying!), it is often helpful if member A replies to say, "Isn't that what I just said? At least we agree!"
> I was thinking in these kind of cases when I post previously
> (in spanish: estaba pensando en este tipo de casos cuando dije lo anterior expresado en el post)
> 
> I say "possible" because I believe the policy differs from one forum to another.
> Really? The rules can by applied in a different way depending of the "sub-forum"? Why?


Thanks a lot for your answer.

Bye.


----------



## jann

> If there are several threads that all discuss the translation of the exact same thing [...] I say "possible" because I believe the policy differs from one forum to another.
> Really? The rules can by applied in a different way depending of the "sub-forum"? Why?


There is no "rule" related to merging near-duplicate threads.   It's not a matter of applying "the rules" differently, but rather a matter of moderator style and forum organization. 

Getting back to the matter at hand, that of inaccurate replies, I made a comment in post #4 about wrong answers:





			
				jann said:
			
		

> We moderators are not content editors, so we often hesitate to remove wrong/nonsensical answers, preferring that other members reply in the thread to say, "Wait, that's not right!"


Cuchuflete (post #11) pointed out some of the logic behind this preference.  There is another advantage implicit in his excellent example:  the best way to ensure the quality of answers is to entrust quality control to the entire WordReference community.  If you see an answer that you feel is inaccurate, please, step in politely and say something to correct and discuss the error!  Being a moderator is not like being a dictionary editor.  It is not technically possible for a handful of us to review for accuracy each of the thousands of new threads created every day. Even if it were possible, we moderators don't know everything, and we make mistakes too... so inevitably there would be threads that we were not capable of evaluating for accuracy, and times when our decisions were wrong.


----------



## danielfranco

alexacohen said:


> That's not fair, Danielfranco.
> 
> When there are several translations for one sentence one or two posts stating simply "I agree with this translation" may be helpful (and useful).



Bueno, pero en ese caso entonces la expresión de acuerdo deja de ser inútil, ¿no?



What Da… Erm… I meant, "D"


----------

