# At what point should threads be closed?



## cirrus

Hello there.

I wonder whether there becomes a point beyond which further discussion becomes circular or redundant. One of many examples here. This is particularly an issue in longer threads when later posts cleary demonstrate a failure to read the original post or most subsequent input. 

Has there been any recent discussion around policy for closing threads?  I seem to remember there was a time when threads would occasionally close and re open but it's not something I have come across recently. Is this a question of resources or is it simply a laissez faire approach?

What are your opinions on this?   

All the best


----------



## rusita preciosa

There is an option to unsubscribe from a thread. Once you do, you will not see the replies, and the others could have fun continuing if they want.


----------



## fenixpollo

What do the dictionary users gain by closing a long thread?


----------



## Harry Batt

I'll gladly start a list of points where a thread has no longer anything worthwhile  to offer.   We have moderators who can close if they determine that a lively discussion amounts to no more than chat. They have no rule which gives them the right to close a thread because it has reached too many posts. I would suggest that WR formulate a rule that requires a moderator to shut down a thread when 25 or 30 threads are reached. Those of us who are outside the circle where rules are made can only express opinions.

<< Added >>
In my previous post I wrote, "shut down a thread when 25 or 30 threads are reached."  This should have read ". . . when 25 or 30 posts are reached."


----------



## chamyto

I disagree ,_ HarryBatt_ .

We are entitled to look for in the dictionary expressions , words, whatever... in order to avoid opening unnecessary threads . Doing so , we can continue making a question related to the theme of the subject itself , which it´s different in some way in that thread ( I try to do so ). 
I hope all of you understand my opinion and what I mean .

Chamyto .


----------



## Harry Batt

With what part of my post are you disagreeing, Chamyto? The thread question is whether a thread should be arbitrarily closed.  My point is, if I may quote: _They have no rule which gives them the right to close a thread because it has reached too many posts. I would suggest that WR formulate a rule that requires a moderator to shut down a thread when 25 or 30 threads are reached. _


----------



## chamyto

Harry Batt said:


> With what part of my post are you disagreeing, Chamyto? The thread question is whether a thread should be arbitrarily closed. My point is, if I may quote: _They have no rule which gives them the right to close a thread because it has reached too many posts. I would suggest that WR formulate a rule that requires a moderator to shut down a thread when 25 or 30 threads are reached. _


 
I mean that it could be done ( the close ) with not many threads ( in my opinion ) . Just think if you would like to make a question in that thread and you can´t ( because it´s closed ) And obviously if you open a new one you are doubling threads and making new unnecessary threads . I hope you understand my point of view .


----------



## Mate

-Well, indeed we are all supposed and even told to look for the answer before opening a new thread; that's rule number one! 
But we are beginning to notice a new problem: sometimes a member adds a new related question at the end of an existing thread without getting any response. That question will bump the thread but since the other members see many posts in the postcount, they'll refrain to participate. Some might think the question have been solved, some others might not be tempted to read all 30, 40 or more posts. The thread reached to a dead end. 
It would have been better for the last poster to open another thread with a slightly different title to reflect more precisely the new question (and to get full attention.)

One of our goals is to promote as many useful conversations as possible. The more we have, the richer our database gets. 
But it also has to be useful and readable for searchers, so in order to "save" as many useful threads as we can, what we usually do is to split and change the thread title. In that way it is easier for searchers to find precisely what they are looking for. Sometimes it's worthwhile, sometimes just an impossible task. 

I agree with fenixpollo that long threads are not a problem _per se_. The problem is with the redundant replies (and chat, of course ). In such cases we would usually merge a few threads and discard the redundant posts. A very time-consuming job.


----------



## fenixpollo

Mate said:


> I agree with fenixpollo that long threads are not a problem _per se_.


Just to clarify my post above: I didn't mean to suggest that long threads are not a problem. Maybe they are a problem, and I just haven't considered the issue carefully.

It's just that I haven't seen anyone in this thread give an explanation of the problem that we would be trying to solve. If someone could explain it to me, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Mate

Very long linguistic threads tend to get so long that they are more confusing that helpful to searchers. That could be one of the problems.
A thread with a question that was solved at the sixth post, a simple question with no further ramifications or implications, a really plain question. 
Then some chat. Still on-topic but non-contributive. 
Then someone new appears and asks the same question and there it goes all over again. The person didn't read the thread; he or she went directly to the last box and started all over again.

What would you do in such a case?


----------



## swift

Como yo lo veo, quien plantea la nueva pregunta en el hilo sin prestar atención a los mensajes anteriores no es el único responsable; a lo sumo se convierte en el iniciador de una discusión circular. En buena medida, el problema se podría evitar si los demás foristas nos educáramos un poquito también: sería bueno que también nosotros leyésemos los mensajes anteriores antes de responder al último mensaje publicado.

He visto discusiones con cientos de respuestas en los que se citan las mismas fuentes hasta cinco o seis veces, a menudo citas largas.

He visto hilos en los que la participación de los foristas se convierte en la principal atracción de esas discusiones.

Y eliminar la subscripción a tales hilos no es la solución.


----------



## Mate

swift said:


> He visto discusiones con cientos de respuestas en los que se citan las mismas fuentes hasta cinco o seis veces, a menudo citas largas.
> 
> He visto hilos en los que la participación de los foristas se convierte en la principal atracción de esas discusiones.


Those who report such threads do an immense service to the forum


----------



## cirrus

fenixpollo said:


> It's just that I haven't seen anyone in this thread give an explanation of the problem that we would be trying to solve. If someone could explain it to me, I would appreciate it.



In a nutshell it's this: post 1 posits a problem, posts 2 - 10 come up with various suggestions. Subsequent threads then ignore and or repeat variations of these, possibly adding in a few canards along the way. Even without off topic diversions, this makes WR look overly messy. To my mind, it detracts from its value.


----------



## Sowka

Hello cirrus 



cirrus said:


> In a nutshell it's this: post 1 posits a problem, posts 2 - 10 come up with various suggestions. Subsequent threads then ignore and or repeat variations of these, possibly adding in a few canards along the way. Even without off topic diversions, this makes WR look overly messy. To my mind, it detracts from its value.


 
Closing such a thread might avoid this problem. But it would create a new problem: It would prevent people from posting *good* new solutions in that thread.  I think that a linguistic topic is never fully covered because language evolves, people have different ranges of experience with their language etc. 

Therefore I think our threads should generally stay alive and open to new input.

The only solution that I see: Targeted reporting of such a problematic *post*.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Hello there,



Sowka said:


> [...] I think that a linguistic topic is never fully covered because language evolves, people have different ranges of experience with their language etc.  [...]


Aaaah! Sowka, I couldn't agree more! 
 When I read « redundant » or « non contributive » post, I can't help but think that a post you could qualify this way, I could find it very unique and informative! 
A linguistic forum where you would close threads for such reasons is a potentially dead forum in my opinion. And moreover, an immodest one...

As an aside, the merging threads mania certainly doesn't help the proliferation of the "I-didn't-read-previous-posts-sorry" syndroma...


----------



## wildan1

As a mod, I try to keep threads cleaned up when I see long ones with many redundant or off-topic posts. However, the Spanish and French forums (after 7 years of WRF's existence) are simply too vast to allow our team to review each thread that has been created systematically--each of those two languages has a post count totaling 3 million!

As members, you can help us mods do such clean-up by clicking on the red triangle when you see such long, duplicative or off-topic threads.


----------



## cirrus

wildan1 said:


> However, the Spanish and French forums (after 7 years of WRF's existence) are simply too vast to allow our team to review each thread that has been created systematically--each of those two languages has a post count totaling 3 million!



I feel your pain and understand it does imply mind boggling amounts of work. I still wonder whether it is time for a relaunch. Duplicated garbage is one of major qualm about much of what is out there on the net. The extent that this is mirrored in the intricate undergrowth of the fora does make me wonder how much this detracts from their usefulness. I suspect similar concerns were a major motivator behind the relaunch/ re brand of eurodicatom in its new iate guise. 

I fully recognise it might well be a major can of worms but could there be mileage for taking a page out of proz.com's book and having a _rate this suggestion's accuracy _button?


----------

