Moderation: Let's talk it over (2)
Post categories: blogs, comments, messageboards, moderation
| 08:45 UK time, Thursday, 18 June 2009
The last time Paul of the Central Communities Team discussed your queries about moderation it was (I think) a reasonable success.
Quite apart from anything else, as a result of the comments on Paul's blog post we were able to fix a small bug.
So we're going to try it again.
From 2 p.m. today Paul will be on the PM blog answering your questions again. He'll also respond to comments on this post, but you might be better to go to PM first.
Nick Reynolds is editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why do you steadfastly continue to remove comments on blogs, HYS and 606 and send out the useless stock email saying something was innapropriate without an elaboration whatsoever.
If there was genuinely a problem then at least have the decency and openness to provide a quote of the phrase and an explaination of the rule broken. This will allow us to understand better the problems with our posts (which without the original text can be impossible to work out) and also will remove any idea of a post being removed because the mod disagreed with it's sentiment.
Until this simple step (that would at least show some respect to the poster) is taken then you will continue to get problems and a bad name for being one-eyed and biased.
Complain about this comment
you remove posts for fun,just on a power trip in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
What on earth is social media?
I've just been to BBC - help - home. It says
While we are not able to answer emails individually, all feedback regarding the availability of the UK and International edition is being collated and considered.
From time to time, we will post responses to feedback, and updates about developments on the BBC Internet Blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/
I can't find anything here.
Complain about this comment
Streoneshalh - what are you trying to find?
Complain about this comment
OK, will try here as it will probably get lost in the PM blog, and I can go into a little more detail here: This is what I posted to the PM blog;
"What's the point, any topic to hot to answer will just get moderated out...
Anyone else see the irony of the BBC hosting a two way forum on BBC moderation policy when it's in the powers of the BBC to remove comments that are likely to be embarrassing, to be replaced by a standard comment suggesting that the comment had "broken the House Rules"?!
Also in the last few days the number of comments that have been censored, not moderated, by the BBC has been disgusting, the BBC is loosing all trust. When a complaint is made to either the BBC complaints department or the BBC Trust any reply just suggests adding a comment on the blog that has caused the complaint - go figure!
No doubt this comment will be removed."
Comments would be welcome; if you want to know which two blogs I'm concerned about check my recent posting history, I won't post links to other blogs as that has also been frown upon this week to, more than one 'heads-up' to activity on another blog by the blogs owner has been removed, what I will say though is that they concern changes to which version of the BBC site people can access and the current problem the BBC is having with one of it's overseas TV services and Iran.
Also I had a comment removed that informed others that I had asked for one of my own comments to be removed, so that others would not think (in an already heavily moderated blog) that the BBC had removed yet another comment - why is telling others that you have retracted your own comment considered 'off-topic' or wrong in some other way. Oh, and on the subject of rejected comments, why aren't emails sent immediately, and I'm not talking about when they get authored but when the mail server actually sends them?
I would also like to know if the moderators know a complaint has been made by either the blogs owner or other BBC staff member, or do such complaints when made just show up as a normal moderation complaint/process, I understand from a previous blog on moderation that the blogs owner doesn't have any direct ability to remove published comments, have I understood correctly?
Complain about this comment
Also, further to my last comments, has it not occurred to the over zealous blog owners/moderators that if they remove replies to slight thread drift raised in a previous comment just because it doesn't support/comment about the 'message' of the blog all that will happen is that the original comment will be referred to the mods as being off-topic - thus doubling the work of the mods simply because someone didn't like a little on-topic but not on-message thread drift!...
Complain about this comment
There is so much wrong with the BBC's "moderation" policy I'm not sure where to start.
First of all it's not moderation so much as thought policing. I've lost track of the amount of comments I've had rejected that do not break any house rules.
Lately comments are rejected less, but they still don't get published all the time. I have posted comments in a brand new HYS forum with only 2 or 3 comments published and a similar amount in the moderation queue. I've gone out for a few hours and come back to see my comment still in the queue but a 100 or so comments leapfrogged and published.
I have no doubt that it's because my comments usually pertain to that forbidden word on the BBC - "England".
Any comment criticising the BBC in any way is guaranteed to be thought policed. I had a comment deleted from a blog post specifically asking for feedback on the BBC's Olympic animation. I dared to suggest that in a the current financial climate the BBC should be cutting back on spending rather than spending tax payers cash on expensive animations.
On topic. No house rules broken. Deleted! No explanation.
Then there is the way HYS forums are handled. Take the one about the Calman commission. Only there for 24 hrs. I have noticed that if the top posts relate to England or are critical of the Government the forum doesn't last long.
Take the HYS forum "Should the Iraq war inquiry be held in public?" it was late arriving despite being the story of the week. And it was closed in less than 24 hours. My post was unpublished despite getting in fairly early with a moderation queue of about 40.
Something is very rotten with the way the BBC handles tax payer views - especially if they're critical of the government.
The subject of the Iraq war inquiry... gone in less than a day! Was it anything to do with the fact that 99% of comments were outraged about the governments stance?
From where I am sitting the BBC looks increasingly like the propaganda wing of the government.
Complain about this comment
I'm really confused about this. Take this page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/iplayer_subtitles_increase_our.html
Lots of people comment and sign off with their name and a link back to their blog (e.g. comment 19). I did the same (linked back to my blog) and had my comment removed for breaking the house rules, yet there are people on there linking back to non relevant commercial companies (comments 18 and 21).. surely they are the ones that should have their comments moderated?! What is the double standard all about?
Complain about this comment
nick said:"Moderation: Let's talk about it (2)
"
whats the point ?, you will only lock and effectivly close the thread if and when you dont like what the people using and making these threads what they are by they very contributions...
or werse, as seetha did, start a wide reaching current and evolving thread and then totally go absent , with classics like shes on holiday, FOR nearly a MONTH at a time etc.
Complain about this comment
whydoi - comments are removed because they break the house rules not because we don't like what people are saying.
Seetha will post again when she has something that she can say.
Complain about this comment
Why don't you create a permanent moderation discussion thread somewhere? So at least we can make an appeal when something is moderated unfairly.
Also I think it would be really useful if the moderator doing the thought policing had to leave some kind of ID such as their initials or even a code.
Lets moderate the moderators.
Complain about this comment
1. At 4:05pm on 18 Jun 2009, hackerjack wrote:
Why do you steadfastly continue to remove comments on blogs, HYS and 606 and send out the useless stock email saying something was innapropriate without an elaboration whatsoever.
____________________________________
Generally the reason IS in the Dear John letter. But its not very clear to the contributoir. So an extra few seconds just to explain which one it was would be helpful.
But yes they do appear to trip out and love to delete messages for what appears no jolly good reason at all at times
Complain about this comment
Oh - but I do find interesting that what appears to be a member of the BBC (No not Nick) can throw an insult in a message - you complain - but it remains despite clearly breaking the house rule.
Strange that one.
Strange indeed.
Complain about this comment
Can you tell us how we should go about having our own comments removed, either singularly or even collectively - removing the account - when even Google groups allows the owner of archived Usenet messages to have them removed don't you think the BBC should also allow owners to remove comments from the BBC's blog network?
Complain about this comment
Hey, Boilerplated, we haven't yet got a place where we can read our own comments submitted on BBC blogs, let alone delete them!
Russ
Complain about this comment
Message 13 - Franky_Herbert - could you be more specific or provide a link?
Complain about this comment
Hi all - we have a preview button for comments instead of allowing you to edit them after posting because:
- it would add heavily to our moderating costs if we had to repeatedly moderate comments each time they were edited.
- in the past some users have abused this functionality, posted something contentious and then removed it to try to get other users banned
- it would require the BBC to store much more information for legal and editorial reasons - a copy of each version, time of edit etc
- the users grant the right to use their submissions in any other media, in perpetuity (see these terms and conditions). One of the reasons the BBC solicits the views of the public via its social media services is to use their comments in BBC output, such as on air in a radio programme for example. We also archive nearly every conversation, and some of these conversations may well offer interesting insight into the reaction to news events in the future. Giving the user the ability to remove this after posting it reduces the value of these contributions, and weakens the argument for spending money on these services.
If you wrote a letter to the BBC you wouldn't get able to get it back and rewrite it after we'd recieved it.
James 1181b - using a link as your signature breaks the BBC's rules on spam
The inconsistency on the post you point to is my fault (as I'm the host) and I'll go back and have another look at the comments you point to.
Complain about this comment
James 1181b - I've just had a look and the comments you complain of have also been moderated out.
Complain about this comment
17. At 07:40am on 24 Jun 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
Many thanks for the replies, it has gone some way to resorting a little faith in the BBC, for me at least.
"- the users grant the right to use their submissions in any other media, in perpetuity (see these terms and conditions). One of the reasons the BBC solicits the views of the public via its social media services is to use their comments in BBC output, such as on air in a radio programme for example. We also archive nearly every conversation, and some of these conversations may well offer interesting insight into the reaction to news events in the future. Giving the user the ability to remove this after posting it reduces the value of these contributions, and weakens the argument for spending money on these services."
That is fair enough, but ONLY if the BBC keeps an archive of all the comments within the conversation, if not a (later) removed comment can actually change the context of a comment/conversation that followed, but then that is only true if all removed content is marked as having been removed as a comments non publication or early removal can place later comment/conversations into perspective - so in sort the BBC needs to keep two versions of the same conversation, the public and the unedited versions, or have the two somehow merged with removed comments being marked as such.
Nick, can you confirm that the BBC keeps the 'unabridged' version - warts and all - and that removed comments are not being separated off on the internal version of the conversation?
"If you wrote a letter to the BBC you wouldn't get able to get it back and rewrite it after we'd recieved it."
True, but then we are not suggesting that the BBC destroy the 'letter', just not publish it, a subtle difference...
Complain about this comment
<RICHPOST>How many of these comments have been "moderated". Difficult to know to the casual observer.<BR />[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]in51der</a> </RICHPOST>
Complain about this comment
A suggestion, can the BBC consider a ban in the use of 'TinyURL' type of shorter links within user comments, or at least only allow the enhanced versions that allow a 'preview' (of where the URL is going, the reason is that should a moderator miss a URL check it's very easy to hide unsuitable and/or spammed URLs within these shorter links.
Related to the above moderation policy issue, perhaps the BBC could provide a tutorial with instruction on how to write a formatted HTML link (also italics and bold text perhaps) as this would be a far better way for users to 'hide' those longer raw links.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick.
Apologies for this off-topic post - but I didn't know how else to contact you.
Why have all the comments disappeared from this blog, please? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/points_of_view_message_board_7.html?dnafrom=260&dnato=280#dnaacs
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
The last time I contributed to one of Nicks blogs the comment was removed.It was an inoffensive comment which I thought was in the general spirit of the blog but no courtesy of an explanation was given to why it was removed,
So what is the point of contributing ?
As a licence payer for 40 years, I won't be bothering again.
Shocking treatment of people I'd say.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick, either using twitter, blogs or messageboard - can you justify deleting all comments from the blog Cricket lists above.
The charitable view is that it's some sort of glitch, I hope the comments reappear soon.
You can always start a new blog about it if not.
Complain about this comment
Faye,
The last comment I saw by Nick on the blog I linked to above stated that he would be closing said blog at 5pm today because he thought there was nothing more to be said on the subject.
Of course, I have no proof of this cos ALL of the comments on that blog have mysteriously vanished ...
Complain about this comment
Nick what are you playing at if you had to shut the BLOG would it have not made sense to add a note saying why you shut it
Complain about this comment
It's my ball, and I'm going home with it.
Never have I seen such poor moderation or petulant childish behaviour from a grown adult in a position of responsibility in years.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I explained why I was closing the post earlier today. I appear to have closed it the wrong way. Anyway I've put comments back and will investigate tommorow. My intention is to close the post but leave the comments up.
Complain about this comment
Thanks, Nick.
Where can we post our POV rules change queries, please?
Complain about this comment
I see you have not answered my last queries on the other blog, Nick.
Any chance you could do that, please, before closing it?
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand what you mean by "POV rules change queries". Can you explain, please.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Moderation ...Lets talk about it.
Well I'm quite willing.
Nick could you please explain why one of my inoffensive blog posts was removed without any explanation ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Leonard-Zelig - can you point me to the comment you mean, please.
Complain about this comment
Why was my above post removed?
Complain about this comment
I ask, because it was in direct response to Nick asking me what my query was, and the exact same words that appeared in my above removed post are available for all to see on another blog.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid I can't point you in the direction on which blog my inoffensive post was removed.
These blogs are a total minefield.
It was a blog about you arriving in the office in the morning if I recall correctly.
Anyway that is not the point.No one gave me the courtesy of an explanation.
These blogs are becoming like some paranoid control freakery !!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is it irony that so many posts have been modded on a blog about moderation?
Complain about this comment
Well this is how is it is with blogs then is it ?
I ask a simple question as to why a post of mine was removed on one of Nicks blogs about him walking into his office and what he saw ,that never broke the house rules in a million years and all you get silence.
No apology.
No explanation.
I frankly have had enough.
I will be making an official complaint.
You cannot run an organisation like this with such ignorance or arrogance.
Complain about this comment
Leonard-Zelig - I did ask you above what comment you were referring to and you didn't give an answer. If you can give me more detail then I can investigate.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I've told you once.
It was a blog that you started a few weeks back about walking into your office one morning and telling us what you saw.
After it was removed I gave up with your blogs so disgusted was I.
If you don't know about your own blogs and what you write then what hope have the rest of us got ??? !!!!!
Complain about this comment
Message 45, is this the blog you are referring to? "http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/mobile_day_832_am.html". I don,t know how to quote correctly.If Nick goes to his blog on 11th June he will find it there.
Complain about this comment
Leonard-Zelig - I've checked back on the comment you mention. It was off topic, abusive and disruptive so I removed it.
Complain about this comment
Nick
It appears that YOU have moderated an entire thread by closing it, when the posters still feel that there is a lot of mileage in their questions. You have been at pains to say that THE major benefit of BBC blogs OVER BBC Message boards is that the public can interact with BBC employees. What we are finding when we respond to YOUR blogs is that you evade, flannel or downright ignore the points put to you and answer the WAY YOU WANT TO (a bit like a politician with Jeremy Paxman).
You are ONE person and a blogger to boot, we are MANY posters, and we are telling you that your improvements to the message boards have been an abysmal failure. You were told well in advance of the implimentation that you were changing the wrong things, but still you persisted.
May I ask ONCE AGAIN the ONE simple question which won't take a Masters Degree in deciphering graphs and crunching numbers? Has there been an IMPROVEMENT in the numbers of posters/postings to the POV Messageboards since YOUR IMPROVEMENTS?
YOUR treatment of blogs where POV messageboards are trying to interact with you, is simply to CLOSE them, or MODERATE THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE, when YOU feel you can't answer basic questions honestly and still re-enforce YOUR slant on your improvements.
Complain about this comment
niclaramartin,I will put a tenner on Reynolds moderating out your comment
Complain about this comment
Sorry, should have said POV MessageboardERs instead of MessageboardS in my posting above.
Is the moderation of the messageboards still being handled by an external company, or are BBC employees MODERATING the POV messageboards.
I have made it as clear as I possibly can that I am talking about MODERATION and NOT Hosting. YOU seem to have mixed these up in the past, when YOU felt that Hosting of the POV boards needed to be improved, when almost all of the posters who posted said they felt the MODERATION was in dire need of being improved, whilst the Hosts were good. You then went on to use the premise of "improving" the Hosting of the POV boards to align them to a fifteen minute seasonal programme, which THEN allowed you a tenuous link to removal of the general RADIO board as it was not covered by the POV programme. Then, non-BBC programmes etc etc. ALL because YOU mixed up OUR desire for improvements to MODERATION, by "improving" the Hosting.
Complain about this comment
niclara - I answered these question before on the previous post. The moderation is still being done by the same external company. There has been a drop in traffic, but nothing I'm concerned about.
But this is off topic so any more comments about the POV boards will be removed.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I AM on topic. I am talking about the MODERATION of the POV boards. MODERATION. As in "moderation lets talk about it 2". You have answered my question with "STILL", but will it still be "still" after you have finished THIS "open dialogue" with posters? In other words, IF you read the answers to this and the previous blog on MODERATION and find that posters are very disgruntled by the MODERATION of boards, will you take any action to bring MODERATION back in-house.
Oh, do you mean I am off-topic by discussing MODERATION on the MESSAGE BOARDS and not MODERATION on BBC Blogs? Surely, moderation is moderation is moderation? You moderate your own blogs, but we have serious problems with the MODERATION on the message boards, and have had for years, or at least the last wee while when the MODERATION has been so inconsistant that it has warranted threads being started by posters asking what is going on. Also, with THIS blog YOU can see what posters are having issues with regarding moderation on the BBC blogs, but if the moderation on the message boards is carried out by an external company, how do WE interact with them, unless through THIS forum, by using you as an interface.
And Nick, I'm not in the least surprised to see you use the words "nothing I'm concerned about" in relation to a lack of IMPROVEMENT in traffic since YOUR IMPROVEMENTS. So, the answer to my question is that the number of posters/postings to the POV boards has dropped SINCE YOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Thank you for the response.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
How can you close this POV blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/points_of_view_message_board_7.html?dnafrom=280&dnato=300#dnaacs when you have not yet answered Faye's question about traffic on the POV boards since the changes were implemented?
And now you say you are going to remove any posts here about POV. Before you remove this one can you PLEASE tell us where we can ask you questions about this? Or where you are going to post the user figures for the POV boards Faye asked you for. Thanks.
We want figures, please, not just that YOU are not concerned with the drop off in traffic. And, by the way, that comment of yours in post 51 just shows how little you care about the POV boards. The drop off in traffic has been huge. Posters have left in droves. And the fact that you say you are not concerned about it speaks volumes.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Re your quite amazing explanation that my post was off topic,abusive and disruptive.
Abusive ?
I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
How dare you accuse me of being abusive !!! I find that extremely offensive and I would like an apology !!
Could you explain yourself please ?
I will be making yet another complaint
Your moderating is becoming totally unfathomable and bizarre.
You start a blog about moderation and then moderate posts ? It appears to me that you only want contributions that fit into your own little world of blogs.We had no problem with questioning and challenging moderation on the POV message boards.
Complain about this comment
Cricket-Angel Munroe - "The drop off in traffic has been huge. Posters have left in droves." Neither of these statements is true. Traffic to the board is still healthy.
Leonard-Zelig - your comment which was about you eating a sandwich was clearly off topic for the post, which was about mobile day. It also appeared to be pointed at me and designed to disrupt the conversation, so I removed it.
Complain about this comment
""The drop off in traffic has been huge. Posters have left in droves." Neither of these statements is true. Traffic to the board is still healthy."
Speaking as someone who uses the boards daily I can assure you that my (and others) perceptions differ from your assessment.
Could you please provide some figures re the healthy traffic.
Many thanks.
Complain about this comment
cricket-Angel Alpert - as I said in my previous comment there's been a drop in traffic but not in my view a significant one. Our perceptions differ!
But we really are off topic now. So any more comments about POV will be removed. And you can discuss this further on the POV boards themselves.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm afraid Nick that you are wrong again and you are becoming a little paranoid.
My comment was not aimed at anyone and it was a contribution to the spirit of the blog.
I hope you don't get upset again and this IS constructive criticism of your general arrogant behaviour and the impression I get with many of your replies to many but I have to say that I don't think I have ever dealt with anyone who has such poor communication skills as your goodself.Perhaps you need to be sent on somekind of course the BBC are so fond of.
No doubt this will also be moderated !!!
Complain about this comment
Possibly I am becoming a little paranoid. But that's not surprising bearing in mind the circumstances. You were off topic though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, Nick, you can remove a post completely, leaving no trace whatsoever? I ask, because my message has been completely obliterated from both this blog and my own comments page.
That's some hefty moderation powers you have there.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can we please get back on-topic - moderation - if Nick doesn't want to answer a question no amount of badgering him will change anything or obtain wished for answers, I'll also suggest that such behaviour is likely to create a greater barrier than remove any and thus open discussions. There are many questions that I have asked in this blog (and might I add on-topic questions at that) which have not had a direct answer but that doesn't mean that Nick or anyone else hasn't hopefully taken note of my comments.
Can I ask you this Nick, why does the word "Colour" seems to get flagged up as being racist (this seems to be only valid reason, given the category given, for rejection) even though the context of the blog was political parties, seems to be somewhat of an over zealous moderation process! The comment ID is here if you wish to investigate.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated, how do you get italics and bold text in your post? Thanks.
I just LOVE that a blog about moderation has so many moderated posts!
Complain about this comment
#69. At 2:29pm on 01 Jul 2009, cricket-Angel Alpert wrote:
"Boilerplated, how do you get italics and bold text in your post? Thanks."
To tell you would mean going off topic, perhaps Nick will allow me to degrees for a moment? :~)
Standard HTML code, a "less-than" followed by a "i" followed by a "greater-than" symbol, thus "<i>will produce italic text"</i>" (note the escape / in the closing tag), if you want bold text then replace the i with a b, if you want both italic and bold text then wrap it within <b><i>to get some italic and bold text</b></i>. You must match you opening tags with an equivalent closing tag.
Does that make any sense?
"I just LOVE that a blog about moderation has so many moderated posts!"
Indeed the irony is not lost but if they weren't removed this blog would no longer be about moderation...
Complain about this comment
Well you are off topic but I won't remove it as you are helping each other. However no more of this please.
Complain about this comment
Thankyou, boilerplated.
Nick ...
Complain about this comment
Hello Nick, is there a list of banned words that I could see? I have been surprised at some words that have been allowed (with asterisks to get round the swear filter) but the only way I can think to check if the word should be allowed would be to try and post it - and I really don't want to do that.
My particular concern (as I have told Paul on some other blog) is when one poster seems to be able to get away with posting offensive words that other posters seem to be moderated for. But without knowing which
words are allowed and which are not I don't know whether to get cross or not. [laugh]
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
re #71
"However no more of this please."
Nick, have you seen my comment @ #21 - Any comments, any hope for such a page?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Boilerplated - rather than a tutorial we are working on a way of being able to put links in our comments in a much simpler way.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
May I ask a simple question regarding BBC blogs? When a poster makes a comment, and is waiting for a response (including the possiblility of threatened moderation) how do you tell if the person you are communicating with (either you as Blog author or another poster) is still online, with the possibility of a response fairly quickly.
On the message boards, when you are online two asterisks show beside your name, and these disappear when you sign out, so someone waiting for a response knows NOT to wait to see (if in this case they will be moderated). I can't see anything which shows you are still online, and so don't know whether to hang around to respond, or just sign out and come back later, by which time you may have responded and then signed out. (doh)
Complain about this comment
niclaramartin - I don't think there is currently a way to tell when someone is signed in to a BBC blog. That's one of the reasons why people who comment sometimes have to be more patient on blogs than they do on boards.
Complain about this comment
Would you agree that the functionality of blogs in no way compares to messageboards, Nick?
Are you planning to improve this soon?
Complain about this comment
As I've said many times before we are aiming to improve functionality across all our social media services, blogs and boards.
But this is drifting off topic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Okay Nick, let's talk of moderation.
Do you think the BBC is it's own worst enemy in this regard?
Do you think there would be less of a necessity of deleting posts (i.e. moderation) if a BBC employee enabled the users to debate the topics that were relevant to them rather than being convenient to the BBC employee? Are you of the opinion that subjects are only 'on topic' if the BBC with the power to start a blog decides what the subject will be?
Do you think it's a fair accusation that some BBC employees (naming no names) can hide behind the moderation process, rather than enable a platform where users are able to question decisions by the BBC?
If BBC employees (naming no names in particular) can't or won't answer a simple question, what does it matter if the BBC has boards, blogs, twitter, carrier pigeons, quill and parchment - if the BBC ignore all communication when it seems to suit the BBC.
Complain about this comment
"Do you think there would be less of a necessity of deleting posts (i.e. moderation) if a BBC employee enabled the users to debate the topics that were relevant to them rather than being convenient to the BBC employee?"
Well we do have an open post on the Internet blog where people can raise any issue about the BBC's online services. But I don't think the BBC should offer a place where people can start conversations about absolutely anything even if its not remotely relevant to what the BBC does (i.e. a completely open message board).
Users can of course question BBC decisions. Both formally for example via the complaints process or informally via message boards and blogs.
But there's a line to be drawn where persistant criticism of a BBC decision moves over into behaviour that disrupts the particular board or blog for other people, and where answering the same questions again and again becomes onerous.
"Are you of the opinion that subjects are only 'on topic' if the BBC with the power to start a blog decides what the subject will be?"
All blogs and boards have hosts. It's their job to decide what is on or off topic. As I said above I don't think the BBC should be running completely open boards.
Complain about this comment
What is going on with the BBC moderators today?
I've just had a post I spent some considerable time writing from the Nick Robinson news blog for being off topic. It took a slightly different angle on the PMs dishonesty/honesty but it was essentially about that just like the original post.
And some of the comments that have passed the thought police are absolutely off topic - not even slightly related.
Then there's HYS where the forum about Scottish devolution once again has only lasted 24 hours while some subjects are there for weeks.
Why? The only reason I can see is that the top comments do not coincide with the BBC world view.
The BBC's attitude to freedom of expression of lack of - is disgusting.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, thanks for your reply
"Well we do have an open post on the Internet blog where people can raise any issue about the BBC's online services. But I don't think the BBC should offer a place where people can start conversations about absolutely anything even if its not remotely relevant to what the BBC does (i.e. a completely open message board)."
On this I think we agree, I look forward to the next 'open' blog and as a suggestion perhaps Sarah or yourself could post the link on the POV boards to it in future.
"But there's a line to be drawn where persistant criticism of a BBC decision moves over into behaviour that disrupts the particular board or blog for other people, and where answering the same questions again and again becomes onerous."
Well that's a differing of opinion, what to some is 'persistant criticism' is seen as 'trying to get an straight answer' from others. I think there must be a better method of resolving this than moderation (as I've said above - which was moderated).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yay - my bold and italics worked! :-D
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, can you start two new blogs please, one called something like "moderation lets talk about it (3)" and one called "BBC Message boards - further comments", perhaps then people might be able to find the correct blog to discuss these two totally different issues...
#88. At 12:45pm on 02 Jul 2009, Faye 'messageboarding makes me happy' Tsar wrote:
"On this I think we agree, I look forward to the next 'open' blog"
I think you'll find that the last open blog is still open...
#91. At 1:19pm on 02 Jul 2009, Spinning_head wrote:
"I politely asked you a question in post number 83. You deleted that post without replying.
Why?"
I suspect that it might have been the fact that you were off topic...
Complain about this comment
92. At 1:52pm on 02 Jul 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#88. At 12:45pm on 02 Jul 2009, Faye 'messageboarding makes me happy' Tsar wrote:
"On this I think we agree, I look forward to the next 'open' blog"
I think you'll find that the last open blog is still open...
I didn't say it wasn't and you curtailed the quote. The point made in the full quote in my reply to Nick was that it would be useful for the POV community to be made aware of any future 'open blogs' as Nick no longer contributes to the messageboard he consulted with concerning the changes made to it.
I'm sure I could have worded my reply better, good to know there are people like you around to offer advice.
Complain about this comment
#93. At 3:03pm on 02 Jul 2009, Faye 'messageboarding makes me happy' Tsar wrote:
"The point made in the full quote in my reply to Nick was that it would be useful for the POV community to be made aware of any future 'open blogs'"
You missed my point, you're off topic here, what you are discussing is not moderation issues, please take your POV bickering to the aforementioned open blog were you will be on-topic.
Nick is not the only person who is getting fed up with people throwing their toys around just because they are not getting the answers they want. Some of us are trying to have a sensible, (dare I say) 'adult', debate about moderation issues...
Complain about this comment
Please can people on this thread:
a) remain civil
b) stay on topic. This thread is not about POV boards its about moderation. I am trying to be fair in my hosting decisions but comments which are not about moderation will be removed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would like to praise the BBC moderation which, based on experience elsewhere, i think is essential for civilized discussion. My only complaint would be that links to PDF files should be allowed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What quite is the BBC moderation policy?
Is it moderation, or censorship?
From this Blog post, it's the latter.
Complain about this comment
Tengsted - Your previous comment was off topic.
Complain about this comment
No, it was a simple question, which a yes or no answer would have sufficed, rather than you obliterating it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Right. That all got through the swear filter ~ do the blogs have the same swear filter as the messageboards?
So that means that all of those words are OK??
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re comments #104 and #105
"So that means that all of those words are OK??"
Now try that test on a pre-moderated blog, all posts are reactively moderated, so unless someone complains!...
Quite why someone would want to use words that will almost certain be refereed by someone at some point for moderation I'm not sure, in my experience it's not what you say so much as how you say it that gets moderated or not, I can also understand why the BBC might not want to publish a list of automatically filtered words, as it could be used to launch a DoS attack.
Complain about this comment
I am tempted to swear myself after this latest outbreak of bad behaviour.
Stop swearing please.
If there is any more of this kind of disruption I will close this post for comments.
Complain about this comment
So i take it Nick there is no filter on the blogs?
Complain about this comment
I was not swearing, I was asking for help after my #73 was ignored.
For your information Nick the asterisked versions of that word were referred to the moderators. The referral was 'hanging' all weekend which can only mean that it was referred to the Host of that board.
The post was PASSED and is there in all its glory.
The poster is a friend of the Host.
If the full word fails the House Rules then the asterisked version should too - but they have PASSED YOUR moderation system.
No wonder there is so much confusion.
And I wish that Paul would host these discussions because he wouldn't
over-react so.
Complain about this comment
I will look into this tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
"I can also understand why the BBC might not want to publish a list of automatically filtered words, as it could be used to launch a DoS attack."
I've no idea what a DoS attack is Boilerplated but you are no doubt right.
And I'd like to add that - in case someone thinks that I posted obscene language - the word that I used has been uttered pre watershed, many times on the BBC, and isn't even considered a swear word in the US. And
was the mildest trangression that I could think of.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't worry Nick you have your own little helper lecturing us on online behaviour - even if you didn't ask for his/her help. Your jobs being done for you. So why close the thread?
It's worth mentioning this to keep this blog on topic, it's strange your 'online policeman' used the same 'abusive' language that got my post (*96) hidden.
One of the main complaints of moderation is the inconsistency, I suppose it's not unheard of for it to occur on a blog about moderation. It's par for the course not to get a reply to an email either.
Complain about this comment
I'm done with Nicks blogs.
IF I am allowed to make a serious comment without anykind of retribution.
I find the whole heavy handed moderation thing,a complete farce.
It would be easier if Nick just gave contributors the small list and Nicks personal guidelines that they are actually ABLE to comment on without being moderated and be done with it.
BTW Nick are the BBC thinking of sending you are a BBC communications skills course yet ?
My next door neighbour works on the BBC Midlands Today news programme and she is hardly ever there for doing one BBC course or another.
Complain about this comment
IIRC, early in the days of the BBC boards, there was a policy that Hosts, who participated in and guided conversations and answered queries, did not moderate and mods did not participate.
This seems not to have been transferred over to blogs, and to have been abandoned on the boards. It seemed a very sensible system to me, the blurring of the boundaries between those who police the conversation and those who take part has not been helpful.
Complain about this comment
Hi
Nick's pointed me towards your latest comments on here.
First a couple of quick points - @Boilerplated - thanks, very useful comments on links and yes a help page on formatting is essential - work on the help pages for the blogs (and indeed the functionality of the comments) is ongoing. I'll make sure that the people working on the blog help pages are aware of your post.
We don't publish the filter list, for a variety of reasons, mostly because it would make it far easier for malicious users to get round it, but also because we use the same filters for names that are the subject of reporting restrictions and similar legal issues. It works in two ways, it sometimes blocks you from making the post at all, or it can send your post to be viewed by the mods after it's published.
Frank_N_Post - "My particular concern (as I have told Paul on some other blog) is when one poster seems to be able to get away with posting offensive words that other posters seem to be moderated for."
I don't know of any way this could happen with our moderation system, and have posted to that effect elsewhere. I have to contact you anyway on another issue, which I will do via email, so you can explain to me what you believe is happening then. Could you please confirm that the email address this account is registered to is the best one to contact you on?
Cheers
Paul
Complain about this comment
#110 Frank_N_Post
"The referral was 'hanging' all weekend which can only mean that it was referred to the Host of that board."
That's not true - how'd you reach that conclusion?
Paul
Complain about this comment
Red Red Robin - its's the job of hosts to keep conversations on track, particularly on reactively moderated blogs like this one. This means that sometimes they remove comments.
Complain about this comment
Hello Paul, yes that email address is active, I look forward to hearing from you.
Re your second mail. I reached that conclusion because the moderation message says that the post has been referred to a Host for a decision. Obviously that's a standard message but when that message is up all weekend surely the only resonable assumption is that the mod is indecided and the Host will look at it on Monday?
It seems a fairly sensible assumption to make - sorry if there's a more obvious one that hasn't occurred to me.
Complain about this comment
The mod could be [b]un[b/]decided even.
*sigh*
Complain about this comment
Bigger sigh.
Complain about this comment
Nick
In Response to your response to RedRedRobin, I think you are STILL making the mistake of blurring Hosts and Mods. I THINK what RedRedRobin is saying is that on the messageboards it was decided some time ago that IF a Host wrote a thread THEY COULD not moderate the thread, as they were involved in the ongoing discussion. In other words ALL parties who were involved in THAT discussion were on an equal footing as regards being MODERATED. Even in threads where the Host has minimal or no input, it was decided to keep the two aspects separate - The Hosts were to be the conduit to information/guiding the discussion, BUT that the MODERATION was undertaken by a third party, separate from the discussions.
On blogs, the blog author IS the host AND the MODERATOR, which CAN cause a conflict of interest, by allowing the blog author to remove comments IF they don't agree with them. In other words, the blog author holds ALL the power in blog discussions, or at least is perceived as having all the power (unlike messageboards where all are created equal).
I think this goes part way to explain the difficulty you seemed to have in understanding when we were talking about poor moderation, we DID NOT mean by the Hosts of the boards, as they are NOT the MODERATORS, but the removal of posts by THE MODERATORS (who are separate from the discussion).
There IS a downside to keeping the Hosts and Moderators separate and that comes from the MODERATORS (outside BBC) reading the postings out of context of the rest of the thread, and reacting by removal, and then sometimes at a later time re-instating the comment when they see it in it's full context.
BUT, compared to blogging where the blog author can Host AND Moderate, I still prefer the system of a Host (whether they be a blog Host or a Message board Host) SEPARATE from the person who MODERATES the comments. That way, the blog author has to work hard to defend their position and use intellect instead of the "HIDE" button. Too often a prickly blog author, will rush to hide comments, exaserbating any conflict between themselves and their posters. (Seen some doozies of name-calling by both sides,outside of BBC, when a blog host has become TOO prickly/defensive about THEIR blog.)
It just seems very strange that in this modern world of accountability, that the blog host seems to be accountable to no-one with regard to closing/moderating/hosting THEIR OWN blog. Messageboards remove this aspect of "one-man band" controlling/cosseting their OWN words, by giving a third party the control of moderation.
There seems to be two separate issues regarding MODERATION - one is where it is perceived that the blog host is being too keen to remove postings - simply BECAUSE THEY CAN - and THAT power is seen as too much for one person to hold. And, the second aspect is to do with MODERATION of messageboards where moderation can be inconsistent. Sometimes good and unobtrusive, whilst at other times, posters can't believe some of the comments which are being hidden, whilst others which are definitely breaking the House Rules are left un-moderated.
niclaramartin
Complain about this comment
For the record I think MOST of us know that Hosts CAN remove comments, but, USUALLY removal (moderation) of posts is done by MODERATORS on the Messageboards, whereas on a blog, the blog author can host AND moderate the blog.
It is THIS unbalanced/inequal power situation, which can sometimes cause animosity on blogs. It just needs the blog author to be having a bad day, and the comments section of their blog can be decimated. I have seen blogs where the blog author becomes quite emotional in the defense of their blog, and the result is that EVERYONE there-after is treading on egg-shells to get a posting "passed". Moderation by an external body is a better model, as it removes the "paternalistic/maternalistic" attitude of SOME bloggers to THEIR blog, and is seen by the posters as "more fair/more balanced."
Complain about this comment
"Red Red Robin - its's the job of hosts to keep conversations on track, particularly on reactively moderated blogs like this one. This means that sometimes they remove comments."
Yes, I am aware that is the current situation, I was just pointing out that it has not always been the case (on the boards at least) and that the previous stance of separating hosting and moderating was preferable.
Complain about this comment
That's always been the crux of the problem, hasn't it? Bloggers like the control; messageboarders like the community. There's a place for them both, but an innate blogger is never going to fully understand why we like the anarchy (compared to blogs) and free-for-all of messageboards!
Blogs probably do need the blogger to be the moderator, because it is THEIR blog. But I agree with RedRedRobin and niclaramartin, messageboards require the Host and the mods to be separate people.
Complain about this comment
RedRedRobin (and niclaramartin):
"IIRC, early in the days of the BBC boards, there was a policy that Hosts, who participated in and guided conversations and answered queries, did not moderate and mods did not participate."
Actually, it's the other way round. The mods still don't post to the boards, but on the old boards system, hosts could and did moderate messages directly. On the current system, both on the blogs and boards, hosts can alert posts to the moderators who then process them, so there's always an audit trail and if the mods see a host who seems to be asking for posts to be removed when they shouldn't be they get referred to us to check the host knows the rules.
However, as Nick says, it's the hosts' responsibility to keep discussions on topic, and so part of their job is to alert off-topic posts to the mods. The mods, like us, work across all services so aren't familiar with the ins and outs of every subject under discussion across the whole of the BBC. As a result, the hosts of each service are better placed to make on/off-topic judgements than the mods.
Paul
Complain about this comment
Niclaramartin:
"I have seen blogs where the blog author becomes quite emotional in the defense of their blog, and the result is that EVERYONE there-after is treading on egg-shells to get a posting "passed""
Have you got a link to somewhere that you believe this to be happening?
Paul
Complain about this comment
In reply to a question asked @ #127
I personally believe that was the cause of the heavy moderation on this recent blog relating to Iran, about the BBC Persian TV service being blocked, either that or the moderation was being instigated at a higher level, unless the comment was 'on-message' most if not all serious debating commenst got removed.
That said, for me it's water under the bridge, just pointing to one blog that the BBC internet services want to learn from.
Complain about this comment
Paul
"Have you got a link to somewhere that you believe this to be happening?"
Sorry I obviously didn't make THAT part of my post clear enough. It refers to blogs OUTWITH BBC as mentioned in this section of my posting above....
"Seen some doozies of name-calling by both sides,outside of BBC, when a blog host has become TOO prickly/defensive about THEIR blog."
I can't link to them, as they would make it very easy for people to work who I am for real, as the topic covered is such a very precise one.
Complain about this comment
Paul
I honestly don't think that very many message board posters have had real issues about the Hosts. We try to get on well with them, the hosts get to build up a relationship with THEIR community, and so would only refer postings to the Moderators for moderation IF the posting was breaking the rules, "sneakily". Otherwise they would usually just leave the Moderators to do THEIR job of MODERATING. Hosts HAVE sometimes said that it was them who informed the Moderators about a posting asking for it to be removed, BUT, that is NOT their usual job. They are there to oversee, guide, advise the posters on the various threads.
MODERATORS on the other hand, (on the messageboards) are nameless and faceless people who seem to sit in isolation reading comments totally out of context, and then deciding if the comment should be removed. As I say, sometimes the post is returned once it is seen in the context of the thread, and seen NOT to be offensive/off-topic or trying to wind other posters up.
Of course there is a third party involved in Moderation, and that is the (admittedly small number) of ordinary posters who seem to get some kick out of clicking the complain button all the time(I'm not discussing MY comments here, but comments by other posters which are hidden because another poster is either very easily offended, or just having fun). I think that if BBC sends emails to posters who break rules, they should also be reminding over-zealous complainers of their responsibility not to hinder a thread which is in full-flow, by having comments hidden, and then being returned once the Moderators decide they have not broken the rules.
Complain about this comment
It seems that removing all of the many different poster's comments is far more disruptive than the dubious benefit of "keeping on topic". Just who are these moderations meant to benefit Nick? I don't see any happy campers here.
Complain about this comment
Removing off topic comments benefits those people who wish to talk about the topic...
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick, before I was rudely interrupted we almost had a conversation on the go (which I thought was the point of blogs). Look forward to your reply to my message *88 should you feel inclined.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Being a blogger in my other guise, I quite like the ones I take part in. BBC Blogs however, are a different kettle of fish altogether, for the simple reason, as shown by yourself, a poster joins in with a blog, commenting, finding information to include, and then, finds that the blog author has moved on, and either does NOT return at all, or leaves such a gap between postings that the posters think the blog has been all but abandoned. What then happens is that the posters don't feel the discussion is finished, the blog author doesn't appear to want to interact on THAT blog, having moved on to ANOTHER blog. This in turn leads to complete frustration on the part of the posters. Imagine going to a BBC meeting, and part way through, the Chairman wanders off to another office to hold another meeting. Five minutes pass, ten minutes pass, twenty minutes pass, and all those attending the FIRST meeting begin to wonder what is going on, all the while getting more and more annoyed at this lack of courtesy. Someone decides to pop through to the SECOND meeting, to find that the Chairman has in fact left and gone to a THIRD meeting, leaving the attendees at the second meeting as frustrated as those at the FIRST meeting. So, tempers are rising. Attendees are talking to each other, and becoming frustrated at not getting answers. Eventually one of the Attendees from one of the meetings tracks the Chairman down to yet ANOTHER meeting, and says, "We're still waiting in the FIRST meeting, would you like to come back and talk to us". Chairman, takes a coffee break from his FIFTH meeting and pops back to the FIRST meeting to say, "carry on, carry on, talk amongst yourselves", or "I've nothing to add to THIS meeting, so I am calling a halt to it"
When the attendees of the first FOUR meetings decend on his FIFTH meeting, in a mood fit to burst, would you be surprised if they were somewhat intolerant to his importations to stay "on topic" about his FIFTH meeting.
This story goes some way to explain why blog authors can sometimes find themselves on the receiving end of angry postings, off-topic comments and the resultant huge numbers of moderated postings. In a word Nick, "FRUSTRATION".
As I say, SOMETIMES the Moderator is the cause of his own problems regarding having to moderate large numbers of postings.
The difference between blogs and message boards is that if the blog author goes missing, the discussion comes to a halt, whereas on the message boards, if the original poster goes missing, the other posters don't NEED the original poster, to continue the discussion.
So, FRUSTRATION on the part of the posters, and OVER-STRETCHING (spreading themselves too thin) on the part of blog authors, leads to higher levels of moderation, than on blogs where the blog author is only juggling one or two blogs at a time.
As to off-topic, what you tended to find on message boards is that if or a clique of people started to talk "off topic" eventually the non-clique posters would tell them to get back on topic, without the Host even having to become involved. I understand that blogs require a bit more focus, but NOT all blogs benefit from keeping strictly on topic. (Technical blogs ARE better on topic, whereas less techie ones can sometimes benefit from "a wee wander", before being brought back NICELY "on-topic". It's all in the tone.
A closing thought, Nick, far too many BBC blogs (not yours) have very few comments posted - so no need, or little need to moderate them. Others like yours tend to get a lot more posters, and have covered contentious matters, and so therefore it should come as no surprise that when you are not discussing "it's hot outside" but have been discussing "the slow death of messageboarding", then tempers will breed situations for moderation. However, Nick, on a good note for you, your blogs will never be accused of not getting enough hits.(this is where I would put a wink smiley)
Complain about this comment
Nick said: "Removing off topic comments benefits those people who wish to talk about the topic..."
when you find those posters, perhaps you can highlight them..in the meantime the majority don't see any issue with the posts that you think is off topic.
Complain about this comment
"Actually, it's the other way round. The mods still don't post to the boards, but on the old boards system, hosts could and did moderate messages directly."
My apologies, I appear to have been misinformed. Back in the day the hosts (on the 5live boards and bbc.co.uk/Online/whatever) were pretty adamant that they did not have moderation powers and that hosting and moderation were entirely separate. Perhaps a little white lie in order to to diffuse difficult situations.
Complain about this comment
Excellent analogy in 134, niclaramartin.
Can you really not see why we're getting somewhat peeved with your lack of answers, Nick?
Complain about this comment
132. At 6:35pm on 03 Jul 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
Removing off topic comments benefits those people who wish to talk about the topic...
_________________
Generally speaking I'd have to agree with these sentiments. But it would be nice if a degree or two of latitude was allowed - but that's difficult as to decide what is and is not allowed. However I find it absolutely remarkable that insults are allowed to remain even after they are complained about. I expect to see better standards than that from the BBC.
Hey cricket - so how does bolding and other funky stuff work here. I couldnt see if you got it to work as the message got `moded!
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated showed me. Can't copy and paste it here cos the blog won't let me, but if the below does not make sense it's all explained in Message 70:
Standard HTML code, a "less-than" followed by a "i" followed by a "greater-than" symbol. If you want bold text then replace the i with a b, if you want both italic and bold text then wrap it within a b and a i with the characters abobe . and , on your keyboard to get some italic and bold text. You must match you opening tags with an equivalent closing tag."
Wish we had this on the messageboards!
By the way, trying to explain this on here is a nightmare because the blog does not like broken HTML code. An FAQ would be very helpful.
Complain about this comment
#138. At 10:03am on 04 Jul 2009, Franky_Herbert wrote:
"However I find it absolutely remarkable that insults are allowed to remain even after they are complained about. I expect to see better standards than that from the BBC."
That's always going to be a difficult one for moderation, not every insult is as clear cut as calling someone the "C" word (not that such a comment would get through anyway), some won't even be upset at such a comment whilst others will be upset if someone says "Boo to the Goose" If you see what I mean....
PS, re your other question regarding formatting, see my previous comment here.
Complain about this comment
#139
"By the way, trying to explain this on here is a nightmare because the blog does not like broken HTML code"
You mean <i> ? :-)
Now to explain that really would be testing Nick's patients (Google HTML Ampersand charters)! That really is my last word on this.
Complain about this comment
OT but helping here Nick remember, one for the FAC perhaps...
actually 139. At 11:14am on 04 Jul 2009, cricket-Angel Alperthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/moderation_lets_talk_about_it.html#P82440930
you Can link to any post in this or any other BBC blog by simply
right clicking the blog entry "time" and "copy shortcut" as it holds the direct URL to that posters entry.. also, you can copy.paste ,its simple.
left click hold and highlight the text you require,release, right click and choose "copy",or use ctrl+C ctrl+V for your copy paste of highlighted text OC...
so to goto directly to
70. At 2:53pm on 01 Jul 2009, Boilerplated you want
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/moderation_lets_talk_about_it.html#P82310498
that #P82310498 on the generic blogs URL take you directly to his post, we all have these linkages.
while im OT i might as well point out that putting a few convenient clickable icons above "your comment" box for some basic bolding,italics,strikethrough on any highlighted text
would be a very simple thing to add to this generic blog code, so please consider having the web masters do that for easyer usage.
as what adding the all the allowed lessthan b i greterthan parsing reminders just below the "post comment" section...
see, i did say whats the point in http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/moderation_lets_talk_about_it.html#P81789628
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As this is about moderation, I'd love to know how message 143 broke the house rules, though it is hard to determine with the vague email that is sent.
Complain about this comment
Faye, I suspect that it broke Nick's interpretation of rules by me asking for an apology for him dismissing other posters statements that they perceived the drop in traffic as huge.
Rather ironic that before "the changes" there was no widespread problem with posts being deleted. Now there is.
Complain about this comment
so post 144 was moderated because I responded to a comment by Nick in an earlier of his posts on this blog. How can that be off topic? if so surely his post was off-topic too?
This blog is becoming farcical.
Complain about this comment
Hi Dibs, the use of the 'off topic' explanation is a catchall for anything the BBC don't like.
It was used greatly during the Bonekickers Debacle when many regular posters were put on pre-mod or banned (and remain banned) while following house rules. If anyone from the BBC wants to dispute this I'll gladly send you the emails I received.
I regularly got a so called 'explanation' email that said my post was 'off topic' for the television board. Trouble was I posted it on the 'bbc.co.uk' board and was entirely on topic - my response was never answered.
Complain about this comment
As an addition to the above post, the use of 'off topic' as a form of moderation is interesting. Take this current blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/07/blogs_and_boards_getting_the_b.html
To me, there is inconsistent moderation, I'm not necessarily arguing that all or any posts hidden are okay, but it's the posts that remain where some ARE off topic.
I would discuss this on the blog above but I fear I might get modded for being off topic, while others have been 'indulged'.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments at #149
Having read many of the comments you cite before they were removed I can assure you that they were off topic, and as I said in one of my comments on that blog - thread drift is one thing, blatant off posts are another. I say that6 as someone not connected with the BBC in anyway and as someone whop has suffered such moderation myself.
Complain about this comment
Faye Tsar - this is always a difficult one, and is often a fine judgement call for the individual host.
For example, sometimes I am more relaxed about comments which are sliding off topic because they are sincere and well behaved and might go somewhere interesting or come back on topic again. But sometimes off topic comments seem designed to disrupt a thread. And some comments are both off topic and abusive. I hosted the thread you refer to in a tougher way than I usually would. But that was to prevent the comments immediately descending into personal abuse (of myself).
As a say these are fine judgement calls which are the responsibility of an individual host and are why a host's job requires (among other things) a sophisticated sense of what's happened in the past.
Complain about this comment
The reason for my post above is not to generally complain about the posts that have been moderated (I agree most should have been) but about some of the posts that remain.
To me some of those are equally off topic and abusive, I can if you like, give examples if needs be but I'm just making the point. Some people are 'indulged', some are not.
Also in terms of 'off topic' it seems a fluid notion, as you say an individual judgement call to the host. Perhaps in the blog in question, what the question was got lost amongst the moderation, as well as the ability to 'comment on a comment'.
I'd add that it's also strange how one poster can make 30 odd posts that are either referred to or removed by moderators, and can continue to do so. I'm not sure someone would get away with that on the boards.
Complain about this comment
Nick, two questions:
1) Why has this post been awaiting moderation for a week now? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/08/h2g2_an_update.html?dnafrom=43&dnato=43#dnaacs - it's a direct response to a subject raised by you, so it can't be "off topic", and there was no profanity or other objectionable material. What's the hold-up? Are you asserting the right to send posts into moderation limbo just because you don't agree with the content?
2) Why can we no longer post threads in the Moderation forum on "The Hub"? There's no message to say the page is "closed", but if you submit a post it just redraws the page and leaves you looking at the input form; the post never appears.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be some strange glitch here, at my end anyway. I will investigate on Monday.
Complain about this comment
Cool, thanks. :-)
Complain about this comment
Hope this is the correct place for a question re: pre-moderation as a default
Why are the comments on the political blogs pre-moderated as a default?
As far as I can see, pre-moderation is used to protect kiddies and as punitive action against commenters breaching the house-rules. So why are we treated like kids/punished just to comment on political blog posts?
Complain about this comment
#156. At 12:28pm on 21 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"Hope this is the correct place for a question re: pre-moderation as a default"
The main reason seems to be to protect the BBC - as publisher - against legal action for defamation and libel or against breaking legal injunctions etc.
Unfortunately some people are either ignorant of the law or can't be trusted not to break the law when they post comments to the web... :-(
Had people started to post, for example, the identity of "Baby P" and his abusers (pre the lifting of the court injunction) to reactively moderated BBC blogs or social media the BBC would have no doubt either closed and removed the blogs etc. or converted them to pre-moderation.
Complain about this comment
157. Boilerplated
"The main reason seems to be to protect the BBC - as publisher - against legal action for defamation and libel or against breaking legal injunctions etc."
Thanks for the reply!
That certainly seems a plausible position - but can't people post potentially actionable stuff on reactively-moderated or post-moderated threads on the BBC. I mean it's plausible as a universal policy, but less so when it targets specific threads.
Do you know if there is a place where the BBC explain their reasons for the current moderation policies?
Complain about this comment
#158. At 1:34pm on 21 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"That certainly seems a plausible position - but can't people post potentially actionable stuff on reactively-moderated or post-moderated threads on the BBC."
Yes they could and if they did start doing so in numbers you can be as certain as day turns in to night that those reactively moderated blogs would covert over to full pre-moderated blogs (if not just close) PDQ, as I said in the last paragraph of the comment you cited...
I view reactive moderation as an easing away from the norm, a privilege that the blogs subject matter allows, not as a right. YMMD.
Complain about this comment
159. Boilerplated
"reactively moderated blogs would covert over to full pre-moderated blogs (if not just close) PDQ, as I said in the last paragraph of the comment you cited...
I view reactive moderation as an easing away from the norm, a privilege that the blogs subject matter allows, not as a right. YMMD."
apologies - i misread your closing paragraph.
What do think of account based moderation then?
We need a registered account to post already - start with a default of n posts pre-moderated as a probation period after which an upgrade to post or reactive. Breaking house rules puts you back on probation.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #160
I really don't see what the problem is.
At least at the moment we all read the comments in the order of moderation. People who have had their comments 'referred' often complain that their comments never get read by the time they get passed because the 'conversation/comments have moved on, what you suggest would mean the many more people would have those issues (and some of whom will have done nothing wrong, it could actually stop people bothering to comment/sign up). Another thing, if by having comments moderated and thus someone's 'immediate posting rights' revoked it could also mean that user 'A' (who is very clever at making otherwise frivolous but legitimate complaints) could in effect get user 'B' silenced (simply because s/he doesn't like the opinions of user 'B' if you see what I'm getting at - moderation would be a dogs dinner at best!
Complain about this comment
161. Boilerplated
If we had reactive or post-moderation we would read the comments in the order of posting, and crucially, at the time of posting.
On some comment threads, dialogues spring up between parties, if moderation is slow it kills the dialogues. That is my problem, apart from the simpler one of having to wait from between minutes to hours just to see my post appear, or some response.
I'm not sure why more posts being referred would be an issue under looser moderation - if you mean because the pre-moderation already takes some of the ones which would get referred out of the sytem before they need to be referred, you may be correct but all it means is that the cost for that is borne by all parties all the time without prior knowledge that the post would actually have been referred.
Silencing individuals through calculated and repeated referrals is an option for people in any scheme except no moderation.
I'm not sure if you've had some negative experiences in prior discussions with people who feel that pre-moderation is somehow against their 'rights'; that's not where I'm coming from. I simply don't think pre-moderation is the best mechanism for moderation in adult forums.
We clearly differ in our opinions, but thanks for making yours clear, and also for your original explanation of the BBC's likely reasons.
Complain about this comment
#162. At 4:34pm on 21 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"Silencing individuals through calculated and repeated referrals is an option for people in any scheme except no moderation."!
That doesn't get over the problem of the fact that, had reactive moderation not been used the libel (or what ever) would not have occurred. The BBC will have no defence should they be sued as the first thing any barrister acting for the complainant will point out is the fact that the BBC should have used - and indeed used to use - pre-moderation.
"I simply don't think pre-moderation is the best mechanism for moderation in adult forums."
Nor do I but unfortunately some people will abuse the system, that is the sad fact, a minority of people can't act like adults and and thus end up getting everyone treated like juveniles - no hang on, that's an insult to juveniles...
Elsewhere there has been a discussion about a recent explosion of "comment spam" [1] in otherwise mostly well behaved, reactively moderated, blogs, what has been the outcome of this selfish behaviour, otherwise 'adult' new posters are now on pre-modification.
Moderation will never please everyone, those who complain about pre-moderation probably have as many people opposite them complaining about the failures and/or risks of reactive moderation, it's all a compromise, just like life is, we can't all have what we want all of the time
[1] a non descriptive comment, usually in older blogs, followed by the spammers URL or multiple URLs.
Complain about this comment
With regard to Nick Robinson's Newslog blog.
Recently the blogs have suddenly closed without any warnings.
For example, 'Mind your language' blog published @11:40 and comments closed @17:43 on the same day.
'Laura is Twittering from the party conferences' published @12:15 and closed @17:46
Moderation seems to go mad at 17:00 with previously published postings suddenly referred. (it is not just mine, 18.75% of postings on 'MYL' have been modded)
Does Nick (or his team) moderate the blog themselves or is the Central team or outsourced ?
Complain about this comment
Nick, re:"I will investigate on Monday."
It's now ten days that my comment has been labeled "This comment has been referred to the moderators." - what's the hold-up?
Complain about this comment
Peet - the comment is waiting for the relevant person to look at it. That person has been on leave and is now poorly. I will chase.
Complain about this comment
#153 Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcup-and-Spoonwinner, Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) wrote:
1) Why has this post been awaiting moderation for a week now? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/08/h2g2_an_update.html?dnafrom=43&dnato=43#dnaacs
Should now be appearing on the blog. Apologies for the delay.
Complain about this comment
Thanks. :-)
Complain about this comment
On an aside (apologies, this really is off-topic) what's happened to The Hub? Has it been closed without telling anyone? I tried to post on the "Username moderation" page, but for the second time it refuses to accept the posting without giving any error message, and there's nothing on te page itself to say it's "closed". Thinking about it, I could post there before the most recent DNA update - have you (the BBC) broken something?
I would normally post this on the buglist thread in the Hub, but... :-/
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS