Why are the moderators removing messages - "while waiting for context" ? We cannot start the dialogue ? We cannot attempt an answer ?
This is a bit .... surprising to say the least !!!!!
This is a bit .... surprising to say the least !!!!!
Wait for context
- Thread starter zanzi
- Start date
Hello zanzi,
As you see, we have moved the question you raised in a discussion in the French-English Forum to this forum, where such procedural questions are welcome (we do not allow the discussion of moderator actions within language forum discussions--those types of comments are distracting for future readers of the discussion who just want an answer.)
When a question is asked with little or no context, we do prefer that others wait until the OP comes back to provide the context that our guidelines state should be offered when a question is first asked. Otherwise, the discussion develops into a guessing game among other members and often the information provided does not correspond to the actual context once that context is known.
As you see, we have moved the question you raised in a discussion in the French-English Forum to this forum, where such procedural questions are welcome (we do not allow the discussion of moderator actions within language forum discussions--those types of comments are distracting for future readers of the discussion who just want an answer.)
When a question is asked with little or no context, we do prefer that others wait until the OP comes back to provide the context that our guidelines state should be offered when a question is first asked. Otherwise, the discussion develops into a guessing game among other members and often the information provided does not correspond to the actual context once that context is known.
Exactly, and I wholeheartedly support this policy.
No, you should not - Answers given to context-free questions are usually nothing more than useless shots in the dark
No, you should not - Answers given to context-free questions are usually nothing more than useless shots in the dark
I can attest to the fact that we've had many threads that zoomed along with several posts without context based on assumptions, only to be completely derailed when the original poster finally supplied some context.
The rule isn't there to be difficult. It's there to avoid the problems that pop up with no context.
This is one of my favourite context-less threads that rambled on for 50 posts without really getting anywhere:
Concubin [masculine concubine?]
Concubin [masculine concubine?]
Do you have an example?
That's just your assumption.
What is clear to you or to any fluent speaker may not be clear to a language learner.
The problem is (I'm speaking of English, the only forum in which I'm active) that some words and phrases can be used in multiple contexts with distinctly different meanings. The learner of the language may have seen only one and may be unaware of the others. Example: What does "gather" mean? Just off the top of my head:
I'm going to the woods to gather flowers.
The gang gathered together on the street corner.
The room had been gathering dust for months.
I gather, from what you said, that . . .
There's a storm gathering.
The skirt is gathered at the waist.
As the road descended, the car gathered speed.
I'm going to the woods to gather flowers.
The gang gathered together on the street corner.
The room had been gathering dust for months.
I gather, from what you said, that . . .
There's a storm gathering.
The skirt is gathered at the waist.
As the road descended, the car gathered speed.
Exactly. Or "What does booked mean"?
The suspect was booked for manslaughter.
The cops showed up so we booked it.
I'm booked this week. How about next week?
I'm sorry but the hotel is booked up.
Considerable tonnage was booked at $6.10.
The feisty football star was booked twice in five minutes.
The suspect was booked for manslaughter.
The cops showed up so we booked it.
I'm booked this week. How about next week?
I'm sorry but the hotel is booked up.
Considerable tonnage was booked at $6.10.
The feisty football star was booked twice in five minutes.
Last edited:
FR: link to sign up
We still need context about how is written that e-mail.
If the mail does contain previous personal pronouns: vous inscrire; otherwise: s'inscrire.
I am guessing:
The WordReference Grammar University organises a conference.
The WordReference Grammar University invites you to its conference.
I mostly answer questions in EO. One or two sentences explaining the context and why the question is being asked often give us some idea of the standard of the OP's English, and that's very important when it's a new member. It's embarrassing sometimes when you answer a question that seems to be very basic - and it turns out that the OP is doing a PhD in linguistics was expecting a more sophisticated approach.
Conversely, we may go into nit-picking detail on a subject, whereas the OP just wants some simple guidance. That's both frustrating for the OP and embarrassing for the person who answered the question.
If it isn't a new member, and they provide no context, I tend to put that down to sheer laziness - and I'd probably not bother to answer it at all.
Conversely, we may go into nit-picking detail on a subject, whereas the OP just wants some simple guidance. That's both frustrating for the OP and embarrassing for the person who answered the question.
If it isn't a new member, and they provide no context, I tend to put that down to sheer laziness - and I'd probably not bother to answer it at all.
I came upon this old (closed) thread today, and I think the discussion about the need for context and the impossibility of there ever being words with "no context", is rather interesting:
Disrupting / Disruptive
Disrupting / Disruptive
By the way, I wonder (when it concerns to a thread that has a "waiting for context" ) how much time that thread is "open" to the whole members if context is not provided, but required.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I’m not sure I’ve understood your question. When a thread has that tag, no one can post in it except for the OP or a moderator.
No, there is no single established time frame. This is generally decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the OP hasn’t been back online since the request for context, the moderators may decide to wait a bit longer. If the OP has been back (and active) but hasn’t supplied context, the moderators may decide to go ahead and delete the thread.
I mean. When someone opens a new thread and context is required by a moderator, but this (context) is not provided. How much time is the thread visible to the "foreros" until the thread is deleted? Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying.
Please see my post above.
Please see my post above.