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

Why was this removed? It was a response to the removal of a posting featuring a play on the word "pecker" URL of content (now removed): http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F9404?Thread=100886&post=845793 Subject: The BOG Posting: I find a quote from Ian Dury perfectly sums up these censors:- "A*******s, B******s, F*****g C***s and P****s"

Those postings were referred to me, which temporarily hides them. I've now put them back having advised the moderators on the approach that they should take to postings that are deliberately trying to be provocative. If Researchers are *deliberately* trying to be anti-social, and their postings are continuously referred to me, they could be barred from the site, for anti-social behaviour. I'm personally hoping that people will just grow out of the 'let's test the moderators' game and get on with something a bit more enlightened and entertaining. Sound fair to you?

Thanks, but why were they removed in the first place? It wasn't as if they were anything serious, placing the reputation of H2G2 in immediate danger. Surely postings not overtly outside the guidelines could be tagged for your inspection rather than removed? It'ld mean less hassle all round.

If I post "antisocial" messages then you're quite welcome to bar me, I'll deserve it. AFAIK I have yet to post anything which could be described as antisocial, either here or at the old site. I think you'ld find it difficult to class either of these postings as "antisocial", the thread being a conversation between the two of us, with the moderator taking no part.

If anyone is being truly antisocial it is the moderators. Often they seem to be working on on a quota basis and show little consistency. I presume this is down to unclear guidelines, pressure of work, power, the feeling that they have to block some postings to show that they are doing their jobs, or a combination of the four.

Deliberately provocative I fully admit to, but only towards the moderators who aren't a recognisable part of the community, and therein lies part of the problem. You'll also note that there is self-regulation and I think I have kept within your guidelines (though there may be a copyright problem with the Ian Dury posting, perhaps I'd better put a comment on it ).

If this site is to grow, as I hope it will, then there is no way that human moderators will be able to cope. In the long run you are going to have to rely mainly on self-regulation and the complaints button, so why be so heavy-handed now? I can only presume this is a deliberate policy, either to impress the new bosses, or to ingrain the limits on us by removing postings which aren't breaking the guidelines.

When the censorship becomes less ham-fisted, you'll have no further boring postings from me to read....provided I'm still here on that great day! Hey! Wake up!

Please consider that halfway house approach if you have not already done so, it would cause so much less aggravation all round.

Give and take sounds fair to me.

If they need to be referred to me then the content is under question, and therefore it's hidden. This is so that the BBC can't be sued, if it has been tagged they would be admitting that they knew that there was a problem with it, but would have taken no action to remove it immediately, and would therefore be legally liable. There was a similar court action recently with Demon, someone advised them that they thought something shouldn't have been posted to Demon's pages, but Demon didn't take it off immediately, and it was because of this *in-action*, that they were sued. So the reason for this is legal and not for more hassle less hassle type reasons.

The moderators are not being antisocial. They are being paid to do a job. They are showing inconsistancies because they are human, and they are new to h2g2. They are doing their jobs, and not attempting to pillock around with the site for fun, to fill quotas, or any other reason. They are just trying to do their jobs.

We're trying to impress the new bosses? Yeah right.

We need to prove that the community is self-policing, and that moderation is therefore unnecessary, and then maybe we can relax the guidelines, and perhaps even become unmoderated again. But, Jeez don't think I'm doing this for the fun of it, right now it was the only way we could get h2g2 back at all, so just live with it for the time being please, and make the best of it, and just get on with community life, guide writing and everything else. Okay?

Demon's Godfrey case is not similar. Demon were asked by Dr Godfrey to remove a forged posting, but left it up for 10 days after his request until it was removed automatically. I am sure that if you received a similar complaint then the posting would be removed immediately, pending a decision being made on it.

If a posting was tagged by your moderators, it would not be because they "knew" there was a problem with it. It is because they "suspect" that there "might" be a problem with it, and are referring it to you for a decision. I don't see how this system could be viewed as anything other than a responsible attitude on the part of yourself and the BBC. Remember we are talking about doubtful postings here, not ones which overtly breach the guidelines. The fact that you are reinstating so many postings demonstrates that there is room for a less intrusive tagging system, rather than this "presumed guilty until found innocent" approach.

The moderators themselves may not be antisocial, but the way the moderation is being carried out definitely is. I now find myself wondering if I'm wasting my time when typing out a posting (other than one designed to be provocative). Fortunately for me, I have never liked making long postings (could've fooled you. eh ), but if I did and had one removed, I would think twice about putting the necessary effort in again, even if the posting was subsequently reinstated. Threads move on, and reinstated postings are missed, or have been rendered useless by a switch in topic.

I ask you again, please use a system which avoids this totally unnecessary removal of "doubtful" postings before you drive too many people away from here, or end up as yet another safe bland site not many people are interested in joining.

i'd just like to point out that i was having a religious discussion in another forum where i was asked to tell MY story of why christianity didn't work for me.

my post, although ABSOLUTELY not offensive, is pending moderation.

let's see... what could have set off the censor?
1. mentioning that i was once suicidal?
2. mentioning that i have a dislike for catholics?(i have a feeling that this could be it, however this is my own personal opinion and i did not attack anyone nor did i spout blasphemy, all i said was that my parents are catholic and they torture me, therefore i dont' really like catholics)
3. the fact that i'm wiccan?

please, someone explain this to me. i'm rather irate.

*becomes more irate*

now they're removing URLs from my user page!!! i can't even link to my friends' websites anymore?

*but to shot of sea, falling down into a bottomless pit, spiralling all the way*

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sea - please can you tell me what URLs have been removed from your page so that I can make a judgement on this.

My what a truly entertaining and enlightening exchange between Mister Bumweevil and the Italic person. It covered more ground and better than most of the ranting going on around here. It might help to post it prominently somewhere. Researchers deserve to see an intelligent discussion that gets to the heart of the issues.

...but isn't that spamming?

at the very least it would help if when postings were removed for referral, the replacement message was different to the permanently removed message.

I think it is. Permanently removed messages say the post has been removed. Entries which are being referred say they are being referred. At least, that's how it's *supposed* to work.

Probably there have been so few posts actually *removed* that you've not seen the difference?

You might need to work on the wording then, (is this new? cos the ones I had removed & then reinstated a week ago had a message that looked pretty permanent).

The message for referred posts were changed just around the opening. See your own one hour old post in Bubblish, which now has been referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55816?thread=99389&post=857696

thats kewl... (although why it needs to be refered I don't know - why can't the moderator translate it & see its inoffensive?).

I am the Bubblish person who does the translating but trying to cover Peta's job as well as my own means that it has slipped down the to do list. Please bear with me on this one.

Oh yes and we are looking at how we can make the messages where a posting / entry is removed a little more friendly. We need the Community's help and feedback to make the system more manageable.

The league against pretention Abi? Is that prompted by a certain Guide Entry on today's front page?

I'm quite happy to suggest wording changes for the Moderation messages should you wish to call upon the community to help... although a really friendly message for referrals I can think of now would probably not be a good idea because it sort of implies the Moderators have no idea what they're doing - which is bad, right?

BubbleFish™ postings might be a prime example of when postings should be tagged for review but not hidden (unless of-course they fail review). I'm off over to the gadgets page to start my campaign for a BubbleFish™ gadget

Nice idea HappyDude - I think that would work quite well.

The Gadget or the tagging or both?

A Bubblefish gadget would be great... or maybe two gadgets, one to translate from bubbles, the other to translate back again. I think I'll go join the campaign.

Abi?