Hello everyone,
If you're a regular on the subreddit, you might notice some changes happening in mod interactions starting today! As most people know, this subreddit is aggressively moderated and comments are held to a very high standard in pursuit of our mission to provide a curated experience for high-effort contributions. While we don't leave removal notices for every comment removal, for several reasons, we do have a variety of 'Removal Macros' that we deploy for removals in various situations, which can run the gamut from blatant rules violations to responses which are trying hard, but not quite there.
The Macros we have been using have been around fairly unchanged for some time now, and are fairly recognizable. I'm sure many regulars can recite the main ones from memory at this point. Rule violations come in many, many different manifestations though, so Macros have always been an attempt to cover as many possible variations with as few different Macros as possible. Over the years, we've made some tweaks here and there based on how responses to these warnings are taken, but there has not been any substantive change to them in ages. Over the past few months though, we've been putting on our thinking caps and considering how to revamp many of them from the ground up, and today we've started deploying the new batch of Macros.
This announcement is intended for a few reasons. The first is because, as members of this community too, we value your input. We can spend hours and hours on these, have everyone read them front to back and back to front, and we still might miss something, whether some stupid spelling error on the one hand, or some very unintended meaning on the other! If you see some of the Macros in the 'wild' over the next few days, please feel free to drop some feedback about them in this thread, particularly as to whether you feel it does a good job conveying what you think we're aiming for with it!
The second reason then, is to... lay out what it is we're aiming for. Our revamping of the Macros had two core aims. The first was to be a little more surgical in what Macros we had for which situations. While most of the specific Macros (such as for a Joke response) aren't changed, our core Macros which are focused on the critical factors of an answer - Depth/Comprehensiveness, Familiarity with the Topic, Proper Source Use - have seen the old ones tossed out, and new ones brought in, which roughly doubled the number of deployable Macros for these circumstances. This allows us to be more specific in which Macro gets used for what kind of comment is being removed, which feeds into the second aim, of trying to have Macros which are more useful for the user being responded to.
With more variation between the Macros, this allows us to have Macros which are clearer for warnings that amount to "a polite this sucks and you should feel bad for posting it" or "Congratulations! You know this one fact, but that is clearly all you have to say here…", and then on the other end of the spectrum, situations like "We don’t want to scare you off, but we do need to see you put in more effort!", or somewhere in the middle with "you’re technically correct but the onus is on you to show you know more about this than that brief factoid, man..." (those were some of the working titles...). Our hope with this is especially on that latter end of the spectrum, with Macros that a) Better communicate specific issues b) Try to do so in an inviting way that doesn't devalue the attempt to contribute even if it fell short and c) Clearly lay out how to get further information on the removal and how to revise it (Any 'positive' Macro includes a pre-filled link to reach us via modmail).
Much of the work that moderators do is behind the scenes, whether the simple silent removals, or sending personalized question alerts to flairs and potential flairs, or interacting through modmail with a user who had a comment removed and giving them feedback. Outside of Meta threads, the interactions users see or have with a mod is almost always going to be through Macros. They are critical and necessary for us to be able to do this role, but it has its downsides in the impersonalization of those interactions. And while we simply can't shift things so that all removals are done custom, we do want to do our best to approach them with balance. We pride ourselves for the reputation we've gained for strict moderation, but we don't want that to translate into a sense of us being unapproachable or even infallible, nor for those interactions to inherently feel like they are starting on the wrong foot. So as you see the new Macros in action beginning today, we hope that you will consider those factors and think about how the Macros work towards those goals.
I won't post all the new Macros, but here is a smattering of them and their intended use cases:
No Depth, but Correct w Sources:
Thank you for your response, but unfortunately, we have had to remove it for now. A core tenet of the subreddit is that it is intended as a space not merely for a basic answer, but rather one which provides a deeper level of explanation on the topic and its broader context than is commonly found on other history subs. A response such as yours which offers some brief remarks and mentions sources can form the core of an answer but doesn’t meet the rules in-and-of-itself.
If you need any guidance to better understand what we are looking for in our requirements, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us via modmail to discuss what revisions more specifically would help let us restore the response! Thank you for your understanding.
High Effort Post Which Has Some Serious Issues, Which Maybe Can Be Fixed If They Reach Out to Us to Discuss:
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of subreddit rules about answers providing an academic understanding of the topic. While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless substantive issues with its content that reflect significant errors or misunderstandings of the topic at hand, which necessitated its removal.
If you are interested in discussing the issues, and remedies that might allow for reapproval, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
Someone Sharing That One Fact That They Know:
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it, as this subreddit is intended to be a space for in-depth and comprehensive answers from experts. Simply stating one or two facts related to the topic at hand does not meet that expectation. An answer needs to provide broader context and demonstrate your ability to engage with the topic, rather than repeat some brief information.
Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.
Short, Wrong, No Sources
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight insight into the topic at hand and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.
Proofread / Light copyedit:
No Depth, but Correct w Sources:
Thank you for your response, but unfortunately, we have had to remove it for now.
Typically, one would set "unfortunately" here between commas ("but, unfortunately, we have") or with no commas at all ("but unfortunately we have").
intended as a space not merely for a basic answer, but rather one which provides a deeper level of explanation
Better parallel to use "but rather for one which", but even better to shorten this to "but rather a deeper explanation"
in-and-of-itself.
No hyphenation: "in and of itself."
to discuss what revisions more specifically
"to discuss what specific revisions"
High Effort Post:
subreddit rules about answers providing an academic understanding of the topic
I think "subreddit rules requiring an academic understanding of the topic" is clearer, laying out the requirement directly rather than saying it's "about" answers of a certain kind.
Someone Sharing That One Fact:
a space for in-depth and comprehensive answers
"In-depth" and "comprehensive" are synonyms; only one is required.
Short, Wrong, No Sources:
in-depth and comprehensive insight
As above, only one adjective is required. I'd go with "comprehensive" to avoid "in-" alliteration.
to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so.
Could cut "while doing so".
I just posted an answer to a question about how historians view Charles Beard today, and while my first reaction was "Great! It's not a question about Gibbon or Zinn!" the grammar was just shaky enough to make me wonder if you have come up with some sort of sophisticated way of telling whether something is a homework question or not. Some are easy to spot, but some are good enough that it seems like you want to give them the benefit of the doubt....I mean, if the OP had approached me in a line at the local coffee place I would have said, wow, where did you run into that book? Are you reading it now? and it would have made waiting for a cappuchino a little less dull. Is there some sort of similar two-step authentication process that we could start with if we've doubts?
I think this is great, and an effort to differentiate the various reasons why answers are rejected can do nothing but improve the sub and give guidance for those who wish to contribute meaningfully.
Forgive me for going outside the parameters of this post, and potentially this sub as a whole, but has there ever been any discussion about allowing less complete answers in certain limited situations? I really appreciate the effort that goes into keeping this sub a place for good information, but so many questions go unanswered that I'm sure someone can give a good, if not great, response to.
For example, there was a question a few weeks back about the House of Savoy and Italian Unification. I could have answered that question correctly and given a base for further research, but I decided not to because I wasn't sure I could answer in sufficient depth and give enough sources. That question went unanswered. I'm sure plenty of people have had similar experiences.
My thought would be that if a question goes unanswered, it could be reposted with some notation that the standards are slightly relaxed, allowing for "correct w/sources but not enough depth" or "great response but insufficiently sourced" answers in that thread. My thought is that imperfect is better than nothing, and a first initial answer may spur further discussion that could flesh out sourcing or depth.
I realize that this would probably create a lot more work for the mods, is somewhat anathema to the current ethos of the sub, and may well have been considered and rejected for any number of reasons I've failed to consider.
In any event, I love the new macros, and as always I greatly appreciate this sub and all the work, from both mods and members, that goes into making it a great community.
I agree with and appreciate the aggressive and active moderation. But I often feel that there is a focus on form over substance.
I often see answers in threads which have not been deleted but which don't really seem to answer the question, which talk around the topic in a meandering, unfocused way, which tell the OP that they should have asked a different question (one which the responder prefers) and then answers their own question instead. Yes, answers should provide context. But many answers seem to be "all context, no answer".
Despite these flaws, these posts pass through the moderation filter apparently because they conform to the standards of expected form as regards length and number of sources referred to. It's actually got to the point where I click on a r/AskHistorians post and I am going in with the expectation that the answer provided won't actually address the question.
Meanwhile, sometimes accurate, well-written, and succinct responses which directly provide the answer sought get deleted due to failure to conform to an expectation as to form (or worse, length).
It just seems to be an example of the worst kind of navel-gazing scholasticism. Good history is not about waffling on just to meet arbitrary expectations as to form. Brevity is a universal standard of good academic writing and applies just as much to historians as any other discipline.
Now obviously moderating for content rather than form involves a lot more work because it means reading and judging the substance of a post, but given the expressed moderation philosophy of the subreddit, it does seem that this should be the aim.
So my feedback on the Macros would be that one more should be added: KISS ("keep it simple, stupid" - used where the response is overly broad and lacks focus on the question asked).
These look really great, it's hugely appreciated the effort the mod team puts in to not only the active moderation, but also with improving it overall. Really agree with maintaining the level of quality while avoiding making it unapproachable, since I think a large part of the value of AskHistorians is educating users on why the historical process is valuable in the first place.
It's mentioned that the OP isn't the exhaustive list of all macros, so this might already have been changed, but: I posted a question a bit ago, but didn't add a question mark and got the following auto removal macro:
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians, and thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, however, your post has been automatically removed as the title does not appear to be a question. Depending on what you are intending to post, please consider the following:
If you received this message in response to posting an historical question, you are welcome to repost it but please make sure that your main question is in the title of the post (rather than the text box), and that it is easily recognizable as a question. Additionally, please double-check that your question is otherwise in compliance with the subreddit rules.
If you are posting a META question, suggestion, or similar, while these are allowed, please be sure to read our rules concerning META submissions before reposting, and we'd strongly encourage you to consult our Rules Roundtable series as the question or issue you intend to raise may already be addressed there.
If you are posting an AMA that was approved by the moderator team, please contact us via modmail, or the AMA Team contact. If you were not approved for an AMA, please contact us to discuss scheduling before posting in the future.
If your intended submission does not fit any of these, or if you believe this removal is a false positive made in error, please reach out to the moderator team via modmail
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Based on the "easily recognizable as a question" I was able to guess that it was since my question title was lacking a ? mark, but I wasn't sure so I bopped mod mail about it. For the auto removal responders it might be good to include specifically why it was removed (...the bot did not find a question mark in your title...) if it's something the user can fix easily themselves, and avoiding bugging mods.
Will the team be more aggressive about using these macros in response to heavily-upvoted but ultimately removed attempts? (Certain mobile apps, such as rif is fun which I use, allow users to see karma counts on removed comments, and also the writer can see that on their profile.) I trust there's good reason, but I know I'm not the only person who sees [deleted] +256 [removed] and wonders "Well, what's the matter with this one?"
Again, purely a transparency inquiry, y'all know what's up and what the karma system rewards.
Just a copy editing note: in the last example (short, wrong, no sources), the word “insight” is repeated
One thing I've noticed is that when a historical question comes up that might have political implications today, the comments section gets flooded with low-quality comments which include a brief summary of some historical facts followed by a lengthy exposition of their own personal political opinions. Sometimes people will pretend to actually give a "historian-like" answer as a guise for expanding on their personal political opinions. I think the sub should have a macro that cracks down on this type of stuff and points out that people are taking advantage of this sub to spread propaganda
Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of subreddit rules about answers providing (link:) an academic understanding of the topic
Following that link leads to a list of all the rules on answers. Before I clicked on it, I would have expected it to link to a rule that specifically explains what "an academic understanding of the topic" is. I was curious exactly what you meant by the phrase and looked through the rules to see if any of them explained that, but I didn't see anything.
If "an academic understanding of the topic" just means "follow the subreddit rules" I might suggest relocating the link: make the link from the text "subreddit rules", rather than the rest of the phrase.
But I think this macro is intended for answers where the subreddit rules can't really explain where they went wrong. If the issue is the answer has "significant errors or misunderstandings" then that's not really something reading the subreddit rules can correct. In that case, I might skip the link to the rules and just stick with the rest of the macro.
You want the person reading this macro to either reach out for help correcting their answer or perhaps instead to try again one day on a topic where their answer wouldn't have errors or misunderstandings. I don't think you want this person to turn to the rules page and try to puzzle out which rule they broke.
Suppose this a good time to ask, if I have an answer that I want to be sure ticks all the boxes do I a) answer away or b) message the mods to check the answer first
I really wish I could just answer the simple questions, I’m not looking to write anything long but when somebody just has a simple question that I could easily answer it’s kinda annoying that I can’t just type out a simple paragraph to answer.
Great macros! I love the added depth and focus shift on educating the user about what specifically went wrong - will allow them to work on it and improve for the next attempt :)
I think this is a great initiative! However, some of the macros seem a little wordy or over complicated. This is a subreddit full of smart and well spoken people, but for what are essentially error messages there is a lot to be said for brevity and simplicity. Choosing active rather than passive sentences will also help in some places.
Here’s what I think the first macro might look like with some simplification and more actionable sentences:
Thank you for your response! Unfortunately, we have had to remove it for now. r/AskHistorians is intended for deeper levels of explanation on topics and their context than you might find in other history subs, not merely for basic answers. This is a core principle of the subreddit.
Your response offers brief and correct remarks, and mentions sources. This can form the core of an answer but, unfortunately, does not meet the rules in and of itself.
Please don’t hesitate to send us a modmail if you need explanation of or help with our rules. We are happy to discuss specific changes to your post that would help us restore it! Thank you for your understanding.
Your final "Short, Wrong, No Sources" answers has the word "insight" twice in a row. :)
Wouldn't it be better for brevity and readability to only provide one-liner macros for the removal comment, containkng a link to a wiki page (or something) with the full text?
Would it be possible to add something in the initial automod response encouraging people to search the sub for similar questions while they wait? There's a treasure trove of answers already on here and I think it might cut down on some of the frustration without allowing lower quality answers.
Do you ever read a humor comment that is funny enough that you wish you could leave it?
I think you need a generic one for "We removed this but will not give a reason." so that people can at least know that their answer has been removed.