Dan already gave a general response already, but just to pick up on two of your more specific points:

There is no shortage of interesting post titles in this sub.

One really important starting point for our moderation philosophy is that Answers > Questions. Not that we hate people who ask questions at all - we really appreciate the range of queries we get, and having such a broad variety of people asking questions and taking active part in shaping how historical knowledge gets shared is one of the really distinctive things about how we work compared to other public history platforms. BUT, getting people to ask questions is not nearly so hard as getting people to write good answers - far fewer people are capable of it, and it takes much more time to do. As such, our rules are designed to privilege people willing to put the time and effort into in-depth answers, which includes making sure that threads are kept free of clutter and low-effort attempts, so that when a good answer appears, people can actually see it.

​

It’s to the point that I feel it disincentivizes participation.

Our rules are indeed designed to discourage certain forms of participation, yes. We'd be pretty happy is 95% of users just never commented in our regular threads. This isn't a discussion sub, and it's not trying to be. This came up in a recent thread (which, in fairness, had quite a few comments) - it may be counterintuitive that an academic sub isn't discussion-focused, but there are structural (and pedagogical, if you want to view it in through that lens) reasons why it doesn't work in this context.

If you don't agree with that model or being a more passive asker/reader isn't what you want from a subreddit, then fair enough - we aren't trying to please everyone, we're just trying to do our own thing as well as we can. Many other history communities exist that prioritise open discussion.

We shall first of course refer to The Rules, specifically the rules regarding an answer. Let us observe how it leads off:

Answers in /r/AskHistorians are held to a higher standard than is generally found on reddit. As detailed in our rules, answers should be in-depth, comprehensive, accurate, and based off of good quality sources. In evaluating answers against the rules, the moderator team is looking for responses which are in line with the existing Historiography on the topic, and written in a manner respecting the Historical Method. Users come here for the experience laid out below, not because they are asking you to Google an article for them, or summarize a Wikipedia page, and as such we expect that to reflect in your responses.

We remove answers which do not meet those expectations, as well as cluttersome comments which do not contribute to informative historical discussion. We expect that users will have familiarized themselves with the following rules before posting, and moderate the subreddit accordingly. We remove answers not in compliance, both with and without notice or warning.

In other words, the bar to post an answer here is higher than the rest of reddit. And yes, it is very much meant to disincentivise a particular type of participation.

This is not a space for those quick, one-line, no-thought answers that are all too common on other subreddits. Ever been on AskReddit and see a thread going "Doctors of Reddit...", but all the top comments go "Not a doctor, but..." - yeah. We are not having that sort of thing here.

It also serves to set us apart from other subreddits. You go elsewhere for the quick and dirty easy stuff. You come here for depth. A typical answer on this subreddit is expected not just to answer the question, but also explain why the answer is that way. We offer more than just answers; we offer insight. The active moderation thus serves to clear the dross so that answerers interested in putting effort into a response can be sure their effort is rewarded. Reddit as a site prefers early content instead of good - regardless of actual quality. Our moderation is specifically to counteract that. A prospective answerer merely needs to work on their answer, instead of worrying about whether or not it'll be seen by anyone. Better that we get rid of the overused jokes about how you also choose that guy's wife.

Also, history is one of those fields where a whole mess of Popular Myth floats about. (Ask me about my flair topic!) This compounds the early content problem - how does it serve public history education if the main takeaway from this subreddit is the same myths rehashed for more rounds? My own myth is bad enough, what more the myths that are more pernicious and actually harmful? Our mission is specifically to get people more educated about history, so spreading the bad stuff is right out.

Further, take it from someone who knows, even before I was modded: You are not missing nearly anything decent in the removed replies. They're all low-effort stuff, one-liners, "just google it", half-remembered memories of their 5th Grade American History class, or something they overheard in the pub one day. Nobody learns anything from that sort of thing, and it's better off removed. And because this hellsite is a cesspit that needs to be cleansed with orbital bombardment at the soonest possible opportunity, we also get the racists, the Nazis, the homophobes, the misogynists, and all sorts of other savory characters. I don't know about you, but I don't want fucking Nazi talking points getting shoved into a thread about the Medieval Period.

We are quite greatly aware that this is not the usual browsing experience on reddit, which is why we have multiple possible channels to reach already-written content. Those are listed out in the AutoMod autopost at the top of every thread, and are reproduced below:

• The Newsletter (a PM-to-subscribe link, here's the latest Newsletter);
• The Weekly Roundup (also a PM-to-subscribe link);
• If you're on desktop, there's always the Browser Extension;
• and Twitter,
• Facebook,
• and the Sunday Digest.

Plus, of course, our unofficial and non-endorsed fan subreddit r/HistoriansAnswered, which has a bot crawling through threads after some time has passed to better pick up answered threads.

I would really recommend the browser extension Dan linked to if your style is going to be scanning the forum. Sunday Digest is a great way to see all the answers of the week while social media+other offers a selection.

u/Georgy_K_Zhukov has a collection of examples of what gets deleted. Might be happier world if it was well meaning answers

It is great you find the questions intresting (well done the questioners) and when people first join this subreddit, the different way of doing things can provide confusion. When you say by the time you get to a thread, bear in mind our by the time is a shortish answer can take 3-4 hours to research and write up. Sadly the amount of questions we get a day can get around the 100 (110+ in last 24 hours) vs around 100 answers a week (124 questions answered in last digest) so there can be a mismatch.

AH loves participation, things like Tuesday Trivia's, Friday Free for All's are around for casual things, there are podcasts and conference social events but for the actual answers, they need to be a certain standard. Not as high as people think but higher then the usual reddit requirements

For the reader and the questioner, sadly not all get answered. But when they do, it is going to be a proper answer from someone who knows the sources and the context, who can explain so you get a better and deeper understanding. A proper answer that isn't googled or wikied or "sounds right but is so so so wrong". For those giving the answers, it gives them room and time to create a proper explainer post without worrying someone is going to whip up something they got off google and that the proper answer has pride of place (with Sunday Digest+chance to be highlighted via other means)

I hope this, along the other posts, helps.

I agree. I get they want professional answers but often perfectly fine ones that actually helped get deleted too. Way too strict