Background: pre_get_posts Tax Query not working for custom author page

As-written (and as it remains currently), the question was marked as a duplicate of this question: How to fix pagination for custom loops?

The OP edited the question further to dispute the question being marked as duplicate, and to explain that he had attempted a different solution, which led to a different problem.

Apparently (because there is no indication how, when, or why), the question was re-opened, and an answer accepted.

My issues here are two-fold:

  1. There is no audit trail or other visible indication that the question was closed and then re-opened. In fact, the auto-generated "possible duplicate of..." comment was deleted. So anyone reading the question after-the-fact would have no clue what is being discussed about the question being a duplicate, or why it is relevant.
  2. The question was re-opened while still a duplicate of the indicated question .Instead of merely reopening the question, the OP should have been asked to edit/rewrite the question, indicating the new approach taken, and the hew issue that resulted.

As it is, that question is currently a mess. The title doesn't match the current issue, and the current issue is buried under two page-lengths of code and commentary. The solution was added to the question, instead of left within the accepted answer. And the ultimate solution is actually buried in the comments of the accepted answer, and not elaborated in the answer itself.

The valid and useful question, and its solution, are lost in the wall of now-irrelevant code and commentary. So, I'm not complaining that moderator action was taken to reopen the question; rather, I'm suggesting that such moderator action should be used to improve the question, so that a duplicate question can be properly rewritten into a new and useful question before being reopened.

  • I can't make sense what application of moderator power you are suggesting (?) here. – Rarst Apr 21 '14 at 13:39
  • I am suggesting that 1) relevant comments not be deleted while they remain relevant, and 2) that questions such as this one be properly rehabilitated/improved for quality/scope before being reopened. – Chip Bennett Apr 21 '14 at 14:38
  • I've now edited the question how I think it should have been edited before being reopened. The unique issue is now apparent, and its solution makes sense in the context of the question. See how we now have a legible, interesting, and useful question and answer? That should have been part of the moderator action, rather than merely a "drive-by" reopening. – Chip Bennett Apr 21 '14 at 14:45
  • SE moderator are exception handlers. We can pay attention to individual questions, but do that at scale and we will snap way faster. Case in point — you were able to edit it as you see fit, no moderator necessary, right? Moderators are primarily for things no one else can do. – Rarst Apr 21 '14 at 16:08
  • In that case, should the question have been reopened in the first place? The question was closed for valid reasons - reasons that were not addressed prior to the reopening. And I could have helped the OP rehabilitate the question (in fact, I did try - refer to my later comments), but I didn't get any notification that anything was happening to the question, to know that there was some rehabilitation even possible. – Chip Bennett Apr 21 '14 at 16:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .