WR flooding rule

Joika

Joika

Senior Member
Chinese
Hello everyone,

Sometimes I have to wait for hours before I can post my 6th question. It happens when fewer people use the forum.

Can we set an extra rule to make room for members who want to ask a reasonable number of questions within a certain period of time? For example, can we put a five-hour limit on the rule about flooding so more questions can be posted when most other members are not active anyways?

Thank you very much!
 
    • The flooding rule is there to ensure that everyone has a chance to have their question answered. If we, by whatever mechanism, allow people to post more threads at once, then it pushes other posts off the front page, and some of them may not have been answered yet.

    In slower forums the flooding rules may be different, but the forum you use currently has less than eight hours on the front page, and rarely has more than 12.
     
    The flooding rule is there to ensure that everyone has a chance to have their question answered. If we, by whatever mechanism, allow people to post more threads at once, then it pushes other posts off the front page, and some of them may not have been answered yet.
    Click to expand...
    Dear Glasguensis, I really appreciate your help in answering my questions and maintaining this forum.

    I share your opinion that it's crucial to ensure the forum's accessibility to all users. I just wonder if more questions could be asked within a reasonable timeframe. I'm not suggesting that we should remove the rule, rather that we take certain situations into consideration.

    In an extreme scenario where one individual responds to enough number of previous posts that it bumps all the unanswered questions far down the forum history, it doesn't technically break the rule.

    In an extreme case where one individual has 10 questions while others have 2 for an 8-hour period, it might seem unnecessary for the forum to remain inactive when active members are restricted from posting more content to the forum.

    While the rule is straightforward and useful when the content flow is strong, it appears to further hinder the content flow when it becomes less active. During such times, it doesn't take much effort for people to find or bring back unanswered posts to the front page.

    Would it be possible to make some adjustments for this kind of situation?

    I agree, and I think it would help to be more selective with questions, and to follow rule 1 "look for the answer first".
    Click to expand...
    Dear Sowka, as you might know, the forum encourages us to give very specific contexts for questions about usage and grammar. More often than not, there could be nuances between previously asked questions and one's specific questions despite them focusing on similar topics. It makes sense to look for existing threads first, but I get a feeling it wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of questions one has to ask, especially given that English is a very rich language.
     
    Joika said:
    but I get a feeling it wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of questions one has to ask, especially given that English is a very rich language.
    Click to expand...
    I beg to differ.
    If everyone searched first, even more so when the thread topic is about grammar and not vocabulary, (there are dozen of threads about any possible English grammar topic) there wouldn't even be the need for a no flooding rule because people would realize that most answers are already there.
     
    Paulfromitaly said:
    I beg to differ.
    If everyone searched first, even more so when the thread topic is about grammar and not vocabulary, (there are dozen of threads about any possible English grammar topic) there wouldn't even be the need for a no flooding rule because people would realize that most answers are already there.
    Click to expand...
    And if the question in an earlier thread isn't exactly the same, it's always possible to ask "does these answers here also explain this question", instead of creating a new thread.
     
    I don't deny that it is a possibility, but I'm not sure about attributing every case of flooding to not looking for existing answers first. I believe there is a need to separate the two and compartmentalize the steps we take to deal with each situation.

    For moderators to close threads for repeating existing questions is one thing, for them to close threads that impede other people's chances to have their questions answers is another. As long as their boundaries remain clear, I'm absolutely fine with having my posts deleted or receiving warnings.

    However, I don't think we should conflate having more questions than others with not searching first -- they need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

    Nor do I believe we should apply the rule of flooding as it stands to every situation when allowing more questions to be posted does not seem to noticeably inconvenience anyone, that is, when the content flow is weak.
     
    Adopting a more flexible approach would be logistically difficult. The person wanting to add another question would have to ask permission, a moderator would then have to check the status of the previous threads to check that nobody would be disadvantaged, and say how many if any new threads could be added. It would be necessary to somehow notify other forum members that a temporary derogation was in place, and then we’d have to check that the person abided by the authorisation in terms of quantity and timing.

    You are not the first person to raise this question. On each occasion we have come to the conclusion that it benefitted only the rare users like you, and disadvantaged everyone else.
     
    Joika said:
    In an extreme scenario where one individual responds to enough number of previous posts that it bumps all the unanswered questions far down the forum history, it doesn't technically break the rule.
    Click to expand...
    But doing that results in the same situation: a post just saying "thank you" or "I agree" bumps that thread to the top of the page.

    It is much better to express those reactions using the icons :thank you: and :thumbsup: to express thanks or agreement--doing so does not bump the thread to the top of the page.

    And if you wish to express your thanks in words--simply wait until your urgent need is passed to do so.
     
    There's been plenty of times where I've had 5 posts on the first page of the Spanish/English vocabulary forum.
    It's a bit frustrating having to wait until I have 4 or fewer on the first page before being able to ask another question, but I can see the reasoning behind it.
     
    wildan1 said:
    But doing that results in the same situation: a post just saying "thank you" or "I agree" bumps that thread to the top of the page.

    It is much better to express those reactions using the icons :thank you: and :thumbsup: to express thanks or agreement - doing so does not bump the thread to the top of the page.
    Click to expand...


    Agree :thumbsup:. Could you please pass this logical reasoning on to your fellow moderators on the Spanish-English forums?... :cool:
    forum.wordreference.com - 3923829/#20088728
    .
     
    The 5-thread rule must have been created quite a while ago. I just checked what, e.g., EO traffic used to be like and compared it to what it is now. If now it takes an average of three days to get through a 50-thread page, it used to be the other way around — several pages could pass in just one day. Wouldn't it really make sense to update this rule to better reflect the trends of recent years? Like, up to 10 threads per page (this issue doesn't affect me personally, just saying).
     
    Last edited:
    I have been on a forum where there were up to 15 or 20 posts initiated by someone who was reading a book. He had the nerve to put a quote from every paragraph of his novel and asked for detailed explanations. It was very, very dismaying and off-putting. It made me leave and not want to go back for a very long time. This is the best way to kill a varied, interesting, constructive forum environment.
    5 threads is by far enough. I hope this rule doesn't change and is rigorously enforced.
     
    Nobody forces anyone to answer the kind of questions they don't appreciate.

    Very slow traffic tends to put off both those who answer and those who pose questions. Traffic is decidedly slow these days.
     
    merquiades said:
    It was very, very dismaying and off-putting.
    Click to expand...
    I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.
    Apparently, honestly telling people they are biting off more than they can chew is not politically correct.
    In my humble opinion, the best way to support learners would be to help them choose suitable texts that are not beyond their language proficiency and explain where they can find the information and explanations they need rather than spoon-feeding them and always providing them with a ready-made solution.
     
    It's quite a good idea to tackle texts that are just beyond your present capabilities, or you won't make much progress. And of course someone's reading level will probably be far above the level of their writing ability. We often don't know what their level of understanding actually is.

    I would expect input from the learner themselves though, and not just "spoon-feed" them.
     
    I believe it's okay for learners to try out any level and type of test. However if you can't read without looking up every other word I'd look for something lighter. It's a great idea to suggest appropriate novels to interested foreros. I personally would love suggestions for Italian and German.

    To return to my point I would never allow myself to publish ten quotes from a novel in a row and ask for help. I'm blocking the forum with my pesky issues. I usually do research and try to solve my own questions, using WR dictionaries or other sources. Then I ask on a forum. Even then I wouldn't dare go over 2 or 3 quests, but never in a row. It's not because it is a rule either. I wouldn't do it even if it wasn't a rule. If someone does, I think a mod ought to gently remind them of the flooding rule but not necessarily delete the first or second time.
     
    merquiades said:
    I would never allow myself to publish ten quotes from a novel in a row and ask for help. I'm blocking the forum with my pesky issues. I usually do research and try to solve my own questions, using WR dictionaries or other sources. Then I ask on a forum. Even then I wouldn't dare go over 2 or 3 quests, but never in a row. It's not because it is a rule either. I wouldn't do it even if it wasn't a rule.
    Click to expand...
    If everyone were as scrupulous and fair as you are, we wouldn't even need a no flooding rule.
    velisarius said:
    It's quite a good idea to tackle texts that are just beyond your present capabilities, or you won't make much progress.
    Click to expand...

    If you do it yourself though, not if you then expect someone else to do the hard job for you.
     
    velisarius said:
    Very slow traffic tends to put off both those who answer and those who pose questions. Traffic is decidedly slow these days.
    Click to expand...
    Absolutely. If an "inquisitive" user used to wait for hours to start a new thread, now it may take days. What would they do? Go to other forums, or turn to AI.
    Meanwhile, if such a user annoys you, you can always put them on 'ignore.'
     
    güey said:
    Meanwhile, if such a user annoys you, you can always put them on 'ignore.'
    Click to expand...
    No, you can't. If the user is a mod (in any WR forum, not this one) you can't put them on "ignore".

    For a while, there was a user posting question after question in a forum about sentences in a book written in English -- but written in the 1600s. I couldn't help, but I couldn't put him on "ignore" because he was a mod in some other WR language forum. I don't think he ever broke the "flooding" rule, but every day there were several new posts.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Paulfromitaly said:
    If you do it yourself though, not if you then expect someone else to do the hard job for you.
    Click to expand...
    Well, for a native speaker it isn't such a hard job, and some of us actually enjoy it, especially when several native heads prove to be better than one dictionary definition.

    If I think a work is too arcane, not interesting enough, or just badly-written, I usually just give it a pass. It's not often that moderator-translators ask a long series of questions on one book. In fact I believe I can count the number of such moderators that have come to my attention on just one finger. Easy enough to just pass on by, if not officially "ignore" them.

    Edit: It's a little insulting to recommend an easier book to a learner. I'm glad nobody tried to dissuade me from persevering (as a a student) with Dante and Ariosto while I was still struggling with the basics of Italian. If I'd given up back then I sure wouldn't have had the patience to read them now.
     
    Last edited:
    velisarius said:
    It's a little insulting to recommend an easier book to a learner.
    Click to expand...
    I think it'd be a little insulting to take up, say, Shakespeare and then, since my English skills are not up to the task, come here, post a bunch of questions every day and expect native speakers to explain to me every single line I don't get.
    merquiades said:
    I usually do research and try to solve my own questions, using WR dictionaries or other sources.
    Click to expand...
    This would be the right approach, but few people do it because it's time consuming and it takes some effort.
     
    merquiades said:
    I'm blocking the forum with my pesky issues.
    Click to expand...
    How would you block the forum? Let's say it's 10 threads per front page now. Only one fifth. Given the pace of traffic, even in the faster-moving forums like EO, your thread — in the worst case, sitting on 11th position when the flooder started ten threads — will still be seen by a native speaker visiting the forum once in two-three days without them even having to go to the second page.
    Not that I champion the "lazy" TSs, it doesn't have to be that.
     
    güey said:
    Let's say it's 10 threads per front page now. Only one fifth.
    Click to expand...
    There are hundreds of learners posting questions in EO for example.
    Are you telling me that it is fair if ONE user in, say, 5 hundreds has 10 threads on the first page and the other 499 users have to make do with the other 40 threads available? Seriously? You'd find it OK only if you were that one user taking unfair advantage of the forum.
     
    This discussion is in vein of the many previous one on any change... The reasons for change wanted is slowly painted as something nearly immoral. So, so similar to discussion on thank you button! only lazy rude people want to use it, there is no problem whatsoever if it bumps threads etc. Reading books that bore native speakers, the horror! Reading texts above your level, the cheek!

    Let's not do any change here! If a forum is moving very slowly, that's a good thing, because by this hardship everyone then will be encouraged, educated, altered and bettered by necessity to do their own research outside the forum.
     
    Paulfromitaly said:
    In my humble opinion, the best way to support learners would be to help them choose suitable texts that are not beyond their language proficiency and explain where they can find the information and explanations they need rather than spoon-feeding them and always providing them with a ready-made solution
    Click to expand...
    I couldn’t agree more. The same goes for translators who use the forum as a crowdsourcing community and whose threads show little to no effort of doing their own research in the plethora of dictionaries and corpora available online.
     
    Last edited:
    Paulfromitaly said:
    There are hundreds of learners posting questions in EO for example.
    Are you telling me that it is fair if ONE user in, say, 5 hundreds has 10 threads on the first page and the other 499 users have to make do with the other 40 threads available? Seriously? You'd find it OK only if you were that one user taking unfair advantage of the forum.
    Click to expand...
    It's rather 1 in 30-40 users per page.
    And they wouldn't make do with that — as I pointed out, even in the worst-case scenario the flooder's threads wouldn't push other threads out of sight.
     
    güey said:
    It's rather 1 in 30-40 users
    Click to expand...
    Are you kidding me? 😂
    There are hundreds of users posting questions in EO and they all have the right to see their threads visible on the first page for a reasonable span of time and not pushed on page 2 or 3 because someone wants to post 10 questions in a row or in a very short period of time.
     
    You said:
    and the other 499 users have to make do with the other 40 threads available
    It'd be 40 users at most (in reality ~ 30). What do the rest of imaginary 460-470 users (who don't have their threads on the first page) have to do with that?
     
    If one single user hogs the first page of the forum, this person uses 20% (10 out of 50) of the threads for themselves. The other potential 449 users have 40 threads available.
    1 user = 10/50 = 20%
    499 users = 40/499 = 0.8%
    20% vs. 0.8%
    It's statistics 101.
     
    Paulfromitaly said:
    The other potential 449 users
    Click to expand...
    Where did you get those 449? They actually don't exist.
    If anything, it's more like:
    1 user = 20% of space
    30 users = 80% of space

    On average, it takes anywhere from a few minutes to an hour for a contributor to respond to (and solve) a new thread. Even if the flooder always has 10 threads on the front page, the rest of users will still stay on the front page for at least a couple of days. It's way more than enough.
     
    swift said:
    I couldn’t agree more. The same goes for translators who use the forum as a crowdsourcing community and whose threads show little to no effort of doing their own research in the plethora of dictionaries and corpora available online.
    Click to expand...
    If the translator is working with a translation from the original language a book/article was written in, then there are dictionaries and other resources online to be found. But if the translator only has a copy of the original work that has already been translated once (and that translation is full with incorrectly or doubiously translated words, probably an AI-translation), and the book in its original language is difficult to obtain, and the translator is not familiar with the language, then it doesn't matter how many dictionaries there are. Their only hope is if they can find someone here who knows the original language, and has access to the original work, so that they can get help.

    güey said:
    Where did you get those 449? They actually don't exist.
    If anything, it's more like:
    1 user = 20% of space
    30 users = 80% of space

    On average, it takes anywhere from a few minutes to an hour for a contributor to respond to (and solve) a new thread. Even if the flooder always has 10 threads on the front page, the rest of users will still stay on the front page for at least a couple of days. It's way more than enough.
    Click to expand...
    If the number of threads posted per user on the first page was to be 10, what could be done to prevent that 2, 3, 4, or 5 users posted 10 threads each? If only 'special' users would be permitted to post 10 threads, how would other 'non-special' users to feel about that?
     
    AutumnOwl said:
    If the number of threads posted per user on the first page was to be 10, what could be done to prevent that 2, 3, 4, or 5 users posted 10 threads each? If only 'special' users would be permitted to post 10 threads, how would other 'non-special' users to feel about that?
    Click to expand...
    It's possible in theory but not in practice — when a number of flooders constantly occupy the front page maxing out their thread limits. Even my scenario with just one user taking 20% of the page all the time is implausible.
     
    AutumnOwl said:
    If the translator is working with a translation from the original language a book/article was written in, then there are dictionaries and other resources online to be found. But if the translator only has a copy of the original work that has already been translated once (and that translation is full with incorrectly or doubiously translated words, probably an AI-translation), and the book in its original language is difficult to obtain, and the translator is not familiar with the language, then it doesn't matter how many dictionaries there are. Their only hope is if they can find someone here who knows the original language, and has access to the original work, so that they can get help.
    Click to expand...
    A little while ago I needed to translate grissini into Spanish. There are about 10 terms that can be used in different countries and areas with slight differences in meaning: size, texture, crunch, taste. It takes time. I checked a few threads here and started looking at images. Then searching google. I really wanted to translate grisines, as I think it would be best, but I chose palillos de pan. I was thinking about asking the people here to give their opinion, but I decided it wasn't necessary. I had made my decision. Final answer. Usually when I ask, I really have no idea. If it gets thrown out and flooded by ten Beowulf quotes before the right person sees it and gives the best answers, it's a real loss.

    I remember reading in the rules that the forums were created to ask questions when the response wasn't found in the dictionary. Their main use is to add on words to the dictionaries, which is a non-stop action. The ultimate goal is for the dictionaries to be so good that no one needs to ask any questions in the forums anymore.
     
    Last edited:
    merquiades said:
    I remember reading in the rules that the forums were created to ask questions when the response wasn't found in the dictionary. Their main use is to add on words to the dictionaries, which is a non-stop action. The ultimate goal is for the dictionaries to be so good that no one needs to ask any questions in the forums anymore.
    Click to expand...
    Absolutely and that's why rule #1 says "Search first".
     
    merquiades said:
    A little while ago I needed to translate grissini into Spanish. There are about 10 terms that can be used in different countries and areas with slight differences in meaning: size, texture, crunch, taste. It takes time. I checked a few threads here and started looking at images. Then searching google. I really wanted to translate grisines, as I think it would be best, but I chose palillos de pan. I was thinking about asking the people here to give their opinion, but I decided it wasn't necessary. I had made my decision. Final answer. Usually when I ask, I really have no idea. If it gets thrown out and flooded by ten Beowulf quotes before the right person sees it and gives the best answers, it's a real loss.

    I remember reading in the rules that the forums were created to ask questions when the response wasn't found in the dictionary. Their main use is to add on words to the dictionaries, which is a non-stop action. The ultimate goal is for the dictionaries to be so good that no one needs to ask any questions in the forums anymore.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, but in your case you were translating a word from language A to language B. What if there is a translation done from language A to language B, and someone is doing a translation to language C? In the case I'm thinking about a word 'x' had been translated as 'y', and 'y' has two meanings in language B. The translator to language C asked which one was meant, even in neither of them seemed to fit. When checking the word used in language A, the word was 'z', not 'y', with a different meaning (well, both belonged to the classification furniture).
     
    A moralising attitude isn't likely to bring new blood to the forum, in the face of fierce competition from more user-friendly and non-judgemental AI.

    i feel that those who pose questions need to be given some slack--if we want to keep the forums up and running, that is.
     
    I don't think having a rule is "a moralizing attitude". The comment you critized is a comment in this thread, not a comment to the general public.

    I also don't imagine any "fierce competition from AI". This forum is not trying to compete with AI. We couldn't, even if we tried.

    velisarius said:
    i feel that those who pose questions need to be given some slack--if we want to keep the forums up and running, that is.
    Click to expand...
    How many people have the problem that they can't pose new questions because the forum they are posting in moves too slowly? Is it most users? Are is it a rare thing?

    I don't know. I don't post in most sub-forums on a daily basis. Just 1 or 2.

    EDIT: If it is a problem for many people, we might think of a different solution. For example, the first 1 or 2 replies answers the user's question. Maybe we can offer them a way to move this "answered" post off the first page. Or something like that. Currently we make no distinction between an "already answered" question and a "still waiting for more comments" one.
     
    dojibear said:
    Currently we make no distinction between an "already answered" question and a "still waiting for more comments" one.
    Click to expand...
    I recommend philosophical discussions on 'solved' button in CS. :) /Those who want it - to help forum move along - are made to look like morons for not staring at their belly button contemplating how no question can ever be truly solved./
     
    All WR is talking about is being reasonable and polite. Asking people not to open more than 5 threads in a row is not a punishment. It's already a compromise. This is a community of hundreds, if not thousands of members.



    @AutumnOwl Yes, this happens a lot. Grissini is translated as breadsticks in English and then other languages calque that imperfect translation. You have to go back to language A and study the term for a correct version, if it matters. Opening a thread in language A would be helpful. But the person translating in language C, what exactly does he want to translate, the B translation or the A original? Say a Portuguese novel is translated to Danish and you want a Swedish version of the novel, which do you translate?
    You show why AI has limits, but I still don't see why you would need to flood one forum with tons of questions. But yes, sometimes you need to ask an important question, what do grissini taste like in Italy and how many inches long are they?
     
    Last edited:
    merquiades said:
    USER=369253]@AutumnOwl[/USER] Yes, this happens a lot. Grissini is translated as breadsticks in English and then other languages calque that imperfect translation. You have to go back to language A and study the term for a correct version, if it matters. Opening a thread in language A would be helpful. But the person translating in language C, what exactly does he want to translate, the B translation or the A original? Say a Portuguese novel is translated to Danish and you want a Swedish version of the novel, which do you translate?
    You show why AI has limits, but I still don't see why you would need to flood one forum with tons of questions. But yes, sometimes you need to ask an important question, what do grissini taste like in Italy and how many inches long are they?
    Click to expand...
    In this case the translator has got a translation of a Swedish novel into English (and the English translation is not yet published), and is trying to translate the book into a non-European language. Perhaps there are not many translators in that language who are familiar enough with Swedish to be able to translate it from the original. Things do get lost in translation, but direct messages helps.
     
    @AutumnOwl I just noticed where you are coming from. A thread I created a year ago on the Nordic languages forum is still number 14 on page one. There is a person with more threads than 5, though he posts once every other month. I suppose there is a different reality to adapt to in each forum.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top Bottom