This isn’t a complaint or whinge. I’m just wondering if any of you know the lead time on replies to questions submitted to Cecil/staff (always assuming of course that they reply 
).
Probably be faster if you had posted this on the ATMB forum.
The answer is: it depends. Please be aware that Cecil gets around 300 questions each week.
Staff sort through the mail initially, trying to get to things within a week to ten days (at the moment, we’re running considerably behind that target.) The mail most likely to get a quick response answer would be (a) questions that Cecil or some other source (Staff Reports, snopes, etc) has already answered or (b) questions that would be better posted on the Message Boards.
Some email is just discarded. That includes random insults, spam, personal questions, philosophic preferences, and questions that are too stupid to consider are usually just discarded with no effort made to answer them.
Questions that are worthy of Cecil’s consideration are passed on to him. What happens from there, depends. We do not run an information-please type of site. Cecil himself is paid to write one column a week, which usually answers only one question. There are usually about two Staff Reports each week. Thus, most questions, even the ones that make it past the initial screening, will never be answered. Sorry to say that, but it’s so… sheer volumn dictates that.
Trivia questions (“What’s the name of the Lone Ranger’s nephew’s horse?”) that can be answered in one word or one sentence won’t fill up a column, and so are usually either discarded or referred to the Message Boards.
Don’t be discouraged, though. Sometimes, questions sit around for years before someone takes them on – I’m currently working on a two-years ago question, for instance, for a future Staff Report. Sometimes it takes months to track down sources. Others get answered fairly quickly. A lot depends on Cecil’s mood – in the summer, he tends to get lazy.
So, if you haven’t got an answer to an email within about two weeks of sending, then either it was considered too stupid to be bothered with or it’s sitting in Cecil’s pile… and there’s no telling what happens to it next. In short, if you asked a decent question, then no news is (relatively speaking) good news.
Hope that helps.
Check out my .sig.
I posted detailed corrections to one of Cecil’s columns, about radio call letters, on this message board, and Cecil himself personally responded that he would put together a comprehensive reply “soon”. And a newspaper column with the corrections did eventually appear, over two years later. (The revised column was, of course, comprehensive and dead-on accurate. Just, I thought, a little tardy).
Thanks people.
The mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.
Note that “questions too stupid to answer” may also be saved for filler, in a short column. You know, occasionally you’ll see “Questions we’re still thinking about” at the bottom of the main answer.
Another factor which can lead to old questions being answered is new staff. Shortly after I signed on, for instance, several old astronomy questions were dug up.
I had a question answered, but it took a LONG time from when I submitted it. Quite a few months, in fact. But that’s OK. It was worth it
Jeez, I think I’ve asked three questions over the years, and I still haven’t heard anything. Now that I’ve forgotten what two of them even were, I can expect answers any day now!
Of course, if you help out Cecil by bringing new information on a popular topic to his attention, your “letter” can get published pretty fast; like, within a month. Check out the sig: