I'm a Ask MeFi Question Fail How Can I Change This?

June 8, 2010 2:40 PM

I have posted eight questions total on AskMetafilter and two were immediatly deleted (a 25% fail rate!). I read the FAQs and the questions that were deleted didn't fit into the "what not to post" arena, they weren't rude or anything. One was is X legal and the other was adventurous ideas for a family. How do I know what questions are appropriate to ask?
posted by MsKim to Etiquette/Policy at 2:40 PM (70 comments total)

What was "X"?
posted by boo_radley at 2:43 PM on June 8, 2010

You learn some of these things through experience. My advice to you is that if you have a question like this, you're better off asking the moderators directly with the Contact form, instead of posting a MetaTalk thread. You might want to ask to have this thread closed as well, since the mods can probably answer your questions just fine, and sometimes people in MetaTalk aren't so friendly in "why was this question deleted" threads.

Also, if you want to ask questions about specific threads, it's best to link to the threads in question. You can still link to deleted threads.
posted by grouse at 2:49 PM on June 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

What were the deletion reasons given when the questions were deleted?
posted by Nothing... and like it at 2:51 PM on June 8, 2010

Including links to blogs, especially ones covered in ads, as you did with your question this morning, could be interpreted as a shady attempt to drive traffic that way. You could have easily framed that question without the link by asking for suggestions for an adventurous family that is about to complete an epic bike trip.
posted by IanMorr at 2:52 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

The question was if homeowners in default could sue mortgage companies for issuing loans that got them into trouble and led them to foreclosure, would it be legal for homeowners who pay their mortgage on time to sue the mortgage companies for issuing these loans which caused the value of homes in neighborhoods where there are high forceclosure rates to take a nose dive. A bit more ranty than that but that was the question.
posted by MsKim at 2:53 PM on June 8, 2010

A bit more ranty than that

Well, there's your problem then.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 2:55 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thanks Ian...that is the explanation I am looking for. I didn't think about not linking to the blog although the way you phrased it would have worked just as well.
posted by MsKim at 2:57 PM on June 8, 2010

You're welcome, here are the relevant entries from the FAQ you may have missed when reading it previously.


Someone called my comment/post Pepsi Blue; what does that mean?

My Ask Metafilter question was removed as chatfilter. What does that mean? Please do not rant on AskMe and pretend it is a question.
posted by IanMorr at 3:00 PM on June 8, 2010

You asked for ideas for someone else's family. It's basically just chit-chat. The questions have to be of immediate relevance to you in general.
posted by GuyZero at 3:01 PM on June 8, 2010

Part of the problem with the legal question is that it's effectively unanswerable. First, it seems awfully hypothetical. Second, if it's not hypothetical, then an attorney would need a lot of facts and a lot of research would have to be done to determine if a lawsuit could go ahead, and you're not likely to get that kind of free legal advice on Ask Metafilter for a whole host of reasons. Third, ultimately a court would have to rule on whether such a suit is okay or not, and of course Ask Metafilter is not a court.
posted by jedicus at 3:04 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

Your two AskMe questions are still available at their original URLs which should be in the MeMail you got when you posted them. Here are the links.

"Foreclosures and short sales oh my! I want to sue dammit!"
This seemed ranty which was exactly the problem with it. Since it was not time-sensitive, the deletion reason suggested you tone down the rant part of it and ask again next week. The reaosn for this general guideline is that if your question is particularly ranty, people focus on the tone and not the content of your question and then we have to spend a ton of time moderating the thread as peopel tell you to calm down. Tone matters in asking questions.

"Help this family decide what to do next!"
Generally speaking links in AskMe need to happen only when totally necessary. You may not know how much admin time we spend trying to keep people from spamming MeFi, but it's pretty high, hence the rule. Add to that that you were sort of asking a general chatty question and it's really not a good fit for AskMe.

The basic deal is that the questions need to have a problem to be solved and that problem should, ideally, be your problem. Open-ended questions that are just "hey let's talk about this general idea" aren't so great. That said, there are no real demerits for getting a question deleted. Often you can find someone who's been here longer who you can bounce a question idea off of if you're wondering if it will fly or not.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:15 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

Suing mortgage lenders for making you sign a stupid mortgage agreement? That's rich.
posted by crunchland at 3:22 PM on June 8, 2010

aaah, but if they were rich they wouldn't have to... yeah, uh, I'll see myself out.
posted by dabitch at 3:25 PM on June 8, 2010

They're called unwritten rules for a reason!
posted by smackfu at 3:56 PM on June 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

And it's funny, because someone recently asked if they were allowed to link to their photos in an Ask Me, and the response was basically, "of course, duh". OTOH, apparently any links that aren't to photos are verboten.

It's really not surprising people find it difficult to navigate the maze of rules.
posted by smackfu at 3:59 PM on June 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

the rule is that if the question involves a kitty you have to link to a pic of said kitty
posted by desjardins at 4:08 PM on June 8, 2010 [44 favorites]

IT'S THE LAW
posted by desjardins at 4:09 PM on June 8, 2010 [7 favorites]

OTOH, apparently any links that aren't to photos are verboten.

Links that are either necessary to explain the question or that are photos of pets are okay. All other links fall under the "we'll remove it and ask you to put it in your profile" heading which is not so terrible. We don't expect people to know all this stuff, just to be somewhat relaxed about the fact that there are a lot of unwritten or rarely mentioned site norms and that very few of them matter terribly much.

That said, people who are really "I want to know all the rules" about stuff are unlikely to be happy here, which we've said frequently. There's a general corpus of FAQ + wiki + reading MeTa that should be okay if you've got a decent memory, but some things shift over time [back and forth especially, now we have less updatefilter MeTa posts, formerly we had more of them]. And some guidelines really only make sense in context ["that post, at that time, was a crappy post; post it again later"] which also tends to get people a little bent out of shape.

If people can think of more things that should be added to the FAQ or especially my new baby the Mod Explanations page, please do let me know.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:13 PM on June 8, 2010 [4 favorites]

The idea that only lawyers can usefully discuss the law, courts, specific legal cases, and potential legal cases is antithetical to democracy, un-American and completely ridiculous.

Otherwise, what could possibly be the point of electing judges or the people who appoint them?
posted by jamjam at 4:15 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

OK, well both the FAQ and the AskMe guidelines only talk about not allowing self-links. So I would suggest changing that in the guidelines from "self-link" to "links", and adding a separate question to the FAQ about whether you can link at all in AskMe.
posted by smackfu at 4:18 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

And I don't mean to sound critical. This question just reminds me of how easy it is to lose sight of what a community looks like to new people. And that Metafilter is pretty hostile to new people.
posted by smackfu at 4:23 PM on June 8, 2010

Yeah we mention this in the self-links section of the FAQ but maybe we should be more explicit. The big deal is that we want people to err on the side of not linking to anything in AskMe unless it's a dorky pet photo [and even then, we'd draw the line at "here's my pet's blog" if we didn't know the poster and it looked fishy].
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:24 PM on June 8, 2010

The idea that only lawyers can usefully discuss the law, courts, specific legal cases, and potential legal cases is antithetical to democracy, un-American and completely ridiculous.

Otherwise, what could possibly be the point of electing judges or the people who appoint them?

You'll see plenty of discussions about law and legal cases on the blue. However, posts to AskMe are going to be asking about specific legal problems that the questioner has, and in those cases they are likely to need proper advice from someone who is actually qualified to give them that advice rather than people who graduated from Law & Order Law School, otherwise it could end up costing them far more money, or in the worst case with them in jail.
posted by Electric Dragon at 4:40 PM on June 8, 2010

The idea that only lawyers can usefully discuss the law, courts, specific legal cases, and potential legal cases is antithetical to democracy, un-American and completely ridiculous.

This may well be the case, but what are the odds that a non-lawyer would be able to give a useful answer to the question? I know I couldn't have before going to law school.

NB: The question was not "as a question of policy, should people be allowed to sue?" Rather, it was "can I, specifically, sue some particular banks for this particular grievance?" Just how many non-lawyers do you think have a clue how to answer such a question in a helpful way? Remember too that the question isn't about a well-recognized cause of action, so a truly useful answer would be based on a good sense of what the courts in the asker's state are willing to accept.

Should people of all kinds of backgrounds be allowed to or even encouraged to discuss the law, courts, specific legal cases, and potential legal cases? Probably. I certainly support a liberal policy on the matter. But Ask Metafilter is about more than just discussion. It's about getting helpful answers to questions. And a non-lawyer is extremely unlikely to be able to give such an answer in this case, and even a lawyer would need more facts and likely have to do research to give a good answer. Lawyers are unlikely to do that because it's a potential ethics violation (communicating with a client via an open internet forum waives attorney client privilege, so that's bad, and diving into giving legal advice without verifying the asker's identity and doing a conflict of interest check is also probably a violation of the rules).

But collectively we've been over this territory many times, and I don't think anything has changed to warrant rehashing it. Personally I'm planning to push for a revision of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to expand the limited legal services / quick advice programs exception to the conflict of interest rules (i.e., Rule 6.5) to include pseudo-anonymous internet forums like Ask Metafilter. Perhaps some day there will be an ethical structure that allows attorneys to give quick advice over the internet.
posted by jedicus at 4:53 PM on June 8, 2010 [3 favorites]

we want people to err on the side of not linking to anything in AskMe unless it's a dorky pet photo

Or a photo of the mystery object - bug, antique tool, cool sunglasses, etc - an asker is trying to identify, right?
posted by mediareport at 4:55 PM on June 8, 2010

Yeah: dorky pet photo or necessary to the question.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:56 PM on June 8, 2010

The "suggestions for family" question definitely read like "drive traffic to this site!" to me. I mean, you couldn't really have answered the question unless you go read their site.

I wonder if maybe rel="nofollows" could be added to links in AskMe questions if the concern traffic whoring.

But then, so much of what the mods do is "They know it when they see it." This is a not a machine-governed community, it's a person-governed community, the fallout of that is that the rules evolve, and if you have a question about a question, contact the mods.
posted by artlung at 5:02 PM on June 8, 2010

Can a dorky pet link to its own photo or is that self-linking?
posted by lore at 5:17 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

it's a good thing the mods haven't caught on to the linkfarms my cats run
posted by jtron at 5:19 PM on June 8, 2010 [4 favorites]

I wonder if maybe rel="nofollows" could be added to links in AskMe questions if the concern traffic whoring.

I don't think that will solve the problem unless humans can be expected to follow that directive.
posted by grouse at 6:10 PM on June 8, 2010

Maybe people could actually spend some time on the rest of the site to get to know and appreciate it, and not just keep their entire MeFi existence on Ask?

yeah, I know that'll never happen, but I STILL think AskMe itself is the problem and not the solution
posted by yhbc at 6:34 PM on June 8, 2010

You can't expect all of the people who come to AskMe to get answers to be willing to dedicate the time and effort to acclimate to the rest of the site. That would be like expecting people who vacation in Paris to learn how to cook the perfect omelet. I mean, it'd be nice, but it requires a certain level of dedication that's unnecessary for their own goals. And lets be frank -- AskMe is pretty heavily moderated, at least compared to the rest of the site. Most folks would come down with toxic shock if they tried to participate in some of the stuff on the gray or the blue.
posted by crunchland at 6:45 PM on June 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

The idea that only lawyers can usefully discuss the law, courts, specific legal cases, and potential legal cases is antithetical to democracy, un-American and completely ridiculous.

Also, we should be free to throw out random, baseless, internet diagnoses suggesting that the guy you know from down the street is bi-polar and/or autistic. At least until The Straightener comes in, scattering us like roaches when the lights come on.

Although, I think he has Asperger's because my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw him pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:22 PM on June 8, 2010 [1 favorite]

Maybe people could actually spend some time on the rest of the site to get to know and appreciate it, and not just keep their entire MeFi existence on Ask?


How does that solve the problem of people not understanding all the nuances of linking in AskMe? It's not like the rules for the Blue are the same.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:24 PM on June 8, 2010

Yeah: dorky pet photo or necessary to the question.
posted by jessamyn

So are you saying we can link to dorky pet photos even if it has nothing to do with the question? Random dorky pet photos in some computer or science question where I don't even understand the question would be great.

I'm going to buy a dorky pet.

*The above comment was intended as sarcasm. I am reasonably sure Jessamyn would not be happy if we linked to random dorky pet photos. Even if it would be a lot of fun. If I had a dorky pet, I'd link to a photo of it right the hell now.*
posted by marxchivist at 8:32 PM on June 8, 2010

Well; in this case, oneirodynia, it wouldn't have solved that problem, but it would have solved the problem of going to MeTa when a question to the mods would have sufficed. But like crunchy says, the nuances are different in other areas, and if you've joined this site to only participate in the ask-and-answer-questions part of it, you probably wouldn't want to stick around if you knew about them all.
posted by yhbc at 8:58 PM on June 8, 2010

AskMe is mainly good for questions like "What's a good backpack?" and also "Is there an iPhone app that will let me pick a good backpack?"
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:17 PM on June 8, 2010

What I'm coming to recognise about the lack of explicit rules is that it discourages bush lawyer types from crafting something to be just within the rules, and it encourages doubt and circumspection from people as they wonder whether something is ok or not. This is Tao policy. There is more order and discipline when there are fewer rules.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:28 PM on June 8, 2010 [5 favorites]

I'm sorry, did someone say something about dorky pet photos?
posted by Nothing... and like it at 9:53 PM on June 8, 2010 [3 favorites]

If people can think of more things that should be added to the FAQ or especially my new baby the Mod Explanations page, please do let me know.

I wish I'd never read about the Mod Explanations page.

'cause now I want to reopen discussion on the use of one of my favorite words as a purely anatomical reference. [It's the only term for it that sounds powerful; all the rest end in vowels or voiced bilabials (different labia, mind you).]

But, I somehow doubt that's going to go well. So don't nobody go considering this particular comment as the reopener.
posted by Netzapper at 10:29 PM on June 8, 2010

I have posted eight questions total on AskMetafilter and two were immediatly deleted (a 25% fail rate!).

One more and MeMail sends you an automatic "You suck." message.

Or so I'm told.
posted by pracowity at 12:22 AM on June 9, 2010

Just to clarify, MsKim -- if you return to the urls of your deleted threads you will find a reason for the deletion at the top of the page, just under your post. In these cases, these reasons were nice and clear.

For your foreclosures thread, the reason given was "this seems like a rant disguised as a question. Please rephrase and come back next week?"

and for your family adventures thread the reason given was "This reads like an ad and isn't really a good fit for askme in any case".

In the guidelines, under the what makes a bad question section, the relevant entries are:

"- Questions that are thinly veiled rants about specific bands, industries, websites or people, like "What's the deal with U2, do they suck or what?" (your foreclosures question fits this bill)

"Open-ended chatty questions that don't offer a problem to be solved" and "Questions that needlessly self-link - if you need to include a link to illustrate your point, that's fine" (your family adventures question fits these). I am sure you have nothing to do with the blog you linked to, but it was not pertinent to the question, and it therefore looks a little bit suspect.

I'm guessing you had not seen these reasons since, if you had, the reasons for deletion and how they fit in with the site guidelines ought to be rather clear, I'd have thought. I thought therefore I'd make explicitly clear that reasons for deletion are in fact published in the affected threads since, thinking about it, I can see how that wouldn't necessarily be obvious for a relatively new user.
posted by nthdegx at 1:06 AM on June 9, 2010

The answer to, "Can I sue?" Is always, "Yes." Anytime and anywhere.

The answer to the questions, "Do I stand a chance of winning a suit?" or "Is it worth while pursuing this case?" are a lot harder to answer.
posted by Some1 at 1:14 AM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Incidentally, if I was hired to take a pass at the guidelines I'd revise the affected ones above.

"- Questions that are thinly veiled rants about specific bands, industries, websites or people, like "What's the deal with U2, do they suck or what?"

Call me pedantic, but the danger here is that by listing some examples you're at risk of someone saying "hey, I wasn't ranting about a specific band, industry, website or person -- just next door's cat!"

Revision: "Rants disguised as questions. Don't use Ask Metafilter to let off steam."

"Questions that needlessly self-link - if you need to include a link to illustrate your point, that's fine"

I think this allows wiggle-room for the sort of linkery, self or otherwise, that should not be okay in Ask Metafilter. Self-linking seems to be the only linking that's excluded (where irrelevant) by this point. I'd like to see all irrelevant links excluded, so I'm equally prohibited from linking to my friend's website needlessly, or to the new Pepsi product launch page (except where relevant).

Revision: "Questions with irrelevant links. Only provide a link that is directly relevant to your question, and required by readers to formulate a satisfactory answer."
posted by nthdegx at 1:15 AM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

The big deal is that we want people to err on the side of not linking to anything in AskMe unless it's a dorky pet photo [and even then, we'd draw the line at "here's my pet's blog" if we didn't know the poster and it looked fishy].

So you'd only have a problem with a pet's blog if the pet was a fish? SPECIESIST!
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:29 AM on June 9, 2010

if you return to the urls of your deleted threads you will find a reason for the deletion at the top of the page, just under your post. In these cases, these reasons were nice and clear.

That right there is an entry barrier. I mean, who keeps the urls of their own posts? And unless you're deeply in-the-know and have something like plutor's deleted thread script installed, the deletion reasons aren't ever seen, are they?
posted by crunchland at 4:23 AM on June 9, 2010

That right there is an entry barrier. I mean, who keeps the urls of their own posts? And unless you're deeply in-the-know and have something like plutor's deleted thread script installed, the deletion reasons aren't ever seen, are they?

The urls are in the MeMails you get when you post questions, but I don't think you get a MeMail when a post is deleted. If not, is there a reason that wouldn't be a good idea? Just a simple note that a post you made was deleted by moderators and that you can visit the link to see the reason for deletion.
posted by Dojie at 5:21 AM on June 9, 2010

And maybe a suggestion to contact a moderator with any questions about the deletion.
posted by Dojie at 5:22 AM on June 9, 2010

'cause now I want to reopen discussion on the use of one of my favorite words as a purely anatomical reference.

I thought that was a distinction made in the latest discussion thread on that word. I think you'd be safe.
posted by palliser at 5:46 AM on June 9, 2010

Psh, I've posted 12.
posted by Eideteker at 6:01 AM on June 9, 2010

Those of us who own pigs, can we link to porky pet photos?
posted by owtytrof at 6:39 AM on June 9, 2010

is there a reason that wouldn't be a good idea?

Yes. Deletions are pretty much a rarity, sometimes contentious and we figure people can check via the MeMail we send them, or ask us or ask here. Running the sort of lean ship that we do here, opening up a discussion about every deletion [which would be what an email to the poster would be doing] that doesn't happen in MeTa isn't a great use of our time.

We'll email people about deletions often if they're new or we think there will be something confusing [yesterday someone made a great post but it just linked to stuff on facebook, I emailed her to suggest she try to find a way to find the same content, but not behind a login screen and try again the next day] and we're always happy to answer email if people contact us.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:58 AM on June 9, 2010

Maybe people could actually spend some time on the rest of the site to get to know and appreciate it, and not just keep their entire MeFi existence on Ask?

Some of us think there is less and less to appreciate on the rest of the site, whereas AskMe is one of the best things on the internet.
posted by willbaude at 7:11 AM on June 9, 2010

The answer to, "Can I sue?" Is always, "Yes." Anytime and anywhere.

I think you're confused. This is so wrong.
posted by ODiV at 7:46 AM on June 9, 2010

It's the difference between "can" and "should". In the US, at least, you can pretty much always file the lawsuit, and usually find an attorney to do it for you, but you most likely should not sue, and the case probably won't survive an early motion to dismiss. Alas, that there are not stronger sanctions for these filings and more attorneys who refuse to do it.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:53 AM on June 9, 2010

So change "always" to "pretty much always" and "Anytime and anywhere" to "In the US" and we have something approximating a factual statement.
posted by ODiV at 7:57 AM on June 9, 2010

Approaching, rather.
posted by ODiV at 7:59 AM on June 9, 2010

I didn't say it was right, in an ethical sense. And I don't support it, but it is always possible to file the papers, and that initiates the suit. That doesn't mean it won't get thrown out before a hearing or you want get fined for making the claim, but it's still a suit. Attorneys are supposed to do due diligence before they file and only make realistic claims and could be disbarred, but some will push the limits we know, and one doesn't need an attorney to file. All of this takes the courts time and the defendants resources.

This is the reason that SLAPPs exist and, yeah, some people just want to be paid to go away.
posted by Some1 at 8:34 AM on June 9, 2010

I equivocate with "pretty much always" because occasionally non-attorneys file papers with intention of initiating a law suit that fails to initiate the law suit, but only because the papers missed a formal requirement, and the suit gets dismissed before it gets started.
posted by crush-onastick at 8:50 AM on June 9, 2010

Should I bother finishing Blood's a Rover?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:26 AM on June 9, 2010

Bah, now I want to make a ranty Ask post about how much I dislike that sort of lookit-me special-snowflake blog. Blah blah blah fleece gloves! Suggestion for next adventure: stifling the instinct to put one's entire life on the web.
posted by kmennie at 9:50 AM on June 9, 2010

Should I bother finishing Blood's a Rover?

No. Maybe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:09 AM on June 9, 2010

Dammit!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 AM on June 9, 2010

dojie said hey, maybe send an email every time there's a deletion.

jessamyn said, deletions are rare, but sending an email would create a significant amount of contention, but sometimes we do anyway, and we're happy to answer email.

fleacircus says, wha? You don't automatically send emails when posts get deleted? But it could be a form letter and be a good chance to give a link to the Mod Explanation page.
posted by fleacircus at 1:58 PM on June 9, 2010

You don't automatically send emails when posts get deleted? But it could be a form letter and be a good chance to give a link to the Mod Explanation page.

We don't send form letters except for the "hey your post is live" mail and the "welcome to metafilter" mail and we're really really not keen on sending any more. We sort of feel that a lot of back and forth email with people who may not be so psyched about something we've done is a less great option than MetaTalk. I don't mind sending a "hey this is why we deleted your post" note and as I said before we already do this if we think there's going to be confusion.

However, this does at least sometimes lead to a lot of back and forth email which may make the one person a little more clear on the subject but doesn't help inform the community. We try to make as much of our mod activity community-facing as possible, so that's why we have public deletion reasons and why we try to direct people to MeTa. If people don't understand or don't like a deletion reason, they're more than welcome to talk to us about it, but after an email or two, we're going to tell them to take it to MetaTalk. I feel that sending people an email about a deleted post is offering to open a conversation that we don't want to have privately.

Most people know why their posts have been deleted. And we don't want to send any more form letters. And we don't want to start a ton of back and forth discussions with people about their deleted posts. They are welcome to contact us.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:06 PM on June 9, 2010

You think form letters (that could possibly include a phrase like, "don't reply to this, go to MetaTalk" or could even be from a no-reply type of account) would lead to more back and forth? It wouldn't preclude personal emails to stumblers and noobs either. I'm not pony requesting, I'm just surprised since it seems like such an easy little courtesy. Obviously y'all know your business best.
posted by fleacircus at 2:58 PM on June 9, 2010

You think form letters (that could possibly include a phrase like, "don't reply to this, go to MetaTalk" or could even be from a no-reply type of account) would lead to more back and forth?

Well yes and no. I think form letters are not great especially if they're delivering news that people are unlikely to enjoy hearing. And I think form letters that say "don't reply" are sort of dickish. More to the point, right now we don't have a mechanism to really send email from "the site" it would have to come form one of us which would mean unequal workload and it would mean someone might be replying to someoen who wasn't working, possibly for a day or two. Right now if someone's got to give bad news to a user in some way we usually talk about who should do it based on who is around and their history with the person.

But basically I feel that sending someone an email form letter that you don't want a reply from is sort of a jerk move. Or I don't think people will see it as a courtesy they'll see it as hectoring or somehow hassling them. For people who want to know more details, the reason is there on the page. For people who we think we'll be confused, they can contact us or we contact them. It's really more that we're opposed to any sort of "hey you automatically get a response from the site when ..." sorts of mechanisms more than we don't want to give people more information. What you see as a courtesy would not be seen that way by others, I guarantee it. We already have enough back and forth email with the system the way it is.

And most people never have a post deleted, ever. Of the people that do, they fall into two categories, people who get stuff deleted all the time, and people who are new or unclear on something. We email the latter and we don't think it's necessary to email the former.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2010

I believe a third category would actually be people who get stuff deleted when they've been drinking.
posted by yhbc at 5:47 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

"We try to make as much of our mod activity community-facing as possible, so that's why we have public deletion reasons"

This is extremely cool and I appreciate this. I'd just ask that, in the case of rare, non-repeat offenders, the reasons for deletion are not snarky jokes. This seems to be more of a thing on the blue. Admins complain about jokey, snarky comments not adding anything to the threads. The same should go for the deletion notes. And I totally understand that our $5 (or in many of our cases, way more than that when Matt's asked for money (k, that was a long time ago), or with socket poppets -- people sign up for sock poppets and don't use them just to donate money -- I hope this is understood) does not buy us admin time, or x number of fuck ups. But please, when we mess up, just tell us why in clear, simple terms. Cheers.
posted by nthdegx at 4:43 PM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Admins complain about jokey, snarky comments not adding anything to the threads. The same should go for the deletion notes. And I totally understand that our $5 (or in many of our cases, way more than that when Matt's asked for money (k, that was a long time ago), or with socket poppets -- people sign up for sock poppets and don't use them just to donate money -- I hope this is understood) does not buy us admin time, or x number of fuck ups. But please, when we mess up, just tell us why in clear, simple terms. Cheers.

Are there specific recent examples you're thinking of? I feel like this is something we were hearing and started actively responding to like two or three years ago and have made a lot of effort since then to do precisely that: keep deletion reasons that have an actual communicable issue more or less straightfaced. I still make jokes when I delete doubles sometimes or am otherwise addressing a poster who I know for a fact is copacetic with the whole thing, but pretty much everything else is an attempt to minimally address what the actual issue is.

Acknowledging that we're probably not perfect about this, of course, and either a bad day or not enough time to spare or just a moment of pique might get the better of any of us, etc. But honestly I think we're pretty much right there with you in general, I'm not sure what more we could do in terms of daily practice to not be jokey on that front in the situations where it's likely to matter.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:10 AM on June 11, 2010