For answers, consensus is clear: don't add them, do remove them where efficient. For questions, it appears that Meta SE consensus combined with answer fluff removal adds up to basically the same thing

@NathanTuggy How dogged ought a person be in removing fluff, then? One recent quærent was adamant at its inclusion, restoring "thanks" mutliple times with supporting comments. In another case, a moderate-rep user did the restoring. As my son would say: WTF?

Point them to these discussions, and don't get in edit wars.

Oh, I'm anti-war going back decades.

If it is the original author and the signature is just some sort of "thanks in advance", I usually don't press the issue. The other user you mentioned in your comment that restored the fluff might have been working from a previous revision and failed to remove it. I try to remember that trivial edits are discouraged, so if all you're going to do is remove "thanks" a second time, it might be better just to let it go.

@ColleenV The most recent two instances served only to bring the question to the fore in my own thinking. Certainly there are times when a rushed rollback unintentionally restores something that one wouldn't choose to restore. It's interesting, by the way, how many "TIA" questions are in the corpus: thousands, I think. TFYH is popular, too. We might reduce the frequency with a note here.

It is of dubious value to edit out a simple thanks (in advance)/(for your help) just to follow some SE policy. It is dehumanizing and learners, who are writing in a foreign language and trying to be polite, don't understand this mindset and get confused, frustrated and sometimes never return. If there is a lot of fluff, sure edit it down. But a simple 'thanks (in advance)/(for your help')' is okay. And in some of the ELL meta threads where the issue had been talked about point out that ELL is not like other SE sites, and being a lit - tle flexible here might not be the end of the world.

In addition, if you come across an older question, say 6 months old or more, then take out your simple 'thank you', when the OP isn't still involved in the communicative process. But to take it out immediately confuses learners and often is more distracting to learners than leaving it in, and take it out later.

which is why I put the thank you in advance back into the question you mention: ell.stackexchange.com/posts/102969/revisions

There's something to be said for flexibility. My guideline is chattiness. The cultural sensitivity point is less resonant. English-speaking cultures have the same tradition of politeness as any others. I'm working on a biolerplate pasteable that explains why Howdies and Thankies are distracting: making the case that by eschewing them, a quærent will help future quærents. Another approach that seems effective is "we get our thanks from the pleasure of helping."

@AlanCarmack If you don't want to remove the fluff, that's fine, but I think it is counter productive to put it back in when someone has edited it out. We can encourage folks to not include the fluff without driving them away if we explain why it's unnecessary (and harmful even). It's like telling someone they have something stuck in their teeth. It's uncomfortable, but I think most folks would prefer to know. Leaving fluff in encourages more fluff. If we don't edit solely to remove the "thanks", and we explain what we're doing, I don't think it's a problem.

@P.E.Dant I appreciate every thank you I get. At least I know I've helped the OP. The voting system is so riddled with problems, they don't resonate much with me, unless it seems clear by a lot of UV's that other people agree. Still I'd take a simple thank you from the OP over all those UVs any day. I know that's me, and I'll never conform to the party line here. If we absolutely abolished all phatic statements, like the software exed them all, wo is me.

Do you really talk like that in real life @P.E.Dant... "quærents"? really?

A thank you in commentary is more than welcome, it's a treasure. Very gratifying. A pre-emptive "thank you all" in a question is a different matter and there I agree with @BenKovitz . The voting model is problematic, maybe, but it's an interesting experiment that hasn't yet run its course. Do I speak English in real life? Yup. Sometimes quærents, sometimes what the fuck. The language is rich and deep, and I employ whatever comes to hand. Having studied Latin as a tad has colored my speech a little, perhaps.

@P.E.Dant: "English-speaking cultures have the same tradition of politeness as any others.": that's not true at all, Mr Dant. Arabs get straight to the point with servants, but it would be very insulting to do so with somebody of the same social status. Furthermore, it would be social and/or career suicide to do so with anybody in a position of power. A meeting about something quite simple can take several hours of social chit-chat before somebody deems it the right time to get on to the real issue.

@JavaLatte I see that you are anxious to contend about this, and I regret disappointing you, but my statement should not be taken to mean that all cultures have identical standards of politeness. My statement should be taken to mean that no culture is inherently more or less polite than any other, just as no culture is intrinsically superior or inferior to any other. I do not require lessons in civility, particularly in Arab culture, since my mother's maiden name was Abdullah, and I spent ten years living in Beirut before the assholes ruined it.

Though courtesy expressions are unnecessary to discuss language issues, their usage should not be frowned upon in my opinion. I think a similar issue should be raised about the tone that is often employed both in answers and in comment. A polite or neutral tone is fine, but a rude one should be really avoided and care should be taken by all user to detect and do away with rude expressions,

What is a quærent?

@MaskedMan A quærent is a person who asks a question.

@P.E.Dant More specifically, the Latin word for inquirer (and in law, a plaintiff). If you insist on using it, you should use the English spelling of it. But be warned that querent does have the association with someone who is consulting an astrologer.

@ColleenV I actually picked up the term (complete with the diphthong ash or æsc) from FumbleFingers, and since his use has never been questioned (or even remarked upon) I naturally assumed it was not out of band here. Silly me.

although I agree removing fluff is good, you shouldn't edit just to take out a 'thank you'.

@SamHarrington No, that amounts to a trivial edit. But if we come across an otherwise useful question that contains a Howdy or Thanky, and which is, for instance, a year old, when the sentiments of the quærent are no longer an important consideration, eliding it is probably a good idea. Our project here is supposed to be the compilation of a database of questions and answers.

@MaskedMan according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it's an obsolete form of querent, which is "One who asks or inquires; specifically one who consults, or seeks to learn something by means of, an astrologer". I have only heard this term used to mean the client of a fortune teller. To me, it seems a little odd to see it used to mean someone who asks a question on a Stack Exchange site, and even odder to see the obsolete spelling. I would have said inquirer or just OP myself.

@DavidWallace Then by all means, he term inquirer is what you yourself ought to use.

Or maybe I could get a job as an astrologer or a fortune teller, and start referring to my customers as such.

@DavidWallace There are a some fine minds here whom I respect, and one of them uses the term quærent in commentary on occasion (and perhaps in an answer, although my recollection could be faulty.) For instance, see here. I thought it interesting and descriptive, a little quaint, and useful. I continue to employ it not only because I'm sure no quærent expects to learn what Mercury in retograde bodes for their brokerage account, but as an hommage to those minds. I intend to continue. You are free to seek employment as a seer, as you will.

Ooh, what a lovely ngram! Reminds me of the lines on my palm.

Can we not just use something like 'asker' or 'OP', which is more commonly understood, even if it is may not be technically accurate, instead of showing off our knowledge of obscure archaic words and history of words, which nobody really cares about?

@MaskedMan Assuming that you are not a citizen of a totalitarian state, you are free to use whatever words you wish, in any wise or relation, mirabile dictu!

You seem to be forgetting the purpose of this site. It is not to show off your freedom of speech or your rich vocabulary, but to help people learn English. I am not so sure learning obscure words which nobody has any need for should be a learner's priority.

I think I have helped more than one person here, and not one has complained about my vocabulary, Kimosabe. Do you have a comment on the question? If not, I tire of this colloquy. (You don't find colloquy challenging, I hope.)