radjax wrote:what i see often is an editor clicks on multiple UR's and regardless of the message from the user ask a ton more questions from the reporter.
My concern in this thread is to prevent what amounts to deletion of URs. That is, closure with no attempt to understand or remedy the issue or to allow another editor to do so.
That being said, the scenario quoted is not cool etiquette. Canned responses are OK to start the conversation, but once the reporter responds the editor's brain has to engage and an attempt has to be made to solve the problem.
In areas where URs outnumber active editors by 500 to 1, it's a rational if desperate response to just start clicking and sending a canned inquiry to every one, at least to get the clock ticking. However if the canned response is humble, polite, and engaging, the number of responses may overwhelm the editor who does this. That's why I don't go hog wild sending canned responses to a vast area.
URs that have a request for more information but no reporter response for at least a week after the inquiry are eligible to be closed. Per etiquette the first responder has dibs on closing, so if I can't see what went wrong either I generally add a note to the conversation "No response from reporter, suggest closing as not identified" and wait another week. That's a hassle but it's current protocol.
For some time I've been following the excellent suggestion of editor pumrum to add "(Open to any editor)" at the end of initial canned queries. Other editors can follow up efficiently without violating etiquette. I'd love to see that habit catch on
(Edit: Clarified what is meant by an "old" UR.)