Well, we all gain space-time here, but we lose clear distinction between proven-unproven users. How will you know now? No system is perfect, but more quantity without more knowledge usually brings less quality. We now miss something new...
To discuss, maybe. Or maybe let's just see what happens?
-LV
P.S. I don't think the user's posts count is enough. That's quantity, not quality.
P.P.S. Sorry, not to mention the fact the a forum shouldn't become a chat, and discussing/learning is different than seeking solutions. The old system someway helped towards these "good practices". Now we are open market, so to say.
The old system didn't really do that much in the way of "good practices". I mean, generally speaking replies were only scanned quickly for a few key things but were rarely moved or rejected.
Why do we need to know a distinction between proven/unproven users? Or perhaps, who loses the ability to make a distinction between proven/unproven users? Moderation status was not visible to general forum members so it didn't mean anything to anyone but moderators.
Moderators use post count and quality of prior posts from a user to determine their contribution level on the forums. Nothing about the new policy prevents that from taking place in the future.
The future of determining a forum users participation level will ultimately be how many "answers" they provide. We already have some answer/not answered support in the forums now and it will get deeper and richer in future releases. At some point, the community
will be able to see not only who posts frequently but who answeres frequently and that will be a more accurate picture.
Well, let me first tell i'm quite happy with these forums and you have moved towards a more common policy, as asked from many users; so this is not criticism and i'm just trying to discuss something more in depth than usual, about forums and how to keep
things "under control" while promoting activities.
> The old system didn't really do that much in the way of "good practices". I mean, generally speaking replies were only scanned quickly for a few key things but were rarely moved or rejected.
Sorry, i don't think you get my point. I was not talking about what the moderators do/do not. The "good practices" i talk about above do relate to "guiding" people, and were enforced by simply making them wait for the posts to be approved! That's automagic
moderation of rookies. Not very sophisticated maybe, but now it's gone.
> Why do we need to know a distinction between proven/unproven users? Or perhaps, who loses the ability to make a distinction between proven/unproven users? Moderation status was not visible to general forum members so it didn't mean anything to anyone but
moderators.
And i'm afraid i strongly desagree here. Any user around here very soon gets a feeling to this distinction and who is who.
Now, my starting point here basically is: waiting plus knowing who is who makes a topic get to its points cleaner, denser, and even faster than unmoderated forums, after all.
> Moderators use post count and quality of prior posts from a user to determine their contribution level on the forums. Nothing about the new policy prevents that from taking place in the future.
Telling that moderators unlock users based on post count i think forgets the real part of the story: moderators actually "evaluate" posts before unlocking, and that's quality in its most basic form: a QA!
> The future of determining a forum users participation level will ultimately be how many "answers" they provide.
This is still more quantity than quality, imho, and should be crafted a bit more. Anyway yes, this goes into the direction of quality indicators. And here lays my very intention with this post: introducing significant quality-knowledge contents-messages-signals
is not that trivial; and it makes the difference between a controlled vs. uncontrolled community; and, after that, between a controlled vs. a self-controlled community. Not trivial, not automatic, usually counter-intuitive...
Sorry, i don't think you get my point. I was not talking about what the moderators do/do not. The "good practices" i talk about above do relate to "guiding" people, and were enforced by simply making them wait for the posts to be approved! That's automagic
moderation of rookies. Not very sophisticated maybe, but now it's gone.
Not exactly sure why making someone wait for hours on end for their post to be approved is a "good practice" used for "guiding" the people.
---------------------------------------------------- And i'm afraid i strongly desagree here. Any user around here very soon gets a feeling to this distinction and who is who.
I think the easiest way to determine if someone is a moderator is to look through their posts. One will soon find that the "unmoderated" users have a tendency to make posts from time to time that are COMPLETELY off topic, a lot of times downright degrading
to newer members. Posts like these wouldn't fly if posted by a user who was moderated. If I had the ability to flag a post that I thought was off topic and or abusive I would have reported some of these posts in a heartbeat notifying moderators of a potential
post that could draw the members off of topic.
If I had the ability to flag a post that I thought was off topic and or abusive I would have reported some of these posts in a heartbeat notifying moderators of a potential post that could draw the members off of topic.
Hi,
Such an option does exist. Please use the
Report abuse link that is located in the lower right hand corner of each post to report posts that appear to be totally off topic or
in voilation of the Terms of Use.
Well, we all gain space-time here, but we lose clear distinction between proven-unproven users. How will you know now? No system is perfect, but more quantity without more knowledge usually brings less quality. We now miss something new...
I interact on a few different forums that are geared towards problem solving. I would say that within a week or two of interacting one quickly realizes who the proven/unproven users are by reading the posts they make and then the response from others that
follow. Leaders can easily be identified by the way they act and the way others act towards them.
Yes, you are right, but that happens in some "hosting" context, and the contexts can differ. In a crowded place, where everybody talks over everybody else, even if you know who is who, you don't go very far easily. A bit like control rods in a nuclear core.
Space-time quantity and low noise levels are quite difficult to get both, unless you do set it as an explicit and high priority requirement.
How to approach it? I'll depict the two extremes for "guided" systems: Blue) etero-moderation, with moderators; Red) auto-moderation, by users. Now the point i'm trying to make is, if you weaken approach Blue, you should be renforcing approach Red, to keep
the core in balance...
-LV
Btw, as a sample: do we need real-time to bring on this discussion? Imho, who needs real-time from a forum, either has mistaken a support channel, or should just be doing his/her own home work...
AlexLowe
Contributor
4460 Points
890 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 04:05 AM|LINK
The old system didn't really do that much in the way of "good practices". I mean, generally speaking replies were only scanned quickly for a few key things but were rarely moved or rejected.
Why do we need to know a distinction between proven/unproven users? Or perhaps, who loses the ability to make a distinction between proven/unproven users? Moderation status was not visible to general forum members so it didn't mean anything to anyone but moderators. Moderators use post count and quality of prior posts from a user to determine their contribution level on the forums. Nothing about the new policy prevents that from taking place in the future.
The future of determining a forum users participation level will ultimately be how many "answers" they provide. We already have some answer/not answered support in the forums now and it will get deeper and richer in future releases. At some point, the community will be able to see not only who posts frequently but who answeres frequently and that will be a more accurate picture.
Alex
LudovicoVan
Star
9692 Points
1935 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 01:55 PM|LINK
Well, let me first tell i'm quite happy with these forums and you have moved towards a more common policy, as asked from many users; so this is not criticism and i'm just trying to discuss something more in depth than usual, about forums and how to keep things "under control" while promoting activities.
> The old system didn't really do that much in the way of "good practices". I mean, generally speaking replies were only scanned quickly for a few key things but were rarely moved or rejected.
Sorry, i don't think you get my point. I was not talking about what the moderators do/do not. The "good practices" i talk about above do relate to "guiding" people, and were enforced by simply making them wait for the posts to be approved! That's automagic moderation of rookies. Not very sophisticated maybe, but now it's gone.
> Why do we need to know a distinction between proven/unproven users? Or perhaps, who loses the ability to make a distinction between proven/unproven users? Moderation status was not visible to general forum members so it didn't mean anything to anyone but moderators.
And i'm afraid i strongly desagree here. Any user around here very soon gets a feeling to this distinction and who is who.
Now, my starting point here basically is: waiting plus knowing who is who makes a topic get to its points cleaner, denser, and even faster than unmoderated forums, after all.
> Moderators use post count and quality of prior posts from a user to determine their contribution level on the forums. Nothing about the new policy prevents that from taking place in the future.
Telling that moderators unlock users based on post count i think forgets the real part of the story: moderators actually "evaluate" posts before unlocking, and that's quality in its most basic form: a QA!
> The future of determining a forum users participation level will ultimately be how many "answers" they provide.
This is still more quantity than quality, imho, and should be crafted a bit more. Anyway yes, this goes into the direction of quality indicators. And here lays my very intention with this post: introducing significant quality-knowledge contents-messages-signals is not that trivial; and it makes the difference between a controlled vs. uncontrolled community; and, after that, between a controlled vs. a self-controlled community. Not trivial, not automatic, usually counter-intuitive...
-LV
jables2011
Member
100 Points
20 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 04:46 PM|LINK
Not exactly sure why making someone wait for hours on end for their post to be approved is a "good practice" used for "guiding" the people.
----------------------------------------------------
And i'm afraid i strongly desagree here. Any user around here very soon gets a feeling to this distinction and who is who.
I think the easiest way to determine if someone is a moderator is to look through their posts. One will soon find that the "unmoderated" users have a tendency to make posts from time to time that are COMPLETELY off topic, a lot of times downright degrading to newer members. Posts like these wouldn't fly if posted by a user who was moderated. If I had the ability to flag a post that I thought was off topic and or abusive I would have reported some of these posts in a heartbeat notifying moderators of a potential post that could draw the members off of topic.
StrongTypes
All-Star
30801 Points
6013 Posts
ASPInsiders
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 04:59 PM|LINK
Hi,
Such an option does exist. Please use the Report abuse link that is located in the lower right hand corner of each post to report posts that appear to be totally off topic or in voilation of the Terms of Use.
Ryan
LudovicoVan
Star
9692 Points
1935 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 05:03 PM|LINK
jables2011:
> Not exactly sure why making someone wait for hours on end for their post to be approved is a "good practice" used for "guiding" the people.
Actually i talked about guiding as a good practice, not the reverse.
> If I had the ability to flag a post that I thought was off topic and or abusive...
There's a Report abuse link down each post.
Please keep in mind i'm just trying a general discussion here...
-LV
jables2011
Member
100 Points
20 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 05:40 PM|LINK
I interact on a few different forums that are geared towards problem solving. I would say that within a week or two of interacting one quickly realizes who the proven/unproven users are by reading the posts they make and then the response from others that follow. Leaders can easily be identified by the way they act and the way others act towards them.
LudovicoVan
Star
9692 Points
1935 Posts
Re: Forum Moderation, good or bad?
Apr 23, 2006 06:19 PM|LINK
Yes, you are right, but that happens in some "hosting" context, and the contexts can differ. In a crowded place, where everybody talks over everybody else, even if you know who is who, you don't go very far easily. A bit like control rods in a nuclear core. Space-time quantity and low noise levels are quite difficult to get both, unless you do set it as an explicit and high priority requirement.
How to approach it? I'll depict the two extremes for "guided" systems: Blue) etero-moderation, with moderators; Red) auto-moderation, by users. Now the point i'm trying to make is, if you weaken approach Blue, you should be renforcing approach Red, to keep the core in balance...
-LV
Btw, as a sample: do we need real-time to bring on this discussion? Imho, who needs real-time from a forum, either has mistaken a support channel, or should just be doing his/her own home work...