can mods say why they lock a thread?

[Mr. Retrofire]

can mods say why they lock a thread?

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.

I hope you will be the next Mod here on MR, so that you can lock 50 threads/day with your complete explanation for each locked thread (500 words minimum). Yeah, that sounds funny.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

...moderator shows up and closes the thread on Yosemite looks terrible! (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/yosemite-looks-terrible.1751546/page-131#post-21546522) for no other reason than apparently they are sick of reading it. Since when do the rules on here state moderators can close threads for no other reason than personal dislike of the topic? If a thread is healthy and people are obeying the forum rules, it should stay open...

The Yosemite Looks Terrible thread is obese, not healthy. 😀

 

[grahamperrin]

The Yosemite Looks Terrible thread …

… had no contribution from Mr. Retrofire; I'll place greater value on judgements from people who contributed.

 

[spinedoc77]

From can mods say why they lock a thread?:







Again with respect: my experience, before I chose to actively participate at MacRumors, proved otherwise.

Many deserving topics were overlooked. I was never a moderator but I did occasionally step away from the rushing, noisiest areas to answer as many as possible of the questions that everyone else had ignored. Some of those questions were from newcomers, or relative newcomers. I hoped to make those people feel welcome.

I think we disagree with what is "deserving". I believe a topic that has more responses, attention, link clicks, etc is the more deserving. Newcomers can get their information from stickied topics, FAQ's, etc. Although I don't really understand why a newcomer would need any sort of special attention other than familiarizing them with the forum layout and rules. A topic is a topic, you contribute to it, you read and learn from it, you discuss things, etc. If a topic is popular it deserves to stay, if it's not it deserves to leave. Why should a newcomer have more power to keep a weak topic alive?

 

[spinedoc77]

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

This is understandable, thanks for posting some of the process. Mods are policed by the mod community. I also agree about how some threads can be predictable in which direction they will head into. It's a shame that's the case, but that's just human nature where everything is always "versus". Once again I didn't see why the thread was closed, most likely there are deleted and edited posts I didn't see. My main point was just wondering out loud if there was an official policy of leaving a comment on a closed thread and I got my answer.

This is with respect for the tough job you guys do. I was a senior mod on one of the most popular Harley Davidson forums on the web and you can imagine how inflamed those guys got. After 3 years it wasn't something I could deal with anymore, especially on a volunteer level.

 

[grahamperrin]

… Why should a newcomer have more power to keep a weak topic alive?

I didn't imagine that.

For anyone who read the post before it was moved to this topic: the topic in which I originally posted would have put things in context.

Apologies for any confusion. Given the movement of content and loss of context, I should probably drop the issue here.

 

[grahamperrin]

On openness

… My main point was just wondering out loud …

Yes! I'll spend a year's worth of thumbs up on that essential point! I do wholeheartedly support a culture that can foster reasonable, open discussion about discussion. Keywords:

1. meta
2. open
3. reasonable.

As I know from personal experience that public discussion of MacRumors Forums moderation may result in me being banned (and I plead – here – to not be banned, again, for making that simple observation), so … it may be safe/reasonable to draw a parallel with the Stack Exchange experience. Also, please don't misconstrue this as encouragement to people to jump ship from MacRumors to Ask Different; it's not (I began there before becoming active here).


Meta

http://meta.stackexchange.com – "…where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 146 Stack Exchange communities.". At first glance, not exciting but then you have tags such as deleted-questions and closed-questions. More generally:

• Fastest Gun in the West Problem – in the top three
• Encouraging people to explain downvotes – three votes away from the top ten
• Could we please be a bit nicer to new users? – with 1,373 votes, that's extraordinarily popular

– one thing alone is more popular: the answers to FAQ.

Of those 146 communities, one is Ask Different – for the Apple community. A small selection from Ask Different meta:

• closed-questions
• Why was this question downvoted? – with a same-day response, and the person asking the question accepted that answer on the same day
• Requesting re-open votes for a question
• Why was my question closed?
• Changes are coming to the close process. What custom reasons might help this site best?

– whilst MacRumors is not purely a Q&A site, that last example may be viewed as somewhat relevant to the opening question here; can mods say why they lock a thread?


Openness

At least in meta areas of Stack Exchange:

• openness breeds respect

– I should describe that one point as indisputable.

Concerning Apple Developer Forums where, for years, things were somewhat closed and secretive:

It may take years to change the mindsets of Apple Developer Program members who learnt to look beyond Apple Developer Forums for answers.

 

[maflynn]

Mods are policed by the mod community.

The admins have final say, any questions/disputes regarding moderation go before the administrators who review the actions and respond back to the individual.

 

[I7guy]

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.

Given the daily volume and keeping things running smoothly from my limited observations the way things are set up appear to be fair to all.

 

[annk]

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. 😉

… had no contribution from Mr. Retrofire; I'll place greater value on judgements from people who contributed.

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.

 

[stridemat]

All administrators carry a whip. 😉

Totally off topic, but tell me about it! 😉

 

[spinedoc77]

I didn't imagine that.

For anyone who read the post before it was moved to this topic: the topic in which I originally posted would have put things in context.

Apologies for any confusion. Given the movement of content and loss of context, I should probably drop the issue here.

No apologies necessary, it's a great discussion. I still am not understanding your point 100% though.

 

[lowendlinux]

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.

Transparent internally but not externally which what I believe people are asking for. While I think you guys do make the best out of the sandwich your about as clear as mud on why you folks do stuff. I neither need nor want to see the decision process but more transparency would be nice.
===
The flip side is that we need to look in the mirror as a community when it comes to the content too. We as posters need to disengage when things are going around in circles, you're not going to change minds in many of these threads especially in the alternatives section and no companies honor needs to be defended.

 

[maflynn]

Transparent internally but not externally which what I believe people are asking for. While I think you guys do make the best out of the sandwich your about as clear as mud on why you folks do stuff.

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?

 

[lowendlinux]

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?

Pointing out the rule violation would be good. "this thread has run it's course" while probably true is vague. The statement could say somthing to the effect that "this thread has had to many reports and is closed" "due to continued rule violations of this thread is closed". By being efficient in removing posts that break the rules people don't see the train wreck, then with a cryptic close note or no note people ask questions and threads like this start. I know there is a balance that needs to be maintained especially on a site as active as this one and you folks do it well generally but like all things it can be improved. Maybe a solution would be something like the Arch community does and have a MacRumors bike shed (Topic going nowhere) that can't be viewed by everyone so lurkers don't see it to preserve the MacRumors business and keep the people that want to go around in circles happy.

 

[OllyW]

Maybe a solution would be something like the Arch community does and have a MacRumors bike shed (Topic going nowhere) that can't be viewed by everyone so lurkers don't see it to preserve the MacRumors business and keep the people that want to go around in circles happy.

Do you mean an unmoderated forum with relaxed rules?

 

[lowendlinux]

Do you mean an unmoderated forum with relaxed rules?

Bike shed isn’t really unmoderated nor are the rules more relaxed but the threads that add nothing to the community and are totally subjective but do not break the rules. In the context of that forum would be questions which desktop should I use, how do I install arch, etc. If folks want to go answer they can but it doesn’t interrupt the main forum. Here it would by like moving a thread to wasteland but not locking it but then blocking access to it until you reach a certain benchmark.

 

[balamw]

Bike shed isn’t really unmoderated nor are the rules more relaxed but the threads that add nothing to the community and are totally subjective but do not break the rules. In the context of that forum would be questions which desktop should I use, how do I install arch, etc. If folks want to go answer they can but it doesn’t interrupt the main forum. Here it would by like moving a thread to wasteland but not locking it but then blocking access to it until you reach a certain benchmark.

MOD NOTE: We don't generally close or Wasteland threads that do not break the rules. What you describe is more like our Community Discussion subforum.

B

 

[lowendlinux]

MOD NOTE: We don't generally close or Wasteland threads that do not break the rules. What you describe is more like our Community Discussion subforum.

B

Not really, the community discussion is just talk. I've seen a few threads in in wasteland that are not locked but a vast majority are. Maybe a halfway measure would be public admonish posts that are deemed on line or tangential. What seems to happen when threads start to go off the rails is you lock them, clean them up, then re-open. This thread was based on the closure of a thread in the alternatives section and that section seems draw the most drama. There are threads there that I won't open if I see particular posters have posted there because as soon as they do the thread devolves with the same posters saying the same things. No one is really breaking any rules but the topic is only tangentially being discussed these are the threads that need bike shedded/wastelanded. In the end I'm just trying to think out loud and reach some sort of middle ground. I generally agree with the decisions you folks make but making them more clearly and openly and perhaps stepped would be better.

**What I'm trying to describe in the Arch BBS is somewhat difficult because the ethos and culture is different and in order to understand it you need to be a part of it. I DON'T want this place to turn into the Arch BBS it's very dictatorial and the mindset of the posters here is different. There there is a multilevel barrier of entry and you really have to want to be there so the mindset, ideas, and ethos are shared amongst posters.**

 

[annk]

@lowendlinux, if I understand what you're asking for, it's something we can't be more specific about because of the privacy policy. Why a post was removed or edited is a matter between the post author and the moderators; we don't discuss specific moderation done with anyone other than the member involved.

If a thread is closed because of multiple rules violations and the situation was unusually bad, we'll occasionally mention that fact in a closing post. Why don't we always mention the types of problems that caused the closure? Our job isn't to wag fingers publically. We address problems directly with the members involved.

It's already been said, but when we close a thread because it's going nowhere, that means that 1) the same arguments are going in circles with no new direction to the discussion, things are devolving into insults and bickering, and there have been multiple reports of genuine problems. The thread has simply taken a disproportionate amount of moderator time at the expense of other threads and forum issues needing attention.

The bottom line: We don't like to close threads, and only do it when - after discussion - we feel it's necessary.

 

[AlliFlowers]

Honestly....this thread should be closed. LOL! It really has run its course.

 

[annk]

Honestly....this thread should be closed. LOL! It really has run its course.

I'm not sure if you're joking, so I'll give you a serious answer!

This thread may well have run its course, but after only four days it can be hard to tell. Personally, I'd leave it open for two reasons:

• More members might have questions, and
• We really try to NOT close SSF threads in particular, since the whole point is to have an open line for input about the site.

 

[AlliFlowers]

I'm not sure if you're joking, so I'll give you a serious answer!

This thread may well have run its course, but after only four days it can be hard to tell. Personally, I'd leave it open for two reasons:

• More members might have questions, and
• We really try to NOT close SSF threads in particular, since the whole point is to have an open line for input about the site.

In retrospect, I was half joking. There comes a point, in a thread like this, where it starts to sound like us against them. I think the mods have stated their case very well...several times.

 

[grahamperrin]

No apologies necessary, it's a great discussion. I still am not understanding your point 100% though.

Sorry, I can't discuss it.

 

[spinedoc77]

Transparent internally but not externally which what I believe people are asking for. While I think you guys do make the best out of the sandwich your about as clear as mud on why you folks do stuff. I neither need nor want to see the decision process but more transparency would be nice.
===
The flip side is that we need to look in the mirror as a community when it comes to the content too. We as posters need to disengage when things are going around in circles, you're not going to change minds in many of these threads especially in the alternatives section and no companies honor needs to be defended.

I agree about the community part, but if you look on the forums 99% of responses are just people airing their opinion and nothing more. If we took out all the opinions there literally would be NO forum here. I also agree about transparency, to not take the 10 seconds to write an explanation is definitely goofy. Saying "this thread has run its course" is goofy as well. I felt frustration when I tuned into a thread I was following closely and didn't see any issues with , unless the mods really are that quick to delete posts, and found it was closed. I'm not saying it's a regular occurrence, but by the same token it's not the first time I've seen it happen and my intention was to ask about the official policy. The mods relayed the official policy so my question was answered.