I'm involved in a few StackExchange sites and moderate one not on the StackExchange platform.
I find the moderation on this particular site to be over-eager.
I know each SE community has its own norms and culture but of the four questions I've asked on here, three have been closed. One or two had reasonable cases for being closed, perhaps, but ...
... my most recent question:
... has been put on hold as being opinion-based, despite the question having (always) had this on the second line:
In particular, I'm looking for the results of systematic studies on the topic or of strong evidence for a decline/lack of decline of British English usage (for example, the decline of a few key conventions over the past 5, 10 or 20 years).
This in contrast to the reason for closing:
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.
(EDIT: To clarify, the question was closed by means of closed votes, not by moderators. When I talk about "overeager moderation", I refer not only to the actions of moderators, but to the use of any powers of moderation.)
Maybe my questions have not been suitable for the site or something, but with the current moderation:
- I'm less inclined to ask further questions because they'll probably be closed.
- I'm not precisely sure why my questions aren't suitable, meaning I cannot improve for next time.
As a result, I'm discouraged from using the site and I assume I'm not alone in this.
I understand very well the reason why certain questions need to be closed, and I understand the various entailments of the broken windows theory, but in my view, the moderation of this site is overeager.
Specifically: could someone justify why my question above was put on hold as "primarily opinion-based".
More generally (and subjectively): is the current "level" of moderation healthy for the site?
EDIT: This is closely related to this meta-question.