# after what length of time is a thread with a moderator request reportable



## EStjarn

Here's the scenario: A member starts a thread. A moderator asks the member for additional information, such as context. While waiting for the member to respond, any reply is deleted. The member (i.e. original poster) remains silent.

My question: What is a reasonable length of time to wait for additional information of this kind? That is, after what length of time is the thread reportable?

I ask because in their "waiting state" those threads are no more helpful than closed threads without replies, which in turn have proven at high risk for being removed when reported.


----------



## EStjarn

These are examples gathered from the English Only Forum (though I'm sure this situation is not unique to that forum). The requests were posted between July 17 and August 1. At the time of gathering, the original posters remained silent.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2201267
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2206203
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2207940
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2209869
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2210432
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2212944

Do these kinds of threads become reportable at some point?


----------



## Cagey

We don't have an explicit policy on this.  I don't think we will develop one. 

People occasionally return to thread even a month or two later, though this is unusual.  Speaking only for myself, I would be unlikely to remove a thread that wasn't at least two months old.


----------



## EStjarn

Thanks for the reply!


----------



## SPQR

A search in this forum for "dead threads" might be helpful.


----------



## EStjarn

Thank you, SPQR. On your recommendation, I did the search and was able to find two threads which touch upon and treat, respectively, this topic. They are Reporting old threads and Incomplete threads in dictionary links, the latter from which the following quotations are taken:



TimLA said:


> [Member question] I've noted that on some of the links to forum pages on the bottom of dictionary pages, the threads are "dead" - in the sense that there was a question, and only a mod response asking for more context - no real information. Is it reasonable to "report a post" and have the mods consider deleting them? - thus reducing unnecessary links?





cuchuflete said:


> [Moderator reply] Personally, I would welcome such reports. It may take years to remove all such threads, but each time we reduce their number by one, we make the dictionary search more effective for all who use it.





GavinW said:


> [Member reply] Hang on guys; I say hold your horses. [...] I say the very fact that a particular question has been asked before, even if it got zero answers, or never went anywhere, is positive information (think of the presence/absence issue in statistics). For a start, and at the very least, it is an indication that the term exists.


----------



## SwissPete

Please allow me to ask an additional question: 

Is is reasonable to attempt to answer the OP (even without context or whatever the 
mod asked for) after the thread has been dormant for a week, a month, whatever?

Thank you.


----------



## SPQR

In my opinion, anything that will pop the thread back to the top is helpful.
From my perspective, threads should be treated as follows:
1. Spam thread - urgent report
2. Wrong forum - report
3. Poor/inappropriate question - report
4. Poor question, inadequate context - A question of "philosphy" - you might answer and say "more context please" or you might report it.
___In IE there have been many discussions about "regular foreros" acting like "mods", so I tend to just report.
5. Good question, adequate context, you don't know the answer - I'll often answer the best I can so it pops back to the top - whether it be 1 day or 365 days old.
6. Good question, adequate context, you know the answer - answer.


----------



## Cagey

SwissPete said:


> Please allow me to ask an additional question:
> 
> Is is reasonable to attempt to answer the OP (even without context or whatever the
> mod asked for) after the thread has been dormant for a week, a month, whatever?
> 
> Thank you.


We would still prefer that you not respond. If it has been dormant so long that you think the poster will not return, you could report it.  I know that some good questions get lost this way, but if someone comes along with the same question, they can post it with their own context.  Then they will receive an answer tailored to their context.  

SPQR's summary looks good to me. 

Thank you all for your interest in keeping the forum running smoothly and making it as useful as possible.


----------



## SwissPete

Cagey said:


> We would still prefer that you not respond. If it has been dormant so long that you think the poster will not return, you could report it.  I know that some good questions get lost this way, but if someone comes along with the same question, they can post it with their own context.  Then they will receive an answer tailored to their context.


Thank you.


----------



## swift

Thanks, Cagey. And thank you, EStjarn, this thread was very helpful and came at the right moment.


----------

