Questions about how the mods function

[pam]

Also, sometimes I feel like the only threads around here that contain real substantial discussion (specifically in Current Events) are closed because there is a single poster making the discussion turn into a flame war, and that these closures are often based on a single offending statement amidst that person's contributing point. Wouldn't it be better to edit or delete the offensive posts or thread-ban the offender rather than killing the discussion for the rest of us innocent bystanders? It's like putting out the campfire just because you have a couple kids being stupid and sticking their hands in.

I disagree with this from a moderator logistical standpoint. Since so many posts get quoted, we would have to delete all those posts that were also quoted and pretty soon you have a thread that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I disagree with this from a moderator logistical standpoint. Since so many posts get quoted, we would have to delete all those posts that were also quoted and pretty soon you have a thread that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult. You just would have to take out the parts involving the flame-fest, not the entirety of the post. I understand that it takes time to moderate, but wouldn't it be better to have a bigger staff so that threads can be fixed instead of killed? I'd gladly do it. I know of a few users who have left because they don't think this place enables discussion enough. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the site to address that?

[Vort]

I'm not sure why that's so difficult. You just would have to take out the parts involving the flame-fest, not the entirety of the post. I understand that it takes time to moderate, but wouldn't it be better to have a bigger staff so that threads can be fixed instead of killed? I'd gladly do it. I know of a few users who have left because they don't think this place enables discussion enough. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the site to address that?

One of the keys of being a good editor is to bring the material into conformity with the standard without destroying the author's voice. This is a tricky balancing act, and few people have developed the gift to do it well. I would imagine the same applies to moderating a forum.

[PrinceofLight2000]

One of the keys of being a good editor is to bring the material into conformity with the standard without destroying the author's voice. This is a tricky balancing act, and few people have developed the gift to do it well. I would imagine the same applies to moderating a forum.

I agree, but it's far from impossible.

[pam]

I was told that our membership on the site would decrease greatly when we took away chat, instead it has increased by about 15%. Therefore the argument we will lose membership doesn't hold with me.

Edited June 30, 2011 by pam

[PrinceofLight2000]

I was told that our membership on the site would decrease greatly when we took away chat, instead it has increased by about 15%. Therefore the argument we will lose membership doesn't hold with me.

I don't think membership is of a higher value than activity. Most of the people who join this place from what I've seen are looking for advice or an answer to one specific question, and once they get it, they leave. Sure, your membership numbers go up, but how many of them are active? If the regulars start leaving, which I have seen recently, if left uncorrected the forum will inevitably degenerate to little more than a question-and-answer party. This has already happened, but to a lesser degree. So the question should be how can you keep regulars while helping to get the incidental posters to stay? I'll leave that for you and the admins to figure out.

Edited June 30, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[pam]

I guess I'm not seeing the regulars leaving as you are. We've still pretty much got the same core group of people we had even a year ago.

[Mahone]

Another issue I have with this, most often in the Current Events forum, is that I've often seen topics locked for being too old with the reasoning that the event itself doesn't apply anymore, or is no longer "current". This may be the case for very isolated news stories that people like to post, but I don't think every topic (at least the more ideologically/policy-oriented ones) needs an official update in order to continue discussion, because those issues affect us in different ways every day, and someone might want to post a new perspective on it.

I did say this before in another thread, but it's not just the primary subject of the thread that is the issue, when it comes to old threads. People post with the information they have at the time, and the world changes a lot over the space of a couple of years. When someone makes a post, they often include little tidbits of information in that post that are related indirectly to the primary subject of the thread. These tidbits of information may make sense at the time of posting, but two years down the line may not make any sense at all unless the person reading the thread realises that the post was made two years ago. Not many people actually think to check the dates on the posts.

The closing of old threads, and general distaste of bumping old threads (especially without warning on the part of the person that bumped it) is not unique to this forum. It's considered netiquette to avoid doing it.

Lastly, it has always seemed counter-intuitive to me that threads create greater strain on forums when they have a higher post count. Wouldn't it be more troublesome from a data storage perspective to continually make new threads about the same topics rather than to bump the ones that are supposedly "too old"?

It depends on the way the database is designed, but generally large threads do not cause data storage issue or a processing issue.

On the same note, forum threads do not take up a lot of storage space. It's merely text, and nothing else pretty much. With the low cost of storage nowadays, the size of the forum database will be of little concern to web administrators, no matter how popular the forum.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I did say this before in another thread, but it's not just the primary subject of the thread that is the issue, when it comes to old threads. People post with the information they have at the time, and the world changes a lot over the space of a couple of years. When someone makes a post, they often include little tidbits of information in that post that are related indirectly to the primary subject of the thread. These tidbits of information may make sense at the time of posting, but two years down the line may not make any sense at all unless the person reading the thread realises that the post was made two years ago. Not many people actually think to check the dates on the posts.

The closing of old threads, and general distaste of bumping old threads (especially without warning on the part of the person that bumped it) is not unique to this forum. It's considered netiquette to avoid doing it.

I'm not quite positive about what exactly you're getting at.

[Mahone]

I'm not quite positive about what exactly you're getting at.

Well for example, there might be a thread about terrorism in general, nothing specific. Terrorism will always be around, so the thread is never no longer relevant. Someone mentions Osama Bin Laden during this thread, and about how has potentially been seen in Afghanistan somewhere. This post was made in December 2009.

Someone reading the thread in June 2011 may be very confused at this point if they don't realise the post was made back in 2009.

When a thread is bumped, it appears at the top of the list. This is when people are less likely to realise the thread is old.

As Pam said elsewhere, we as moderators are more likely to let a bumped thread slide if the person that bumped the thread mentions that it's an old thread and gives reasons for bumping it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Mahone

[pam]

To summarize what Mahone was talking about I found this by googling netiquette.

Thread bumping is commonly considered a breach of netiquette and some moderated forums forbid it. Users may get around that by posting what is ostensibly a genuine reply. Sometimes this will mockingly contain the word "bump" in it, such as "Wandering the forum, he bumps into this thread...", or be a trivial question or response such as "Anyone?". Bumping old or inactive ("dead") threads is occasionally called "necroposting" or "thread necromancy", and the bumping posts referred to as "frankenposts". "Dead" threads that are reawakened are often called "thread necros". People who resurrect old threads are often called "threadomancers". On some boards, bumping a new thread with no replies in order to elicit a response is tolerated, but resurrecting an old thread that has run its course and has been inactive for a period of time (usually anywhere from a few days to a month) is prohibited. The acceptable practice is usually to start a new thread and link to the old thread so that readers can become familiar with the background information.

Our policy is in no way different than numerous other sites.

Edited June 30, 2011 by pam

[Suzie]

Well for example, there might be a thread about terrorism in general, nothing specific. Terrorism will always be around, so the thread is never no longer relevant. Someone mentions Osama Bin Laden during this thread, and about how has potentially been seen in Afghanistan somewhere. This post was made in December 2009.

Someone reading the thread in June 2011 may be very confused at this point if they don't realise the post was made back in 2009.

When a thread is bumped, it appears at the top of the list. This is when people are less likely to realise the thread is old.

As Pam said elsewhere, we are moderators are more likely to let a bumped thread slide if the person that bumped the thread mentions that it's an old thread and gives reasons for bumping it.

I agree with that on certain threads but certainly not in all (specially doctrinal ones).

For example, there is a thread called "Issues with Brigham Young" where I spent a little time debating and sharing thoughts about Church history. I continue study and researching in some of the points raised in that thread, however if next year I find something really good to share about some of the points discussed or I would like to bring the discussion back... should I have to open now a new thread with the info I found because the original thread is old? It makes little sense to me.

[pam]

I agree with that on certain threads but certainly not in all (specially doctrinal ones).

For example, there is a thread called "Issues with Brigham Young" where I spent a little time debating and sharing thoughts about Church history. I continue study and researching in some of the points raised in that thread, however if next year I find something really good to share about some of the points discussed or I would like to bring the discussion back... should I have to open now a new thread with the info I found because the original thread is old? It makes little sense to me.

Again, as has been mentioned in this thread and other threads numerous times...if someone were to mention that they realized that the thread was old but had some new information to share..we are more likely to allow it to remain open.

[pam]

More of the threads closed are ones where someone asked for advice and hasn't been on the site for a year or more. Obviously in responding to that OP, it makes no sense.

I've seen threads with subjects such as modesty debated and debated and then kind of died. All of a sudden 2 years later someone posts on the thread and the entire debate starts all over again. And there is never anything new brought up.

[Mahone]

I agree with that on certain threads but certainly not in all (specially doctrinal ones).

For example, there is a thread called "Issues with Brigham Young" where I spent a little time debating and sharing thoughts about Church history. I continue study and researching in some of the points raised in that thread, however if next year I find something really good to share about some of the points discussed or I would like to bring the discussion back... should I have to open now a new thread with the info I found because the original thread is old? It makes little sense to me.

There is obviously no "one size fits all" rule, and we do use discretion. In some cases, we do allow it, especially when it is pointed out that the thread is old, so other readers are aware - if it isn't pointed out, it could be considered rude - very much in the same way typing everything in capitals is considered rude and annoying, even if the person doing it doesn't realise this.

[Vort]

Again, as has been mentioned in this thread and other threads numerous times...if someone were to mention that they realized that the thread was old but had some new information to share..we are more likely to allow it to remain open.

I plan to wait for a year or two, then post on this thread again.

[pam]

Let me close it now then Vort and it will save you from having to mark your calendar.

[Canuck Mormon]

Having been a former mod on this site, I think that they do the best they can and they certainly can't please everyone. I can tell you that every action is discussed and if the group comes to a decision that needs to be reversed, they do it. Being a mod takes a lot of these peoples time and energy, which is amazing considering they are volunteers.

Great job Pam and company!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep up the good work.

[Vort]

To summarize what Mahone was talking about I found this by googling netiquette.

Our policy is in no way different than numerous other sites.

However, note that merely bumping a thread is much different from offering a genuine reply, even to an older thread. As long as the topic is still relevant (e.g. "How do you prepare for a new baby?" vs. "I'm having a baby in a month! What should I do?"), thread "resurrection" per se should not be viewed negatively.

[pam]

However, note that merely bumping a thread is much different from offering a genuine reply, even to an older thread. As long as the topic is still relevant (e.g. "How do you prepare for a new baby?" vs. "I'm having a baby in a month! What should I do?"), thread "resurrection" per se should not be viewed negatively.

And that has been taken into consideration before as well. I think people are focusing on the ones that have been closed and not noticing the numerous that have remained open.

[skippy740]

"Resurrecting a thread" is part of the "Posting And You" introduction to forum posting video...

[estradling75]

Lets pull back the curtain abit...

In the last week there were 24 reported posts to the Mods...

They were

thread alteration requests 1

account problems 1

potential rule violations 17

Just Plan weird 2

thread nerco 3 (2 allowed)

So in one week we have 24 dedicated threads were the mods can hash out problems, inform of actions, ask for feedback, etc.

Of the 17 potential rule violation some were found/reported by mods as they dealt with it. Reporting documents it and allows other mods see the action and have a chance to disagree... This is usually a very clear case of needed to be done.

In the other cases the post is reported either by a mod or a forum member as a way of bring things to the attention of the (other) mods. For discussion. Sometimes the mods take action, and sometimes the choice is made to let it stand.

For the three thread nercos reported this week. One was nuked... It was 5 years dead and the poster basically said "I agree." The thread itself was a discussion with lots of detailed back and forth. The other two were of such a nature and in thread of different natures that allowing them to remain was fine.

[pam]

And that's not counting all of the things reported by using the "contact us" feature. I receive all of those by email. I seriously need a raise. :)

[Vort]

And that's not counting all of the things reported by using the "contact us" feature. I receive all of those by email. I seriously need a raise. :)

Is a doubling of your current salary sufficient? I can make up the difference myself.

[john doe]

Also, sometimes I feel like the only threads around here that contain real substantial discussion (specifically in Current Events) are closed because there is a single poster making the discussion turn into a flame war, and that these closures are often based on a single offending statement amidst that person's contributing point. Wouldn't it be better to edit or delete the offensive posts or thread-ban the offender rather than killing the discussion for the rest of us innocent bystanders? It's like putting out the campfire just because you have a couple kids being stupid and sticking their hands in.

You have no idea how often editing of posts occurs now. We don't just nuke threads willy-nilly. We don't currently have the ability to ban certain people from certain threads, although I can see its usefulness in some situations.

And if the other kids standing around the fire don't take any action to stop the kids from sticking their hands in the fire, then aren't you technically saying it's okay for them to do it? One reason we put out the whole campfire is because everybody else around the fire is standing around watching them do it and not taking any action to make them stop. And others are encouraging them to stand right in the middle of the fire just to see what happens. What do you expect us to do when you aren't doing anything to help the situation?