# Wait for context



## zanzi

Why are the moderators removing messages - "while waiting for context" ? We cannot start the dialogue ? We cannot attempt an answer ?
This is a bit .... surprising to say the least !!!!!


----------



## wildan1

Hello zanzi,

As you see, we have moved the question you raised in a discussion in the French-English Forum to this forum, where such procedural questions are welcome (we do not allow the discussion of moderator actions within language forum discussions--those types of comments are distracting for future readers of the discussion who just want an answer.)

When a question is asked with little or no context, we do prefer that others wait until the OP comes back to provide the context that our guidelines state should be offered when a question is first asked. Otherwise, the discussion develops into a guessing game among other members and often the information provided does not correspond to the actual context once that context is known.


----------



## Peterdg

wildan1 said:


> When a question is asked with little or no context, we do prefer that others wait until the OP comes back to provide the context that our guidelines state should be offered when a question is first asked. Otherwise, the discussion develops into a guessing game among other members and often the information provided does not correspond to the actual context once that context is known.


Exactly, and I wholeheartedly support this policy.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

zanzi said:


> We cannot start the dialogue ? We cannot attempt an answer ?


No, you should not - Answers given to context-free questions are usually nothing more than useless shots in the dark


----------



## JamesM

Paulfromitaly said:


> No, you should not - Answers given to context-free questions are usually nothing more than useless shots in the dark



I can attest to the fact that we've had many threads that zoomed along with several posts without context based on assumptions, only to be completely derailed when the original poster finally supplied some context.

The rule isn't there to be difficult.  It's there to avoid the problems that pop up with no context.


----------



## atcheque

Bonjour,

When a (1st) reply is request for context, it is mocking to offer a guessing game that would lead to a trimming action (and time) by the moderators.


----------



## velisarius

This is one of my favourite context-less threads that rambled on for 50 posts without really getting anywhere:
Concubin [masculine concubine?]


----------



## Sepia

Generally true, but there are cases where the question is totally clear, no doubt what is meant etc., and still some ask for more context as a matter of principle.


----------



## Peterdg

Sepia said:


> Generally true, but there are cases where the question is totally clear, no doubt what is meant etc., and still some ask for more context as a matter of principle.


Do you have an example?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Sepia said:


> there are cases where the question is totally clear, no doubt what is meant


That's just your assumption.
What is clear to you or to any fluent speaker may not be clear to a language learner.


----------



## Parla

The problem is (I'm speaking of English, the only forum in which I'm active) that some words and phrases can be used in multiple contexts with distinctly different meanings. The learner of the language may have seen only one and may be unaware of the others. Example: What does "gather" mean? Just off the top of my head:
I'm going to the woods to *gather* flowers.
The gang *gathered* together on the street corner.
The room had been *gathering* dust for months.
I *gather*, from what you said, that . . .
There's a storm *gathering*.
The skirt is *gathered* at the waist.
As the road descended, the car *gathered* speed.


----------



## JamesM

Exactly.  Or "What does booked mean"?

The suspect was booked for manslaughter.
The cops showed up so we booked it.
I'm booked this week.  How about next week?
I'm sorry but the hotel is booked up.
Considerable tonnage was booked at $6.10.
The feisty football star was booked twice in five minutes.


----------



## atcheque

*FR: link to sign up*


atcheque said:


> We still need context about how is written that e-mail.
> If the mail does contain previous personal pronouns: _vous inscrire_; otherwise: _s'inscrire_.
> I am guessing:
> The WordReference Grammar University organises a conference. _ lien pour [soumettre un contexte et] *s'*inscrire._
> The WordReference Grammar University invites *you *to its conference. _ lien pour [soumettre *votre *contexte et] *vous *inscrire._
> 
> Detail context is always required.
> Un contexte détaillé *vous *est toujours demandé


----------



## velisarius

I mostly answer questions in EO. One or two sentences explaining the context and why the question is being asked often give us some idea of the standard of the OP's English, and that's very important when it's a new member. It's embarrassing sometimes when you answer a question that seems to be very basic - and it turns out that the OP is doing a PhD in linguistics was expecting a more sophisticated approach.  

Conversely, we may go into nit-picking detail on a subject, whereas the OP just wants some simple guidance. That's both frustrating for the OP and embarrassing for the person who answered the question. 

If it isn't a new member, and they provide no context, I tend to put that down to sheer laziness - and I'd probably not bother to answer it at all.


----------



## velisarius

I came upon this old (closed) thread today, and I think the discussion about the need for context and the impossibility of there ever being words with "no context",  is rather interesting:
Disrupting / Disruptive


----------



## chamyto

By the way, I wonder (when it concerns to a thread that has a "waiting for context" ) how much time that thread is "open" to the whole members if context is not provided, but required.
Thank you.


----------



## elroy

chamyto said:


> how much time that thread is "open" to the whole members


I’m not sure I’ve understood your question.  When a thread has that tag, no one can post in it except for the OP or a moderator.


----------



## swift

I think the question is whether there is a deadline to supply context after which the thread will be closed and deleted.


----------



## elroy

No, there is no single established time frame.  This is generally decided on a case-by-case basis.  For example, if the OP hasn’t been back online since the request for context, the moderators may decide to wait a bit longer.  If the OP has been back (and active) but hasn’t supplied context, the moderators may decide to go ahead and delete the thread.


----------



## chamyto

elroy said:


> I’m not sure I’ve understood your question.  When a thread has that tag, no one can post in it except for the OP or a moderator.



I mean. When someone opens a new thread and context is required by a moderator, but this (context) is not provided. How much time is the thread visible to the "foreros" until the thread is deleted? Thank you.


----------



## elroy

Thank you for clarifying.

Please see my post above.


----------

