Should all the rules should apply all the time, or should the wording of some be changed?

Where to begin?

Having remarked recently that there were bad examples of how to name a thread knocking around, JB very politely advised - and I'd go as far as saying JB gently encouraged - that the REPORT button is there to be used on posts where it is considered moderation may be required.

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

Originally Posted by BB1972

There are some shocking examples of how not to name a thread around at the moment.

All eyes help, so feel free to click the REPORT button on any posts think need moderation, we'll take it from there. Thanks for your assistance.

So far, so good.

11 days later, after reporting a thread which had the title "Conditional formatting", I received a PM from another administrator which said "Conditional formatting is a perfectly fine thread title." I replied, quoting from the first line of the first of the forum rules, and said that I could not see how "Conditional formatting" describes a problem. The response to that, which really leaves me stuck for words, was that the administrator agreed (that conditional formatting does not describe a problem), but that all of the moderators and administrators have agreed to allow titles like that....... ?????!

Originally Posted by BB1972

Conditional formatting is a perfectly fine thread title.

1. Use concise, accurate thread titles. Your post title should describe your problem...

I cannot see how "conditional formatting" describes a problem.

Yes i agree, but all mods and admins have agreed to have titles like Need help with sumif function or sumif function or conditional formatting or pivot tables. etc

So, which is it, guys? Should concise, accurate thread titles be used? Should the post describe the problem, and not the anticipated solution? Should terms appropriate to a Google search be used? Or can OPs call their threads whatever they like, as long as the title is vaguely connected to what they're trying to achieve? Is "Blue cell, sometimes red cell" now an acceptable thread title? Have the mods and admins collectively decided that titles like "Conditional formatting" are fine? Because if that's the case, you need to consider rewording rule number 1 - or just deleting it altogether.

My suggestion for improvement therefore, which I respectfully submit, is that in order to improve the experience for everyone on the forum, and to help preserve the sanity of some members - either apply the rules as they are described, or change them to read as they are intended to be applied.


NOTE: I have excluded the name of the administrator who PM'd me on purpose, as s/he may not appreciate the contents of said PM being publicly attributed to him/her.

I didn't know that! Thanks for the heads-up, Pete. The intention, however, was not / is not to name and shame, or to point the finger at anyone, but rather, to hopefully have an adult discussion that will either lead to a clearer application of the rules, or a change of the rules to reflect what the mods and admins will apply.

Title suggestion:

Consistent rule application: should rules be adapted or practice ?

Note, PMs are by nature private, so even referring to the content of someone's PM without naming them, but in a way that makes it easy to connect who it is, that's probably a bad idea unless you don't really care about the private part.

Having said that, I personally don't care that much about the privacy of MY pms, unless I've stated in the message directly to the contrary. I'm one of those people that just doesn't believe privacy extends past your own doorstep. I'm in the minority on that, but there it is.


Since this is conversational and not congressional, I'll say this. I'm no fan of several of these longstanding rules.

TITLES
HIJACKING
CODE tags

My "personal" opinion is that these are nice ideas, but the heavy-handedness of the rules themselves serves mostly to increase the forum's unfriendliness. I understand and acknowledge the benefit of these rules, no need to try and sell me, I've been here a loooong time. But through all that time, I have never come off my belief that these rules should be down in the "suggestions" part of the Forum Rules.

I'm not suggesting at this time we actually DO that, but I'd be happy to see the rule on Titles be less constrictive, the rule on hijacking only be enforced strongly on ACTIVE threads, and the code tags thing...is missingcode tags really worth flagging a post as "cannot reply to this post until OP adds code tags"?

I'm sure you get my drift.


Not sure how I feel about this, but I understand it.... on another forum this week I noticed the following message:

"We reserve the right to edit/delete any post at any time for any reason."

Heh, that certainly covers it, doesn't it?

Jerry, thanks for the response.

As I've mentioned above, I was unaware that there are only 2 administrators, and had no intention of identifying anyone. Having said that, perhaps some other method of (non-private) communication should be considered, which does not infer that what is being discussed should not be discussed beyond whatever individuals are directly involved in the “conversation”, especially when it comes to discussing things that potentially affect all the users of this website.

I notice that you’ve nicely sidestepped the question around the comment that led me to submit this post in the first place, and while your “personal” opinion is welcome, I’d have thought that the title above your avatar would dictate the position from which you answer. In any event, if your personal opinion is as stated, and if you guys really have agreed that sometimes some of the rules don’t matter, then why not change or reword them? Who is in a better position than you to make this congressional? You are, after all, a rocket scientist

I certainly do get your drift, but….. do you get mine? Notwithstanding the fact that a decision may or may not have been made between 21st June and 3rd July that Rule # 1 doesn’t really apply any more, if your personal opinion on 21st June was the rules are too heavy-handed, then would it not have been better to say nothing, than to tell me to feel free to use the REPORT button? Or was that the administrator in you speaking then (which is where this could get really messy.)

Incidentally, your comment about the forum’s “unfriendliness” seems like a curious comment to me – I’ve been here for just about a year, and I must say that, in my experience, the forum has not been an unfriendly place, where – regular contributors in particular – are perfectly civil towards each other. In fact, if the forum were more friendly, and regulars perhaps started sharing little “in”-jokes in general threads, that in itself might discourage occasional contributors from returning – no one wants to feel that they might have missed a joke that might be about them, when they’re asking for help. I’m not suggesting that this is what would happen if the forum were (as you see it) less unfriendly, I’m just offering a perspective that you may not have considered.

So c’mon – spill! What are we more likely to see: a re-wording of the rules, or consistent application of them?

I personally dont see anything wrong with the title "Conditional Formatting" because the OP could really be having a problem while using it. In that case, its really confirming with the thread titles rule. There is nothing wrong in letting it pass since it is explaining to us that the OP is facing an issue with CF.

What doesnt conform is when you have titles like "Please help", "Dont know what this is about", etc. I myself have seen about 4-5 threads today not meeting rule 1.

Arlu, welcome to the discussion.

I must disagree, on the grounds that "Conditional formatting" simply does not describe a problem. "Conditional formatting between dates", "conditional formatting for times", "conditional formatting between worksheets", "conditional formatting not applying", etc - all of which are threads started over the last week - give some clue/indication about that the problem is, but "conditional formatting"?

If you're seriously arguing that the title "Conditional formatting" is "explaining to us that the OP is facing an issue with CF", then is the thread here, by your own logic, not just as descriptive? After all, the OP is clearly explaining that s/he is facing an issue with a formula - but you have advised in the thread that the title - "formula help" - does not comply with Rule # 1.

Or how about this one? With your logic, a title like "Pivot" surely explains that the OP is having a problem with a pivot table? Alas, no - another member of the moderation team has advised that the thread title does not comply with Rule # 1.

All I'm asking for is something that I believe will benefit all users of the forum - consistency.

I thought that the "title" rule was meant to facilitate web searches as well as describe what the O is trying to accomplish.
Web search (Google): Excel:Conditional Formatting
Result: About 1,450,000 results (0.26 seconds)

Sooooo....... it that it, then? One administrator offers a personal opinion on the matter - which, quite frankly, doesn't seem relevant, unless all administrator decisions are informed by personal opinion, and not the rules, or other guidelines, applicable - and another goes to ground after inconsistencies in their logic are pointed out?

Is that really the best we can do here, folks? Do none of the moderators wish to chime in to offer their position on the matter of inconsistent rule application? Is there any chance that there is a discussion taking place behind that scenes regarding this matter, or are you just hoping I'll go away?

Brendan, your passion is noted, good for you. The good spirited way in which you engage the topic is appreciated.

There is certainly some flexibility with the way the Mods/Admins implement help/warnings/infractions regarding the rules.

My first recommendation to you is:

Do not get offended by those whose actions offend you accidentally.
Do not get offended by those whose actions are intended to offend you, never give those people the satisfaction.


Next, when/if a Mod moderates one of your many many posts, don't take it personally. Seriously, don't. (see the quote above) Feel free to report that event as well if you feel the slight to you is intentional (not your feelings of offense, an actual obvious slight aimed at you rather than a moderation of a post). If you realize the offense you feel was not intentionally caused, let it go. Mods are moderating, so we defer to their actions, and individuals do vary slightly in what they do and when they do it.

These variations usually are not that confusing either, unless the state of being offended is a sacred one (like it was for my best friend growing up, he was always offended by something, I means always).

But assuming the goal is merely consistency, I get that. With this many mods and a massive board to moderate and watch over, we're going to defer to the decisions of the Moderators on each post. We are. That means you will find the variations in applications if you seek to. This is no different than judges on the bench who are more lenient than others on certain cases.

So, we will absolutely entertain any wording changes you wish to make to the existing Forum Rules, and as Admin will certainly pursue the ones you suggest I wholeheartedly agree to. But meanwhile, the variations will most like be evident, just don't take it personally. Feel free to REPORT any post you wish other Moderators to take a second look at, but in the end it is the Moderator's privilege to moderate, so we will respect these variations every time that we can.

I have to think that had I seen that if I had seen that title, I would have asked for more detail/description. But a quick search for "conditional formatting" turned up about 30 hits on the 1st 2 pages (the rest were CF with extra text)

Without trying to be too dogmatic regarding thread titles, I do try to insist on "1. Use concise, accurate thread titles. Your post title should describe your problem..." When asked (sometimes in PM) for a suggested title, I have made that suggestion.

I guess like all things, the rules here are in some greater of lesser degree open to a certain amount of discretion, and being what people are, some will think a certain title is fine, while others will think it isnt quite ok, and still others would say it is a long way from OK

How about including additional info to moderator posts like this:

http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...=1#post3381893

I think it would be helpful to both the OP and other members if you could include something like this:

Other members are not permitted to reply to this thread until the moderator's request has been complied with.

That will accomplish 2 things:

1. it will let the OP know that their question is "on hold" until they comply.

2. it will keep other members from getting additional "Your post does not comply with...." message.

To me, the canned "Your post does not comply with..." messages make the forum look/sound like a freaking prison camp!

I've added the following to a few of the more common canned replies:



(This thread should receive no further responses until this moderation request is fulfilled, as per Forum Rule 7)

Ok, that'll work!

Sometimes the titles that have been reprimanded have seemed appropriate to me - are there any guidelines or is it totally caprice?

If you disagree with a moderation notice, Report it, put your thoughts in the REPORT and other moderators will take a second look.