Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently participated in two threads that were "closed for mod review." One of them had disintegrated in such a way that it was not surprising that it was closed . . .the other one was harmless, with no insults and had gone on for pages and pages . . .so people were basically having fun . . .there was no "issue" . . .
I put "closed for mod review" in the CD search function and a bunch of threads came up . . .and most of them are still closed.
So why not be more transparent and just put "closed" - I have never seen one of these "closed for mod review" threads reopen . . .why not? Why aren't the results of the "review" published - with a sentiment about why the thread will remain closed . . .or in the case where it was reviewed and found to be harmless, why is the thread not reopened?
I wish I could name the thread that was simply a long thread that people were having fun on . . .that one really perplexes me . . .
I think it is disingenuous to put "closed for mod review" just to arbitrarily close a thread . . .and when I say "arbitrarily," I mean it literally because a mod is determining that it should be closed.
If someone has violated "terms of service," that person can be reprimanded, penalized, whatever . . .and objectionable comments can be deleted . . .
What are the results of these reviews and why not publish them . . .it's not like anyone could argue with you once you close the thread so what is the harm of saying what the real deal is instead of pretending the thread is being "reviewed?"
You do not see the deleted posts... So everything may look nice. Sometimes the moderator does not have time to go threw the thread.
Quote:
What are the results of these reviews and why not publish them . . .
To be honest, I would not want any part of that... Just my opinion. I have limited time and I don't think we have enough spare moderators. They aren't formal reviews which can be published...
I have never seen one of these "closed for mod review" threads reopen . . .why not?
Many closed threads are later re-opened. However, when that happens, the mod deletes the "Closed for mod review" post so you can't see it anymore. Unless you were specifically watching that thread, you'd never know it had ever been closed.
Yes, I saw that thread, but it didn't relate to my question.
I know I don't see deleted posts - so if everything looks nice, why would the thread be "closed for review?" There would be no need to review if problem posts had already been deleted . . .
If you put "closed for mod review" in the search function, a TON of threads that are STILL closed show up . . .
It's the "review" part I am questioning. If you say you are going to review something, then at the end of the review if you deem that the thread was so terrible it must remain closed for some unfathomable reason, then put the reason and keep it closed. No one could argue with you, so there is no reason not to do that.
If, after the "review," the thread is deemed, okay, open it with a comment or just open it . . .
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,044,688 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by imcurious
Yes, I saw that thread, but it didn't relate to my question.
I know I don't see deleted posts - so if everything looks nice, why would the thread be "closed for review?" There would be no need to review if problem posts had already been deleted . . .
If you put "closed for mod review" in the search function, a TON of threads that are STILL closed show up . . .
It's the "review" part I am questioning. If you say you are going to review something, then at the end of the review if you deem that the thread was so terrible it must remain closed for some unfathomable reason, then put the reason and keep it closed. No one could argue with you, so there is no reason not to do that.
If, after the "review," the thread is deemed, okay, open it with a comment or just open it . . .
There was at least one thread that I regularly participate in that was "closed for mod review" by a mod that was covering while the regular mod was away ... Once the regular mod was able to review the thread, it reopened.
Closed for mod review indeed means that a moderator is supposed to review the thread. But he doesn't have to open it, if he decides it's not beneficial, hence it may stay closed forever. I suppose not every moderator deletes the note so it stays, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
