Does it have to be exactly 365 days before you re-ask a question?

Maybe 365 days is the safest amount of time.

I think if it’s a question that the answers would change, like “Any big plans this holiday?” then you don’t need to wait a year.
If your question would produce the same answers from the same jellies that were here a month prior, such as “Should I move back home?” then you should wait a year.

No, you have to wait 365.25 years.

Who says? I’ve never heard of this rule.

Must be quite a question! I’ll look for it again in 365 days.

You can re-post as you like.

If the question is identical and you re-post, in a short amount of time, it’ll likely get flagged and pulled.

Quick! Think of 5 questions that were posted at this time/date, 365 days ago.

[Mod says]: Sorry for the delayed response to this.

The timing of when a question is allowed to be asked again is dependent on the question itself.

If it is a question that is still very actively getting answers (like the game questions), we want to wait until loading the question starts to slow down, but no sooner than a month since the last one. So, if a question was asked on May 15th and still actively receiving answers, we would require users to wait until June 15th at the earliest to ask it again if it was having difficulty loading at that time. If there were no issues loading it at that time, we would want users to wait until then before starting a new one. These questions are allowed to be asked more frequently than standard questions because of the volume of answers and the effect it has on the site/servers. If there is a non-game question that has received so many answers that it slows down the site and users want to continue the discussion, a new question would be allowed to be asked for that purpose. This is so that discussions can continue without a pause and without bogging down the site.

If it is a question that was asked and is no longer actively receiving answers, we would want to wait at least 6 months before asking again. We encourage users to post answers on the older question and share it with other members they feel would be interested in the question. We understand that we have an ever changing group of users and a question that was asked before has the opportunity to receive new and different answers over time, but we don’t want the content on the site to keep repeating itself too quickly. This is why we wait a few months between repeats to allow some different content to be posted in between.

Just for the record, Here is an example of a question that blows the above response out of the water, with improper English as a little relish for the hot dog.

And yes, it was flagged.

@ibstubro The user that posted that question did not know about the frequency of the game threads. They have since been informed. Rather than pulling the question after users had seen it and started answering it, we left it stand as to not cause any confusion regarding the allowance of the TJBM questions. We were trying to avoid having the question “suddenly disappear”. As for the typo, I honestly missed it. I rarely participate in the TJBM threads, so I must have read right over the typo.

Read the details, @Seaofclouds. The OP states that they are going contrary to expectation, but are “bored” and ‘sure to be forgiven’.

@ibstubro I have read the details and while the user made those comments about the previous one not reaching it’s posts, she stated to us that she did not know that it was a set rule. As I said above, because of the nature of the question and not wanting to upset the community by pulling it, we left it stand. As much as users want to think otherwise, we do not enjoy upsetting the users here. We try very hard to make everyone happy, even though it’s impossible. How do you think we should have handled it? We opted for educating the OP and allowing the question to stand rather than interrupting it and causing confusion.

@Seaofclouds I’m not, in fact, questioning the moderation of that question, but trying to point out one glaring exception to the ‘rule’ as stated. It seems to me that the more we try to codify the rules at Fluther, the more flexibility we lose and with the flexibility we lose the less enjoyable it is.

I mean, come on, there is a core of users that are the backbone of the current Fluther, and they know the rules. If the tide wasn’t changing, there wouldn’t be all this discussion. I will not accept “This has never come up before” and “Nothing has changed” as valid responses to questions about the moderation. It seems to me that the moderators are spending about 10 times more time actively moderating than when Auggie was here, and I don’t see that as a good or positive thing. I mean, good God, moderating Social questions as off topic?? Who in their right mind would voluntarily take that on?

I’ve always guessed that ninjacloin’s “judiciously look at flags, flag things yourself, moderate gregarious infractions” was the rule of thumb. Why would the moderators need to do more? 6 people obviously can’t read and respond to every post in the same manner while dealing with flags, etc. I wouldn’t even try.

Believe it or not, there can be off topic things in the social section. The responses in social are allowed to flow, but if someone comes in randomly and says something completely unrelated to the conversation, it is off topic. Social is not a free for all. Those random unrelated conversations are the reasons we have a chat room and PM feature. We have clarified this with the founders (within the past month) and this is how they want us to handle it. They want their vision for the site upheld.

http://www.fluther.com/173295/did-you-know-that-fluther-is-not-a-social-network-site/

@ibstubro The reason we are trying to codify the interpretation of the guidelines is because we keep hearing from users they want consistency. Well consistency and flexibility do not go hand in hand when it comes to moderation. We can’t be consistent and do everything the same if we are trying to be flexible and look at things individually. It leaves us in a tight position and we are trying our best to handle the site the way the founders want us to. While we understand the site would be nothing without it’s users and we want users to be happy, at the end of the day, we answer to the founders and what they want us to do.

November 4th, 2008

Current guidelines, is:
not a question
NSFW
contains off-topic comments

but had comments by Auggie before, during and after the creation of Social.

I guess my point is that it seems to me like the moderators are bringing a hell of a lot of work on themselves, that was not there before. I’m not working against you, just trying to even things out more like they were before Auggie left. Looking for a forest in all these tree rules.

@ibstubro I am not really seeing your point regarding that question. We never retroactively mod content as the guidelines change. That is why the question stayed and still stays. We are not going back over old content, just trying to keep the new stuff the way the founders want it.

I’m just pointing out that many members thought that was Fluther at it’s best, and it would never be allowed today.

”[REAL MOD SAYS] Hey, someone better poke me!”

@ibstubro Gotcha. You’re right, it probably wouldn’t be allowed today. Unfortunately, we can’t go back to those times. The founders changed the site and the guidelines after that and unless they say otherwise, there is no going back to that.

This from last September, about the time I re-engaged with Fluther. Hilariously off topic, foreign language, and Auggie participation.

I took the time to find a concrete example.

And in meta… which has the most relaxed guidelines… and would still be able to happen now (pending the official foreign language decision).