I'm not necessarily for or against this decision but it does seem to be against the character of the sub.
Posts like this one and this one aren't just 'left untouched' - they're some of the most upvoted and most seen posts on /r/askhistorians. They are correctly flagged as meta posts but they still don't really contribute to meaningful discussion, whether about history, historiography, or the subreddit itself.
This is a serious question and I'd like to know what the moderation team's thought process is here.
There are several reasons:
For starters... they don't break the rules!
Submissions to /r/AskHistorians must be either:
- A question about the human past
- A meta post about the state of the subreddit. Anyone may start a meta post, but please check with the moderators if you aren't sure you're using the label correctly. Short questions (e.g. clarification of moderation policy) that don't require discussion are better sent to the mods directly.
- An AMA ("Ask Me Anything") with a historical expert or panel of experts. These should be arranged with the moderators beforehand – please message us if you're interested.
The moderators also post weekly feature posts on a variety of themes.
The only other explicit limitation on META threads is that they don't break the civility rule.
Secondly, users like to have open ended META threads every now and then. Although we have the Friday FFA thread weekly to just "hang out" and "shoot-the-shit", they obviously don't get too much attention. Occasionally we will create such a thread ourselves even, such as the (in?)famous Third Birthday thread, because we do feel that it helps promote feelings of community on the subreddit. Especially for lurkers who don't feel qualified to answer, these are some of the few opportunities they have to post!
Furthermore, it is good for us, the mods, to be able to interact with users. Often we get good feedback or ideas for the future in META threads, and these open-ended ones are no different.
Now, that being said, in the past, these haven't been too common. In fact I don't think we have had a non-mod created one (The AHA thread definitely turned into one) in a year or so until recently, although it is possible I'm forgetting one. But then we had two practically back-to-back - this one last month and this one last week. We don't really disagree that, while we don't mind having these threads now and then, that is a little too frequent. We've discussed it internally, and maybe it is a coincidence... maybe it is related to the fact Text Posts now get Karma... "AskHistorians Mods are cool!" seems a pretty good way to ride the Karma train.
So if it does prove to just be a coincidence two happened to close together, well, it is what it is. But if we get another one within the next month or two, well, it might bear some reevaluation, and while we still won't ban them explicitly, we probably would do something to limit their frequency.
As /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov writes below, there have been two of those recently and we are considering what do to should a third one come up in brief succession.
However, I do disagree with you that they don't really contribute to meaningful discussion about the subreddit itself. Feedback, positive and negative, is very important for us. We run this sub with the idea of it being a sort of outreach operation, bringing historical information to those with questions. Because of that we are very interested in what the user base of this sub thinks about how it is run and how it could be improved. Any kind of feedback, positive or negative (and provided it is not just "mods are hitler") is crucial for us in running this space. Knowing that we are doing well and that this space is useful to its users is important to know, the same way it is important to know what people thing doesn't work or what irks them about it.
So, while there have been more than usual of these threads lately, they do add to a meaningful discussion by letting us know what the user base thinks about how we run this place.