# Reporting old threads



## syntr

I'm not sure what I should do about old threads on this site.

Here's an example: I was looking for a translation of "thank you note" from English to Spanish.

These four break the current rules. (I don't know if the rules were different when they were created) The titles do not match up with the question inside and a good lot of them are requests for revision.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=142025
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=220599
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=961557
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=61029

Apart from the question I was looking this up for, I found only one topic that addressed the issue. (Also, it was at the bottom of the list. Annoying DX)

What I want to know is if we can report old topics and if all old topics are expected to comply with the current rules.

Thanks


----------



## swift

Well, you've brought to our attention a very interesting topic, in my opinion. I've been asking myself the same thing. I report the old threads only if I think they could be useful in the future. Sometimes, I send a PM to one or two moderators and ask them what should be done with those threads.  Some of them are edited, some of them are deleted, some of them are merged.


----------



## Orlin

I think if these threads didn't contradict the rules at the time they were created, they should remain because laws don't normally act retroactively and there's no good reason to close or delete them now. Moreover, they're so old that most probably hardly anyone is interested in them nowadays but nevertheless can be useful to some foreros.


----------



## Loob

I know there have been a couple of discussions on similar themes: here's one Frequently-raised topics: the perils of popularity, but I'm sure I remember another. I'll post a link if I find it*.

The conclusion was, I think, that we should report old threads that need tidying up in some way.

*EDIT: I've found this one: Incomplete threads in dictionary links. But there's still something else nagging away at the back of my mind. Ah well....


----------



## syntr

Orlin said:


> I think if these threads didn't contradict the rules at the time they were created, they should remain because laws don't normally act retroactively and there's no good reason to close or delete them now. Moreover, they're so old that most probably hardly anyone is interested in them nowadays but nevertheless can be useful to some foreros.



  The problem is that while looking for answers to specific questions in the dictionary, I run into these threads that the original creators have lost interest in, because the titles don't match up with what's asked in the thread.

( Have rules 2 and 5 always existed as we know them today? )


----------



## Orlin

syntr said:


> ( Have rules 2 and 5 always existed as we know them today? )


I've been in WRF not so long but know that the present Rule 5 was introduced as a reaction to too much requests for "polishing" or translating longer texts without having specific doubts and to prevent abuses of the help that some generous members give: the mission of WRF is *not* to provide services that are normally paid and *not* to allow people create impression of linguistic skills that don't have (in education, applying for jobs, etc.).


----------



## Suehil

It's not really about whether or not a thread has broken any rules, or which rules it has broken.
Our job, as mods, is to keep the forum as useful as possible for the dictionary.  If someone comes across an old thread that is confusing or useless, then it is a good thing to report it so we can do a clean-up.  Proofreading threads are not useful to the dictionary, neither are threads with a misleading or inaccurate title, threads with no answers or threads that are full of chat.


----------



## syntr

Suehil said:


> It's not really about whether or not a thread has broken any rules, or which rules it has broken.
> Our job, as mods, is to keep the forum as useful as possible for the dictionary.  If someone comes across an old thread that is confusing or useless, then it is a good thing to report it so we can do a clean-up.  Proofreading threads are not useful to the dictionary, neither are threads with a misleading or inaccurate title, threads with no answers or threads that are full of chat.



 So the threads I posted are considered useless threads? Because they definitely make it harder to use the dictionary.


----------



## GavinW

Personally (on the Italian-English forum) I automatically (and frequently) send a Report-a-Post (not a PM) when I see any thread on the database that does not add anything to information and constructive discussion on any aspect of language contained in the thread title. It's important to note that these threads can be "old" threads, but also fairly recent threads. They can fail to make the grade for several reasons not picked up by anyone so far, eg:

1) thread title is in wrong language (target language instead of source language);
2) thread title does not actually correspond to the interesting bit of language that is the subject of the query;
3) the thread never got any useful reply. NB: this alone is not I think a criterion for deleting the thread. someone else might pick up on the discussion later on. The only criterion for deleting such a thread would be if there is already another thread which contains exactly the same combination of words in the thread title.

The operations I suggest to Mods include: 
a) delete thread (tag it tbd);
b) rename thread (I append a suggested thread title);
c) correct spelling, orthography and punctuation in thread title.

It's extra work for the Mods, and no, it's not being done systematically, but everyone will surely agree this is what we all want, and what everyone needs: a cleaner database/archive of threads which, individually, are more likely to provide a useful answer, or informed guidance, when consulted.

I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts. ;-)


----------



## Loob

syntr said:


> So the threads I posted are considered useless threads? Because they definitely make it harder to use the dictionary.


I haven't checked the threads you linked to, syntr. But I think Suehil's mesage is clear: if we come across old threads we think are unhelpful as adjuncts to the dictionary, we should report them.


----------



## merquiades

I would say when in doubt report them and the moderators will decide what actions need to be taken, but I think they probably have a lot of work to do on the active threads which often break rules somehow and won't have time to check over all these old threads.  I have noticed however that many old threads were never really answered.  There typically is a question, one or two answers asking for more information, perhaps a call for a native to intervene, and then it dies off quickly. Sometimes I'll answer them if I can, but I know some foreros have commented that they don't like that because it makes the thread active again.  On the other hand, I wouldn't like many of these old threads to be eliminated as I for one look at them quite often and find them useful even if I don't get the information I'm looking for or I find they don't give a definite response.


----------



## GavinW

merquiades said:


> ... but I know some foreros have commented that they don't like that because it makes the thread active again.


 
Well, they'll have to learn to live with the inconvenience! What a strange complaint to make: after all, the whole idea of WR is to create a live database and research tool which is constantly being improved. 

New threads don't "supplant" older threads, they "supplement" them. And, of course, if they supplement a discussion that has already taken place in an existing thread, they should post their query to that old thread (otherwise we'll be constantly reinventing the wheel...), and, if they fail to do so (because they haven't really understood the procedure completely, which is perhaps understandable with many newbies) then the Mods should do this for them (ie merge their thread with an existing thread, regardless of whether the original question was answered, or answered fully).


----------



## Paulfromitaly

GavinW said:


> Personally (on the Italian-English forum) I automatically (and frequently) send a Report-a-Post (not a PM) when I see any thread on the database that does not add anything to information and constructive discussion on any aspect of language contained in the thread title. It's important to note that these threads can be "old" threads, but also fairly recent threads. They can fail to make the grade for several reasons not picked up by anyone so far, eg:
> 
> 1) thread title is in wrong language (target language instead of source language);
> 2) thread title does not actually correspond to the interesting bit of language that is the subject of the query;
> 3) the thread never got any useful reply. NB: this alone is not I think a criterion for deleting the thread. someone else might pick up on the discussion later on. The only criterion for deleting such a thread would be if there is already another thread which contains exactly the same combination of words in the thread title.
> 
> The operations I suggest to Mods include:
> a) delete thread (tag it tbd);
> b) rename thread (I append a suggested thread title);
> c) correct spelling, orthography and punctuation in thread title.
> 
> It's extra work for the Mods, and no, it's not being done systematically, but everyone will surely agree this is what we all want, and what everyone needs: a cleaner database/archive of threads which, individually, are more likely to provide a useful answer, or informed guidance, when consulted.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts. ;-)



You know that we do appreciate your help


----------



## merquiades

GavinW said:


> Well, they'll have to learn to live with the inconvenience! What a strange complaint to make: after all, the whole idea of WR is to create a live database and research tool which is constantly being improved.
> 
> New threads don't "supplant" older threads, they "supplement" them. And, of course, if they supplement a discussion that has already taken place in an existing thread, they should post their query to that old thread (otherwise we'll be constantly reinventing the wheel...), and, if they fail to do so (because they haven't really understood the procedure completely, which is perhaps understandable with many newbies) then the Mods should do this for them (ie merge their thread with an existing thread, regardless of whether the original question was answered, or answered fully).



Completely in agreement.


It's not necessary to have multiple threads with basically the same question.


----------



## GavinW

Paulfromitaly said:


> You know that we do appreciate your help


 
Thanks, Paul! 



merquiades said:


> Completely in agreement. It's not necessary to have multiple threads with basically the same question.


 
Right! Indeed, not only is it not necessary, it's positively damaging, and certainly the Mods on IE are very active in rationalizing threads in this way.


----------



## mkellogg

Hi everybody,

I'll see what I can do to find a way to give people a better way to report threads that don't belong in the dictionaries.

Mike


----------



## TimLA

mkellogg said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I'll see what I can do to find a way to give people a better way to report threads that don't belong in the dictionaries.
> 
> Mike


 
We had an old discussion HERE.
When I find an odd link, I just red-triangle it with "dead thread".


----------



## Mate

In the meantime, please keep them coming 

Sometimes we are short of time and buried under tons of reports, but eventually we'll get to deal with them all.


----------

