# long threads locked



## jonquiliser

I've seen a few threads locked, seemingly because they were long. The threads I have in mind complied, as far as I could see, with all rules, but they were locked anyway. One had an explanation: the thread would be too long to read (!). But the posts were still answering the initial question. The other had no explanation, it was just locked. I can't address this to the moderator in question, as I obviously don't know who it was.

I'd like to know, why is it a problem that a thread gets long? No one is forced to read it, but those who want, could do so. Otherwise, the topic is simply excluded for discussion altogether: the existing thread is locked, new threads can't be opened because there already is one...!

 (and a little annoyed).


----------



## Etcetera

Hi Jonquiliser,
I've seen such threads, and the reasons for locking them were explained by the moderator. I remember that several threads were locked because new posts were no longer useful and didn't add anything to already posted ones. And it was pretty hard to disagree.
I suppose that if you come across a locked thread and feel that you can add something relevant, you can contact a moderator and ask him/her if the thread might be opened again.
At least, that is what Jana337 suggested once or twice in the Slavic Languages Forums when closing threads which were becomning pure chat.


----------



## jonquiliser

Hmm, then I think we might have interpreted the threads differently. The ones I'm talking about were not useless at all. In fact, one of them is probably one of the threads I've learnt the most from in a long, long while. Some might have called it 'chat', but if so, it must be admitted it was chat of the most splendid kind. And anyway, this "no-chat" rule is getting on my nerves, as it seems that anything that isn't a dictionary-style comment can be considered chat. Well, when I want a dictionary I go for one. The thread I mentioned was very creative language use. That I can't find in a dictionary. Why is it necessary to see problems in everything?

Ok, ranting. Of course there should be rules, and mods do their best. It's important to spot problems and deal with them. But it's also important to think about _why_ something is considered a problem. I'm not convinced there is something so clear that says these kinds of situations -for example the kind of threads I'm refering to- are a problem.


----------



## Jana337

> I can't address this to the moderator in question, as I obviously don't know who it was.


How about dropping a message to any moderator of that forum, then? 

This nebulous rant is hopelessly unproductive.


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, of course it's unproductive as long as it is decided beforehand that no suggestionsor criticisms will be taken seriously.


----------



## Etcetera

I guess you might be talking, among others threads, about the one called Funny/embarrassing mistakes in a foreign country. 
Yes, it was a pity that this thread was closed. Although a 21-page-thread isn't the easiest to read, it was, I think, one of the most enjoable here. And it's a oity that new members won't see it - just because the thread now belongs to the archive.
So, I totally agree with you here.


----------



## jonquiliser

Yep, Etcetera, that was one of the threads I mean. It's true 21 pages is much, but then, no one has to read it! (And at least I'm not the only one then! Thanks )


----------



## ireney

What I do consider as unproductive is assuming the worst. Have you contacted one/any of the moderators asking for a thread to be re-opened because you have something to add and you got a negative reply? I assume (and that's just what I surmise from your posts in this thread) that you haven't. 

How can you then consider that "it is decided beforehand that no suggestion or criticisms will be taken seriously".

Have moderators been unresponsive to all suggestions and/or criticism? Has a particular one done so? (and we are not talking about tongue-in-the-cheek replies accompanied by smilies to show that that is the mood in which these comments are made). If so please contact either another moderator or the owner of the site with appropriate quotes/links.


Now I think Etcetera has replied to your question thoroughly. If you have something to add to a specific thread, something that is contributing something to the discussion of the question in hand, contact a moderator.

Please consider the problem adding posts that add no new information creates. The majority of people hardly ever go back any further than the second page of topics/threads in any given forum. A post that adds nothing new just "bumps" a conversation up and consequently "bumps" another down. I think it is fair to say that it is better if the threads that "take the spotlight" are the ones in which the discussion is flourishing and not the ones in which people just repeat the same things. 
If one is interested in one of these he/she can still read it. If someone has something new to add he/she can do so after contacting a moderator. Sadly people do not read through long threads as a norm and post without making sure no one else has posted what they have in mind.


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, I was refering to Jana's post in this thread when saying that no suggestion or criticism will be taken seriously - I'm not assuming the worst, I'm just stating that if the answer is "this is unproductive" (and no further viewpoint added), well, what can I say? It's not taken seriously, full stop. 

As I said, the thread that I discovered today had no moderator note, thus no explanation nor information of who had locked it. Yes, I can contact someone to get permission to add one message. But that is not what I want, nor my point. OTHERS were writing interesting answers, that I read with huge interest. Now anybody who would like to add something has to contact a mod, in order to possibly have one message added. This means, effectively, that the thread dies. First of all, because the step to write becomes about tenfold. Second, because it won't happen 'naturally', i.e., that people simply add their contributions. If that is the point of the forum, well, again, what can I say? It just makes things about ten times less nice.


----------



## Jana337

jonquiliser said:


> Well, I was refering to Jana's post in this thread when saying that no suggestion or criticism will be taken seriously - I'm not assuming the worst, I'm just stating that if the answer is "this is unproductive" (and no further viewpoint added), well, what can I say? It's not taken seriously, full stop.


Please do not twist my words.  I said that the way you did it - a vague complaint here - was unproductive. I suggested that you should contact a moderator privately and talk about the specific case. Sure, we can have a general discussion about closing threads but that way, you are unlikely to learn about the thread you are interested in.


----------



## ireney

True, in an ideal situation we wouldn't even think of locking up threads just as we wouldn't even think of doing any of the moderating we actually do. Unfortunately moderators have to step in some times, trying to keep an balance between what the ideal is and what reality dictates.

Rules are often suffocating and frustrating. I currently have to go through a rather bureaucratical procedure and even answer some rather ridiculous _for my case_ questions. It'd be nice if all these rules weren't there and it makes things about 10000 times less nice than the alternative but since there is a very valid point behind these particular rules and this particular procedure I can grumble but not really complain 

Wish we could do without rules in this forum and in general but alas!

As to Jana's post, well I'm not Jana so I can't tell you what she thought when she wrote it but the way I read it what it says is asking you (in an admitedly teasing way) to follow Etcetera's advice (dropping a message to any moderator of that forum), mentioning the specific thread(s) that you are talking about (nebulous) and teasing you about your referring to what you said in post#1 as rant (rant  )


----------



## jonquiliser

So if I mention the threads, I risk offending both moderators and the rules that state moderators actions shouldn't be discussed openly (!), and if I don't, it's nebulous ranting. Splendid, it is. I actually _chose_ to be unspecific, to get a _general_ discussion about some aspects of the forum rules.

And of course, I agree some rules are necessary and it's sad they are (or is it? Should people automatically follow the kind of rules there are here?! Could that seriously mean chat is something petty or even stupid?!), but that doesn't mean rules can't be discussed and reflected on. They can even change. And also, the interpretation of them can vary in time and from individual to individual... So discussing rules seems the most natural thing - not only individually with a moderator. Anyway, blabla.

Admittedly, I was annoyed before when posting and that's never a good moment to do it.. So yes, it was ranting, because I could have made my point briefer. But the point I wanted to make is something I still think.


----------



## ireney

jonquiliser it is true that the interpretation may vary in time and from individual to individual because I see you've interpreted what I posted in a way I most surely didn't mean.

Let's try to see if I can make my self clear._ A_ set of rule is necessary. The fact that this or that rule prohibit something does not necessarily make that "something" petty, stupid or anything else of that nature. It makes it against the rules. This site has certain rules. Rules I might add that were in place (most of them at least) before I joined up but all of which I have agreed to keep. 

Does this mean no suggestions or criticising is possible? If it were so there wouldn't be a section dedicated to this and/or no moderator would try to explain his/her/our stand and reasoning.

You asked a generic question and I gave you a generic answer. However it is quite clear that you had a specific case in mind. Asking why a specific thread was locked is quite different from asking why some threads are locked in general.

Just so we are clear: Do you disagree with the practise of locking up threads altogether? If so what do you suggest we should do instead (keeping in mind that we're all volunteers and have therefore to earn our living else-how -never mind personal life -mine is non-existent right now anyway  -).

If it is indeed for this or any other particular thread you want to enquire well, in that case, you should ask about this or any other particular thread you have in mind.

As an aside, you don't offend any moderator although it is against the rules to discuss moderator actions in public. If we were so sensitive we would be bad moderators indeed. Since it is against the rules however, and there is the alternative of Private Messaging, you can use this and get your answer without violating any of the rules.
And as you can see from Etcetera's second post on this thread, it's not as if we enforce this rule with an iron fist or something


----------



## jonquiliser

Hi again-

Really, I try not to care about what the forum rules are, whether I find them nonsensical or not. Of course I don't think locking threads is always undesireable (although the inflation in lockings scares me). But yesterday, when I found this really creative, funny and clever stream of thoughts cut, without any explanation even, I got really upset. For goodness' sake, it's a language forum, not a dictionary! 



> _A_ set of rule is necessary. The fact that this or that rule prohibit something does not necessarily make that "something" petty, stupid or anything else of that nature. It makes it against the rules.


 
Yes, well, I was actually being, unfortunate though it is, ironic, referring to a previous post of yours.

Anyway. To be left about here. No matter what I may think though, I'm sorry if (that) I came across as respectless. I know perfectly well that mods do this volunteerily and it's no easy task anywhere, less so in a large forum like this.

Regards.


----------



## geve

Jana337 said:


> I can't address this to the moderator in question, as I obviously don't know who it was.
> 
> 
> 
> How about dropping a message to any moderator of that forum, then?
Click to expand...

As a general comment, it would be nice to always post a closing comment, especially when a thread has had many posts and participants - out of respect for the participants for one thing, and also because it seems troublesome to send a PM to 8 or 13 mods about one single thread. If a mod closes a thread, it must be for a reason; so why not share it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

geve said:


> If a mod closes a thread, it must be for a reason; so why not share it.


This thread has not provided any specific examples of *long threads* that were closed without a message indicating why. I suspect that any that exist were closed long ago when the forums were smaller and moderators provided less 'documentation.' I certainly see a practice now (at least in the forums I frequent) of noting why threads are being closed.

Elisabetta


----------



## mickaël

TrentinaNE said:


> This thread has not provided any specific examples of *long threads* that were closed without a message indicating why.


This one yesterday (but I think it's because the same things are repeated) and the thread with the jokes, for instance, which had been closed (then deleted?) in January or February of this year (and here I suppose it's because this old thread didn't fit with the rules of the Cultural forum).

Anyway, long thread or not, sometimes it's a bit frustrating not to have any explanations. It looks like a bit arbitrary, even if it's certainly not the case...


----------



## geve

To provide another example, earlier this week a long thread in French-English was closed without notice and de-bumped - but a closing post was added after I sent a PM to the 8 active mods of that forum. 


TrentinaNE said:


> I certainly see a practice now (at least in the forums I frequent) of noting why threads are being closed.


It is a good practice indeed, and worth mentioning here as a reminder.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

jonquiliser said:


> So if I mention the threads, I risk offending both moderators and the rules that state moderators actions shouldn't be discussed openly (!), and if I don't, it's nebulous ranting. Splendid, it is. [...]


I couldn't agree more, it's « la quadrature du cercle » !  (squaring the circle)
I don't understand why PM to mods are encouraged to such an extent. I prefer the transparency of this forum to PM where we could run the risk not to be answered at all or answered with a copy/paste of a rule we already know (at best) or even answered harshly (at worst).
We must not fear to discuss frankly some general issues in public for the benefit of the whole forum (here, into this forum which name is..."Comments & Suggestions".).
As for the threads closure, I must admit I miss at least the one refered by Anna too... (but not only)
About the "silent closures", I agree that they're frustrating, and I hope mods will post an explanation every time it's possible.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Usually by the time a thread reaches eighteen pages the topic has been well and truly bludgeoned to death.  In some cases the topic, such as an exchange of jokes, is beyond the revised parameters of the forum.

If the topic of a closed thread _is still within the forum parameters_, there is no problem with opening a new thread which addresses the topic from a different angle.

Usually the moderators explain the reason for closure.  However, speaking for myself, I have very occasionally closed down the odd thread without an explanation .... because I thought that an explanation was unneccesary.  In each of these cases, the thread was a very old one that was well and truly beyond the parameters of Cultura, but had been allowed to linger for a while under a "grandfather clause".  Other moderators probably had similar reasons.  

Notification of the reasons behind closing or removing a thread is a courtesy, but by no means mandatory.


----------



## geve

Sure, courtesy is never mandatory, but it helps to make the world a nicer place to live... 

Besides, silent closures are also anonymous, so it looks a bit as if the person who closed the thread wasn't quite ready to take responsibility for it. I'm not saying it is the case, but that's how it can come across.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

I'm sure there is always a good reason to close a thread. It just has to be explained clearly. Not only for courtesy reasons but, especially, to maintain the standard of the site.


----------



## ampurdan

I don't know exactly how this issue is dealt with in the Cultural Discussions forum, which is a very special one. One must bear in mind that all the forums are a complement to the dictionary and, CD is a complement to find an answer to some questions that cannot be answered in the other forums, which does not mean that what does not fit in a language forum, fits in CD.

In the Spanish forums and I'd say that anywhere else, mods post a public notice when a discussion is still alive and hot. If not, there's no reason why to draw attention to something to which other foreros won't be able to participate in. A public notice will always bump the thread to the beginning of the first page of the forum. 

We close long-lived threads that for some reason were tolerated but are of little or no use to anyone anymore, without notice. These can be threads about "list requests" and the like. If someone finds one of these threads and is still curious why they are closed, they can always contact a moderator.


----------



## maraba

Hi.

As much as my own experience is concerned, I submit that it is not unreasonable at all to ask for a more sensible moderators' intervention, and for a less impetuous deleting arm.


----------



## elroy

And I would suggest that it's not unreasonable to expect everyone not to make a mountain out of a molehill (are uncommented closures really all that common?) and not to assume the worst (did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the moderator accidentally forgot to post a comment? Or was busy at the moment, meant to get back to it, and simply didn't?).

Please realize that moderators do not enjoy closing threads. We do it only when we feel that we have to, and we always have a reason in mind. Should we fail to publicly announce that reason, please contact us and we will be happy to share it. Don't know which moderator closed the thread? No problem. Contact any moderator and ask. Our moderator tools allow us to find out which moderator closed any given thread.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

elroy said:


> [...] it's not unreasonable to expect everyone[...] not to assume the worst [...]


I could'nt agree more !  And this works on both senses.


----------



## TrentinaNE

maraba said:


> Hi.
> 
> As much as my own experience is concerned, I submit that it is not unreasonable at all to ask for a more sensible  *(????)* moderators' intervention, and for a less impetuous deleting arm.


Just as it's not unreasonable to expect forer@s to read the WR rules and not open inappropriate threads that moderators will have no choice but to close or delete.    In my experience, there is very little impetuousness and a great deal of sense on display in WR moderator actions.  And I believed that before I became one.  

Elisabetta


----------



## englishman

elroy said:


> (did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the moderator accidentally forgot to post a comment? Or was busy at the moment, meant to get back to it, and simply didn't?).



That's a technical matter; it may be sensible to modify the forum software so that threads cannot be closed without a comment being added.



> Please realize that moderators do not enjoy closing threads. We do it only when we feel that we have to, and we always have a reason in mind.


elroy, I suspect that you made that statement in good faith, but it comes across as remarkably condescending. You, the moderators, a saintly bunch, only close threads for the good of the community, and if you have to, you always have a reason in mind ... which may be beyond the trivial intellects of the run-of-the-mill poster. 

If you have a reason in mind, just post it. Don't let people guess.



> Should we fail to publicly announce that reason, please contact us and we will be happy to share it. Don't know which moderator closed the thread? No problem. Contact any moderator and ask. Our moderator tools allow us to find out which moderator closed any given thread.


That's ludicrously inefficient. There is precisely one "closer of a thread". There is, in general, a large number of people who read a thread - if each of them contact you about the closure of a thread, you're generating a vast amount of unnecessary work, both for them and for you.


----------



## elroy

englishman said:


> That's a technical matter; it may be sensible to modify the forum software so that threads cannot be closed without a comment being added.


 No, it wouldn't be. There are a variety of situations in which threads are closed. Most forum stickies are closed, for example, and sometimes when we are about to split part of a thread to make it a new one we close it temporarily and reopen it once the splitting is complete. 





> elroy, I suspect that you made that statement in good faith, but it comes across as remarkably condescending. You, the moderators, a saintly bunch, only close threads for the good of the community, and if you have to, you always have a reason in mind ... which may be beyond the trivial intellects of the run-of-the-mill poster.


 Yes, that's exactly how I meant it. Come on now! Could we please try not to be over-sensitive? I was clearly responding to the insinuations that uncommented closures may imply that the closure is unfounded or unjustifiable. 





> If you have a reason in mind, just post it. Don't let people guess.
> 
> That's ludicrously inefficient. There is precisely one "closer of a thread". There is, in general, a large number of people who read a thread - if each of them contact you about the closure of a thread, you're generating a vast amount of unnecessary work, both for them and for you.


 Did I not make it clear enough that closing a thread without a comment is a rare occurrence? Actually, I personally never (intentionally) do it, and I recognize that it's not an ideal scenario. The point I was trying to make was that if it does happen, you shouldn't assume the worst and you should contact a moderator if it's so important for you to find out why it was closed. As I said above, the moderator may have simply forgotten to post a note, and your PM might serve as a reminder. And don't worry, we don't mind getting lots of PM's. It's par for the course if you're a mod.


----------



## geve

TrentinaNE said:


> Just as it's not unreasonable to expect forer@s to read the WR rules and not open inappropriate threads that moderators will have no choice but to close or delete.


We are talking here about threads that are locked after an extended discussion, so they cannot be threads that obviously fall beyond the scope of the forum.  At least it was not the case in the long threads closures I have witnessed. For instance, the thread on language mistakes doesn't seem obviously inappropriate on a forum that revolves entirely around language and gathers language learners from all over the world. 



TrentinaNE said:


> In my experience, there is very little impetuousness and a great deal of sense on display in WR moderator actions. And I believed that before I became one.


I too believed that - before you became a mod.  (Kidding!!  ) That's why I wrote that it can come across as being arbitrary or on the sly when it's probably not. 
Foreros have to understand that mods have a reason, mods have to understand that foreros would like to be informed of the reason.


----------



## badgrammar

My "comment" is that I do regret the closing of the joke thread, and don't quite understand what made it beyond the scope of the forum...  Humor is such an important part of language and is very particular and relevant to each culture.  Oh, well...


----------



## maraba

We affected foreros are likely to be exaggerated about this issue, but just to the extent that perhaps you mods are prone to minimize it.

At any rate, we are together talking about this, and I dare say it is good.

I think that when someone emits a question on a matter about a language foreign to him/her, there could exist a situation of real disadvantage because of the needful linguistic resources s/he may lack. However, we always rely on you to solve it, in spite of the stuck rules.


----------

