But the thing is we don’t have to justify it to you. We have to justify it to the other user or possibly to David Irvine. The interruptions and interjections are not polite they are rude. In attempting to talk to other members we shouldn’t ever have to be thinking about you.
Its up to us not you whether a thread is relevant. All you’ve got is you opinion. But the suggestion about more user input is better. But in the mod group your are at risk for a group think or a clique and that doesn’t serve the forum.
Now as for the SI thread. It may not make the grade for writing quality or even proper intelligent discourse but as we’ve discussed in the past this forum isn’t about handing out grades and its not a journal or Githhub.
@polpolrene there is no sense in trying to clarify my intentions here. I can do that. They are pretty face value. If weren’t trolling or vandalizing or trying to cover up the topics than stay out of the threads unless its to comment in line with the threads.
The stats you quote are a clue that there needs to be even less of this business about interrupting the flow of threads with on topic demands etc.
I think one thing you are not clear on as group of mods and don’t seem to understand at all is the value of the conversation itself. Making stuff clear for people who come along after-the-fact is not even remotely as important as letting people actually discuss stuff as it occurs to them so they can get issues sorted out. Improve the search function the site. People aren’t trying to produce copy they are trying to learn and discuss. Again this isn’t a site that collects papers its a site for discourse and learning. Its not quite an IRC but its also not an academic journal.
Stuff falls off the front page naturally. You could flag stuff for off topic after a sufficient delay of say a month if there is any doubt. But still use user input as your guide.