h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When a post is moderated (either due to pre-mod, or being refered) and then (re)appears, there is no way for anyone to know that it has, without frequently checking. Also, if someone posts after the moderated post, but before they could read the post, there post may seem out of place so someone who, reading the thread later, didn't know the post had been moderated.

Therefore, i would like an extra date/time showing when a post (re)appeared, and for that time to count as a Last Reply on forum listings and conversations lists.

If this has been brought up before (which it might well have done), then sorry for repeating it. I haven't checked the feature ideas list, but i don't remember seeing it there last time i did.

Tango

I'm not sure what the value of this is Tango, we sent emails out that inform all the necesary people of the decisions that we make.

This is for people trying to read the conversations that are affected by the decisions. At the moment, i am involved in a discussion with someone on pre-moderation. I have to keep checking back to see if the post they just made has become visible or not, and i'd rather not have to do that.

Tango

I agree that situation is annoying. However, adding another date would seem to me to require a fairly major change to software (and altering the existing one would be very confusing).

Altering the existing one would be a very bad idea indeed. I'm sure the date is on the database somewhere, along with all the moderation information that i'm sure is stored. It would mean making a few hefty changes, but i think it's worth it.

Tango

"we sent emails out that inform all the necesary people of the decisions that we make"

In fact, that isn't true, as i have just found out. (Moderation Reference P3481957)

Tango

I can see how this might be a good idea, even if just for informational purposes - I could be reading through a thread and find a post which has been yikesed and recently reinstated. If someone else felt it needed to be yikesed, I might too, and re-yikes it, wasting the moderators time. If it had a note pinned to it somehow that had already been yikesed and then passed as ok (no time stamp needed), we'd all know not to yikes it again.

I don't know what purpose it would serve to do this to *all* moderated posts, such as those from any Researcher on pre-moderation.


Scout

Thanks Tango for reminding me about this: sometimes when the editors have overturned a moderator's decision (when it hasn't been referred) there's no email sent, so it can be a) a surprise when you see it again, and b) confusing as there is no explanation given.

spelugx

Moderation is confidential, so we don't want to put anything on a Posting that states that a complaint was made.

It is entirely possible that we will not uphold a complaint, but if further complaints come in our decision could be altered. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. We would rather everyone felt free to complain about a Posting if they consider it breaks the House Rules, we might be alerted to something we'd missed.

The pre-Moderation thing is a problem, but hopefully the problems of having a conversation while pre-Moderatored will encourage Researchers to behave so that we can remove them as soon as possible.

"hopefully the problems of having a conversation while pre-Moderatored will encourage Researchers to behave so that we can remove them as soon as possible."

I'm sure that really didn't come out the way you intended, Mina. Then again, perhaps it did. It seems to say that you want pre-mod users to be so bad that you get to chuck them off h2g2 altogether.

Remove from pre-mod, not remove from the site, you stupid boy. (It is permissible under the house rules to call someone a stupid boy, i have been made aware of this)

Moderation is in no way confidential if the post has been hidden for a time, people who were there at the time will know if was refered or whatever, so it's fair for people who come along afterwards to know too.

I do not belive in punishing readers for the writers crimes, which is exactly what you are saying is a good idea, Mina. I do not wish to talk to the researcher who is on pre-mod anyway, I am doing so to try and be helpful (old habit), and I do would rather this were made a easy as possible.

Tango

You're right SEF, that could have been misunderstood. I meant remove them from Pre-Moderation, not remove them from the site.

Tango, we find that pre-Moderation works very well, so we'll continue using it. If you find it difficult to talk to Researchers who are pre-Moderated, then the obvious answer is that you don't.

I never said you should stop using pre-moderation. Can i suggest reading suggestions before posting and making yourself look stupid?

Tango

Ah, another italic who thinks they are so brilliant that no-one can advise them. You try to point out a major character flaw to someone so they can correct it, and improve peoples opinions of them, and they run away and ignore you. I can't say i'm suprised.

Tango

Tango, can I suggest that you don't persue a career in the diplomatic services

That was a bit harsh on Mina. Whilst there wasn't a definitive response to your idea by the staff, there was some general discussion of its merits by others. This then generated topic drift on the pre-moderation issue, and it was to this that Mina replied.

Hello there,

Tango - I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be rude to members of my staff. Personal abuse of h2g2 staff is against the House Rules.

Natalie

Hmm? Normal procedure is that if someone considers something abusive, rude or otherwise houserule breaking, that it is yiksed so that it is brought to the attention of the staff and the poster and it is hidden.

Hello there,

Yes, that is normal procedure. If the editors find any comments offensive then they can Yikes them (in the same way as anyone else) - however, I just wanted to point out in this instance that I found the comments rude and unnecessary.

Natalie

Yes, but you see spelugx, i haven't broken the house rules, so the yikes button is not appropriate. There is nothing in the rules about making helpful suggestions and stating facts.

I treat everyone the same, i will not accept stupidity from BBC staff anymore than i will accept it from anyone else. I find it insulting to be spoken down to by someone who is clearly knows less than me. As Jim Lynn pointed out to me, if someone finds something insulting, it is against the house rules. If BBC staff members wish to contradict themselves, then they are free to do so, but they must accept that they cannot both be right, therefore, one must be wrong, and if i can tell which one it is, i will say so, that is not against the house rules in any way.

Tango