54 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
54 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Suggestion/question about post deletions

by Alexa Smith Banned
32 replies
A member today made 15 posts, of which 13 or 14 contained only the words "100 true" (presumably intended as an abbreviated form of "100% true") with or without "quoting" entire posts with which he apparently agreed.

A gross, simple and clear example of multiple posting for the sake of "getting posts on the board" without adding anything constructive at all.

Obviously posts to be removed, in other words. No ambiguity.

During the course of the day, over about an 8-hour period, I happened to report 4 or 5 of these posts, and of course all of them were duly removed by the moderators (for which many thanks, of course ).

So, why am I starting a thread about this? Well, here's the thing ...

In the report box, each time, I mentioned that "almost all his posts are like this". It took me only a second to discover this, using the search function.

So, naturally enough, I'm wondering why the moderators are apparently allowed to delete only one post a time? It's hard to understand this.

I'd happily and quickly "report" all his 10 other posts, too, one at a time, as I effectively did - over a period - with the first five of them, if it weren't for the one-minute flood-interval between reports.

Those posts are all still on the board. (I haven't reported them.)

I appreciate that the moderators do a great and efficient job, even at weekends, even at funny times of day, and they kindly remove what I report. I'm clearly not complaining about them at all. But it seems clear that for some reason they're unable to deal with situations like the (actually very common!) one I'm referring to, here, and in conjunction with the flood interval, that makes it too difficult to take care of.

I know the forum values members' "reports" of such posts, not only because they're they're acted on, but also because some moderators kindly send occasional notes to thank people for reporting them. But this is surely an anomaly that can easily be resolved, either by enabling/allowing the moderators to delete multiple posts (when attention is drawn to them, I mean), or even perhaps just by reducing the flood interval and thereby making them easier to report? That would resolve it?

I'd be very grateful indeed for a response from an Administrator, please, as asking the moderators themselves about this seems unproductive (and I don't want to sound like I'm tactless or complaining, when I ask them, of course!).

.
#deletions #post #suggestion #suggestion or question
  • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
    Banned
    Just an other question along the same lines if I may.
    There is a permanently banned scammer here that has another account
    for the sole reason of multiple junk posts with affiliate links in his sig file.
    These get reported, a mod removes the sig and replaces it with a warning,
    2 weeks later the same happens all over again.
    How many times does this have to happen before he gets banned?
    This has been going on for months now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9692419].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

      These get reported, a mod removes the sig and replaces it with a warning,
      2 weeks later the same happens all over again.
      Well he only waited 1 day this time. Still only the "no affiliate links in sig file" message
      to replace it. Is there any point in reporting anything anymore?
      Maybe we could have some mods that pay attention.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9695042].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

        Is there any point in reporting anything anymore?
        I don't know; but I'm really sorry to say that it seems to be an increasingly good and increasingly relevant question.

        I know this can't really be the forum-owners' intention, but they appear to be absolutely determined to keep the spammers, the scammers and the malicious trolls, and to drive away more and more and more of the longstanding members who actually contribute something to the place.

        As the remaining members are now increasingly pointing out, in multiple threads in different parts of the forum, if you persistently alienate and drive away the core members who made the place what it is, then you have a real problem.

        Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

        Maybe we could have some mods that pay attention.
        Even having some mods or administrators who eventually reply to polite but concerned messages from longstanding members would be quite a plus: at least it would show that "there's somebody there".


        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9700844].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Lexy - I'm not sure there is anybody there...at least anyone who understands what's happening. The lack of response is the new norm.

          After a week away while moving - the changes in this forum were glaring to me when I returned yesterday. Guess I had to go away and come back to see just how much the WF has changed.

          I've stopped reporting serial spammers. If I can quickly see the quantity of their posts - so can mods if they bother to look. Perhaps the mods need more leeway to do the job? Perhaps there needs to be a pecking order for mods with a few who have more experience/understanding/authority who can make decisions when needed?

          I see increased mod activity in the OT. Either rules of "allowed topics" are changing or we have an overly sensitive member complaining about some topics. Could be either one.

          What might bring this forum down is not the scammers but the influx of people posting one liners that make little or no sense....and those trying to get info or help who cannot write or understand the language this forum is based on. When questions and answers make no sense, people lose interest.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9701138].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            The lack of response is the new norm.
            Yes; it seems so.

            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            I've stopped reporting serial spammers.
            Reluctantly, I think I will, also.

            Albeit with some discomfort, I find myself gradually sympathising more and more with Lgibbon's occasional comments, and gradually becoming as acerbic, myself (absolutely no disrespect intended toward him by mentioning this, and quite the opposite, if anything!). Which is perhaps an indication that I should really be "moving on", myself.

            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            What might bring this forum down is not the scammers but the influx of people posting one liners that make little or no sense....
            I agree.

            In a strange way, I'm "happy" to read your post, which makes me feel something like "At least it isn't only me, thinking this, especially just over the last week or so". It's really very sad. But not as if people haven't tried to avoid it, offered to help, and so on. Thank you, Kay.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9701301].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mattbarrie
              Please don't stop reporting. The more support we get the better job we can do in stopping the spam.



              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Yes; it seems so.



              Reluctantly, I think I will, also.

              Albeit with some discomfort, I find myself gradually sympathising more and more with Lgibbon's occasional comments, and gradually becoming as acerbic, myself (absolutely no disrespect intended toward him by mentioning this, and quite the opposite, if anything!). Which is perhaps an indication that I should really be "moving on", myself.



              I agree.

              In a strange way, I'm "happy" to read your post, which makes me feel something like "At least it isn't only me, thinking this, especially just over the last week or so". It's really very sad. But not as if people haven't tried to avoid it, offered to help, and so on. Thank you, Kay.

              .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9702653].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Thanks for replying, Matt. (And of course many thanks, on behalf of many of us, for meeting my friends, this afternoon).
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9703431].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Khemosabi
                Originally Posted by mattbarrie View Post

                Please don't stop reporting. The more support we get the better job we can do in stopping the spam.
                Matt... responses like that give some faith back into this forum. Thank you!
                While I don't report much, it isn't because I don't see it. Honestly, it's my timing! More experienced members are on it!

                I will make a better effort at helping out here. I think your saying it matters helped a lot.

                I think I can speak for all, if not most of the members here in that we want to see this forum grow as much as you do. I think most of the really cool members (the longest ones with all the brains), are welcoming to new members. They would love to help bring this forum back/into what it's capable of. There really is a cool mix in what was and what can be.

                I have a really out of the box idea... take it for what it's worth.
                Your new posters are looking for answers that are so readily available. Is there, Matt, any possible way to program something that "pops up" so to speak when a member posts something... you know, like a keyword thingy?

                All of the relevant posts to the subject line would pop up and they could see that their answers are right there! Kind of like when you search Google and relevant searches drop down... ?

                It's either that or some type of quiz for new members... I mean really.. how hard can that be? The forum gives them a test on the basics of this forum. Like a captcha, but for real people~ Just thinking out loud here..

                ~ Theresa
                Signature


                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9703837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
      Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

      Just an other question along the same lines if I may.
      There is a permanently banned scammer here that has another account
      for the sole reason of multiple junk posts with affiliate links in his sig file.
      These get reported, a mod removes the sig and replaces it with a warning,
      2 weeks later the same happens all over again.
      How many times does this have to happen before he gets banned?
      This has been going on for months now.
      I know of another banned individual back here up to his old tricks. I've reported him but he's still here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9704149].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    I agree with Lexy 100%. I report lots of spammers and would report even more if it wasn't for the waiting time in between. One minute may not seem like much but when you're busy, it can quickly add up.
    I believe the mods should be able to bulk delete threads/posts as often as necessary AND remove the one minute interval thing.

    If you can't remove the interval for everyone, maybe choose some of the more active members (such as Lexy) and given them that extra ability.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9692589].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattbarrie
    Hi Alexa

    Thanks for the feedback. I will have a word with the moderation team. Obviously it's a constant battle dealing with rogue marketers and spammers! The team is growing day by day and working hard to stop it all. We appreciate you reporting the culprits and we're dedicated to stopping them as much as we can. Of course, nothing is ever perfect unfortunately.

    Regards
    Matt





    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

    A member today made 15 posts, of which 13 or 14 contained only the words "100 true" (presumably intended as an abbreviated form of "100% true") with or without "quoting" entire posts with which he apparently agreed.

    A gross, simple and clear example of multiple posting for the sake of "getting posts on the board" without adding anything constructive at all.

    Obviously posts to be removed, in other words. No ambiguity.

    During the course of the day, over about an 8-hour period, I happened to report 4 or 5 of these posts, and of course all of them were duly removed by the moderators (for which many thanks, of course ).

    So, why am I starting a thread about this? Well, here's the thing ...

    In the report box, each time, I mentioned that "almost all his posts are like this". It took me only a second to discover this, using the search function.

    So, naturally enough, I'm wondering why the moderators are apparently allowed to delete only one post a time? It's hard to understand this.

    I'd happily and quickly "report" all his 10 other posts, too, one at a time, as I effectively did - over a period - with the first five of them, if it weren't for the one-minute flood-interval between reports.

    Those posts are all still on the board. (I haven't reported them.)

    I appreciate that the moderators do a great and efficient job, even at weekends, even at funny times of day, and they kindly remove what I report. I'm clearly not complaining about them at all. But it seems clear that for some reason they're unable to deal with situations like the (actually very common!) one I'm referring to, here, and in conjunction with the flood interval, that makes it too difficult to take care of.

    I know the forum values members' "reports" of such posts, not only because they're they're acted on, but also because some moderators kindly send occasional notes to thank people for reporting them. But this is surely an anomaly that can easily be resolved, either by enabling/allowing the moderators to delete multiple posts (when attention is drawn to them, I mean), or even perhaps just by reducing the flood interval and thereby making them easier to report? That would resolve it?

    I'd be very grateful indeed for a response from an Administrator, please, as asking the moderators themselves about this seems unproductive (and I don't want to sound like I'm tactless or complaining, when I ask them, of course!).

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9702651].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Fulger
      Originally Posted by mattbarrie View Post

      Hi Alexa

      Thanks for the feedback. I will have a word with the moderation team. Obviously it's a constant battle dealing with rogue marketers and spammers! The team is growing day by day and working hard to stop it all. We appreciate you reporting the culprits and we're dedicated to stopping them as much as we can. Of course, nothing is ever perfect unfortunately.

      Regards
      Matt
      Hey Matt,

      Why not hire some long time members that can spot spammers a mile away as Moderators, instead of people that have very little clue about marketing?

      It seems like the most logical answer to this problem would be to hire people that know the language and know this forum inside and out. There are many long time members that would probably jump at the chance, if it were given to them.

      Also, I think it should be a requirement that ALL moderators READ THE RULES of the forum instead of depending on old timers to tell them what the rules are.

      Just a suggestion that I think would make this forum much more appealing to both long time members and new comers alike.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    I agree with Matt F. @Matt B...yes, hire some of the older, more experienced members as mods to help clear spam out quicker so that everyone can enjoy the contents of the forum more. I do report what I see but get sick of having to wait due to the 60 second thing.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      There are many long time members that would probably jump at the chance, if it were given to them.
      I firmly believe anyone who would "jump at the chance"...should NOT be a moderator. Many view it as a power play or prestige 'position' - and truth is IF you do it right it's detail work and no recognition.

      There's no reason the new mods can't get this right - but they need to have structure and some leeway to make decisions. Structure needs to place more experienced/insightful moderators in charge of ONE section and having oversight/accountability of what happens in that section.

      My impression is that new mods were trained to look at "new posts" - and if that's how they follow the threads, they miss context.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705372].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Well, let me ask you a question about that, Matt, if I may?

        Earlier today I reported a post made by a member in order to promote himself and his signature-file. It was a post beginning a new thread, discussing how he makes so much money doing a specific activity which is (surprise surprise) exactly what his signature-file was promoting. I wrote a very long message in the report-box explaining that this is exactly the kind of self-promotional posting that's alienating so many members and making them comment, elsewhere, that this forum seems unmoderated and full of spammy, promotional posting. Exactly the kind of stuff you've been reading about and hearing about over the last couple of days, in other words.

        On this occasion, the moderators deleted the post (They very often don't!).

        I mentioned, a little later, to the moderator concerned, that the same member makes a habit of doing this, and that his previous posts/threads are full of this sort of self-promotional nonsense, too, and that I'd reported many of them without anything happening about it.

        I understand the "search function" isn't in the best of health at the moment, but if I can look back through a member's previous posts and identify the spam, why can't a moderator do that?

        I asked this, and to my absolute astonishment the moderator's answer to this question was that they're not ALLOWED to do that, in the case of War Room members, and that to do any more, he would have to consult Alaister!!

        (To be honest, I felt like saying "Good luck with that - I hope you can get a reply out of him more quickly than I can!").

        So this is why the moderators aren't doing their job? They're not allowed to?

        Matt, there's a big problem here, and one that needs to be fixed, please: either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, or there's been some major misunderstanding or miscommuncation about this, or the moderators aren't being allowed to moderate the forum.

        This relates directly to the exact question I started this thread to ask (see post #1 above). We apparently have to report every spammy post individually because the moderators aren't allowed to be pro-active in identifying and removing the self-promotional spam, in the case of War Room members?! (Nobody has actually answered that question. Until now, it seems.)

        ("How's that working out for you"? I'll tell you how it's working out for you: you're hemorrhaging members who are going off elsewhere and announcing that the Warrior Forum moderators aren't doing their jobs - that's how it's working out for you!).

        Matt, with apologies if I come across as demanding, I'd be really grateful if you could please deal with this yourself and be kind enough to let me know how you've dealt with it. Because otherwise nothing's going to happen, is it? Alaister doesn't reply. Some moderators reply. Others don't. Some of them are clearly very frustrated because they feel they're being widely criticised (and they are!) in circumstances in which - as it was expressed to me - "These are orders given to us by Administration. This is the best we mods can do for now."

        I feel very sorry for them - they're nice people "caught in the middle"!


        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705488].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          And I'm posting again just to mention that Matt has already kindly contacted me about the matter mentioned in the post above. And that was quick. And I'm grateful.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705535].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          I asked this, and to my absolute astonishment the moderator's answer to this question was that they're not ALLOWED to do that, in the case of War Room members, and that to do any more, he would have to consult Alaister!!
          The person that had that brainwave needs to be fired.
          Looking back at a a potential trolls posts should be Compulsory
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705542].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Well, apparently there's some difference between how War Room members and non-War Room members are treated, in such instances. ("Who knew?!")

            I wasn't aware of this at all (and I don't see why there should be at all, myself, but there it is), and of course if you weren't either, then it must be something new.

            Anyway, I was grateful for a fast reply from Matt, and I know he'll look into it, along with a load of other things which arose/were discussed yesterday.

            So, anyway, I've been asked to "be patient", and I will be. My tone in the post up above was a little peremptory and perhaps demanding, mostly because I was so surprised to be told this, and I'm sorry for that. Of course, I was also thinking something like "Well, this accounts for a lot of the problems we've seen, doesn't it?". It came across as - finally - an answer to the question in the OP, anyway - and in that sense I was "pleased" to hear it rather than just being left to guess why this was apparently such a problem.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705585].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Matt Fulger
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I firmly believe anyone who would "jump at the chance"...should NOT be a moderator. Many view it as a power play or prestige 'position' - and truth is IF you do it right it's detail work and no recognition.
        Your post reads like you expect that "anyone who would jump at the chance" would intentionally ban the competition. And if that IS the case, then this forum is much more worthless than I had imagined (and I thought it was pretty bad already). Perhaps it really is that bad, which I will admit, it does seem so at times. However, IF the Admins would pull their heads out of their asses, that could be stopped very quickly as well.

        But they obviously really don't give a rats ass about their members IF they would allow this kind of crap to go on.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        There's no reason the new mods can't get this right - but they need to have structure and some leeway to make decisions.
        I agree, except that it seems english is a second language to some of the moderators, so it will be much harder for them to spot a blatant spam in comparison to those of us that speak english fluently and completely understand the language. However, I think you are on to something with the bit about they need to have some leeway to make decisions. Which, it sounds as if they really don't have that leeway as is.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Structure needs to place more experienced/insightful moderators in charge of ONE section and having oversight/accountability of what happens in that section.
        Well, you basically just said what I was trying to say but in a more eloquent manner.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        My impression is that new mods were trained to look at "new posts" - and if that's how they follow the threads, they miss context.
        Again, we agree here and this is a management issue that the moderators have no control over. But I still feel that "more experienced/insightful moderators" would be a better option than what is currently going on. At the same time, it would be totally pointless to hire "more experienced/insightful moderators" if they aren't allowed to do their job, which seems to be the case now.

        Personally, I wish the WF would go back to the days when it was a requirement to use your REAL full name, verified by the credit card you paid with to become a member (I know it's free to join now and I think that is also a colossal mistake). Yes, I was a member when you actually had to pay to even participate in the forum and it was a requirement to use your REAL full name. This was back in the mid to late 90s, before this forum even existed and when spamming wasn't considered to be a bad thing and was actually encouraged.

        So in actuality, many of the old timers perpetuated the problem back then, not foreseeing the colossal damage that spamming would create in the future. However, very few if any of the originals participate in that type of marketing now, realizing what a mistake it was.

        I could be wrong, but I personally believe that alone would get rid of the vast majority of the current problems simply because then you are no longer some anonymous dweeb sitting behind a computer spewing crap that you would NEVER imagine doing if you were required to use your real name instead of a fake username that you don't have to take any personal responsibility for.

        But we all know that will never happen. And so I digress, and will most likely quietly fade away and severely limit my participation as usual.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9706223].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Matt,

          I believe Kay's comment was more along the lines of Heinlein's suggestion that anyone who wanted to hold public office should not be allowed to run. If you want a thing because it gives you "power," you're not the kind of person who should have it.
          I wish the WF would go back to the days when it was a requirement to use your REAL full name
          That's not practical for an open forum any more. Hasn't been for years.

          I think there's a fundamental structural problem here. The people making rules for the mods don't appear to have ever moderated a forum like this themselves. Or, for that matter, even actively participated in one as a member. There's a whole lot more to modding than just deleting obvious spam.

          I'm not talking about reading reports and armchair quarterbacking. I'm talking about getting in there and handling those issues on a daily basis, and having to make the actual decisions that affect every member here.

          In the past 10 years or so, I've only proposed one new moderator for forum-wide access who had less than 5 years experience here. He had 3 years, along with 10,000+ posts. Despite what some people think, that wasn't to foster an "old boy" network. It was because it takes a long time to develop the kind of track record and personal investment and relationships for someone to really appreciate what's involved.

          Despite having that much experience, every one of those people has commented that they had no idea what it was really like, or how much there was to handle. Or how many things you had to consider when making some of those decisions.

          That includes several people who had moderated at decent sized forums previously. This is not like any other forum out there.

          The people making the rules also don't know the history of this place, some of which is still significant. The problem we had with people discussing and promoting spamming here in the first few years is a big one they need to grasp.

          For those who don't know, email spammers were a big chunk of the membership here in the first couple of years. They sold and traded lists, tips on spam-friendly web hosts, and straight out spamware. Getting rid of that was one of the big reasons Allen asked for someone to moderate the place.

          There are a LOT of people in the spam-fighting community who remember this forum because of that. They've been at it a long time, and they're in positions at major ISPs and email hosts where they could block anything and everything that points to this site, and will in an instant if they see signs that stuff is allowed here again.

          The new management clearly doesn't understand the potential problems in that part of the history here. If they did, there is no way I would now have multiple accounts at Freelancer which I did not create, using email addresses belonging to me and associated with accounts here.

          I understand that the new owners have a different vision of what this place should be. That's their right. They own the place. I just think it would be wise of them to know what's really involved in things like moderating before making rules that have such clearly dangerous potential for backlash.

          Whoever is making the rules for the moderators should have to spend at least an hour a day, every day, handling reports. And they should be the first to handle issues with sales threads, so they get a real grasp of what's involved with those decisions.

          Until you've done that for at least a couple of months, you're not qualified to make policy regarding moderation here or anywhere else. You may have the authority, but you don't have the understanding.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9706625].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Matt Fulger
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Matt,

            I believe Kay's comment was more along the lines of Heinlein's suggestion that anyone who wanted to hold public office should not be allowed to run. If you want a thing because it gives you "power," you're not the kind of person who should have it.
            I believe you're right about that. However, at the time of my post, I simply wasn't thinking along those lines. I wasn't insinuating that people would "jump at the chance" simply because it's a position of power. What I was trying to get at is that (as she more eloquently put it).

            Structure needs to place more experienced/insightful moderators in charge of ONE section and having oversight/accountability of what happens in that section.
            What I was insinuating is that these type of people would "jump at the chance" to moderate and would definitely make this place a much better forum. However, after thinking it over, I'm probably wrong with that assumption and these type of people probably want nothing to do with moderating this place because it's a big headache of a job as you WELL know.

            I don't know if you are still a moderator here, but I do know that you at least used to be, so you personally do know what a headache it is to moderate this place. I was offered the chance to moderate here years ago, but wasn't interested at the time simply because I was running my own forum that had it's own issues and I didn't feel like I had the time needed to dedicate myself to helping keep this place clean.

            I wish the WF would go back to the days when it was a requirement to use your REAL full name
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            That's not practical for an open forum any more. Hasn't been for years.
            If it's not practical anymore then why is Facebook starting to require people to do just that? I've been talking to several people lately complaining about Facebook threatening to terminate their accounts if they don't change their username to a real name. Also, why did YouTube force me to change my username to something that looked more like a real name?

            And don't try to tell me it's because they are not an open forum. That would be kind of like telling me that the "Cloud" isn't simply a buzz word for an online server used to store your information. Now, I know there are differences, of course. But it's more of a technicality and Facebook is used much the same way as a forum.

            However, I don't really understand why Facebook is only targeting certain individuals with the "Real Name" issue, as I also know many others that don't use real names on Facebook and haven't received any threats of termination as of yet.

            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            I think there's a fundamental structural problem here. The people making rules for the mods don't appear to have ever moderated a forum like this themselves. Or, for that matter, even actively participated in one as a member. There's a whole lot more to modding than just deleting obvious spam.

            I'm not talking about reading reports and armchair quarterbacking. I'm talking about getting in there and handling those issues on a daily basis, and having to make the actual decisions that affect every member here.

            In the past 10 years or so, I've only proposed one new moderator for forum-wide access who had less than 5 years experience here. He had 3 years, along with 10,000+ posts. Despite what some people think, that wasn't to foster an "old boy" network. It was because it takes a long time to develop the kind of track record and personal investment and relationships for someone to really appreciate what's involved.

            Despite having that much experience, every one of those people has commented that they had no idea what it was really like, or how much there was to handle. Or how many things you had to consider when making some of those decisions.

            That includes several people who had moderated at decent sized forums previously. This is not like any other forum out there.

            The people making the rules also don't know the history of this place, some of which is still significant. The problem we had with people discussing and promoting spamming here in the first few years is a big one they need to grasp.

            For those who don't know, email spammers were a big chunk of the membership here in the first couple of years. They sold and traded lists, tips on spam-friendly web hosts, and straight out spamware. Getting rid of that was one of the big reasons Allen asked for someone to moderate the place.

            There are a LOT of people in the spam-fighting community who remember this forum because of that. They've been at it a long time, and they're in positions at major ISPs and email hosts where they could block anything and everything that points to this site, and will in an instant if they see signs that stuff is allowed here again.

            The new management clearly doesn't understand the potential problems in that part of the history here. If they did, there is no way I would now have multiple accounts at Freelancer which I did not create, using email addresses belonging to me and associated with accounts here.

            I understand that the new owners have a different vision of what this place should be. That's their right. They own the place. I just think it would be wise of them to know what's really involved in things like moderating before making rules that have such clearly dangerous potential for backlash.

            Whoever is making the rules for the moderators should have to spend at least an hour a day, every day, handling reports. And they should be the first to handle issues with sales threads, so they get a real grasp of what's involved with those decisions.

            Until you've done that for at least a couple of months, you're not qualified to make policy regarding moderation here or anywhere else. You may have the authority, but you don't have the understanding.


            Paul
            I agree with the rest of your post and I too believe that whoever is in charge doesn't quite know how to handle and/or manage a forum like this. I'm not saying that they are incompetent, I just don't think they have the experience needed in this type of forum, so are kind of at a loss as to what to do and how to run this beast.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9707552].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Matt,

              It's not practical because it would kill the existing membership base. You can't make retroactive rules for hundreds of thousands of members in a place like this, especially when tens of thousands of them paid for those accounts.

              I am firmly convinced you should not be allowed to sell here without using your real name. Beyond that, you'd be looking at a logistical and legal nightmare at this point.

              There are other reasons, but that first one should be enough to make the point.

              Just as an aside... Facebook is very different in this regard. The incentive for using Facebook involves dealing with people who know you by your real name. Yes, some people abuse it, but the majority, by far, are there for purposes that would be hurt by using handles like beastlord8265.

              For the record, I think you'd have made a good mod. You have a history of thinking before you come to conclusions.
              I'm not saying that they are incompetent
              Me either. They're clearly very smart people. That's no substitute for experience with this one, though.

              If you haven't actually done it, it's very easy to form notions about some idealized system that's kinder and gentler and more "transparent," and end up leaving huge holes for the scammers and spammers to drive their trucks through.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9707930].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    WOW! I never knew they treated War room and non war-room members differently. I believe that, regardless of status, id somebody is blatantly breaking the rules, it needs to be addressed. There are war room-members who do this quite often as well as the new people who just join to spam the forum.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by laurencewins View Post

      I believe that, regardless of status, id somebody is blatantly breaking the rules, it needs to be addressed.
      Well, I know that Matt would agree with that.

      And I know that the moderators with whom I've "discussed things" would also agree with that. That's clearly the intention. And Matt will doubtless eventually produce a situation in which that's the outcome as well as the intention.

      The problem is that many of these things are not "blatant". The specific example I mentioned above was, but to be fair the moderator concerned did immediately delete that post. And what's "blatant" to an internet marketer who's been here for years isn't necessarily so "blatant" at all to a new forum moderator who isn't an internet marketer at all. My own opinion is that people who moderate the Warrior should be internet marketers, partly so that things like that are "blatant" to them, and partly because the members would respect that more. But that isn't "how it is", any more, and I suppose I just have to accept that, and stop whining about it, just like everyone else does. (I don't mind admitting that that doesn't come easily to me: I'm just "better" at whining than many, here, unfortunately. Or "worse", of course, depending on your perspective. )


      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    Lexy, you are more than entitled to bring up things that need attention. I don't know anybody who posts more in here than you do and I know that you are well respected by a lot of the members (including myself) and the old guard mods. I don't know what the new guard think. I did not know that some mods were not internet marketers of some kind. That would help them moderate better, in my opinion as well.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9705766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    On the Facebook comparison, it is much different logistically. They could easily accommodate 10,000 members with the name Mike Friedman. Each one just has a different URL.

    Here, you would have Mike Friedman1, Mike Friedman2, Mike Friedman3, etc. It would be a nightmare with more common names.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9714351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Mike,

    Yep. There are at least 4 other people here named Paul Myers. Can you imagine the confusion that would have caused?


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9714453].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Mike,

      Yep. There are at least 4 other people here named Paul Myers. Can you imagine the confusion that would have caused?


      Paul
      Lol... I bet a few of them would have gotten some interesting PM's over the years...
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9714584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Khemosabi
    I just wanted to jump in and say "Thank You"!! to the mods. While I understand that they are still learning/growing, they really helped me out today!

    I'm happy to hear about what Matt has been doing and knowing that things are trying to get better is great news.

    Thanks mods for your help!

    ~ Theresa
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718058].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alaister
    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

    But this is surely an anomaly that can easily be resolved, either by enabling/allowing the moderators to delete multiple posts (when attention is drawn to them, I mean), or even perhaps just by reducing the flood interval and thereby making them easier to report? That would resolve it?
    Hi Alexa,

    Sorry this hasn't been addressed. We now have functionality allowing moderators to delete multiple posts with the aim to improve our spam management. They'll be able to delete multiple spam posts from the same user in order to prevent the scenario you mentioned above.

    As you know the flood intervals are there to prevent trolls from abusing the report feature and bombarding our moderators. Perhaps we could reduce it to 30 seconds. Would this make reporting easier for you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9855181].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

      Perhaps we could reduce it to 30 seconds. Would this make reporting easier for you?
      Not easier enough, no.

      Matt Barrie told us over 2 months ago, and others have repeated it since, that he thought it could be reduced to 10 seconds, and we're all waiting to see whether that can be done.

      Alaister, please be kind enough to reinstate immediately the entirely reasonable post of mine you've just deleted from this thread.

      I appreciate that its removal perhaps "saves face" for you, not to have people seeing that it takes you over two months to reply to a simple question asked by so many members in so many different threads, and that you persistently ignore private messages from concerned members, but in these circumstances, how do you honestly expect me to feel about having a perfectly legitimate post deleted just for that reason?! It's a slightly rhetorical question, but the way I actually feel is "insulted". And so would anyone else.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9855211].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alaister
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Matt Barrie told us over 2 months ago, and others have repeated it since, that he thought it could be reduced to 10 seconds, and we're all waiting to see whether that can be done.

        Alaister, please be kind enough to reinstate immediately the entirely reasonable post of mine you've just deleted from this thread.

        I appreciate that its removal perhaps "saves face" for you, not to have people seeing that it takes you over two months to reply to a simple question asked by so many members in so many different threads, and that you persistently ignore private messages from concerned members, but in these circumstances, how do you honestly expect me to feel about having a perfectly legitimate post deleted just for that reason?! It's a slightly rhetorical question, but the way I actually feel is "insulted". And so would anyone else.

        .
        Hi Alexa,

        I have gone in and reduced it to 10 seconds. I appreciate your suggestion and persistence to get this implemented. I'm sending you a PM in regards to the other post.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9855276].message }}

Trending Topics