It takes time for mods to respond because they are busy with their real jobs and lives and blah blah blah. People like us have time to check our email multiple times a day unlike them.

That's fine, but this thread's been kicking around for a week.

I'm pretty sure Mopower was being sarcastic.

Or at least I think so.

On another note, benedict just responded to this thread here in the feedback forum just yesterday, and has been active on the forum ever since this thread was started.

Like I said, no matter if the mods or reviewers wish to admit it, they sometimes obviously ignore certain threads and/or emails when people question them.

This is the first time that I've opened the thread and I am providing a partial response straight away. I am afraid that anyone who suggests otherwise is plain wrong. kuroiinu got it right: until the title was changed today by an Admin, it did not register with me. I think I have a history of responding to feedback so I am sorry that so many have taken the view that I was deliberately ignoring criticism. I wasn't.

In order that we might all gain from the situation, I'd like to suggest the following for the future:

1. Anyone wanting to start a serious debate about a particular issue should henceforth ensure that the subject/title gives an indication of what is inside.
2. Respondents take account of the fact that we all have lives and do not always get to view the forum every day. My own posting and reading during March, for example, was sporadic to say the least.

When time allows I will look back through the old threads and endeavour to put together a meaningful response. Until then I can make the following observations:<ul><li>MWB you should not be shy of making informed/constructive criticism here. That is what Feedback is for. I am sorry that I did not receive your email. I just checked the gmail emailbox to which my DVDtalk address forwards and cannot find anything from you - even amidst the 1300 spam messages. Sod's Law, I guess.<li>I tend to close threads when I notice that they are over 5 pages or so. This isn't scientific but the evidence is there if you look for it. Sometimes I suggest someone starts a new one; sometimes I just leave it to the regulars to go ahead and do it.<li>The last thread I closed included a reason but also called for someone to start a poll to see whether my view was supported i.e. if Music Talkers thought that it was mean to stifle discussion they could make their views plain. It seems that my message was less than clear.</li></ul>As I say, when I get the time to look through the old threads I'll post here again. I can't precisely say when that'll be but expect to have something up by Saturday.

As a completely separate thing, can I ask why? I'm really struggling to come up with a good reason to close a discussion that is actually lively (as evidenced by the 5 page thing)? I know it can't be a length/server issue, because threads in many of the other forums go far far longer.

I find it utterly amazing that in the past, a member has kept multiple Madonna threads alive almost single-handedly(!) -- for years(!!) -- and nothing was said or done about it, yet this topic seems to get closed down repeatedly despite active discussion by *gasp* more than one person. It's pretty obvious to me that there is serious bias at work here, and the sooner all parties cop to it, the better off the forum will be.

MWB claims to have emailed you before this thread was ever posted, and I emailed you a link to this thread on two separate occassions. I guess you didn't get either of those, either. Personally, I don't care how long it took you to respond to this thread...but perhaps you should either update your email address in the DVDTalk system, or make an effort to check it more often. Especially if you make it a point to request that certain issues be addressed via email. Just a suggestion..

If you don't have the spare time to spend on the internet, "moderator" of a subforum on a site like DVDTalk sure does seem like an ill-advised position to be holding..

In addition to LurkerDan's legitimate question about this method of yours, I have to add the following: In five pages of threads going back just one month (to 03/12), I count eight separate music threads, five pages or longer, zero of which are locked. Yet the "open letter to Axl Rose" thread was merely two pages in length when you decided that the members' harmless conversation had gone on long enough.

So, lock first, question later?

Honestly, do you really need us to tell you how to do this cyber-job of yours? Do you need us to tell you, in a separate poll no less, that if we're engrossed in conversation about a topic it's probably not a good idea to barge in and lock the thread just because you feel like it?

I have to agree with everything you've said.

I think you need to read his post again.

Thanks, but I'm not much for rocking the boat, and I usually don't have much of a problem with how things are run around here, anyway. But this time, I did. (And truth be known, I had given some thought to starting a similar thread here back in December, with the lockage of the first thread and your comments in the concert thread.)

I don't know what "Sod's Law" means, and don't really care enough to look it up, either. I did update my e-mail address in my profile right after I sent it, so maybe that has something to do with it; I don't know. I can resend, if you like, but most of it has already been covered in this thread, anyway.

Not to get too into this ('cause it's a secondary reason, at best, in my opinion), but could the staff possibly come together and find a common ground on when to close threads due to length? Because there doesn't appear to be any particular agreed-upon standard here. You closed a thread that had 200-something replies, but there's a thread right now in Other that's approaching 800 replies (and is showing no signs of slowing down). I've seen other threads that have gone for over a thousand. Threads in the video game section usually get to around 700 or before they're locked. It's just all over the place. It'd be much better if there was, for example, a 500-reply limit to all threads, across all sections.

But, like I said, I don't think the length is the main reason the threads are getting locked up, anyway. It's pretty obvious that you don't care for Axl Rose or Guns N' Roses. And that's all fine and good--I don't particularly care for him myself, and I think it's disrespectful to the old guys that he's using that name.

But it seems to me that you're taking it a step further, and going out of your way to hinder conversation on the subject--conversation which hasn't broken any of the forum rules, as far as I know. (The only problem I can ever recall with a GN'R thread was when someone posted a link to some leaked demos about a year ago, which was quickly taken care of.)

To me, that's the big issue that really needs to be addressed. I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

Personally, I think every mod should read every thread in the feedback forum. It would take maybe 45 seconds a day to do so, and would help them in their "job".

I can't stand GnR, never liked them when they were all the rage in the 80s, and don't like Axl now. But I agree, a mod should not get to decide what does or doesn't get to be discussed, so long as the discussion stays within forum rules. If people want to discuss how Raffi is the greatest songwriter of the 20th century, they get to. Just because I may be a bitter childless mod with a man crush on Bob Dylan doesn't mean I should close that discussion.

As I've said in my first post to this thread, I'll address the original issues when I get time to re-familiarise myself with all of the threads. This is looking to be a task that I'll get around to this weekend.

Naturally, I will be including information that I hope will demonstrate that, notwithstanding my honest and open admission as to my opinion of a particular vocalist, I have endeavoured to bring a consistent and even-handed approach to moderating. In the meantime, I would ask that those posting here give me a little credit and suspend their judgement if they can find it in themselves to contemplate the possibility that there is more to it than the arguments so far put forward.

Trevor, there was a time when I used to read all the threads in Feedback. Unfortunately, time is at a premium, and something had to give. I noticed that there was a tendency for some people not to help themselves by using the search function regarding FAQs and the like, over time, and I made a (possibly unconscious) decision only to peruse those Feedback threads whose titles piqued my interest e.g anything specifically referencing Music/Book/International or a topic with which I thought I'd be able to assist swiftly.

With all this build up it better be good.

The irony of all this, for me, is that while a mod was spending his time closing a thread that nobody else wanted closed and probably needn't have been, he could have used that time productively to <a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=488325&page=1&pp=25">merge</a> <a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7724197&postcount=5">two threads</a> and <a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7724258&postcount=6">sticky them</a>, as had been requested by forum members. But I'm not a mod, so therefore I'm not smart and wise.

Understood. I wasn't trying to slam you personally on that point. But I even feel that I should be regularly reading this sub-forum, as a site "old-timer" who is trying to become more active and helpful.
But not everyone has my free time, so I'm cool with your explanation there.

And while I'm with the "threads should not have been closed" crowd, I feel bad that this has become such a pile-on. I'm sure it was mainly just a series of mis-communications and we'll have a thread hug shortly.

Earlier in this thread I have mentioned that my ability to read and post was severely limited during March. Unfortunately, when I regained reliable access I was unable to read all the threads that I'd missed. I've now seen this request and have complied with it.

I am also checking with Geoff if there has been a problem with the dvdtalk.com email in view of the non-appearance in my gmail "holding bay" of various messages mentioned here.

But you had time to close one of the threads mentioned in the first post of this thread?

Edit

I don't know much about benedict, and as such have no beef with him personally, but as a simple matter of observation and logic it seems that he is basically admitting that he doesn't have time to do his job here. Perhaps big G should look at getting another mod in Music Talk to help out.

This (thread length) is something that we are discussing as mods. I think once we're all on the same page, we should announce something to you all so that the policy is clear. As a personal rule, I always let you know why I'm closing a thread and if there is a continuation of a lengthy thread, I will link to it in the last post.
I will make more of an effort to read the Feedback Forum. I can't say I will post in every thread, especially if I have no relevant information to provide, but your challenge is a good one and something we should strive for as mods.

Let me know if you find out anything.

I've had problems in the past with not getting forum e-mail from trades, I never got a response from X a while back on a forum e-mail I sent to complain about a thread closing and he's usually good about getting back about stuff.

Geez, no wonder I never venture into MusicTalk. It's ThunderDome in there!

Given that Benedict is, other than the great G himself, the only mod in Music Talk, this seems reasonable to me.

For those who would contend that my openly admitted personal dislike for Mr Rose and all his shenanigans has resulted in discussion of his work being stifled within Music Talk I would first draw your attention to the thread <A HREF="http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=479979" target="_blank">The one & only official GNR [Guns N Roses] concert discussion</a> which has been up and running for the past 11 months. And if you do a search for either Rose or Guns in Music Talk you will find any number of threads left to run their course.

For those minded to do so, I would recommend that you take a look through the various other threads of the past five years or so thrown up by such a search. If it was not something you'd already noticed, you will likely soon see that there are at least two camps and that people on each side tend to make their points quite forcefully. I know that there are some who would like moderators not to participate in discussions but Geoff has said on more than one occasion that he disagrees with this viewpoint. I would suggest that if mods were all prevented from posting very few would be willing to do the job. When someone called a post of mine a troll I admit that I took umbrage and let the guy know what I thought of his accusation. If you read through what was said to me and my response - and then the rest of that thread - you'll probably agree that the substantive points were never addressed. However, at this point it is probably something of a red herring. Taking on board the suspicion voiced by many posting in this Feedback thread that I have let my personal opinion impact on my moderation of the GnR threads henceforth I will do no more than moderate them within the terms of the rules posted on the DVTalk.com legal page and the DOs and DONTs thread (that I really need to update!). For the avoidance of doubt, I won't post at all in GnR threads except to moderate. And if I think there is a chance that I will be accused of unfair bias I will ask Geoff or an admin to step in.

On some of the minor points raised, not everyone has it set the same way, but I have the forum software set up to show 40 posts to a page. Those with their preferences set differently may see an eight page thread where I see a four page one. Anyhoo, for a long time I have had a general practice to close threads when they reach 5/6 pages (200-240 posts) because of<ul><li>perceived server load;<li>often the information held within them is no longer current, but<li>also because people tend to skip the first few pages and talk around in circles.</li></ul>If I am offline for a bit - whether it be through being on holiday, or a change in ISP or hardware/software problems - I may <i>miss</i> threads reaching that size. I can't honestly say that I'll always go back through the pages on my return and retroactively close, merge etc. etc. anything that has slipped of page one. And I'm not sure that most reasonable folk would expect me to do so.

<b>As a consequence of this discussion, I have now established that, from a server load perspective currently Geoff is happy with threads of around 700-800 posts and, for the most part, I will endeavour to use these as my parameters in future.</b>

You will apreciate that if there is a problem with email I'll usually only realise this when I find out in a roundabout way.... as happened here. I simply cannot guarantee that I will receive every email sent to me or that, of those that I do receive, I will respond directly to every one. Usually my changing a title or posting in-thread or some other moderating action will indicate to the respondent that I have seen it and acted upon it. I also sometimes write back to say that I've read what was said but am not doing anything at this point. I did receive a "Report this Post" from one of you on 9 April on another matter but nothing for some time before that.

Another moderator - not X - has said that they have had similar problems lately and I recall experiencing something along these lines a couple of years ago. Frustrating as it may be, I am afraid it is one of those things. Although I occasionally forget, for the most part I copy all my emails to [email protected], which I believe that Geoff controls, so it is a matter of record that during my tenure as a moderator I have responded to many, many emails. If it is a personal criticism I will sometimes take soundingsg in the mods forum to see what the others think i.e. have I been unreasonable. On a constructive note, given that the board-related email address I had in my sig seems a bit flakey for now I'll suggest that people use benedictusATgmailDOTcom and via their own email programmes rather than using the board's emailing system.

Although there are some lengthy posts in this thread I have resisted the temptation to quote chapter and verse. I run the risk of appearing to engage in endless self-justification if I continue to respond to follow-ups so I hope you will understand if I say that I propose to leave it here. I hope that the explanations provided and the changes outlined in bold will reassure those that I endeavour to act reasonably and that, so far as is humanly possible, my part in the debate has been shown to be open and honest.