Poll-6 Should moderators bounce-back some new threads

[mmm4444bot]

This poll is for the active membership, and it's completely anonymous. Please consider participating above. Current poll results will display, after entering your choice.

The poll question does not address how such a policy would be implemented (i.e., protocol); it's asking for feedback on the idea itself. The following examples are general.

Choosing 'Yes': This idea would help reduce work before tutoring can begin (and the number of initial posts), by active members trying to sort through a serious lack of initial information (eg: complete exercise statement, legible images, statements as to what they know and tried; what's confusing). By not posting initial threads until they are workable, it would ensure that active members (non-moderators) always receive new requests that are pretty much "ready to go", hopefully resulting in more in-depth help, as some wasted time will be eliminated.

Choosing 'No': By not bouncing incomplete threads back to new users, this idea would pretty much leave the forum as is; each new deficient request for help would be met with whatever language and help that the first responder chooses to provide, in an attempt to obtain whatever information they deem necessary, to proceed. Maybe some active member's approach will require information that a moderator does not specify, when bouncing the thread back to its author, so that active member would need to ask the new member for it, anyway.

 

[JeffM]

Mark

i am going to vote yes because a well designed process could result in a standardized, prompt, and polite response to inadequately specified problems.

I have, however, some caveats. I post at English Learners Stack Exchange, and a great deal of time is spent worrying about whether questions comply with the rules. I'd like to avoid that kind of constant obsession with process. Furthermore, a volunteer site cannot always guarantee prompt responses so it might be desirable to release posts if they have not been reviewed within a certain time period (maybe 3 or 4 hours). Lastly, I would ask posters to distinguish between school problems and practical problems because practical problems are often actually problems in sensible specification. And of course my final caveat is that desirability will ultimately depend on the workability of an actual process rather than an undefined one.

 

[tkhunny]

Are we talking about some sort of manual triage?

 

[mmm4444bot]

I am going to vote yes because a well designed process could result in a standardized, prompt, and polite response to inadequately specified problems.

I have, however, some caveats. I post at English Learners Stack Exchange, and a great deal of time is spent worrying about whether questions comply with the rules. I'd like to avoid that kind of constant obsession with process.

I'm hoping to get some protocol in place that would eliminate such discussions. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but -- in general -- certain classifications of requests by new members could be handled in a pre-set fashion, where the active membership knows what's going to happen. I certainly don't want any tribunals or appeals courts! This is why I want as many members to contribute their opinions now, so that after agreeing to a process there won't be much need to question whether threads meet protocol. (Please let me know, if you think I misunderstood any of your statements above.)

Furthermore, a volunteer site cannot always guarantee prompt responses so it might be desirable to release posts if they have not been reviewed within a certain time period (maybe 3 or 4 hours).

Good point, but I feel that waiting up to 12 hours is not unreasonable, for those who skip over the guidelines. Moderators could also check back with new members who have not edited their bounced thread, after a specified time. I expect some new members will go elsewhere (rather than make an effort to edit their thread) because they're just fishing for answers anyways. For new members who follow the guidelines to begin with (which need some rewordings, as well as additional emphases and explanations of main points), there will be no delay.

Lastly, I would ask posters to distinguish between school problems and practical problems because practical problems are often actually problems in sensible specification. And of course my final caveat is that desirability will ultimately depend on the workability of an actual process rather than an undefined one.

I agree with both of these points. We need to force new members to make some sort of declaration regarding schoolwork or not. Any new processes need to be discussed, agreed upon, and then tried (i.e., tested for workability).

 

[mmm4444bot]

Are we talking about some sort of manual triage?

I think that's an apt comparison. Moderators will need to make a judgment as to the disposition of first thread(s) by new members, and then route them according to some common protocol.