Too many postings get deleted here

[Schmizzkazz]

What I see here;

Assiduous student agreed with me.
And he criticised the forum for too much deleting.
Now he himself got deleted.

What do others say to that?

I think a forum is a forum is a forum.

In a forum the members are allowed to talk to each other.

This thing here is more like a workshop, where you get tasks to do.

And if you talk to your collegues your words get deleted - and in the end you yourself get deleted.

Does the administration here think that OK?

I doubt we are likely to see any changes for the better because imagination can link any post to any of the rules, no matter how twistted the link needs to go.

So it is ..... so it is .....

I have had enough of these completely humourless "moderators" and "admins" here.

Tschüss!

Ich bin weg hier.

 

[DonnyB]

It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.

Yes, that’s something I miss from vB. “Reason for editing” enables transparency and permanent visibility into what actions were taken and their rationale. I wonder if it’s something that could be implemented programmatically, just like the reason for deletion.

Yes, I send the author of the post a personal, individual note explaining what I've edited and why. But in a lot of cases - the majority, probably - it's not necessary or useful for anyone else to know why a post was edited, for instance to correct mistakes or faulty formatting. We do sometimes post public edit notes, but those are always 'signed', so as to be attributed to the moderator concerned, just like deletions are.

Assiduous student agreed with me.
And he criticised the forum for too much deleting.
Now he himself got deleted.

What do others say to that?

No moderator is going to say anything to that in a public forum. I've responded to several of your queries earlier in this thread, but I'm afraid I can't add anything to what I've already said.

Bottom line:
"If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread.
If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to another member, use the forum’s private message ('Conversations') feature. No chatting."
(Rule 2)

That's one of the rules everyone agrees to when they sign up for an account.

 

[Circunflejo]

Yes, I send the author of the post a personal, individual note explaining what I've edited and why.

In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.

you’ll be amazed to realize that we used to have 56 rules back in the day! See: Revised list of rules.

That didn't amaze me. What amazed me is that

The idea was to make them much more readable, not really to change the content of the rules.

So we have the same 20 rules that back in 2008 (that basically convey the same content that the 56 rules that existed previously) but threads that were fine back in 2008 are totally unacceptable nowadays... Surely, I must missing something. Could you put some light about it?

 

[swift]

but threads that were fine back in 2008 are totally unacceptable nowadays…

Well, you only joined ten years later, so how can you tell for sure? If anything, I would say that a lot of threads we see nowadays would’ve been closed or removed back in 2008. Rules have changed, in many ways, for the better. Rule 4 is a good example. Rule 3 as well.

 

[Circunflejo]

Well, you only joined ten years later, so how can you tell for sure?

Shooting the messenger won't change the facts. Yes, I joined ten years later but I, and anyone else, can read all the content previously posted in the forum if it hasn't been deleted. Moreover, I stumbled with situations like this one that I quoted on a previous post on this thread:

Some time ago someone resurrected an old thread created more than a decade ago and a moderator closed it at the moment because even though it met the rules that ruled the forum when the thread was started, it was light years away from the current regulations.

Are you suggesting that the closure of that thread was a bad decision of the mod that made it? Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been deleted as well as many similar resurrected old threads aren't deleted even though they didn't meet either the current regulations? Are you suggesting that the mods that had the forum back then (2008) didn't make a good job not deleting that thread and all the similar ones that are still available? Are you suggesting that the mods that delete similar threads opened nowadays aren't doing a good work?

If anything, I would say that a lot of threads we see nowadays would’ve been closed or removed back in 2008.

If I had to make a judgement based on the resurrected old threads that I read, I wouldn't agree with you.

Rules have changed, in many ways, for the better.

The user that wrote post 27, who joined a decade ago, doesn't agree with you.

 

[swift]

Good luck with your straw man fallacies, Circunflejo. I won’t play that game.

 

[swift]

this is a personalised idea:
I think for a multilingual one (like me), it is neither aestethetical nor is it expected occasion to have many posts deleted.
....

That’s interesting. Deleting threads is not a matter of aesthetics. It’s about housekeeping and maintaining the forums focused on their mission, which is to be an extension to the dictionaries.

Once a forum member becomes a frequent visitor and participant, having a post or a thread deleted shouldn’t be unexpected if they really understand the forum rules and dynamic. Sometimes you may be surprised. I’ve seen some of my posts been deleted and some of my threads been closed for reasons I didn’t understand right away. However, I’ve always had an opportunity to address the situation directly with the mods and this has helped clarify their rationale. In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.

 

[rarabara]

That’s interesting. Deleting threads is not a matter of aesthetics. It’s about housekeeping and maintaining the forums focused on their mission, which is to be an extension to the dictionaries.

Once a forum member becomes a frequent visitor and participant, having a post or a thread deleted shouldn’t be unexpected if they really understand the forum rules and dynamic. Sometimes you may be surprised. I’ve seen some of my posts been deleted and some of my threads been closed for reasons I didn’t understand right away. However, I’ve always had an opportunity to address the situation directly with the mods and this has helped clarify their rationale. In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.

that is personalised idea and points out "having many posts deleted" I did not enjoy really , therefore,I will presumably leave.

The moderators are appointed by the owner of the site. If he's unhappy he'll let the mods know. He doesn't appear to be unhappy. The system works. Nobody pays to use the forums. If anybody doesn't like the way it is run they can go somewhere else.

 

[Sowka]

In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.

I sign my messages.

 

[elroy]

In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.

The moderator may or may not choose to sign it, but even if they don't, you can always contact any moderator of the respective forum and they will be able to ascertain who did the edit (we have those records). Same thing if you're not given a reason at all.

 

[Circunflejo]

Good luck with your straw man fallacies, Circunflejo. I won’t play that game.

Straw man fallacies? That's funny. You objeted to a comment made by me because I wasn't old enough on the forum (discrimination based on age at its best, by the way) but it turned out that my comment was based on an action took by a mod and the comment made by that mod to support his/her action so you were not only objeting my comment but also the mod action and comment that backed my comment. To point that out is a straw man fallacy for you and that's really funny. I won't say why I'm not surprised of your reaction though, because I guess you wouldn't like to hear it.

In some occasions, they have reinstated the posts.

You are a lucky man. In more than 2 years that I've been on the forum, I've just seen one thread reinstated. And even though it was deleted due to a blatant misunderstanding by the mod that deleted it, it took several days to get it reinstated.

I sign my messages.

But you don't moderate any of the forums that I frequent most.

The moderator may or may not choose to sign it, but even if they don't, you can always contact any moderator of the respective forum and they will be able to ascertain who did the edit (we have those records).

And then you can contact the mod that made it, you can address your question to him/her and then you may or may not get an answer and... It doesn't seem pretty straightfoward, does it? I wonder how many users actually do it.

 

[swift]

discrimination based on age at its best, by the way

Ageism has nothing to do with this, Circunflejo. That, too, is a straw man fallacy.

And then you can contact the mod that made it, you can address your question to him/her and then you may or may not get an answer and... It doesn't seem pretty straightfoward, does it? I wonder how many users actually do it.

I wonder whether you have read this FAQ about Moderators. There is clear guidance on how to proceed in case you disagree with an action taken by a moderator.

 

[Circunflejo]

Ageism has nothing to do with this, Circunflejo. That, too, is a straw man fallacy.

You are being really funny today.

I wonder whether you have read this FAQ about Moderators. There is clear guidance on how to proceed in case you disagree with an action taken by a moderator.

Yes and it doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions. It just says to contact the mod that made it (impossible if s/he didn't sign the action) or a mod in which you trust (as if all users had a mod in which they trust) so it seems pretty obvious that the text is thought for cases in which the moderators sign their actions because, otherwise, the first opcion wouldn't be included. By the way, option two (to contact a mod in which you trust) seems to be (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved...

 

[elroy]

what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions

I already told you what to do.

 

[Circunflejo]

I already told you what to do.

Yes, I was answering to @swift who questioned if I had read the FAQs of the forum about moderators when they don't address that question.

 

[swift]

Yes, I was answering to @swift who questioned if I had read the FAQs of the forum about moderators when they don't address that question.

And since you confirmed you have read the guidelines, it’s up to you to follow them or proceed as @elroy suggests. An alternative could be to use the Report button in the relevant thread and that way any active mod will be able to take a look at it. This works even if your post has been deleted: you can also submit a report using the “show post” feature.

 

[elroy]

The FAQs assume you know what mod performed the action you would like to dispute. If you don't, then you take one extra step, which is to ask which mod did it, and once you know, you proceed as described in the FAQs.

(as if all users had a mod in which they trust)

Don't take this so literally. If you don't have a moderator you specifically trust, then contact any moderator you at least don't distrust. If you distrust all the moderators, there's probably a much bigger issue than the particular deletion or edit you want to dispute.

seems to be (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved

That restriction is about public comments/discussions. It's okay to discuss Moderator A's action with Moderator B in private.

 

[DonnyB]

Yes and it doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions. It says to contact the mod that made it (impossible if s/he didn't sign the action) or a mod in which you trust (as if all users had a mod in which they trust). The later is also (a bit) at odds with the statement saying that discussions about mods' actions must be private out of respect for the moderators involved...

Deletions are automatically attributed by the forum software to the moderator who made them. The individual edit and other notes that we send out privately aren't: we have to sign those ourselves manually. If you get an unsigned one, it's probably going to be because whoever sent it simply forgot: we don't send out anonymous communications deliberately just to annoy members: what would be the point of it?

Any moderator can look at a thread or a post and see which mod has intervened in it. If people ask me, and it wasn't me who did it, I simply look to see who it was and pass the query on to them. I don't mind at all: it happens, it's really not a big deal.

 

[Circunflejo]

The FAQs assume you know what mod performed the action you would like to dispute.

Yes, I knew it and, of course, I keep knowing it. It's @swift who didn't seem to know it.

Don't take this so literally.

That's exactly what it's made by most users that have their posts deleted. They don't take it so literally and they get their posts deleted as a result.

The individual edit and other notes that we send out privately aren't: we have to sign those ourselves manually. If you get an unsigned one, it's probably going to be because whoever sent it simply forgot: we don't send out anonymous communications deliberately just to annoy members: what would be the point of it?

I can tell you that I've seen many posts with a note at the bottom of them saying edited by a moderator at X time (no idea if the user that got his/her post edited got any communication saying the mod that edited it). No idea what's the point of not specifying the moderator that made it but it's not that rare (or so I think) to see a post edited by a moderator in which it isn't stated the moderator that edited it.

 

[DonnyB]

I can tell you that I've seen many posts with a note at the bottom of them saying edited by a moderator at X time (no idea if the user that got his/her post edited got any communication saying the mod that edited it). No idea what's the point of not specifying the moderator that made it but it's not that rare (or so I think) to see a post edited by a moderator in which it isn't stated the moderator that edited it.

I covered that in post #53 (or at least, I thought I had). We don't want to clutter up threads with public edit notes which are of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread. In the cases you've come across, the author of the post which was edited will probably have received an explanatory note, if only as a courtesy - but in the case of for example just a simple correction to a typo or a formatting problem, I probably wouldn't bother with one.

If I may say so, it's a mistake to read anything sinister or suspicious into those edited by a moderator at X time annotations: in the vast majority of cases they're of no particular relevance to the rest of the discussion.

 

[User With No Name]

f I may say so, it's a mistake to read anything sinister or suspicious into those edited by a moderator at X time annotations: in the vast majority of cases they're of no particular relevance to the rest of the discussion.

Then put your (user) name on any changes.

I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.

 

[DonnyB]

Then put your (user) name on any changes.

I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.

We can't because we don't write those messages: they're added automatically by the forum software, using the same process which adds the 'Last edited' timestamp you see when the author edits their own post themselves.

If you glance back at the previous posts in this thread, quite a number of them have got that particular message in the small print at the bottom of the post: why would it be "better" to have the reason/details of the edit(s) made public? What benefit would accrue from everyone else knowing that the member concerned had spotted a spelling mistake or remembered something else they'd meant to say?

 

[Sowka]

Then put your (user) name on any changes.

I really think that would be better, and I don't see a downside.

Dictionary users read the threads like dictionary entries: They want to learn something about the expression stated in the thread title.

This is the main purpose of the threads.

Additional Text like "edited by Sowka: Quote tags repaired" or "edited by Sowka: Special characters added" would make reading more difficult.

 

[User With No Name]

• Deleted by Sowka
• 6 minutes ago
• Reason: At the request of the author

For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?

would it be "better" to have the reason/details of the edit(s) made public

I do understand your point. Sincerely. But honestly, and based on my own experiences, yes, I think it would.

 

[Peterdg]

• Deleted by Sowka
• 6 minutes ago
• Reason: At the request of the author

For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?

 

[Sowka]

• Deleted by Sowka
• 6 minutes ago
• Reason: At the request of the author

For cryin' out loud. Is irony completely dead? Has hypocrisy completely taken over?

I have reinstated my post; had technical problems with my smartphone.

 

[User With No Name]

It was a post, made by moderator @Sowka, in this thread, which was apparently immediately deleted (apparently by said moderator, @Sowka), and which now seems to have disappeared entirely.

Harmless enough, obviously, but I think it proves my point. It would be preferable if moderators' actions were signed.

 

[swift]

It looks like Sowka deleted her post accidentally and then reinstated it.

 

[User With No Name]

A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site.

They really need to dial it down a bit, or they will risk losing members who have a lot to contribute. (I have already seen that happen in several cases, and it's a shame.)

 

[Peterdg]

A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site.

They really need to dial it down a bit, or they will risk losing members who have a lot to contribute. (I have already seen that happen in several cases, and it's a shame.)

Honestly, I don't understand a thing of what you are saying. What is "A sign of the arrogance of many (almost all) moderators and administrators on this site."?

I have been here for over 10 years, with a lot of contributions and I never had an issue with any moderator. Did I have posts of mine deleted? Yes. Were they deleted for a good reason? Probably. Do I care? No!

It's not about me or my self esteem here.

If you think you are important, this is not the right place to be. If you are here, it should be because you want to help other people and want to contribute to the objectives of the site. The moderators are here to see that the site objectives, and the money the site owner invests in his site, are protected.

I am not a moderator and I will probably never be. I was asked once to be one, but I refused. I know myself pretty well and I know I would not have the political correctness to act as politically correct as the current staff does.

 

[User With No Name]

I think my post was clear enough in the context of this discussion, in which assorted people have been expressing concerns about posts that are automatically/anonymously modified by moderators.

If you think you are important, this is not the right place to be.

I'm not entirely sure what "if you think you are important" even means in this context.

While I make no claim to any particular linguistic knowledge, I think that I have contributed enough to these forums to prove that I try to be helpful and to play by the rules.

 

[elroy]

The topic of this thread is whether too many posts get deleted. Whoever thinks the answer is “yes” should give evidence in support of that claim. If the purpose of this thread is not just to argue but to be productive by reducing the number of deletions perceived to be unjustified, please give us something concrete to consider.

 

[Peterdg]

I think my post was clear enough in the context of this discussion

No, it wasn't, at least not for me.

I'm not entirely sure what "if you think you are important" even means in this context.

Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important. If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.

 

[User With No Name]

Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted?

I was in no way referring to any particular post of mine.

I feel frustrated sometimes because I think the moderators of this site often delete legitimate conversations out of an exaggerated desire to keep all discussions "on topic."

I think some longtime foreros agree with me. Others, who are probably more numerous, don't.

 

[rarabara]

No, it wasn't, at least not for me.

Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important. If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.

probably someone (most commonly moderators) try to tell us that it was normal action to have (many (!)) posts deleted. but assume please the owner of website comes and some of (or many of (!)) his/her posts get deleted, then what happens?

 

[Circunflejo]

I covered that in post #53 (or at least, I thought I had). We don't want to clutter up threads with public edit notes which are of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread.

Let's see. A note saying edited by moderator X at X time would be of more interest than the current notes saying edited by a moderator at X time and it wouldn't clutter up the thread more than what the current notes clutter it up. If the note saying the post has been edited is of no real interest or value to everyone reading the thread, what you should consider is to not put any (public) note at all.

Did I have posts of mine deleted? Yes. Were they deleted for a good reason? Probably. Do I care? No!

That's fine but there are other users that do care about the reasons that meant the deletion of a post made by them in order to not break that rule again.

Why is someone upset when a post (his/her post?) is deleted? I guess because he/she thinks that his/her post was important. If not, I don't see why anyone would be upset.

Well, if you think your post met the rules but it got deleted and you didn't get an explanation about it or the explanation that you got isn't satisfying for you, it makes sense that you could get upset.

The topic of this thread is whether too many posts get deleted. Whoever thinks the answer is “yes” should give evidence in support of that claim. If the purpose of this thread is not just to argue but to be productive by reducing the number of deletions perceived to be unjustified, please give us something concrete to consider.

I don't think the answer is yes but I do think that providing something concrete to consider would break the rule saying that deletion of posts shouldn't be discussed on the public forums out of respect for the mods and users involved. Therefore, I'm not sure how someone who thinks the answer is yes could fulfill your request if s/he had any interest in fulfilling it.

 

[Sowka]

A note saying edited by moderator X at X time would be of more interest than the current notes saying edited by a moderator at X time and it wouldn't clutter up the thread more than what the current notes clutter it up

Please read post #73 and #74.

As far as I know, the software does not allow to change the current notifications ("edited by a moderator") to ones that indicate a moderator name. I would like such a change, too -- it would be like it was with the old software.

But, as far as I know, this is currently not possible.

 

[Circunflejo]

Please read post #73 and #74.

Yes, you can't do it because the software doesn't allow it but this is the comments and suggestions forum so it's the place to ask for that sort of changes because, as far as I know, there's no indication saying that comments and suggestions involving changes on the software can't be posted on this forum.

 

[swift]

For XenForo software improvements, there’s also a XenForo community: XenForo suggestions.

 

[Circunflejo]

For XenForo software improvements, there’s also a XenForo community: XenForo suggestions.

Who's asking for XenForo software improvements? I'm not. I'm suggesting improvements on the WR forums. I don't care about how they are implemented if through a Xenforo software improvement or through other means. But it seems that actually addressing the suggestions and debating whether they would be useful or not isn't the point of this forum although it should be it. In post 49 I made a suggestion:

It would be a good idea to attribute editions to an individual named moderator too.

I got in post 50 an answer saying that it was possible in the past and what that mod made personally. On post 53 another mod told me what he personally made but no one told about the pros and cons of my suggestion, the pros and cons of bringing it back (as it seems it was available in the past)... Later on 55, I made a comment based on my experience because it didn't match what was said on some of the comments made before:

In my experience, you might get such sort of note (e.g.: on your alert menu) but it doesn't say what mod made it so there's no room for any discussion about it.

On 60 I got, once again, info about what a mod personally makes and on 61 I got an answer explaining what are the options available now for the mods and providing some unrequested info about how to act if a mod doesn't sign his/her action. But nobody addressed the question of the pros and cons of unsigned notes, if deleting the option of not signing them would be a good or a bad idea... And In 64 I said that the FAQ about moderators page

doesn't say a single word about what to do when a mod doesn't sign his/her actions.

I got an answer on 65 saying that I had already been told what to make in those cases and another one in 69 explaning how the system works but, once again, nobody addressed the pros and cons of including the missing info on the FAQ about moderators page. So I guess that what I got as answers could be called straw man fallacies and, definitely, they show an evident absence of interest in the suggestions made. And I've just sticked to the answers that I got from mods because the ones I got from @swift were even worse but he's neither a mod nor part of the staff. The owner of the forums, after more that 90 replies, doesn't seem to have anything to say...

 

[swift]

I'm suggesting improvements on the WR forums.

WRF run on XenForo software. According to Sowka, it isn’t technically possible to make the change you are requesting. I take that to mean that Mike and team don’t have the ability of implementing the change. So the next step would be to wait for the next software update or request the change to XenForo.

 

[velisarius]

There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of a post by a mod.

I seem to remember that, on English Only, a member who has their post deleted will normally receive a note from the mod with a brief explanation and of course it will be signed by the mod in question. Perhaps it would be a good idea if mods in other forums adopted this practice.

 

[swift]

There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of a post by a mod.

Yes, and let’s remember the blanket statement that triggered the whole conversation and its spin-offs : too many postings get deleted here. No one has supplied any evidence to support that claim, and proof takes precedence over presumption.

 

[Nanon]

I seem to remember that, on English Only, a member who has their post deleted will normally receive a note from the mod with a brief explanation and of course it will be signed by the mod in question. Perhaps it would be a good idea if mods in other forums adopted this practice.

In my humble experience, they do. Earlier today I had one of my posts edited by a moderator (adding a quote from the link I posted, to prevent dead links). I received a personal note through Conversations. I appreciated the mod taking the time to inform me and replied with thanks. That was in the French-English forum. I understand that some forums are busier than others, so I wouldn't ask for personal notifications at all times, but still, I liked it.

 

[Circunflejo]

There seem to be two separate issues here: editing of a post by a moderator, and the deletion of a post by a mod.

Both issues are interconnected because there are editions of posts that involve the deletion of part of the post.

Earlier today I had one of my posts edited by a moderator (adding a quote from the link I posted, to prevent dead links).

On the forums that I frequent most, your post would have been directly deleted for putting a bare link so you should be grateful of having such a nice mod on the French-English forum.

 

[swift]

Rule #13:

Read the Rules
Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way.

 

[Circunflejo]

Rule #13:

Read the Rules
Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way.

As you didn't quote the rest of rule 13, I'll make it. The full test of rule 13 is:

13. Read the rules.
Each forum applies these rules in a slightly different way. Before posting in a forum, please read the guidelines for that forum --they are listed in one of the first threads at the top of the page.

Now, if you read the Guidelines of the English/French vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:

Please don't answer with "bare" links to other websites (rule 3); your reply needs to be useful even if your link stops working at some point in the future.

And if you read the Guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:

Do not post "bare" links to external sites without explaining the content of the link and/or quoting the contents of the linked page.

As you can see both of them ban "bare" links. The "slight" difference on the application of the rule is that on the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, such links are deleted because they don't comply with the rule and on the English/French vocabulary forum, there's a nice mod that took the time to quote part of the text of the bare link in order to guarantee that the post met the rules. The later also shows that the deletion of posts including bare links isn't the only option available to make those posts comply with the rules... but the difference it's neither the rule nor the guidelines but the mod that applies them.

 

[DonnyB]

As you didn't quote the rest of rule 13, I'll make it. The full test of rule 13 is:

Now, if you read the Guidelines of the English/French vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:
And if you read the Guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, you'll see that they say in regards to the comment that I made on post 96:

As you can see both of them ban "bare" links. The "slight" difference on the application of the rule is that on the English/Spanish vocabulary forum, such links are deleted because they don't comply with the rule and on the English/French vocabulary forum, there's a nice mod that took the time to quote part of the text of the bare link in order to guarantee that the post met the rules. The later also shows that the deletion of posts including bare links isn't the only option available to make those posts comply with the rules... but the difference it's neither the rule nor the guidelines but the mod that applies them.

So what are you suggesting we actually do about this?

I can't pass an opinion because I'm not a mod for either of those forums, I didn't see the post in question, and we can't re-examine it in a public forum anyway. But if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that. We do our best to be consistent, but there are quite a large number of different factors which come into play in determining whether a post is deleted or not, whether it is edited, and also an individual mod (based on his or her previous experience) has to judge whether a particular post/thread is worth trying to salvage or not.

If the inference of what you're saying is that all the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.

 

[swift]

The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.

 

[Circunflejo]

if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that.

Yes, that was the main point of my reply to @swift who, once again, insinued that I didn't know the rules of WR. The point of the post that originated swift's reply (post number 96) was that the perspective of an user about the subject of this thread surely isn't the same if you deal with mods like the one quoted by @Nanon than if you have to deal with other sort of mods (see below).

If the inference of what you're saying is that all the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.

I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction. Definitely, I occasionally post on one in which most posts wouldn't be allowed at all in the forums in which I most frequently post. If a regular of that forum who never posted on the other forums had to open a thread for the first time in any of the other forums, surely s/he would be shocked when her/his opening post was deleted if s/he had made previously tons of identical posts in the other forum without any problem whatsoever and s/he may get the impression that too many posts get deleted on that other forum. On the other hand, someone used to tight moderation may find the other forum moderation too lax -even though the forum seems to work nicely with that lax moderation- and may get the impression that too few posts get deleted on that other forum. However, unlike you, I do think that the thigh versus harsh difference is made by the mods involved; not by the forums themselves. That becomes plainly evident when you find that sort of differences within the same forum (or so I think).

The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.

That's not my case. Only once I had a post deleted due to what a moderator considered a "bare" link. I complained saying that I had explained the content of the link (as the guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum say; see post 98) but the mod said that a literal quote was required even though neither the guidelines (see post 98) nor the rules (in this case, rule 3) say it. Of course, I had to deal with it. That's stuff that happens when being harsh and restrictive is the common rule but I can understand that not everybody is fine dealing with that sort of stuff.