PF Culture is Toxic: No Grounds for Thread Closing

[lalekl]

the inability of users to figure out a question is not grounds for closing a thread especially while people are still answering. on top of it, the moderators are needlessly rude. just juvenile and not held to the same standards they demand on people asking questions.

 

[Orodruin]

the inability of users to figure out a question is not grounds for closing a thread especially while people are still answering. on top of it, the moderators are needlessly rude. just juvenile and not held to the same standards they demand on people asking questions.

In my experience, this has never happened and things are most often handled appropriately. I have seen this first-hand from the other side. Any "rudeness" is typically just cutting off someone who is being argumentative and refusing to abide by the PF rules. I do not know anything about your case in point because you say nothing about it, but there are many (many!) possible reasons for closing a thread that will not be visible to you as a user. In fact, most reasons involve breaches of PF rules and are swiftly deleted, leaving them invisible to all but moderators. This is good in my opinion.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

the inability of users to figure out a question is not grounds for closing a thread especially while people are still answering. on top of it, the moderators are needlessly rude. just juvenile and not held to the same standards they demand on people asking questions.

Being a member for a greater period of time than you are, I have not faced this. In the beginning, it took me some time to understand the rules, and the mentors have closed some of my threads during that time, but always mentioned the reason for doing so. Threads which comply with PF rules are never closed. I haven't faced any mentor till date who is rude. I don't know about your case, but PF rules are certainly not toxic. In case you have some serious complaints, I think you should talk to @Greg Bernhardt, the admin, regarding the issue. But I strongly stand my ground that I haven't faced rudeness here.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Please click the report report link for any posts you think violate our rules or values. Thanks for your feedback!

 

[Tosh5457]

I agree that many threads are needlessly closed, especially the ones with open-ended questions. Moderators assume that because after X posts no objective answer was given, no useful answer will come out of it, and so, for some reason, it's better to close the thread. This assumption is flawed because you never know what the next reply will be, and even if a definitive answer doesn't show up, further replies may shed some light on the topic. I've also seen this happening after one or two inappropriate comments, in which the regular course of action would be to delete those, and not to close the whole thread.
The justifications given don't help either; sometimes moderations mention that "it was discussed" whether the thread should remain open or not. Honestly, this makes it look like this is all child's play. It's better just to mention the reason for closing and move on. Other times the thread is closed for moderation; this is something I've never seen before in any other forum - if you're unsure whether to close it or not, maybe let it be open until you make a decision?

Without wanting to pin anything on these specific moderators, who I believe are just doing what they were taught, take a look at these examples to see what I mean:
Post 1: if that moderator had seen the thread earlier, we'd have missed on DrZoidberg's very good post. Also, I don't get the reason for closing the thread - OP specified that he was looking for an algorithm, not pseudo-code or code in any specific language. What's the problem with that?
Post 2: After that clarification given to the OP, why not let the thread open? Why make it more bureaucratic and making the OP message the moderator so that he/she can then decide whether the thread is worthy?
Post 3: What's the nonsense? If there were nonsense posts, why not just moderate those instead of closing the thread? How does the moderator know that ALL of the further replies will be nonsense?
Post 4: Why does a gossip thread have to be closed on the "General discussion" forum? How does the moderator know that further posts would be speculation about Anthony Bourdain's death? The same moderator even posted an additional comment with a link, which another non-moderating user could've found and posted there; he wouldn't be able to though, because the thread was closed...

My point is that there are many members in PF who give very useful contributions and allow for all of us to learn, and this way of moderating, which doesn't have anything to do with scientific rigor, is preventing that from happening in many cases.

 

[Orodruin]

My point is that there are many members in PF who give very useful contributions and allow for all of us to learn, and this way of moderating, which doesn't have anything to do with scientific rigor, is preventing that from happening in many cases.

I think you are completely missing the point here. Specifically, it is a question of maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio. As I have already pointed out, you will not see the noise that caused the threads to be closed in the first place simply because it has been moderated. Leaving the thread open often just leads to a prolongation of that type of noise. Doing so on the off-chance that someone might leave a useful reply later is counter-productive and requires monitoring on the part of the moderating team, which is made up out of volunteers who have better things to do than moderating out tens of noise messages on the off-chance that a "good" reply might show up. Many times, the OP will also be long gone before that happens - if it happens.

After that clarification given to the OP, why not let the thread open? Why make it more bureaucratic and making the OP message the moderator so that he/she can then decide whether the thread is worthy?

You have to assume that you do not see the entire exchange of the thread. What you have proposed is often tried, but many posters simply do not care about being told to be more specific and this becomes the only way forward.

What's the nonsense? If there were nonsense posts, why not just moderate those instead of closing the thread? How does the moderator know that ALL of the further replies will be nonsense?

The nonsense is obviously already edited out. You cannot see it and you have to assume that you don't have all the information from what is visible to you. Posters in the thread had likely seen it before it was deleted.
Again, you have to assume that you do not have the full story.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that many threads are needlessly closed, especially the ones with open-ended questions. Moderators assume that because after X posts no objective answer was given, no useful answer will come out of it, and so, for some reason, it's better to close the thread. This assumption is flawed because you never know what the next reply will be, and even if a definitive answer doesn't show up, further replies may shed some light on the topic. I've also seen this happening after one or two inappropriate comments, in which the regular course of action would be to delete those, and not to close the whole thread.

It was mentioned that you're not seeing the deleted posts so the threads look better to you than they look to us. Being aware of that you might consider trusting that what you don't see you might also judge the same way if you were to see it. And I'll add that if you have question about a specific thread, you can always ask.

I will say this, though: we could perhaps consider increasing our use of thread bans. Thread bans allow the thread to continue without the problematic member. But if it has gone too far downhill or if the offender is a key participant, that may be more trouble than it is worth.

Other times the thread is closed for moderation; this is something I've never seen before in any other forum - if you're unsure whether to close it or not, maybe let it be open until you make a decision?

This should be fairly obvious: a thread that is closed for moderation has been judged to need or may need moderator action, so it has to be closed so that it isn't simultaneously being moderated and posted in. That would result in a giant mess. In addition, the exact nature of the moderation action may need discussion and agian it should be obvious that it is difficult to moderate a moving target - and we don't want it getting worse in the meantime.

Please note that:
1. We moderators are unpaid volunteers and moderation takes time and effort we don't always have available the exact second it is needed.

2. I think most people appreciate the fact that moderators aren't acting as individuals but rather consult each other before taking action. It does have a downside: it takes time. But I would hope most people would view that as a net positive, not a negative.

And I'll second the point that PF rules got stricter over the first few years of the forum. Most current members were not around then, so they don't realize just how much of a mess loose moderation can create. However, I/we can suggest forums where you can experience it (via PM).

 

[Tosh5457]

It's true that we don't see all of the thread's history, and that's why it can make forum users question the moderators' decision to close a thread that they were enjoying reading/participating in. I think that sending out warnings and banning users from threads would really be better options, and that would also help to solve the issue of having to temporarily close threads for moderation.
I would however like to know what you mean by "nonsense". I can understand that someone who stubbornly pushes for his/her own point of view with disregard for others, especially for mentors who are specialists in that particular area, can derail threads and so should be given a warning, and banned if he continues doing it. The same goes for users who go on to do ad-hominem attacks instead of discussing the actual topic. But I tend to see many examples of the "Post 1" I posted earlier, where the moderator nitpicks at something that the OP said and decides it's a good enough reason to close the thread. Is something hidden in there that I don't see?

 

[Orodruin]

It's true that we don't see all of the thread's history, and that's why it can make forum users question the moderators' decision to close a thread that they were enjoying reading/participating in. I think that sending out warnings and banning users from threads would really be better options, and that would also help to solve the issue of having to temporarily close threads for moderation.

I disagree. Unlike you I have experienced the dark side first hand and I can tell you that you really do not want to be in a forum where those things are left unmoderated. Most senior members would likely agree with this and would say that is what makes PF a quality forum. Apart from that, warnings and bans are sent out, but again you will not see them. I think it is a bit naive to judge things based on what you see and from that conclusion assume that moderation is bad. In particular when I know what kind of effort is put in by the unpaid volunteers that moderate the forum.

 

[Tosh5457]

I disagree. Unlike you I have experienced the dark side first hand and I can tell you that you really do not want to be in a forum where those things are left unmoderated. Most senior members would likely agree with this and would say that is what makes PF a quality forum. Apart from that, warnings and bans are sent out, but again you will not see them. I think it is a bit naive to judge things based on what you see and from that conclusion assume that moderation is bad. In particular when I know what kind of effort is put in by the unpaid volunteers that moderate the forum.

I don't want threads unmoderated either, and I appreciate the work that you and others moderators do to support this great forum, but I think it could be better if someone reviewed thread-closing policies.

 

[opus]

Completely disagree! Every thread I've made was met with multiple members posting really good responses. If I didn't get something, I'd say so and they always did a great job at guiding me to understanding. PF is an invaluable resource for me, especially during the summer with no classes. Not sure how one can complain when a timely and free response is given to just about any question. People are taking time out of their day to help you for free, so I think a little bit of moderation to keep things coherent and streamlined is pretty fair!

 

[Orodruin]

Every thread I've made was met with multiple members posting really good responses. If I didn't get something, I'd say so and they always did a great job at guiding me to understanding.

And this is usually the case for users who spend time and effort to think about their questions before posting and into the formulation of the questions themselves. Personally, this is the kind of questioners I prefer to cater to rather than people who come here asking ill-defined questions and expect people to do their homework for them.

 

[berkeman]

I think it could be better if someone reviewed thread-closing policies.

We recently had a 3-page long discussion in the Mentor forums about thread closures as a result of Greg's recent forum survey. We have been trying to implement some of the suggestions (like posting the reason for closing the thread, etc.). We've also made an effort to use thread bans more and get threads re-opened when possible.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Is something hidden in there that I don't see?

@Tosh5457

Definitely. As an example, I think @Orodruin is talking about people who cannot get extreme points of view in Science published. Often they self-publish results. A large majority of others in the field cannot accept that stuff. We fall in the 'cannot accept' category. We regard posting links to unacceptable references as more than a nitpick. So should you, for good science is the basis medical science.

Or: Try a geodesy WGS84 problem search on the flat Earth website, then reddit, then try PF. Which one will be your go to source?

Another 'be glad you do not see it':
We try to deal actively and quickly with problem posts and members. Why? Otherwise your forums are flooded. They become a morass of garbage, wacked-out science, spam, sockpuppets, and snake-oil. Example: Every morning there are new spammers on PF in spite of a lot of proactive blacklisting of IP's and users.

BTW you see spam? PLEASE report it, even if you are not sure.

You don't see the actions we take against the junk and nonsense purveyors. It is all unseen magic to most users.

You've been here on PF for 8 years - for a long time. So you must perceive some value beyond nitpicks.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I've seen some threads that I consider closed prematurely, but I also know as a former forum moderator (not for PF, but elsewhere) that lots of posts get removed from threads so I never see them. I do dislike how sometimes threads get closed due to trolling or outlandish stuff, that should be left for open discussion, but that's just my opinion.

I've not experienced any rudeness, however, I am aware that people of science often come off as rude to those on the outside. We're blunt, only interested in falsifiable facts, and feelings have no place in science. Most people trust their guts and have a hard time hearing that they're wrong. We also have way more rigorous standards than most people. You saw something with your own eyes? To most people, that's eyewitness evidence. To a scientist, that's as useless as a tarot card: eyes, perception, and memory are all faultier than people realize.

 

[Grinkle]

From everything I have seen, the moderation on PF results from a good faith effort to adhere to the PF mission and rules.

If I am pondering some question about physics and I want to know the human state of knowledge regarding that question, I can post my question here and its answered accurately. Without (among other things, of course) diligent moderation to keep posts mostly relevant and mostly non-speculative, I wouldn't get those answers. Or they would be buried in so much nonsense one would not be able to tell if the question was answered or not.

There are plenty of loosely moderated or not-at-all moderated forums on the internet where one can go if one prefers a less rule-constrained discussion. Speaking for myself, I think balance the moderators find between letting posters explore and keeping discussion within the bounds of peer reviewed science is outstanding.

 

[CWatters]

the inability of users to figure out a question is not grounds for closing a thread...

I don't see threads closed for that reason but I do see threads closed because after many pages the OP still hasn't managed to convey what it is they are really asking. This is sometimes compounded by the OP ignoring questions made to them in an attempt to find out what their question really is.

 

[opus]

I think this situation would be taken care of if OPs made some effort before posting their thread.

I have next to no knowledge of university physics or math yet, but I do read the threads to try to get an understanding still. It really says something if I, having no knowledge of the subject, can even see that the OP put zero effort into independent research and even less effort into formulating their question in a proper manner.

Teaching someone something over a forum is hard, spoon feeding them is even harder. Moderators and homework helpers put in a lot of effort to help answer our questions, and its both lazy and rude to spew out a garbage question in hopes that they can phrase it in a way that will require the OPs minimal effort for comprehension.

Im not at all saying this is you! I haven't seen any of your threads. I am saying this as a generality that I've seen in threads across PF.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't respond to the specifics here even though I suggested we would do exactly that if asked...

Post 1: if that moderator had seen the thread earlier, we'd have missed on DrZoidberg's very good post. Also, I don't get the reason for closing the thread - OP specified that he was looking for an algorithm, not pseudo-code or code in any specific language. What's the problem with that?

The thread isn't extremely bad, but as said in the thread, the OP's effort level and clarity was lacking. I think we'd be ok with a re-opening of such a thread if the OP provided better clarity and more effort. Sometimes a lock and a fresh start is better than trying to improve a thread that started badly.

Post 2: After that clarification given to the OP, why not let the thread open? Why make it more bureaucratic and making the OP message the moderator so that he/she can then decide whether the thread is worthy?

I'm actually not familiar with this one(or knowledgeable on the subject matter) but it seems there was a potential security issue here in addition to the same issue as in Post 1.

These first two may seem thin/unnecessary, but the quality and tone of a thread are set by the OP and the first few posts. It is shockingly difficult to get a thread on track after a bad start. I have, in fact, even re-booted peoples' threads for them -- in one case even re-writing someone else's OP for him (with permission) and re-starting the thread. While initially annoyed at the lock he saw my point, saw the thread went better and thanked me for it.

Post 3: What's the nonsense? If there were nonsense posts, why not just moderate those instead of closing the thread? How does the moderator know that ALL of the further replies will be nonsense?

The nonsense post was deleted but still preserved in the quote in post #6 (not a standard practice, but done some times). How does the moderator know the thread is about to fall off a cliff? Experience...though in this case it actually already happened. AGW is a serious problem subject here and is more aggressively moderated than most subjects, but in this case, while civil to start, it turned south immediately. Attracting against-the-mainstream (charitable characterization) posts is inevitable and it looks to me like in fact *all* of the new points raised were against the mainstream.

Incidentally, I think I just noticed that there is an initial edit period where post edits aren't saved by the system. I'd swear that last "real" post was a lot more aggressive when I read it the first time.

Post 4: Why does a gossip thread have to be closed on the "General discussion" forum? How does the moderator know that further posts would be speculation about Anthony Bourdain's death? The same moderator even posted an additional comment with a link, which another non-moderating user could've found and posted there; he wouldn't be able to though, because the thread was closed...

This was a tough call, in my opinion. There is such a thing as a news "cycle", and as a new story ages it decays, as people try to find "meaning" through extension of the story beyond the actual events. While discussion of the problem of suicide is legitimate, mixing broad issues with specifics is uncouth in my opinion. I actually wrote a broad analysis and then decided not to post it because I thought it read judgy/insensitive. I'd be interested in a follow-up that isn't about Bourdain specifically.

Broadly, though, it is a common misconception here that the lounge is rule-free. As a general thumb-rule, if a thread is of a type where PF quality standards can be applied, they will be.

 

[Bystander]

It is shockingly difficult to get a thread on track after a bad start.

+10

AGW is a serious problem subject here and is more aggressively moderated than most subjects, but in this case, while civil to start, it turned south immediately.

Don't they all?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Before asking anything here, I generally do the following:

1. Firstly, I check on Google. If I get a suitable answer, the topic ends there.
2. Next, if I cannot find an answer on Google, I use the search option in PF. This generally solves many questions.
3. Next, if all the above means fail, I frame the question, putting in all the material I have found out by searching, and clearly explain where I'm facing a problem.

With these, generally I get good answers to all my questions.

What I can conclude from all the preceeding discussion is that, we should have faith in the moderators and let them do their work, and follow their advice when they find fault in our posts. In case any user is not content with the moderation, he can directly contact the moderator for explanation, rather than calling the whole site "toxic". This will ensure proper functioning of the site.

 

[berkeman]

In case any user is not content with the moderation, he can directly contact the moderator for explanation,

And if that doesn't work well enough, the next option is just to click the Report link in the relevant post or Private Message, which brings it to the attention of all of the Mentors. We've had lots of long discussions to come to a consensus on difficult issues.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

We've had lots of long discussions to come to a consensus on difficult issues.

That's why I have faith in the moderators and let them do their work peacefully.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

the inability of users to figure out a question is not grounds for closing a thread especially while people are still answering.

We should distinguish between the inability of members to figure out a question versus the inability (or disinclination) of the original poster to state a specific question.

If someone I know asks a question face-to-face, it's usually obvious to me whether they are seeking a specific answer or whether they want to have an open ended discussion. Reading a question on an internet forum written by a stranger is a different matter. The culture of most technical internet forums (be they about physics or woodworking or cars) is that the first post in a thread is interpreted as a request for a specific answer. I, myself, don't object to open ended discussions, but if you want to have such a discussion, you need to make an extreme effort when starting a thread to make that clear because the default interpretation will be that you are asking for help. If moderators are to keep threads "on topic", they need to know what the topic is.

At to the specific case of https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/estimating-a-mean-from-games-of-ruin.949921/, I agree with the moderators decision. The technical discussion showed no progress. Current mathematical knowledge doesn't offer a technique for solving the problem in the generality you wish to consider. Creating new mathematical knowledge might result from considering specific examples, but you didn't encourage that kind of discussion.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

At to the specific case of https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/estimating-a-mean-from-games-of-ruin.949921/, I agree with the moderators decision. The technical discussion showed no progress. Current mathematical knowledge doesn't offer a technique for solving the problem in the generality you wish to consider.

I certainly don't feel there was no progress. Note that OP posted this complaint thread 12 hours before the thread was actually closed (or even before my final response came in). The writing was on the wall at this point though. In my view, the issue quite honestly is OP asked a very technical question but did not understand enough to clearly ask such a technical question or understand responses, partial or otherwise. I believe this is why there was a predecessor thread that was repeatedly edited and the original post of the thread you linked was edited so often. At one point I thought it was mischief, but I changed my mind.

I find it remarkable that someone would ask a question like this but apparently not know be aware of related pre-reqs (e.g. renewal theory). The inclination to immediately argue with people and bring up philosophical points did not help. Having some extra humility when asking questions that you lack background in, seems... smart to me? But that's life on the Internet. (My understanding is that a rough equivalent of this happens on the QM and Relativity forums quite often.).

I feel like there was a legitimate question buried in there, but the insistence on that level of generality at the outset, and the OPs gaps in knowledge, both violate my motto of 'start simple and build'. There's actually a very nice, simple qualitative result implied (buried?) in my final post that gives sufficient conditions for OPs original post, though it technically doesn't address necessity.

- - - -

Creating new mathematical knowledge might result from considering specific examples, but you didn't encourage that kind of discussion.

This I definitely agree with.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I've seen some threads that I consider closed prematurely

Sure. And there are some that go on too long. In my view, if there's any systematic shift at all, it's in favor of letting them go on too long. Which kind of turns this into "the Mentors made a decision I wouldn't have made!"

 

[Bystander]

go on too long.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...tal-clock-accuracy.950010/page-2#post-6016928

Edit: ..., and, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/some-points-about-a-vortex-tube.950105/#post-6016954

 

[nikkkom]

But I strongly stand my ground that I haven't faced rudeness here.

Try to post a disagreement with one of the moderators' favorite opinion.

 

[phinds]

Try to post a disagreement with one of the moderators' favorite opinion.

I think you confuse a strong argument (that YOU disagree with) as rudeness. That's just nonsense. My experience is that the moderators are INCREDIBLY patient in explaining things and not rude. I have seen this over and over.

If you think that someone (including a moderator) has been rude you should report the post.

 

[nikkkom]

I think you confuse a strong argument (that YOU disagree with) as rudeness.

If deleting my post entirely counts as "strong argument"...

 

[phinds]

If deleting my post entirely counts as "strong argument"...

Well, the posts that I have seen that have been deleted have all deserved to be deleted and based on moderators patience I doubt that there are many, if any, where I would have disagreed with their decision. True, I have not see all deleted posts, but I have a lot of confidence in the moderators. It's unfortunate that your experience has been different but you should look closely at the extent to which that might say something about you rather than about the moderators.

 

[nikkkom]

Well, the posts that I have seen that have been deleted have all deserved to be deleted and based on moderators patience I doubt that there are many, if any, where I would have disagreed with their decision. True, I have not see all deleted posts, but I have a lot of confidence in the moderators. It's unfortunate that your experience has been difference but you should look closely at the extent to which that might say something about you rather than about the moderators.

Your argument contains no facts. You did not see the post I mention, yet you already have a conclusion that I'm an awful person. Wow.

 

[phinds]

Your argument contains no facts. You did not see the post I mention, yet you already have a conclusion that I'm an awful person. Wow.

Hm ... based on this over-reaction I'm getting a good idea of what the issue is here.

 

[Nugatory]

OK... Both of you... Out of the water! NOW! No fighting, it just makes work for the mentors.

 

[Nugatory]

If one of your posts has been removed for reasons that you do not understand or accept, you can appeal it to all the mentors. We do sometimes make mistakes in applying the PF rules, we do sometimes misunderstand the point a poster is trying to make, and sometimes we just plain get a judgment call wrong.

If you want to contribute to a closed (either for you or for everybody) thread you can always ask that it be reopened. Arguing that it should be reopened because hypothetically someone else might eventually post something interesting/useful in it will not be very convincing; "I want to add <THIS> to the thread" is more convincing.