# Reporting threads with a request for context: special case.



## EStjarn

I reported this thread the other day, along with thread1 and thread2, all of them for the same reason, something like: _...while the thread contains some potentially useful information, there's a request for context that, after more than three months of waiting, the OP hasn't responded to._

I notice the two latter threads have been moderated (deleted actually). However, the first thread has not received any moderation (as of right now), which I take as a reason to bring this subject up, namely, how we as "reporters" should relate to potentially useful threads that are locked up by moderator requests.

Is it forum practice to keep those threads open interminably? (Where 'open' means 'not closed'.)


----------



## Nunty

What would be the point in closing the threads? Is there a purpose that would be served?

(I am not being "smart". I'm sincerely asking your opinion.)


----------



## EStjarn

I will try to explain the point.

A thread that ends with a (moderator) request for context is, as we know, open only to the OP and, I believe, to members who may want to add a similar question. For everyone else, the thread is practically closed.

As for the OP, after about three months of waiting we can hardly expect a reply anymore. Thus, at that point the thread is largely kept open for the sake of those who may want to add a new but similar query at the end of the thread.

However, I can see a couple of disadvantages regarding such an addition.

The kinds of threads we're discussing here - somewhat old (say +3 months) with some potentially useful content, but whose last post is a request for context - are incomplete and unresolved. The requests themselves tell us so. This means that a poster who would feel obliged to use such a thread to ask a similar question would not get the benefit of starting off with a meaningful introduction.

Also, when a new question is added to an old one, it is quite common that members try to answer the original question rather than the new one. Such a reply, if we want to be consistent, should rightly trigger a deletion (and along with it probably a measure of frustration or disappointment on the part of the poster) simply because we're still waiting for context regarding that part of the thread.

Apart from these two concerns, I think there's something inherently frustrating about threads in which one is not allowed to contribute, as different from threads in which one cannot contribute because they're closed. I don't think I'm alone in this respect. In fact I notice all the time members having their posts deleted because they can't seem to wait for context to arrive. (The first link in post #1 exemplifies this.)

In other words, I can see a couple of reasons for closing these kinds of threads, but not one for keeping them open. From a "reporter's" perspective, I think it is important to have a clear view of what is reportable and what is not. And this is a case where in my opinion the view is not clear. As you can see, reporting them makes sense to me, but does it make sense to the moderators too? That's why I asked. To find out if you see it differently.


----------



## Nunty

To answer the last part of your question first, the red reporting triangle is there so you can bring our attention to threads that need our help. Maybe someone posted in the wrong forum. Maybe someone posted too lengthy of a quotation or an unattributed one. Maybe there is an audio or video link that was not pre-approved. Maybe it's full of chatspeak abbreviations. The sort of thing that is specified very clearly in the forum rules and guidelines.

As for being frustrated by these threads - that's where I get confused. How do you come upon them?


----------



## EStjarn

I'm afraid that in your answer I can find not one good reason for why the threads in question should remain open. Which was what I wondered about.


----------



## Nunty

That's because I did not address that part of your question. I am trying to understand why these threads concern you. If I could understand that, I (or another moderator) maybe I could address it. As it is, I do not understand why these threads bother you.


----------



## EStjarn

Nunty said:


> I am trying to understand why these threads concern you. If I could understand that, I (or another moderator) maybe I could address it. As it is, I do not understand why these threads bother you.



If the question cannot be answered without these kinds of qualifications, I'd rather be without a reply.


----------



## Loob

EStjarn said:


> I reported this thread the other day, along with thread1 and thread2, all of them for the same reason, something like: _...while the thread contains some potentially useful information, there's a request for context that, after more than three months of waiting, the OP hasn't responded to._
> 
> I notice the two latter threads have been moderated (deleted actually). However, the first thread has not received any moderation (as of right now), which I take as a reason to bring this subject up, namely, how we as "reporters" should relate to potentially useful threads that are locked up by moderator requests.
> 
> Is it forum practice to keep those threads open interminably? (Where 'open' means 'not closed'.)


Hi EStjarn

I think this is an interesting question.

In general, my advice would be "always use the red triangle to report 'dead-end' threads - threads which go nowhere, and are of no use to future readers".

In the case of the first thread you reported, an answer was given: that "rule oneself in" was the opposite to "rule oneself out".  So the thread could be of use to future readers.  That's why, I suggest, it wasn't deleted - unlike the others you reported.

If in doubt about reporting potential 'dead-end' threads, I'd say "please report".


----------



## EStjarn

Thanks for the feedback. I very much appreciate it!

Before I get to the point, I'd like to clarify a few things.

1) I understand this particular forum to be a venue where members can suggest changes that to them appear to be improvements, and that whenever members make such suggestions, they are acting in accordance with the purpose of the forum.

2) I am aware of that all such suggestions, good as they may seem, cannot or simply will not be put into practice for a number of different reasons.

3) I believe that members have different ways of making suggestions. One way is to draw attention to something that could be made better, a weak point of sorts. In that case, the suggestion is implicit.



Loob said:


> That's why, I suggest, it wasn't deleted - unlike the others you reported.



I never meant that the thread used as an example in post #1 should be deleted. I agree with you that threads with potentially useful information should be kept available to the public.

What this query is about is trying to understand what the use is of keeping such threads in an interminably open state (where 'open' is the opposite of 'closed', not the opposite of 'deleted'). As explained in post #3, I personally cannot think of any good reasons for it. I can only think of reasons for closing them.

So that's why I'm asking: *What is the point of keeping such threads open?* Or the other way around: *Why are such threads not closed? *(Cf. question in post #2 and answer in post #3.)

PS. Perhaps the title of this thread might gain from a change. I suggest: "Reporting threads with a request for context: special case." (This query is indeed a special case of another more general C&S query: after what length of time is a thread with a moderator request reportable.)


----------



## Cagey

Sometimes we do close threads but leave them in the forum for future reference.  For instance, we might do this is if a thread becomes repetitive, with the same points being made over and over again.  There are other reasons we might do this.  

However, in general, we wouldn't close a valid thread that someone might contribute to later.  For instance, someone else may offer a new context, and inquire about that one.  That would not be deleted as 'off-topic'.  After all, we ask people to check for previous threads before starting a new one.  People are always welcome to add a relevant question to an existing thread.

I want to support Loob's comment.  We welcome reports on threads that seem questionable in some way. We always read reports and consider them.  While we may not always take the action you have in mind, we appreciate foreros' help in making the forum run smoothly.


----------



## EStjarn

Thank you for responding.

So that there won't be any misunderstanding I'd like to follow up on some of your points:



> However, in general, we wouldn't close a valid thread...



I understand that in your opinion, the threads under discussion are 'valid'. But a thread should be valid only as long as its content complies with the forum rules. One of those rules states that sufficient context should be provided. If there is a request for context, it means that sufficient context has not been provided. Hence, the thread in its present state cannot be valid. (I suggest it be called 'incomplete'.)



> ...that someone might contribute to later. For instance, someone else may offer a new context, and inquire about that one.



The initial contribution to an incomplete thread can only come from two sources: from the original poster, or from a member who wants to add a new question to the thus far unresolved original question. To all other members the thread is closed for as long as the provision of context is pending or a new question is added.

Discounting the faint possibility that the OP after months of lethargy will wake up and provide the requested context, adding a new question should be the only route by which a contribution can be made to an incomplete thread. But is it advisable to encourage members to do that? Rather than encouraging them to open a new thread in which they get the opportunity to make immediate sense to potential repliers? 



> That would not be deleted as 'off-topic'.



I was not suggesting that the added question itself would be deleted. What will be deleted are the replies that address not the added question but the original question which has a request for context attached to itself. That is why I am suggesting that an incomplete thread with an added question lends an element of confusion because of its two parts: the original part, in relation to which members are expected to remain passive, and the addition, in relation to which members are allowed to speak their meaning.


----------

