The BBC  permalink

Moderation 'clinic' - 2 till 5 this afternoon

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 72
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Hello

    We're going to try an experiment this afternoon and do a sort of moderation 'clinic' to answer some of your moderation queries (and help us to rewrite our help pages to stop you needing to ask so many questions in the first place). Threads about moderation usually end in acrimony but since your host Sarah has raised a fair few queries from you I thought it would remain manageable if we ran it just for a few hours smiley - smiley

    I'll be posting on the Internet blog shortly as well (and will add the link here when I have) so bloggers and boarders both get their say.

    [link: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... ]

    I will try to answer queries as best I can, but in the case of individual decisions it might not be possible to discuss them publically for legal or editorial reasons - remember that if we had to remove it in the first place we probably can't repeat it to discuss it smiley - winkeye

    If I've told you that your query can't be discussed in the thread, please respect that and allow other users their chance to ask questions. This isn't intended to replace any of the existing ways to contact us - you can always send us an email via this page:

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    So that the discussion doesn't get over-run with queries that I won't get time to answer, I'll remove any off-topic or disruptive posts, and close the thread when we're done at 5. If it goes well we can reopen it in future or start another. We'll add the most useful information to the help pages we're revamping at www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    I've got meetings (and maybe even lunch) until 2, so I'll come back on then and start replying.

    So, if you've got questions about moderation, fire away smiley - smiley

    Cheers

    Paul - CCT

  • Message 2

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by justpolina (U6637834) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    This may be a strange question, but what governs the Unacceptable Phrases? I've had posts rejected and then with single alterations accepted - the offending words having included Corporation, Armando Iannucci, Production Team and Together. I'm fascinated as to the criteria used!

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Hi Paul,

    Do the mods have the authority to remove posts without explanation? Despite the fact these boards are reactively moderated this seems to be happening quite a lot.

    Thanks.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by justpolina (U6637834) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Add to the list the phrase "I know"!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    We were told we now only had reactive moderation, we took that as meaning a post would only be removed if a user reported it by pressing the triangle.

    Please can you confirm that actually moderation is still being done without a complaint made by another user.

    Thanks.

    Please could you also confirm the rules about slander and libel. For example if I post

    "I THINK (insert name here) is a cheat"

    Is that allowed?

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Ooh, who do you think is a cheat, Giz? smiley - winkeye

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by lifeHAZELNUT (U3501987) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    I don't think 3 hours is going to be anywhere near long enough to answer all the questions there are going to be!

    Will there be an extension?

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    For a start, can the e mail saying why a post has been removed, please say just that and not list all the other reasons why posts are removed?

    That can't be too difficult, surely?

    For example, last week someone made a very rude reamrk to another poster. I suggested an apology and quoted the offending message. Hiss/hesr and mine were removed. There was no other reason than the quote, why mine should have been removed but the e mail listed the whole lot, which were inapplicable and annoying.

    The apology was given and the poster explained, using the same words, that they are commonplace to him/her.

    I have just looked and find it hard to believe that the apology, with the offending words is still there!

    So secondly some consistency please. Don't remove at all, if you are going to allow them to reappear and remain again later.

    Thank you Paul, have fun!

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Firstly, I'd like to say that Sarah is doing a good job - firm but fair. Is the moderating only done in response to a complaint? Because I have used words (like the slang for cigarettes) and been refused posting. Also what are the rules for mentioning shops or proprietory brands? Thanks.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    And do the mods have a set of criteria which they use to decide whether to remove a post? There have been occasions when a mod has decided not to remove a post but if it is yiked again then it is removed. So is it an autonomous decision by the mod?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    With regards to reactive moderation I'm still a bit confused. Sorry.

    I thought before we got it that the mods looked at EVERY post. And now that we are reactively moderated they don't. So why are some posts removed with no explanation?

    Thanks.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Sarah host (U13916021) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Firstly, I'd like to say that Sarah is doing a good job - firm but fair.  

    Thank you sploink! Thats good to hear smiley - rose

  • Message 13

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Hello smiley - smiley

    Thanks for your comments and questions - I'll try to work through them in order if I can, though if any are basically the same I'll try and answer in one post.

    Right, here we go...

  • Message 14

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    This may be a strange question, but what governs the Unacceptable Phrases? I've had posts rejected and then with single alterations accepted - the offending words having included Corporation, Armando Iannucci, Production Team and Together. I'm fascinated as to the criteria used! 

    Hi Justpolina

    None of those words are on the list for the filter. We do get reports of random words getting blocked, so there does seem to be a bug but we've been unable to replicate it (and fix it) despite much testing. The fact that you can post them now should prove that it's not deliberate. I'll raise it again with the development team just in case it's slipped down the list.

    Paul

  • Message 15

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Do the mods have the authority to remove posts without explanation? Despite the fact these boards are reactively moderated this seems to be happening quite a lot.

    ..... I thought before we got it that the mods looked at EVERY post. And now that we are reactively moderated they don't. 


    Hi cricket Angel

    No, in fact they can't do that technically, the system doesn't allow a mod to remove a post without the explanation being sent. If you've had a post removed and haven't received an email explaining why, then please let us know via the feedback form

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    as there has to be a technical fault. Unless of course you did get an email, but you've got it sitting in a spam folder somewhere or you've changed your email address since you registered smiley - erm

    It doesn't make any difference whether the boards are post or reactively moderated, the explanations are still generated in the same way.

    Paul

  • Message 16

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Hi Paul,

    It wasn't actually any of my posts I was referring to - I'm one of the good ones! smiley - devil

    But I have noticed a few posts getting removed VERY quickly. Far quicker than should be the case if only posters, lurkers and Hosts are pressing the red triangle - and when that happens the posts are usually Hidden and referred, not immediately removed.

    Another question, if you don't mind: Is the same moderating company modding every BBC board? If yes, are they given different rules for each board?

    Thanks

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Hello Paul

    Any word on the suspension of the 6 Music Feedback boards?

    This was a very odd affair, with no notice given or warning of any kind. It would have been nice in particular to offer some response to the unsubstantiated suggestion from Bob Shennan that 10 users were responsible for over 7000 postings.

    Cheers.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    My query is about lack of consistency.
    For Example off topic posts.
    Cricket Angel and I were involved in a rather silly, but harmless bit of nonsense about llamas. There were about 20 posts, all as daft as each other and 2 get removed. Why?
    Would it not be possible to let harmless but slightly off topic posts remain? particularly if it is a quiet day?

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    Consistency is an issue Paul, i know you don't want to get into specifics, but I will give you a recent example.

    I used the phrase "a Richard measuring contest" in a post put used the shortened version of Richard, you get my drift?

    My post remained showing, and still is visible, two other posters referred to my message both using the same phrase, they were modded instantaneously leading me to believe it was not a red triangle alert.

    It's this sort of thing which drives us nuts. The inconsistency comes across sometimes as victimisation (as one of those posters had a few messages modded and those that had read them could see no problem) but usually as just plain unfair.

    Like I say I'm not expecting a response directly to this occurence but just in general. Thanks.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009

    We were told we now only had reactive moderation, we took that as meaning a post would only be removed if a user reported it by pressing the triangle. 

    Hi Giz (and Cricket Angel)

    We've added some clarification of reactive moderation to the help page here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    Even on reactive boards some messages will be looked at by the mods without being complained about by the public - we might set particular words, phrases or users to be post-moderated, and of course hosts may alert posts. Obviously the BBC reserves the right to view or remove any content posted to the website - we have to take the flak for it, so we'll have a look if we want smiley - winkeye

    The important thing to remember is that the majority of posts aren't looked at, so the users have to make sure they alert anything they feel breaks the rules.

    There's a page on defamation here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    Your question is similar to the myth about using 'allegedly' - just saying that you THINK someone is a cheat does not stop the post being potentially libellous - you might be able to use a fair comment defence in court if that person had a history of dishonest behaviour, or there were accusations about him, but generally this would be potentially libellous. We'd also consider other factors when assessing the risk, such as how serious the accusation is.

    When it comes down to it, something is only proved to be libellous in court, and we'd be wasting your licence fees if we let ourselves be dragged into the dock repeatedly because of messageboard or blog comments. So we remove content because we feel the *risk* of it being libellous is unacceptable to the BBC and the poster. For more on this, you could have a look at the blog post and the comments here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    Paul

    PS (I have to point out that nothing on this page constitutes legal advice!)

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

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.