# Non-deleting moderating



## Robert_Hope

Hi all

I've noticed on the English only forum that threads which voilate the rules are being closed but left visable. I find this useful since some of the older threads (to which the posters are refered) are sometimes easier to find than the older threads.

(Sometimes I find the search function can't tell the difference between (for example) "test/quiz" and and "test or quiz")

Is this now the practice in all forums? If not, I'd like to suggest it happens to make searches easier. 

Casting my eye down a forums, there doesn't seem to be any closed or deleted - are people just behaving themselves now?


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the suggestion, Robert_Hope.

The English Only forum team has no formal policy for this, but we seem to have collectively arrived at a loose consensus:  If we see a thread that violates rules, and offers no potential benefit to readers, it is removed from the forums.  On the other hand, if a closing message, often including one or more potentially helpful links, may be of service to others, we leave the thread locked and visible. 

If the search function is not meeting your needs, try the dictionary look-up box at the top of every forum page.  Select the monolingual or bi-lingual dictionary of interest, and type the term you are interested in.  This may be more than a single word.  Even if there is no definition, all threads including the term in the title will be displayed at the bottom of the page (beneath the definition, if there is a definition).


----------



## Robert_Hope

Thanks for your response Cuchuflete.

It is indeed helpful for some of these threads to be left.

Speaking from personal experience in other forums, when my context has been deemed too insufficient, my threads, and those of other people too I would assume, have been deleted, despite having received answers which are useful. This seemed rather counter productive, n my opinion. Some moderators were indeed kind enough to pass this information on , whilst others seem to just like the delete key and the joy of telling you that you're wrong...

Anybody else have any comments?


----------



## JamesM

There is a difficult balance to be maintained. WordReference is primarily a research site, as I understand it. It is here to have discussions that amplify the meaning and use of words and phrases. The discussions are linked to the dictionary through the thread titles. I believe it's somewhere around 90% of the traffic here comes from people looking things up in the dictionary and in related threads in the forums.

Leaving closed threads that point to previous threads might be easier for the person involved in the current thread at the moment but it leaves a number of "dead ends" and redundant links in the dictionary. In the long run it makes the policy of looking things up first before creating a new thread more and more burdensome for current users as they link to closed threads pointing to previous threads they have already read.

One way to handle it would be to close the thread, provide links to previous threads, then go back and remove the closed thread after a period of time has elapsed, but this is very time-consuming for the moderators who are already donating huge amounts of time to the site. Meanwhile, it also leaves dead-end links in the dictionary and frustrates users who are trying to follow the rules by reading existing threads first.

This is why some of us may sound like broken records: "Look it up in the dictionary first, read existing threads, and add your question to an existing thread if you don't have an answer." By following this practice the number of threads is kept to a minimum which allows people to scan through the half-dozen existing threads on the topic rather than 79 partial threads, some of which are closed and pointing to other threads.

We have over a million posts here now. The practice of corraling posts into the smallest number of threads for the ease of researching a question is simply a practical matter, given the volume of threads and posts.


----------



## Robert_Hope

JamesM said:


> There is a difficult balance to be maintained.



I agree. And is this balance I wish to explore for the benefit of everyone (although, wordreference being business, not sure why I should care - I'm not paid!)



JamesM said:


> One way to handle it would be to close the thread, provide links to previous threads, then go back and remove the closed thread after a period of time has elapsed, but this is very time-consuming for the moderators who are already donating huge amounts of time to the site. Meanwhile, it also leaves dead-end links in the dictionary and frustrates users who are trying to follow the rules by reading existing threads first.



That I can also understand - especially as I recently looking up "banlieue" in the French dictionary here and saw multiple threads. Ah. Flaw in my idea. Still, new threads which ask a question a slightly different way might generate useful, different answers not seen in the other similar threads. To delete these is somewhat counter productive.

Additionally, threads which are not duplicates, but violate in another way (context, context, context) sometimes receive useful responses and yet are still removed. (see my previous post)



JamesM said:


> This is why some of us may sound like broken records: "Look it up in the dictionary first, read existing threads, and add your question to an existing thread if you don't have an answer."



And I'm certainly not suggesting that you just let people go wild and ignore previous questions (if you've ever used Yahoo Answers, you will know how irritating that can be!).


----------



## JamesM

Robert_Hope said:


> I agree. And is this balance I wish to explore for the benefit of everyone (although, wordreference being business, not sure why I should care - I'm not paid!)


 
Neither am I. 



> Still, new threads which ask a question a slightly different way might generate useful, different answers not seen in the other similar threads. To delete these is somewhat counter productive.


 
Asking a question in a slightly different way _on an existing thread_ accomplishes both goals. It keeps questions about the same topic concentrated in a small number of threads and allows for questions to be asked from slightly different angles.




> Additionally, threads which are not duplicates, but violate in another way (context, context, context) sometimes receive useful responses and yet are still removed. (see my previous post)


 
I cannot speak to any specific thread, but I can tell you in general from personal experience that for every thread where the presumed or withheld context from the questioner matched the _assumed_ context of the answerers there are at least a dozen threads full of WAGs (wild-ass guesses  ) that can actually provide misleading information about the word or phrase.  These are often followed up with context somewhere around post 10 from the original questioner followed by a round of corrections and amendments from the original answerers in light of the context.  

If the context is blatantly obvious then surely it is simple enough to take the extra ten seconds and type it into the original question.  It is amazing how many times the context that the original poster thinks is blatantly obvious is not obvious at all.  I should probably keep a list of contextless disaster threads as cautionary examples. 

In any case, context is simply a requirement for posting a question here. It is not something left up to the discretion, judgment, or opinion of the original poster.  It is a rule set down after long experience with the time-wasting futility of answering questions based on an assumed context and the less-than-valuable information it can produce.

If you think that useful answers have been lost due to a deleted thread you can use the report-a-post feature and ask a moderator to review the thread.  At the moderator's discretion these posts might be merged into existing thread on the topic.  However, this is another time-consuming process.  The whole problem can be avoided by posting on an existing thread in the first place or providing context as required.


----------



## Robert_Hope

JamesM said:


> Neither am I.
> Asking a question in a slightly different way _on an existing thread_ accomplishes both goals. It keeps questions about the same topic concentrated in a small number of threads and allows for questions to be asked from slightly different angles...... etc



I think you're slightly missing the point I'm trying to make. I'll try to explain it slight better, which will, hopefully, render responding to some other points you make unnecessary (with all due respect). 

I'm not suggesting a duplicated thread/"contextless" thread be generally allowed, whether or not it be a different question about a word that has already been analysed on the forums. I'm just pointing out that, *on occasions*, the relevance of the answers given in a duplicate thread/contextless thread *could* be of use to someone. In these situations, closing but keeping visible or merging the thread might keep more useful content on Wordreference. Deleting _without reflection_ is sometimes counter-productive. 

I agree with you in how all of these "problems" can be avoided ie. by following the rules. After all, that's why they exist! Saying that, however, doesn't invent a time machine that sends the original poster back in time and, having made them see the error of  his/her ways, makes them post a perfectly phrased, placed and contexualised post. 

I feel I must stess again that I am _not_ suggesting that the rules relating to using the dictionary, checking for existing threads or providing that much loved context be ignored by either moderators or forum users. I am also not having a desguised rant about my previous experiences, simply stating that useful content is sometimes being lost by the delete key being the easy option.

Whilst one of the best things about these fora (plural of forums?) is the quality of moderating and content (which we all provide to this 'business' out of the goodness of our hearts - aren't we nice!*) nothing is ever perfect - that's why there's a sugestions forum, right?

Finally, relating to you last point, a can a forum member cannot "report a thread" to ask for its deletion to be reconsidered, if it has been deleted.... because.... it's been deleted.

* I understand people do profit personally by receiving useful answers to their language questions.


----------



## JamesM

Robert_Hope said:


> Finally, relating to you last point, a can a forum member cannot "report a thread" to ask for its deletion to be reconsidered, if it has been deleted.... because.... it's been deleted.


 
  Good point. 

As a side note, all the moderators for a forum are listed at the bottom of the forum page.  If a thread has been deleted you can reach one of the moderators by clicking on the moderator's name and sending a private message.

Everyone makes mistakes, including moderators. (I think I just demonstrated that.  )   If there is a post that you think was deleted in error, contact the moderator involved to find out why.  If you still think it was in error you can contact another moderator on the forum and ask for a review.


----------



## Robert_Hope

JamesM

Thanks for that advice, I'll keep that in mind if I ever feel the urge to ignore the rules... That is, however, not really what point I am making.
Just to clarify, I have not posted this suggestion due to a recent deletion of any thread I have been involved with. It was, in fact, response to how useful I found the approach I noticed in the English only forum, where merging/closing is seen to be being used with, in my opinion, helpful results.


----------



## JamesM

I understand.  I've been one of the moderators who has closed a thread recently in English Only.  I have to say that whenever I do there's a nagging voice in the back of my head saying, "There's another fine dead end you've created."


----------



## Robert_Hope

JamesM said:


> I understand.  I've been one of the moderators who has closed a thread recently in English Only.  I have to say that whenever I do there's a nagging voice in the back of my head saying, "There's another fine dead end you've created."



Yes, that is the down side.


----------



## frida-nc

Hi,
As a (newish) moderator, I find this interesting and wish I clearly understood all the arguments in your post, Robert.

Why would older (or newer?) threads be easier to find? Why is a closed thread that links to something else helpful? (does it have a different title?)  Why would you want the search function to be able to distinguish the terms you cite? and what's wrong about both those being retrieved at once?

We bring up similar issues all the time, so I'm glad to see this discussed here.





Robert_Hope said:


> Hi all
> 
> I've noticed on the English only forum that threads which voilate the rules are being closed but left visable. I find this useful since some of the older threads (to which the posters are refered) are sometimes easier to find than the older threads.
> 
> (Sometimes I find the search function can't tell the difference between (for example) "test/quiz" and and "test or quiz")
> 
> Is this now the practice in all forums? If not, I'd like to suggest it happens to make searches easier.
> 
> Casting my eye down a forums, there doesn't seem to be any closed or deleted - are people just behaving themselves now?


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> I understand.  I've been one of the moderators who has closed a thread recently in English Only.  I have to say that whenever I do there's a nagging voice in the back of my head saying, "There's another fine dead end you've created."



What I neglected to mention in my earlier post is that when we close a thread after giving links to related threads, we often (not always) do something else to avoid a cluttered list of dead ends in the dictionary: we mark the closed thread for eventual removal from the forum.  Once every few weeks one of us searches for all threads marked that way, and makes them disappear.  

In the meantime, we may edit titles of existing threads to make them more meaningful, or easier to find.  In the early years of the forums, things were, you might say, a little lax.  Some thread titles gave next to no indication of the real topic.  Those threads, some of which were wonderful discussions, can only be found through the forum Search function, and not from the titles linked on dictionary pages for the appropriate key words.  

If the newer closed thread has links to threads with seemingly unrelated titles, but relevant material, we tend not to mark it for removal.    I know it all sounds complicated, and maybe it is.  Rest assured that we try to leave things that will be useful, and clean out clutter.  Now and again we get it right.


----------



## alisonp

Well, since the matter's come up for discussion, I must admit that I've been a bit disconcerted recently to notice a number of threads which have been closed or even completely deleted, seemingly without rhyme or reason being given, including ones I've been posting in.  Perhaps it's just that there have been a rash of them recently, and that's why I've noticed, but I thought mods used to put in a reason for closure, such as "proofreading" or otherwise inappropriate post.


----------



## Robert_Hope

Hi Frida-nc, thanks for your comments. I shall answer your two questions systematically below.



frida-nc said:


> Hi,
> As a (newish) moderator, I find this interesting and wish I clearly understood all the arguments in your post, Robert.
> 
> Why would older (or newer?) threads be easier to find? Why is a closed thread that links to something else helpful? (does it have a different title?) Why would you want the search function to be able to distinguish the terms you cite? and what's wrong about both those being retrieved at once?
> 
> We bring up similar issues all the time, so I'm glad to see this discussed here.


 
*Why would older (or newer?) threads be easier to find?* 
Whether it be an ever improving search function, the editing of titles as Cuchuflete mentions above or some other mystical forces, seraching for older threads is much better now than it used to be.

*Why is a closed thread that links to something else helpful? (does it have a different title?)* It might well have a different title. _Previously_ I've not been able to find an exisiting thread due to different punctuation. Additionally someone who doesn't know the name of a gramatical aspects of a language and asks something is simple terms. Whilst there could be a thread called "the use of the Gerund with 'like'", someone searching for "like causes 'ing' form?" might not find anything and then post a "duplicate" thread. It is important to remember that many who use the English Only thread do not speak English as a native language and conseqently might not have the vocabulary to paraphrase search terms a number of times before posting... conseqently the link (or changinf the older thread's title) will improve useability for some people.

*Why would you want the search function to be able to distinguish the terms you cite? and what's wrong about both those being retrieved at once?* I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.



cuchuflete said:


> *What I neglected to mention in my earlier post is that when we close a thread after giving links to related threads, we often (not always) do something else to avoid a cluttered list of dead ends in the dictionary: we mark the closed thread for eventual removal from the forum. Once every few weeks one of us searches for all threads marked that way, and makes them disappear.*
> 
> In the meantime, we may edit titles of existing threads to make them more meaningful, or easier to find. In the early years of the forums, things were, you might say, a little lax. Some thread titles gave next to no indication of the real topic. Those threads, some of which were wonderful discussions, can only be found through the forum Search function, and not from the titles linked on dictionary pages for the appropriate key words.
> 
> If the newer closed thread has links to threads with seemingly unrelated titles, but relevant material, we tend not to mark it for removal. I know it all sounds complicated, and maybe it is. *Rest assured that we try to leave things that will be useful, and clean out clutter. Now and again we get it right.*


 
That is fantastic! This is exactly what is useful. Maybe it's worth this idea being spread around amongst the moderators.... it seems all moderators aren't aware of the same ways of keeping the forums clear and useful...


----------



## frida-nc

> *Why would you want the search function to be able to distinguish the terms you cite? and what's wrong about both those being retrieved at once?* I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.





> (Sometimes I find the search function can't tell the difference between (for example) "test/quiz" and and "test or quiz")


What do you want the search function to do in this case?  To my knowledge, if you put in "test quiz" you would get both of these, in the dictionary and in the search engine.


----------



## Robert_Hope

frida-nc said:


> What do you want the search function to do in this case? To my knowledge, if you put in "test quiz" you would get both of these, in the dictionary and in the search engine.


 

*Maybe the search function has improved*. However, punctuation made a difference.

Someone searching for "test quiz" *in a forum* might not find the thread called "test/quiz". The serach function, at one time, seemed to treat something like "test/quiz" as one word.


----------

