24

It's perfectly reasonable for reviewers to assume that a common expression can be explained by consulting ordinary reference works. They shouldn't have to do that search. If it can't be, it's up to the asker to demonstrate that it can't be. Something like "I researched but maybe I missed it" isn't particularly helpful in this case: if you researched and didn'...


5

There are lots of high rep users who disagree with closing these questions. They have the right to disagree and also to answer them if they wish. But shouldn't the mods be modeling the site standards? Shouldn't mods raise an issue on Meta if they disagree with them, rather than blatantly ignoring them? I don’t think it’s obligatory for any user, ...


4

The timeline available to moderators shows that the question was closed with five votes, then you edited it and it was reopened with five votes. It's now had five different people vote to close again, starting eight hours after your edit. Bear in mind that the "research" reason requires that basic sources do not answer the question. You have found that the ...


3

I agree with most of what @Tonepoet said, but I would like to try a simpler answer. Anything more complicated than a "clear threshold limit" of non-zero will be too complicated to define and enforce, and the sensibleness of it will vary from type of question to type of question. Many questions simply go away before ever being asked if the OP does a ...


3

TL;DR Etymology questions are no different from any other on-topic question. If they show no effort and no research, they should be placed on hold until the OP, or someone else, fixes/improves their post. Etymology questions that show research and are not duplicates, should not be closed except in those instances when the answer can be easily googled (see ...


3

The close-reason "more research required" is meant to be a means of closing questions that require more research to be useful and interesting questions. When users ask questions that are self-eminently useful and or of interest to any linguists or language enthusiasts, these questions should not be closed. It is NOT the case, that reviewers should look at ...


2

We actually do occasionally close questions for this reason: "based on a faulty presupposition". But in the end, it doesn't matter how they acquired the faulty presupposition, does it? We all walk around with such presuppositions in our heads. They ask a question, and we do or do not correct their faulty presupposition. It seems rather odd on a Q&A ...


2

Well, ain’t this a turn. Nothing on the site has changed; but maybe I have. I am usually being called to task as an overly enthusiastic VTCer. I am the original commenter quoted from that post, and I think we could have handled the question better. When I said “unfair”, I guess what I meant to both the site and the new contributor. Although we are a ...


1

I agree in principe with Casabel's answer around this quote from the help center: With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about English language and usage. In practice, however, this isn't something that the community seems to work toward and it's not what this site is for. After all, to be a ...


1

Here are some thoughts I have on the matter: The probable reason One thing that needs to be considered is that it takes time for things to be processed through the review queue, and even if a question is rendered acceptable by community standards, there is no guarantee that it will get enough exposure. That the questions were reopened here at meta suggests ...


1

While I generally agree with Araucaria's opinion that a certain leeway is necessary in judging the required research for a question I do think that any research effort should go past this: I've read a lot of letters with these words and the people say that[sic] mean the same. That last half of the sentence is just not a valid basis for a question. It's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible