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

LOL

OH DEAR GODZ THAT IS TOO MUCH!!!!!!!

LOL

I wonder if h2g2 Support will be joining the Zaphodistas? Another great example of moderation in action!

...if there are only a few people that would support this action then it would not work. True. Even worse: it would not be necessary. If nobody really cares (except like the 25 Zaphodistas) then
(a) nobody would notice anything
(b) it would only help nobody.

So I guess the "strike" is cancelled. At least we get some notice that things are in the pipeline. That's a good thing to hear.

[see next thread]

-Gin

...if there are only a few people that would support this action then it would not work. True. Even worse: it would not be necessary. If nobody really cares (except like the 25 Zaphodistas) then
(a) nobody would notice anything
(b) it would only help nobody.

So I guess the "strike" is cancelled. At least we get some notice that things are in the pipeline. That's a good thing to hear.

[see my next posting]

-Gin

THAT is the first step into the right direction. Blame it on my restricted time - I have not read that before. Now I am somewhat relieved. At least something is moving.

-Gin

I think it would be a generally good thing to announce these changes. Not necessarily on the front page, but maybe in some of the conversations. Like I said above: blame my restricted time - I have not read that before.

Maybe we should add that to the zaphodistas' changelog or something.

[I hope I did not confuse you all by replying to individual messages in this post. And I screwed up on the first reply today.
I apologize for the inconvinience.]

Whoops! Miscommunication alert! The High Duke of Mars said "pages awaiting moderation will now be tagged with REASONS for their being unavailable" and although that's what it sounded like, it's not what I meant. Ooops.

When I said we were changing the messages to say *exactly* why things were hidden, I didn't mean the reason why they might break the House Rules - I meant the reason that they're hidden, from such exciting choices as:

* Legacy posting/entry
* Referred posting/entry
* Failed posting/entry

Sorry if I misled. We may look at adding the specific reasons for failure later - the information is stored in the database, after all - but the next release won't go this far just yet.

What do the above "reasons" actually mean, Mark? "Legacy posting/entry" sounds like the message was something to do with an inheritance! "Referred" is fairly self-explanatory, but "failed post/entry"? Does this mean "not there due to a technical hitch"?
Also, is it now policy not to specify exactly why something that has been censored transgresses the rules? I ask because I e-mailed Abi over a week ago asking why one particular link had been pulled from my Personal Space, and haven't had a reply.
It was a link to a very funny site satirising President Bush, and I wanted to know whether the problem was the content of the site or just its name, which contains a drug reference. If it was the latter, I can replace it with a link to another fairly similar anti-Dubya site whose name certainly shouldn't offend.

And remember (most people keep forgetting this, no matter how often we say it - it's almost as if they're not reading the 'All about moderation' page...) older pages are only hidden because the BBC decided they needed to check *every* piece of content in the guide *before* it became visible. Now, we could have said 'OK, we won't relaunch until you've done that' but we'd still be down now, and probably for the rest of the year. So we compromised, and launched with only a small part of the content already reviewed. The rest is being worked through bit by bit, but consider:

830,000 posts, say it takes 20 seconds to read each post (that's an average, and probably an optimistic one) and people work 7 hours a day (50 minutes per hour so they get 10 minutes break to avoid eyestrain) then it will take 790 man-days to check every forum posting.

That's rather a long time, but the BBC have committed to this effort - they could just have said 'forget all those old conversations, they're not worth it' So it's not all evil and villainy on the Beeb's side.

Sorry - using internal tech speak, there.

Legacy content is pre-BBC stuff that has been hidden, and needs to be reactivated to be seen (for entries) or moderated in time (for postings). We'll make sure that when hidden legacy content is viewed, it explains that this is pre-BBC content that wither hasn't been activated by the author, or hasn't been reached by the Moderators yet (in the case of postings).

Referred content is stuff which has been passed on to Peta and Abi for a decision - hopefully self-explanatory.

Failed content is content that has been read by a Moderator, or the Community Team, and is felt to break the House Rules. It is therefore hidden. At the time of hiding, the author gets an email that describes (relatively generally, it has to be said) what the problem was - bad external link, offensive material, condoning illegal activity etc - and the content is hidden. We will show a message to say that this content has been hidden because it breaks the House Rules (no different from now). We *may* in the future also show why, but not in the next build.

Two areas we can look at improving are:

(a) Should we show the reason for failure in failed content?

(b) How we can improve the email sent to authors whose content is removed. Currently the Moderators choose from a drop-down of possible reasons, and Peta and Abi also have the ability to send hand-written explanations. At this time we don't let the Moderators do tailored emails, as we ask them to pass them to Peta and Abi to write.

Does this make more sense?

* Legacy - and old guide entry or post pre-Rupert which hasn't been activated by its owner or checked by a moderator, either of which will cause it to reappear. Legacy is a computing term we've used. However, what Mark didn't post is the *actual text of the messages* which he has written, which will explicitly explain this, and almost certainly not use the word 'legacy'.

* Referred - the moderator thinks there is a problem but it's not an automatic failure.

* failed - definitely failed due to content. The author should receive the reason in email, and can correct it.

Simulpost - sorry.

Anyway, I'm supposed to be on holiday, so I'm logging off now.

Ormondroyd, I am sorry for not responding. It was not done deliberately but due to the amount mail flooding into all our inboxes things can get lost. With regard to that particular site, neither Peta or I have a problem with you linking to that site.

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation, Mark - that's much clearer.
Abi - that's OK, I know you're busy, and I also know that some of it has been my fault! I take it, then, that if I restore my link to Bush O.C. it shouldn't get deleted again?

I think the question you have to ask yourself is this:

Is some stranger going to read the explanation on a different page?
I think not. I don't know what hardware/software you're running. Do you have any logging? Do you know the average duration of a page impression? Maybe you can find out what percentage is acutally reading the explanation.

My fear is that the stranger browsing around might be offended by the message (pending moderation). I don't know if it will be regarded as "normal" behaviour of a website to moderate it's content. Thus the stranger might find it strange and abnormal and thus leave. It's just a fear, maybe it's nothing.

Finally here's my point: make the explanation as short as possible, but not shorter than necessary. Do explain what moderation is and why it is there. Give a link to further information.

What you write is this:
> This Personal Space Introduction has been hidden,
> because the rules about what can be included in
> your Introduction have changed slightly.

First sentence implies that the entry does not comply with the new terms. Think that if you wish, but don't say that! Do not say that. Ever.

> To reactivate your Introduction it (which will make
> it appear immediately), simply click on the 'Edit Page'
> button, make any changes to ensure that your Introduction
> meets the new guidelines, and click on 'Update Introduction'.

This, in difference says that the user has "failed" to do something. That is acceptable, I think. So my suggestion is that you simply switch the two sentences. And maybe reword them so that the message is still the same, but padded in cotton. I suggest this:

Personal Space Pending Moderation
To reactivate your Introduction (which will make it appear immediately), simply click on the 'Edit Page' button, make sure that your Introduction meets the new guidelines, and click on 'Update Introduction'.
Explanation:
The rules about what can be included in entries have changed slightly. Since we cannot ensure that every single entry complies with the new rules please do us a favor and review your entry(1). For more information on moderation and the house rules go to this document [LINK].
- We apologize for the inconvinience. -

(1) By reviewing your entry you accept that your entry has to comply to the new rules. Since you wrote your entry before Rupert [Link] you could not accept these rules. This is a legal thing and it won't take too long. So please do us the favor. Ok?

This is just a suggestion. I don't know how many other suggestions you recieved. Maybe it would be a good idea to kindof bundle these suggestions into one entry. I am planning on doing something like this to the brainstorming board. Don't know if it will be successful.

-Gin
Keeper and Mixer of the Gin and Tonic
May the Guide live long and prosper

830,000 posts??

As we said above, all the messages are changing in the next build, which hasn't happened yet. Probably best to reserve comments until that's available (some time after Jim gets back from holiday next Thursday).

Oh, and you said:

"Think that if you wish, but don't say that! Do not say that. Ever."

Think that if you wish, but don't order me around! Do not order me around. Ever.

Hi Lil

We've now got the legacy down to 763,758 posts and 38,196 entries. That takes us back to early November last year.

*still chuckling about GVI's contribution to this thread*