« first day    last day (103 days later) » 
00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 20:00

12:15 AM
@MetaEd A quick summary: a question was recently deleted which contained many up-voted answers, prompting an enquiry on Meta. The deletion itself seemed straightforward, but the question of ELU's scope remained.
This chat room is intended to be a place where we can discuss and come to a consensus about where to draw the line between on-topic and off-topic, both for closing questions and for deleting questions. Closing and deleting are considered separately because their effects are different. In particular, closed questions are visible to the public, while deleted questions are only visible to users with 10k+ rep.
We're still finding our feet, but I'd like to see the discussions here as a preliminary testing ground and sounding-board that produces considered opinions to feed into the usual policy-making processes on Meta.
I've found that answering the where to draw the line question is relatively easy in the abstract, but somewhat more complicated when dealing with actual questions. The format I'm experimenting with now is to focus on one question (or more, if it helps) at a time that seems to sit awkwardly, teasing out the thinking behind how we should categorise it as a community. Working out good approaches to handling borderline or bad questions to make them good questions is also on topic in this chat.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:29 AM
Sigh. Nearly every time I post a question here, I end up regretting it, because of this site's incredibly harsh stance on VTCing everything. Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2.
 
1:54 AM
@Randal'Thor On your comment to Exhibit 2 (A title for PDE people), I agree that "of interest to most Anglophiles" is too high a bar for ELU questions. I have up-voted your comment.
(I'm popping in and out for the next few hours; I'll try to pull together another coherent discussion in the next day or so.)
 
 
4 hours later…
5:52 AM
@suməlic I've created a bookmark for our discussion on preemptive editing and plan to post the conclusion on Meta. There are 3 tasks: look for relevant Meta posts (probably those related to LQQs), look for, say 2 or 3 good examples, and create the Meta post itself. Would you like to help with any of those?
@suməlic Also, what do you think about the idea itself, of wrapping up completed discussions into Meta posts?
 
 
2 hours later…
7:46 AM
@Lawrence Sorry, I'm not feeling very motivated to make a Meta post. I would be able to say something though; basically a summary of what I said in chat. I guess I could also think of some examples.
@Lawrence I'm not sure about that part because my usual model for Meta posts is starting a discussion. Posting a summary or wrap-up of chat discussions is not something I've done before and I don't know how to go about it.
 
@suməlic That's ok. In the meantime, some examples would be nice. I'm also feeling a little hesitant about the Meta post for that idea. It's a great idea, but does it warrant that prominence? I'll let it sit for a while before doing anything with it. The chat section is bookmarked, so it will be easy to refer to later.
@suməlic Are you interested to participate regularly in the wider discussion, such as with Randal'Thor's examples, or would you prefer to just pop in from time to time?
I'm asking because this began with our extended discussion.
The scope seems to be broadening somewhat. But so far, just in the details, not in the objectives.
 
8:14 AM
@Lawrence I'll definitely pop in every once in a while; for now, I'm not committing to regular participation. As you say, the topics we're discussing are fairly broad. I am interested in seeing what ideas come out of this.
 
@suməlic Ok, thanks for letting me know. :)
 
 
4 hours later…
12:02 PM
Another example of those "difference between X and Y" questions I was talking about.
 
12:21 PM
Ok, let me bring that topic back up for discussion.
24 hours ago, by Rand al'Thor
One thing I wondered about during my first days in the Close Votes review queue: what is the site's position on questions of the form "What's the difference in meaning/usage between X and Y?", where X and Y are some words or phrases.
Discussion topic: we're looking at where we should draw the line when considering whether to close or to delete X vs Y questions of the type described above.
Here are some examples that @Randal'Thor has kindly offered:
5
Q: "Further, ..." versus "Furthermore, ..." at the beginning of a sentence (meaning the same thing)?

mrsteveI am not a native speaker (my mother tongue is German). In the context of a technical paper (computer science), is there a difference between starting a sentence with Further, ... and starting it with Furthermore, ... ? It is used in the context of continuing a sentence. I wasn't sure, so I ask...

4
Q: When to use "We" versus "I" in a professional email?

Andrew CheongI'm trying to explain to a coworker when I use "We" versus "I" in my work emails going outside of the organization, but I don't know myself. For example, Hello, This morning we were unable to connect the recovery channel at 142.201.223.154:11199. Our keys are current and have not been m...

0
Q: expansion "from" vs expansion "of"

stretch007While I was writing an essay I became confused as to which to use "from" or "of", The sentence is as follows: This paper will show that constitutionalism is a selectively expansion from failed constitutions to accommodate contemporary societal norms. OR should it be instead? This paper will...

 
At one end of the spectrum, there are questions like, say, "we go" vs "we goes" which should obviously be closed under the do-your-research close reason.
 
Research is one of the big issues for these kinds of questions.
 
Does anyone have a good example from the other end of the spectrum - a really good "X vs Y" question?
 
Welcome Tonepoet!
 
Other than those first two examples above, which have evidently survived ELU's vicious VTC gauntlet.
 
12:29 PM
@Randal'Thor On one hand, we don't want "do my homework" questions on ELU. On the other hand, it's kind of hard for some to produce research about something they don't really understand.
 
Let's see if I have any of these sorts of questions in my history.
 
Here's a few very highly-voted examples (I hope nobody will mind a flood of oneboxes):
171
Q: Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms?

Dori99% of the time, I'm clear on when I should use "a" versus "an." There's one case, though, where people & references I respect disagree. Which of the following would you precede with "a" or "an," and why? FAQ FUBAR SCUBA [Note: I've read the questions "A historic..." or "An historic…"? and U...

90
Q: Which is correct: "__ is different from __" or "__ is different than __"?

JinAs someone who learned English later on in life, I was taught that different from is the correct grammar to use: this is different from that. However, it seems these days everyone uses different than instead. I know it's incorrect usage, but does the language evolve if the majority wins? Edit: S...

79
Q: When should I use "a" versus "an" in front of a word beginning with the letter h?

crowleywilsonA basic grammar rule is to use an instead of a before a vowel sound. Given that historic is not pronounced with a silent h, I use “a historic”. Is this correct? What about heroic? Should be “It was a heroic act” or “It was an heroic act”? I remember reading somewhere that the h is sometimes sile...

 
@Randal'Thor That's fine with me.
 
51
Q: When should I use "shall" versus "will"?

TruemilkWhich is the correct use of these two words, and in which context should one be used rather than the other?

All from 2010 though, so things might have changed since then.
Plus a meta-example of a "vs" question (because I can't resist):
21
Q: "Versus" versus "vs." in writing

ted.straussIn writing, when should one use the abbreviation vs. as opposed to the full versus? This abbreviation seems to have special status from common usage. What is the origin of that, and in what writing contexts is it important?

 
Ok, first, can we have a quick look at the posts and see if we agree with their close / open status?
 
12:33 PM
@Randal'Thor Shall vs. Will is a tough one. Yes The King's English has a section on it but if we look at the General Reference Flowchart it might be something that we could make easier to parse.
 
... This is to give us a baseline to work from.
I think "shall vs will" would be closed promptly if posted today.
 
Also are we only considering questions with the word "versus" in them or are we also considering questions which are similar in nature?
Some people think we're too quick to close questions.
 
@Lawrence Yes: as a duplicate.
:-)
 
I wouldn't take what we close currently as indicative of what we should close and especially when we're broadening that category.
 
@Tonepoet For simplicity, let's look at just the specific posts first.
@Randal'Thor Har Har.
 
12:38 PM
I asked a question because I have a few more to heap onto the pile.
 
@Tonepoet Okay, heap away.
 
Like this one we both answered:
2
A: "Revive" vs "survive"

TonepoetVive is a rare word and it basically means Lively, probably in the sense of animated or Full of Life-Energy, according to the 1914 Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia. Survive uses the Sur-1 prefix which means over, hence we use Sur- to signified that we lived over, or rather beyond a certain poin...

 
... Then let's pick one to dissect.
 
@Tonepoet Most of the examples above have the word "versus" in them, simply because this search was the easiest way to find them :-)
 
I see.
Then I'll admit this as a comparison too then:
-1
A: Why do we have "anxiousness", but not "frightenness"?

TonepoetThis is probably because "Fright" is too transient of an emotion to use that combination of suffixes. It comes suddenly and vanishes momentarily. "Frighten" means to inflict fright upon something. "Frightened" means something had that feeling inflicted upon it. Now that we have a working defini...

^ I still don't think that one has a definitive answer.
4
Q: Use of "though" versus "however"

Georges ElencwajgConsider the sentence E-books are on the rise, but they haven't suppressed paper books though. This usage seems to be quite common, but when I learned English I was taught to use "however" where I now read "though". My questions on this use of "though" are: Is this a new trend? Is it...

 
12:41 PM
@Tonepoet I don't think that's the same kind of question?
 
in English Language & Usage, 8 mins ago, by Jasper Loy
@Lawrence But to be honest, I think that if one is unsure whether to close or not or whether to delete or not, one should just not close or not delete. There is no harm having more questions on the site. It is already very hard to come up with good questions on this site, since many questions are felt to belong to ELL, a distinction which should not be made in the first place in my arrogant opinion, but unfortunately both sites already exist.
 
@Randal'Thor Often questions are closed as duplicates because they'll receive the same sorts of answers, even when they're not phrased the same way. How would you suppose that's different from if we asked for a comparison of the two?
 
@Randal'Thor Which question are you referring to - anxiousness/frightenness or though/however?
 
@Tonepoet Because one of them isn't actually a word?
@Lawrence Anxiousness/frightenness.
 
Fair point.
 
12:44 PM
Actually that's another style of question whose on-topicness I'd be interested to discuss: "why isn't X a word?" But one thing at a time.
 
@Randal'Thor Noted for future discussion.
 
These are (were) both words. It was closed as gen ref, probably because of my answer:
1
A: Educationist vs Educationalist

TonepoetPractically there is no difference. The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition (2011) lists each word as an variation to the other. The 4th edition defines educationalist as a variant Moreover The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia ([C.D.C.] 1989-1914) defines educationalist as "Same as educat...

 
@Randal'Thor Do you think that question stands because of the answer that was given? Or would there be a tendency to dismiss it simply because it's not a proper word?
@Tonepoet This went the other way, but again, with the close or leave open decision driven by an answer.
 
@Lawrence I think it's an OK question and a good answer. But it's definitely a "why isn't X a word?" question rather than an "X vs Y" question.
@Tonepoet I didn't even know "educationist" was a word.
 
@Randal'Thor Well my links are broken but it is/was.
 
12:51 PM
Oh, I believe you! Just saying I learnt something knew today :-)
Oh, do we have a "learnt vs learned" question? That'd be a good one.
 
I would like to posit that questions regarding the indefinite article should not be put under consideration: It is trivial to close those as duplicates already.
 
@Tonepoet Ok.
If it's closable as a duplicate, the question doesn't help with drawing lines.
What constitutes (or would constitute) research in these X vs Y questions?
Dictionary entries?
Reverse lookup showing no entries?
Those are pretty trivial.
 
Dictionary entry for X, dictionary entry for Y - halp, they both seem to mean roughly the same thing, what's the difference in usage?
 
"Try a dictionary if you want to know what a word or phrase means, how it evolved, or how it is pronounced." "Of course, if your question isn't adequately answered by these resources, feel free to ask here on English Language and Usage Stack Exchange. Be sure to mention the research you've done and what you're still hoping to learn!"
That's from the help center of course.
Oh there's one more I'd like to add.
 
There's also this, though for a different SE community:
347
A: How much research effort is expected of Stack Overflow users?

Anthony PegramA lot. An absurd amount. More than you think you are capable of. In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute last thing you ever want to do. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your ...

 
@Randal'Thor I like that. I'd be inclined to accept that as a usage question.
 
Deleted due to my own Gen. Ref. flag I believe.
 
@Tonepoet :)
 
4
Q: Difference between lead and leash?

rand al'thor He held his dog on a lead or He held his dog on a leash Both of these are acceptable English sentences. The words 'lead' and 'leash' in this context are synonymous. But what's the difference between them? Some say there's no difference at all; others say it's a British/American differe...

Okay, that sorts through my flagging history.
I'm sure there are other "Difference between this and that" questions as well, which are effectively the same category, right?
 
Here's a relevant comment from Jay's answer to the versus/vs question: "That's not a very definitive answer, but many of these language rules aren't."
@Tonepoet Yes, those are the same type of question.
 
1:08 PM
The lead and leash question is one of the few I flagged as Primarily Opinion based, mostly because of how it's asked.
For the record, it's one of my two declined flags.
 
@Tonepoet Can you articulate what it was about the phrasing that had that effect?
 
"Some say there's no difference at all; others say it's a British/American difference; yet others say it's a dog-lover/'layman' difference." That sentence is more or less an admission of the fact as I see it.
 
@Tonepoet I don't have 10k here :-(
@Tonepoet Grrr :-[
 
I don't either unfortunately. I just know how to copy links. XD
 
Wow, you even have less rep than me here!
 
1:11 PM
Yeah, I took hiatus from the website and now the questions are harder to answer than they were before.
 
I just answered one.
Hence my quietness here for several minutes.
 
@Tonepoet Makes sense, if the 'easy' ones keep getting closed as duplicates. :)
 
I mostly just answer semantics questions, and those are fewer than they were before.
Meaning in context, S.W.Rs., and perhaps the sort of question we have before us today.
It's fair to disclose that bias I suppose.
 
@Randal'Thor I can see the question. It's not too long (about 6 lines). Is there a trick to posting longer quotes? I sometimes see messages with "(more)" at the bottom.
 
@Lawrence Screenshot?
 
1:15 PM
Perhaps you should click on more, @Lawrence?
 
Also, yes: you can break the chat message length limit just by including line breaks in the message.
 
@Randal'Thor Oh. Let me try a text copy first.
@Tonepoet I meant - how do I make one of those? There is usually a character limit to chat messages.
 
Ah.
 
Argh.
good questions are on topic. Bad questions are off topic.
 
Actually, I had a scrollbar.
 
1:17 PM
^ demonstration (but you had to be quick to see it)
 
nothing special one way or the other about X vs Y
 
1 min ago, by Rand al'Thor
Also, yes: you can break the chat message length limit just by including line breaks in the message.
 
@Randal'Thor Slow reader (me). I was only up to Tonepoet's message.
 
@Mitch Without so much as discussing the matter, we can't really ascertain that can we?
How do we judge the quality of a question anyway? By votes?
 
@Mitch This is a semi-structured chat - the topic is at the top of the star board -->
(Also, note the request in the third star.)
 
1:19 PM
in English Language & Usage, 48 mins ago, by Jasper Loy
@Lawrence This is a very difficult topic. As usual, it can only be decided on a case by case basis.
 
in English Language & Usage, 48 mins ago, by Lawrence
@JasperLoy We're trying to tease out the thinking behind making the decisions. It's non-trivial, I agree.
 
@Lawrence was I not on-topic?
 
@Mitch You're on-topic.
 
@JasperLoy They're quoting you in here.
 
I was just pointing out the sub-topic.
 
1:20 PM
Your face is on-topic!
:-P
 
The main topic is very broad.
 
I wonder if that ping even works.
 
Jasper knows. I told him I was quoting him.
 
@Tonepoet The ping works if the chat editor auto-suggests it. Otherwise not.
 
I see.
 
1:23 PM
@Tonepoet No, because he hasn't been in here.
I, however, can superping him in here.
Blue powers FTW :-P
 
:)
 
ALso, re: what category applies to you, no one active on ELU chat is a linguist (except Barrie England and John Lawler. Araucaria is a linguistics grad but is not active often in chat). The only people who can be called an etymologist are people who work in creating dictionaries (actually a subset). So you're either an enthusiast or not.
 
@Mitch Hmm. Maybe we need to rethink the target audience of ELU, then.
We were chatting about this on the main site a while ago. I don't think there are more than 2 or 3 etymologists on the site (There might have been one who edited dictionaries).
 
I hope you don't mind me digging through your profile @Randal'Thor
2
A: What is the difference between "last scan processed" and "last processed scan"?

rand al'thorEssentially there's not much difference: in both sentences, the relevant three words refer to the last to be processed of all the scans you've processed. But if you want to go into minor details and nuances, there's a slight difference in which part is 'stressed': "the last scan processed" mea...

 
@Lawrence No. It's fine. It's aspirational.
 
1:28 PM
@Tonepoet Not at all :-)
 
anyway, some X vs Y questions, eg bucket vs pail, are good because dictionaries don't make the difference explicit. but you have to make it a good question by giving the dictionary definitions in the question.
 
@Mitch It's also being quoted against some visitors.
 
@Lawrence in what way? link?
 
0
Q: Chatroom or chat room?

rand al'thorAccording to Wikipedia: The term chat room, or chatroom, is primarily used to describe any form of synchronous conferencing, occasionally even asynchronous conferencing. Merriam-Webster lists chat room as the main term, with chatroom as a variant. The Free Dictionary does the opposite. None...

I'm not so sure that one should've been closed as P.O.B. It seems like an answer to the effect of "no difference" or "In some contexts, severed words may be interpreted differently" could've been proven.
 
@Tonepoet I agree :-)
 
1:37 PM
@Mitch Here you go:
Here's the first one from the list:
4
Q: What is the idiom clearly implying "sacrifice short term, trifling objectives for long term goals!"

Mohammed hamid alsabriI would like to know the answer, preferably formal, for this question: What is the idiom clearly implying: sacrifice short term, trifling objectives for long term goals! I would like to use it in TOEFL. Further, what is the idiom that explicitly means: it should be accepted without co...

It's not phrased particularly harshly, but it's still used to define the target group.
I've done similarly as well.
@Randal'Thor @Tonepoet So, we've looked at a few sample questions. Are there any principles we can pull out from the discussions so far, regarding where or how we should draw lines re closing / deletion?
Oh, I never posted that text from the deleted question. Here it is:
I want to use 'namely' instead of 'i.e' in the below sentence:

''Simulation results showed that a link assignment algorithm, which allocates available links among SUs without considering conflict among links, namely the greedy algorithm, hampers the performance of the CRN.
''

Is it correct to use 'namely' and use a comma after that or should I use 'i.e.'? thanks.
 
I think I could successfully flag most of these as gen. ref. for the fact that they don't typically perform dictionary research.
I tend to turn a blind eye to that personally though, and doubt think it'd be appropriate for older questions which aren't in the forefront or seeing much activity.
 
@Tonepoet Supposing they did cite definitions (those are easy to edit in), are they then a good fit for ELU?
 
Before I answer that question, I'd like to point out a slight flaw with it.
 
(Apologies, I need to go now - someone needs a lift. Please stay and chat, and I'll look through the transcripts when I'm next in.)
 
Okay.
Edits need to be respectful to the original meaning of the post. Also we have an "Unclear what you are asking" close reason, which suggests that we need to understand the asker's misunderstanding. Moreover, our attribution guidelines prevent us from copying more than necessary from a given dictionary.
So unless we have good reason to believe we can select the dictionary entries the questioner would edit in and presuppose we understand the difficulty, I would posit that it is not easy to legitimately edit in a dictionary definition.
 
1:59 PM
@Lawrence ??? what was the search string? And what was the point supported by the linked question?
 
With that having been said, I do suppose such questions can be relevant to the website, if we can assume questions regarding word semantics can be on topic. Dictionaries often are not suitable at differentiating the nuances between words. Consider Random House Kernerman Webster's definition of Ditz.
Are we really to presuppose that the word is precisely synonymous with airhead?
 
@Lawrence OK. First close vote to migrate to ELL comment. I get it. Yes, that's a bit elitist sounding. Not that elitism is bad, but throwing it in your face is not productive.
 
Yes, there is much overlap but I think the word airhead carries with it, at least certain implications.
 
@Tonepoet In defense of dictionary writers, there is only so much room to give nuance and
 
@Mitch I'm pointing this out as a manner of policy. Our rule for Gen. Ref. questions as I understand it, is to check a (one) dictionary and tell us what difficulty you are having. If you can do that, then the question is prima facie valid by the gen. ref. standard.
Obviously, some dictionary entries are not as enlightening as discussing things with people who have a deeper understanding of the words in question, and have fewer constraints on their definitions.
Since we're talking about these questions categorically at the moment, I feel that the existence a poor definition, however justifiable it may be, should be the focus point here.
 
2:22 PM
@Tonepoet pointing what out? Can you reply to the specific chat message so people will know what you're referring to?
 
@Mitch It already does because I was responding to your defense of lexicographers.
 
@Mitch I hadn't realised how elitist ELU can be sometimes.
I just got chased out of the main chatroom by tchrist and terdon making me feel ignorant and stupid.
@Lawrence It seems like the main question is: how much research effort is required to make "vs" questions acceptable?
(Is there any other close reason than the do-your-research one which is commonly applied to "vs" questions?)
 
@Randal'Thor Hmm, I haven't checked to see what you're talking about @Randal'Thor but insofar as it might be relevant to this discussion, it might not be wise to give E.L. & U. members more reasons to close questions than they already have. =P
 
@Randal'Thor If people don't like a question and can't close it as Gen. Ref., then you have to defend it against the Primarily Opinion Based close reason. That is to say, if a dictionary can't answer the question, then people will ask how can you say for certain what the answer is?
 
2:30 PM
Exactly.
Just close everything.
 
Right, I lament about that here:
0
A: Is "Is having sex a hobby?" on-topic? [Undeleted]

TonepoetI do not believe this question should be considered primarily opinion based for the reasons presently stated here. Please do not misunderstand, there are reasons why I think the closure might be appropriate regardless, particularly the potential contentiousness of the subject in conjunction and t...

 
Block all new questions and let the site stand as a fixed summary of knowledge.
 
@Rand Well, that's not exactly it. I suspect that many of the regular E.L. & U. members like questions regarding the semantics of most words or at least, not as much as the other subjects they might want to handle. They would rather be answering questions about the other elements of grammar: punctuation, syntax, morphology, etymology, &c.
However, that is me putting words into people's mouths.
 
(I'm back for a bit. Catching up now.)
@Mitch Sorry, the search string was etymologists. The post was cited as an example of people using the 'etymology/linguist/enthusiast' trio as a community definition, even though an overwhelming majority fits into the enthusiast category at best.
 
And at worst, you've got me! Maybe...
 
2:45 PM
@Tonepoet It already does what? You ping me but you don't ping the message you're referring to. I have no idea what you're talking about now.
 
@Mitch That's because I pinged you, which linked the response to your last response, which pings a specific response of mine, which is this.
 
@Tonepoet You've made some good points. Edits need to respect the original intent - there already is some flexibility when trying to improve the post (e.g. adding resources / links). In discussion with @suməlic yesterday, we felt that instead of voting to close LQQs immediately, it would be preferable sometimes (especially with a new visitor) to edit the question to suit ELU, then invite the OP to review and edit further (or roll back).
Hello, @Mitch and @MetaEd.
 
@Randal'Thor ELL was created because ELU people (including myself) didn't want to deal with elementary grammar questions all the time., but we also thought that there should be a place for such questions. Other areas have done the same. Math, CS, uh.. SO. probably others. So you're calling a rose a rose.
But being in your face about it is another thing.
 
@Mitch Sure, that (partly) explains why so many questions get closed or migrated to ELL. It doesn't excuse people being patronising and know-it-all in chat.
Anyway, moving on ... :-)
 
@Tonepoet No. Just using '@' pings but makes no reference to a chat line. It looks like you're changing discussion or just talking to me in general. Also, if my last line is off the screen I don't see it.. Also one expects one to use the tool to do what is expected. Use the 'reply to' ping to ... 'reply to'
 
2:50 PM
@Tonepoet I agree with your point about nuances. I've found that these are sometimes closed as 'too simple', for want of a nicer term. They're often shipped off to ELL as well.
 
@Lawrence Hello, and thank you kindly for the summary you posted last night.
 
@Randal'Thor Yes. Migration to ELL is another one, typically used for 'simple' questions.
 
@Lawrence OK, but they're both for "any native speaker should know this already" type questions.
 
@Mitch That requires me to take my hands off of the keyboard when @ does respond to the intended message, but if you insist I'll do it. Though it'll just look like an @ ping anyway even if I do that, it seems.
 
@MetaEd No problem. It helped me think about some things a bit more coherently as well. Still a work in progress. :)
 
2:54 PM
@Randal'Thor but about that...I'm not sure what was going on there (either about the facts or about the way it was being discussed). But that wasn't elitism, it was being confrontational at most. Also, to be honest, they didn't chase you out, you left of your own accord.
@Tonepoet So your convenience outweighs everybody else's? OK. I'll remember that.
@Tonepoet I don't insist. If you want to bug the crap out of everybody for misusing the technology, then go ahead.
 
@Tonepoet If it gets too far down the technical road, there won't be many who can produce definitive answers. We'd also be kind of the 'elementary' site to Linguistic.SE's 'advanced' status. I think there's a lot of scope at ELU for usage questions, which has a large overlap with semantics.
 
@Lawrence How about something like this, which includes research and wasn't posted by an English language learner but was closed as POB? (Bias warning: it's my own question. Mainly because that's [obviously] the example I'm most familiar with.)
 
@Lawrence jinx
 
@Randal'Thor That's a good description. It covers many questions that attract close votes. On the other hand, I've also seen comments about some of these questions from a linguist (Araunca - sp?) who pointed out elements that were actually interesting from a linguistics (?) perspective.
 
@Mitch "We know everything, ha ha you're so ignorant - hmm, shall we bother sharing our wisdom with this fool?" They didn't literally chase me out, but they made me feel very unwelcome.
9 mins ago, by Rand al'Thor
Anyway, moving on ... :-)
 
3:01 PM
@Randal'Thor but now you know who to vote for for moderator
@Lawrence actual linguists have their own academic mailing lists and news groups, why would they care to come here for a bunch of amateurs.
 
@Lawrence Sometimes there can be questions which any native speaker should know the answer to, but maybe not why the answer is what it is, and that "why" can be linguistically interesting.
Are those the kind of questions you're talking about?
 
@Randal'Thor I've done much discussion on the subject and E.L.L. isn't strictly for E.S.L. I think the best way to explain its historic purpose is to look at its Area51 proposal. There are only 21 threads, so it is not too difficult to examine but one of the biggest hints is that it was renamed E.L.L. to be more inclusive...
 
But contrarily, the TCS and mathoverflow sites are the place for profs and grads to ask questions.
@Lawrence a lot of semantics responses happen here (not really by name), but elementary dictionary look ups are ... too elementary
 
@Randal'Thor This comes under the category of movement from 2 words to a hyphenated form, and finally to the single-word form. There are several such questions already posted, unfortunately. The question highlights the dominance given to one or other form in different dictionaries - this might be because of the level of amalgamation for the term at the time the dictionary entries were created. Respectfully, I think it needs more to differentiate itself from the other 'hyphen-transition' questions.
 
@Lawrence But it wasn't closed as a duplicate ...
 
3:10 PM
@MetaEd I've been wondering about this. This is probably a good time to ask. ELU chat was where I first saw the term used as (at least what I think it's used as) something like "related messages interleaved by someone else's message". Is that how it's used? (Don't ask me to post that as an ELU question. :P)
 
@Lawrence It means we said the same thing at the same time, and now you owe me a Coke.
 
@Randal'Thor Wow. I'm not sure what the context was, but ... that looks flaggable if it wasn't said in jest.
 
in English Language & Usage, 12 mins ago, by MetaEd
@NVZ Certainly. They are a work in progress. I've seen them borrowed before and two people have now expressed interest in them directly to me. Maybe it's time to move them to a meta question.
 
@Mitch True. But linguists form part of ELU's target community, along with etymologists and serious English language enthusiasts.
 
@Lawrence It's flaggable even if it was said in jest.
 
3:16 PM
Is "being more helpful to new users" any kind of objective for ELU, or are they just seen as pests, with the more important objective being to get rid of their crap posts?
 
@Randal'Thor Yes, those are the questions I'm talking about. Something that most people wouldn't glance at twice, but when someone points it out, it suddenly becomes 'interesting' rather than 'obvious'. Case in point: that anxiousness vs frightenness question. Frightenness is 'obviously' not a word. But it was only when it was broken down that it became more interesting, to me at least.
 
There are so many unexplained answers which just get flagged and deleted rather than being edited into shape.
But maybe that's because it's simply too much effort to edit so many posts.
@Lawrence @MetaEd Since my chat flags are binding (and the person talking to me was also a mod), I opted to just leave rather than escalating things.
@Lawrence Agreed. A good answer can definitely 'save' a mediocre question on occasion.
Phew, I've nearly used up all my close votes for the day.
 
@Mitch Yes, I agree. Pure look-ups are closable as gen ref. I was referring to questions about how some constructs are used by native speakers idiomatically, particularly when the dictionary definitions of the constituent words is practically useless. For example, if I say "fishing" in relation to getting someone to work something out on their own, it's a short step to "teach a man to fish, ...". Yet the something to work out may have nothing to do with marine creatures or catching them.
@Randal'Thor No, that's my take on the question.
@MetaEd Ah, thanks for clarifying.
hands @MetaEd a Coke (the fizzy drink, not the other ... never mind :P )
@MetaEd Thank you.
@Randal'Thor This, my friend, is a tar pit I've been hauled over about by (name withheld). To be fair, there are finer points to the debate, but at its heart, it's either about database vs the people who make the database possible, or perhaps a matter of understanding (or maybe, just maybe, misunderstanding) the intended target community.
On a related note, I'm thinking of taking down the self-identification request from the star board. There doesn't seem to be many linguists and etymologists among us, and everyone else would simply claim the enthusiast category by default. Its sole remaining purpose is to hint that we're trying to seriously consider some fundamental issues for this community.
 
3:34 PM
@Lawrence I was just thinking of another self-identification request that might be useful: how long each person has been on this site. Relative newbies like you, me, and Tonepoet are likely to see things differently and have different views about site policies than people like Reg and Cerb who've been around since forever.
 
@Randal'Thor suməlic and I discussed related things for quite a while yesterday before hitting on this idea. It's still somewhat controversial because it involves potentially changing the tone and direction of a post (instead of getting the OP to change said things - so that the post is less likely to be put on hold). So I would say that it isn't necessarily an obvious thing to do. It also needs to be done carefully, to avoid promoting a sort of 'vandalism' (that's perhaps 'too' extreme).
@Randal'Thor Actually, I'm the only 'newbie' in that trio. Less than a year.
 
Since it seems to be a frequent subject, just for reference, this is an edited post I made a custom flag for it as being too extreme.
It finally just got handled.
 
@Tonepoet Silenus, not sumelic.
 
Oh.
@Lawrence Fixed.
 
:)
 
3:43 PM
Yeah, I guess I am illiterate. =P
 
Nah. :)
 
Anyway judging from the response to the flag, no moderator action is going to be taken because the question would have been closed regardless, although the flag was marked as helpful. I think to just what extent a post can be edited is something that should be discussed on meta, if it has not been already.
 
@Lawrence Well, what defines vandalism? If you've got a question which would be closed in its initial form, and you edit it in such a way that it's no longer closable but will still get the OP the answer they're looking for, then nobody loses out. However large an edit that might require, I can't really see a reason against it.
Of course, if you make such an edit and the OP rolls it back, then don't get into an edit war with them. But if the OP doesn't object, why should anyone else object on their behalf?
 
@Tonepoet The edits swamped the original two-line post. But it touches on what suməlic and I were discussing yesterday. When the OP is new, or when the OP is unresponsive, it can be useful to preemptively edit the post. If it's going to get closed in its original form, this at least keeps it open (assuming, of course, that there is a valid point of ELU interest to the post). ...
 
@Randal'Thor The difficulty is determining what edits will get the O.P. the answer they want. Traditionally we have been trying a "work with the questioner to edit and improve" so we can be sure. However, I think we usually just end up driving them away with the impression that we are trying to make them jump through hoops.
 
3:48 PM
... If there aren't any answers yet, it can be closed and a new question posted. If there are, though, this method can preserve the answers within a more presentable question.
 
@Lawrence You've still got lots more rep than me here. I might have been a member for 2 years, but I'm sure you know way more about site policies and stuff than I do. Hell, you stood for mod - I definitely wouldn't consider myself competent to moderate this site with my current level of involvement here.
@Tonepoet Yeah, because you are trying to make them jump through hoops :-) But if you can take their question through those hoops for them, then that's great - and they might even learn from the process.
It's like teaching a child to do something with their hands by putting your hands on top of theirs and demonstrating the moves with their hands.
If the OP is all like "get your paws off my question", then fine - let them have it get closed. But it's worth a try at least to fix it for them if they're willing to let you.
 
@Randal'Thor Yes, that style of editing is fine - it strives to preserve the spirit of the OP's intended question. However, breaking the tendency to hold back from large-scale editing can be dangerous because it then opens the door to people who edit the question to suit their own answer, or for other reasons than essentially to rephrase the question.
@Randal'Thor There's an old saying about fools and angels. :)
 
@Lawrence It didn't just change substantially by amount of text. You have to note what the original question was, then compare it to what it became. One question was about meaning and the edit was about etymology. That was the main reason I flagged it.
 
@Randal'Thor Maybe when I know better, I'll be less foolish. :)
@Randal'Thor Yes, that's the intent behind preemptive editing. If it becomes part of the site norms, I'd say it must always be accompanied by an invitation to either edit further or roll back.
 
@Lawrence How about a proviso that large-scale edits are fine so long as all they're doing is adding citations and references? For questions, this could change "halp what does X mean" to "source A says this about X, source B says that about X, so what does X really mean"; for answers, it could change "the word you want is X" to "X, defined in source A as follows, fits what you're looking for".
@Tonepoet Why not just rollback the edit? You don't need a custom mod flag for issues that can be resolved by editing.
 
3:57 PM
@Tonepoet I'll have another read through. (Excuse me for a few minutes while I head over.)
 
@Randal'Thor There are reasons but I'd rather not disclose those here.
 
@Tonepoet I'm back. I've seen this post before. Reviewing the revision history, most of the edits stay true to the spirit of the OP's post. There's a 2-liner asking for the first textual occurrence that I'll put down to the editor's personal interests shining through too brightly. That paragraph can be safely removed without changing the validity of the post (and perhaps should be - but since it's been flagged and presumably mod-handled, I'll leave it).
@Randal'Thor In the post that Tonepoet cited, the edits went beyond just citations and standard references. They included references and interactions with comments, etc. There was a lot of additional material added. But with the exception of a 2-liner, I'd still consider it to be a valid edit, preserving the OP's original intent. ...
... To me, however, the critical thing is the invitation to the OP to edit further or to roll back. If the OP doesn't care to do that, the policy would have to consider it tacit consent. Otherwise, the OP always should have the last say as to which parts of the edits stay and which are deleted or rewritten. The community, of course, retains voting rights.
@Randal'Thor I don't know @Tonepoet's reasons, but rolling back would constitute as large a change as the editor's, both not by the OP. This may be another danger to large-scale changes. If a third party doesn't agree with the changes, and they preemptively edit, things can get messy very quickly. On the other hand, it's not in keeping with SE to prevent further editing.
Are there any new points to be brought up at this time? If not, I'd like to summarise and wrap up this block of discussions. If there are, please feel free to note them.
 
4:14 PM
I can't think of any right now.
Well, on second thought, maybe one. Maybe if a solution needs to be implemented, it would be adding a tag for these sorts of questions that expressly specifies that the minimum research standard is to provide one dictionary entry for each word being compared, like "I think the closest definitions to what I mean are '1. Blah blah blah' and '7. Blah blah blah blah blah.'"
 
thinking
 
3 hours ago, by Mitch
@Lawrence No. It's fine. It's aspirational.
 
Specifying requisites in the tags are nothing new.Single Word Requests require an exemplary sentence, and Translation Requests specify that they are for translating foreign language idioms into English Language equivalents. Granted, there is the slight problem that many people don't read the tag requisites.
 
@Tonepoet I think there's been a claim on Meta that SE (or ELU?) doesn't encourage state-based tags for questions on Main. It holds that tags should solely be markers of content (or content type).
 
@Lawrence You might be thinking of this?
Jeff Atwood on August 7, 2010
There are a few tags on Stack Overflow that have bugged me for a long time. Namely:
 
4:24 PM
@Tonepoet Adding requirements to tag info should be fine. And yes, the 'info' link tends to be skipped. I know from personal experience.
 
@Lawrence You just described 'tweening', when someone expects to rwte two messages in succession, but someone else writes a message, essentially breaking the continuity unintentionally. Jinx is the youthful american things where if two people say something at the same time, and one of them says 'jinx', then the other person can't speak until they are unjinxed (or a coke happens)
 
@Mitch Ok, thanks.
 
@Tonepoet Are there any tag popups (ref) on ELU?
 
@Randal'Thor Yes! It was actually a comment or answer in ELU Meta about meta tags, but the post you shared captures the sentiment exactly - it was probably the source behind the one I saw.
 
@Randal'Thor I do not recollect seeing anything like that, but I think @Mitch would know better than me.
 
4:30 PM
@Mitch Ha ha. Thanks for the explanation! I'm neither a tween nor an American, so this is new to me. Thanks again. The interjections make more sense now. But they also take on a slightly disturbing feel.
 
@Randal'Thor If I read this correctly, a "Word Comparison" tag would not be a meta-tag by that definition, since a meta flag does not describe what the question type is.
I'm going to check and see if we already have such a tag.
 
@Lawrence Yes, that blog post is the ultimate source behind most "we don't want tags like this" meta posts.
 
Word choice comes close. I should have thought of that earlier since it is not obscure.
 
@Mitch I knew about saying "jinx" when two people say the same thing at the same time, but I never heard about the other person not being able to speak :-o
 
How do these questions differ from typical word choice questions exactly anyway?
 
4:32 PM
@Randal'Thor I don't think there are pop-ups per se, but the tags do appear with some explanation (not just the name) at the time they are entered (there's a slight delay, but they turn up).
 
@Lawrence Sure, that always happens. Tag popups are a special thing that has to be implemented by SE for particularly problematic tags.
 
@Randal'Thor I'd prefer "Please, you first", accompanied by an invitational (polite) hand gesture. :)
 
I think this whole time, we have been discussing the validity of word choice questions without realizing it. Do check the top voted Word-Choice questions against the questions we added into chat for our consideration earlier.
 
@Tonepoet Ah, that brings up another point: context. Very important, often left out.
@Tonepoet I'm not sure they do. The samples are basically "X vs Y".
@Tonepoet Yup.
 
I doubt anybody wants to get rid of the Word Choice questions on this website, given the popularity of the tag. However it does not seem as if they are all as well tagged as they should be.
 
4:41 PM
@Tonepoet , or ? Seems to me like the latter might be a better fit for the "X vs Y" questions we've been discussing.
 
@Tonepoet I think the tag info should also require context, as well as the dictionary reference that you mentioned earlier.
 
@Randal'Thor It seems like it might be.
 
(Also, why does this question still exist? Good candidate for deletion, IMO.)
 
@Randal'Thor Difference in usage is supposed to be retagged as word-choice.
 
@Lawrence Huh. Confusing.
 
4:43 PM
@Randal'Thor Well for one thing, it is old and for another, 230 votes seems like quite a few to throw away.
 
So difference in meaning is , but difference in usage is ?
Looks like we've been discussing two big tags then.
 
@Randal'Thor I've seen the incorrect form used. Presumably, there's some value in keeping the question for that reason.
 
@Tonepoet Because it's old, nobody would lose rep from its deletion.
@Lawrence But the same argument could be made for any RTFD question. I've seen people make all kinds of elementary English errors; that doesn't mean we should keep all the questions asking for dictionary definitions of commonly misused words.
 
@Randal'Thor Difference in meaning looks very much like a pair of dictionary look-ups to me. There may be some commentary, but it would be unlikely to be of the idiom-parsing type.
 
@Randal'Thor That's something good I didn't know, but yeah, it still seems like a better idea to keep it since it's not disturbing anything at this point.
@Lawrence I could probably write plenty on the differences between a ditz and an airhead. Whether it'd be P.O.B. or not is another matter, but I like to think that my typical answers are not of the sort P.O.B. wishes to drive away. =P
Except the Prude one, which is still based in reference...
 
4:48 PM
@Randal'Thor I'm only guessing. On the other hand, you might have just expressed a reason for keeping those other questions around. They describe incorrect usage, and what the correct form should be. That should be on-topic at ELU - for the U part.
 
@Lawrence Are you sure that is not a better fit for E.L.L. in nature?
 
@Tonepoet Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I was trying to say that the questions that fit 'difference in meaning' (like bear/bare) should be easy to explain - and the explanations would be plain and to the point. If it requires POB explanations, it's probably not a 'difference in meaning' question.
 
@Lawrence Well I'm not claiming it would be P.O.B. but if somebody is reading this latter I'd just like them to know I considered the possibility. =P
 
@Tonepoet Heh :) . That's another can of worms. I'm of the view that ELL should not have been split off from ELU in the first place. But now that it has, we shouldn't try to tie the two too closely. I've done a little bit of thinking about the fundamental differences between the two sites, and my position is that there is a difference in content, kind of 'ELL = Linguistics lite' (with 'Linguistics.SE = Linguistics advanced'). But we shouldn't use 'ELL = ELU simple'.
 
@Lawrence Hmm, I'm not sure I fully understand, since I haven't been to the Linguistics S.E. I would be completely out of place there. =P
 
4:57 PM
@Tonepoet The discussion was in an ELU chat room with @DEAD, during the recent elections. I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
 
00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 20:00

« first day    last day (103 days later) »