No. I think it takes too much time. Just because a small number of forum members think they deserve an explanation does not mean that they get one.
MOD NOTE:
The mod team works as a team. Even though you may see one of us take a particular action, that is usually done after consultation with other members of the team. And it is always done in plain sight of the rest of the team and the admins. Neither of these threads were closed down by a rogue individual mod. Both were closed by a consensus decision by several members of the team.
We've got a large body of experience to draw on where we have a pretty good idea of where a thread is going when we see particular type of behavior in it as reported by the membership. (Even those mods who are kind of new like @SandboxGeneral, who have only been moderators for over 2.5 years)
As @spinedoc77 suggests, catch-all threads that are largely subjective in nature, such as both "Samsung Innovating Hard" or "Yosemite Looks Terrible" have a limited life span before they devolve into bickering or drag in other topics and thus lose their original focus. They tend to have a good initial run, particularly during the initial period when a new product is introduced and change is immediately apparent, but as time goes on that value diminishes rapidly.
In particular with the Yosemite thread: When a thread has been going on for a year and 3000+ posts it's very easy for the same topics to be hashed and rehashed and rehashed. At this point it would be better to start a new specific thread about a specific thing in Yosemite or El Capitan that "looks terrible" rather than to keep posting in a catch all, initial reaction, thread.
Please also note that we used to limit threads to ~1000 posts at which point they would be closed and a new follow on thread created.
Similarly for the Samsung Innovating Hard thread. The general topic is a subjective one which tend to bring out differing opinions and as such can get real personal real fast.
B
The admins have final say, any questions/disputes regarding moderation go before the administrators who review the actions and respond back to the individual.
This is a well run site with a lot of activity. For volunteer work the job is done very well and the mods act like it is a full time paying job.
What the moderators have posted so far in this thread is 100% accurate. When a thread has been closed, there is always a reason firmly anchored in the rules. In addition, it's very often a reason members can't see - because the problems have been removed.
In many cases, moderators use considerable time to edit rather than remove posts. This removes problems when some of a post contributes to a discussion, but some of it is a rules violation. This is very time-consuming, but the moderators do their utmost to allow everything members write within the rules to remain. The goal is to help discussion, not curtail it.
If, however, a thread becomes too time-consuming due to the reasons already listed, it may be closed. Yes, a note is ideal. No, we might not always remember to post a note - or we might close a thread that's causing many problems, go to the "back room" to discuss the issue with the team, and the note gets lost in the shuffle. We'll continue to make an effort to be clear when we close a thread, but the bottom line is that it can be safely assumed that there was a solid reason.
There are no rogue moderators closing threads because they're sick of the subject, don't like the opinions stated, because they just feel like it etc. All moderation is transparent, and moderators are overseen by the administrators (and the other moderators, for that matter). All administrators carry a whip.
Not all members who are interested in a subject will necessarily have something to say in a given thread, but their experience as readers - and therefore input in discussions such as this - is also important.
How so? I think we all communicated that we generally try to provide a reason for closing a thread, i.e., mod note, which is what the OP was wondering. That did not occur to in one situation and as explained that was the exception and not the rule. How else should we be more transparent when closing a thread?
