« Previous | Main | Next »

Moderation: Let's talk it over (2)

Post categories:

Nick Reynolds Nick Reynolds | 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

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    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.

  • Comment number 2.

    you remove posts for fun,just on a power trip in my opinion.

  • Comment number 3.

    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.

  • Comment number 4.

    Streoneshalh - what are you trying to find?

  • Comment number 5.

    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?

  • Comment number 6.

    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!...

  • Comment number 7.

    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.

  • Comment number 8.

    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?

  • Comment number 9.

    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.

  • Comment number 10.

    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.

  • Comment number 11.

    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.

  • Comment number 12.

    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

  • Comment number 13.

    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.

  • Comment number 14.

    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?

  • Comment number 15.


    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

  • Comment number 16.

    Message 13 - Franky_Herbert - could you be more specific or provide a link?

  • Comment number 17.

    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.

  • Comment number 18.

    James 1181b - I've just had a look and the comments you complain of have also been moderated out.

  • Comment number 19.

    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...

  • Comment number 20.

    How many of these comments have been "moderated". Difficult to know to the casual observer.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]in51der

  • Comment number 21.

    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.

  • Comment number 22.

    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.

  • Comment number 23.

    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.

  • Comment number 24.

    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.

  • Comment number 25.

    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 ...

  • Comment number 26.

    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

  • Comment number 27.

    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.

  • Comment number 28.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 29.

    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.

  • Comment number 30.

    Thanks, Nick.

    Where can we post our POV rules change queries, please?

  • Comment number 31.

    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.

  • Comment number 32.

    I don't understand what you mean by "POV rules change queries". Can you explain, please.

  • Comment number 33.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 34.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 35.

    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 ?

  • Comment number 36.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 37.

    Leonard-Zelig - can you point me to the comment you mean, please.

  • Comment number 38.

    Why was my above post removed?

  • Comment number 39.

    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.

  • Comment number 40.

    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 !!

  • Comment number 41.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 42.

    Is it irony that so many posts have been modded on a blog about moderation?

  • Comment number 43.

    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.

  • Comment number 44.

    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.

  • Comment number 45.

    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 ??? !!!!!

  • Comment number 46.

    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.

  • Comment number 47.

    Leonard-Zelig - I've checked back on the comment you mention. It was off topic, abusive and disruptive so I removed it.

  • Comment number 48.

    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.

  • Comment number 49.

    niclaramartin,I will put a tenner on Reynolds moderating out your comment

  • Comment number 50.

    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.

  • Comment number 51.

    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.

  • Comment number 52.

    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.

  • Comment number 53.

    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.

  • Comment number 54.

    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.

  • Comment number 55.

    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.

  • Comment number 56.

    ""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.

  • Comment number 57.

    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.

  • Comment number 58.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 59.

    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 !!!

  • Comment number 60.

    Possibly I am becoming a little paranoid. But that's not surprising bearing in mind the circumstances. You were off topic though.

  • Comment number 61.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 62.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 63.

    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.

  • Comment number 64.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 65.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 66.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 67.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 68.

    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.

  • Comment number 69.

    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!

  • Comment number 70.

    #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...

  • Comment number 71.

    Well you are off topic but I won't remove it as you are helping each other. However no more of this please.

  • Comment number 72.

    Thankyou, boilerplated.

    Nick ...

  • Comment number 73.

    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.

  • Comment number 74.

    re #71

    "However no more of this please."

    Nick, have you seen my comment @ #21 - Any comments, any hope for such a page?

  • Comment number 75.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

  • Comment number 76.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

  • Comment number 77.

    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.

  • Comment number 78.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 79.

    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)

  • Comment number 80.

    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.

  • Comment number 81.

    Would you agree that the functionality of blogs in no way compares to messageboards, Nick?

    Are you planning to improve this soon?

  • Comment number 82.

    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.

  • Comment number 83.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 84.

    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.

  • Comment number 85.

    "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.

  • Comment number 86.

    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.

  • Comment number 87.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 88.

    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).

  • Comment number 89.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 90.

    Yay - my bold and italics worked! :-D

  • Comment number 91.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 92.

    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...

  • Comment number 93.

    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.

  • Comment number 94.

    #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...

  • Comment number 95.

    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.

  • Comment number 96.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 97.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 98.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 99.

    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.

  • Comment number 100.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

 

Page 1 of 2

More from this blog...

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.