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

"the only reason the election guidelines had to be in place until today was that we issued *one* set of guidelines to cover both sets of elections"
which as I have explained was a policy that (to me) seems to insult the intelligence of both users of the site & that of the moderators.

"at the time that we briefed the moderators, there was no guaranteed time on Sunday where we could be sure in advance that the polls had closed"
In what decade did you brief the moderators, I was aware of the 22:00 deadline for some weeks now (if it was fixed enough for BBC News24 to schedule an Election special, I cannot see how it was not fixed enough for the editors here?)

There's no need to be so aggressive, HappyDude. The guidelines had to be in place 25 days in advance of the election day, which meant that our policy had to be written six weeks in advance.

No doubt, had the results not come in at the expected time, the News24 election special would have had to pad the show out until such time as they were able to report; we don't have that luxury.

As already explained though, we work Monday to Friday. The earliest the post-moderation could be lifted from the Hub was this morning. Therefore, the policy remained in place on the Hub until then. However, had you posted to h2g2 after the results were announced your posting would not, in reality, have been removed.

I don't think think I am being particularly aggressive, just commenting on how I perceive editorial policy on the recent elections and how it (and your explanation of it) seemed to insult the intelligence of both the site users & the moderators, in the hope that you think a bit more carefully next time a multiple election scenario arises.

One question: When did the moderation officially end, in this thread you indicate it was "Peta came back into the office on Monday morning" but in an electronic mail h2g2 feedback indicated it was some hours earlier at 00:00 Monday (perhaps different times applied to the hub & h2g2, if so is there any good reason for the inconstancy (other than wanting to confuse the user))?

Officially, the moderation ended as soon as the final poll result was announced. In terms of when the post-moderation status was switched off, that was this morning. As explained, this is because we don't work 24 hours and so this was the earliest we could physically end it.

In effect, what that means is that anything referred by the Moderators after 5.30 last Friday evening would not have been cleared until 10.00 this morning. However, anything that did not break any other House Rules that was posted after the election results were announced would not have been failed anyway.

OK, I understand that, but I still find the fact that you applied the same rules to two separate elections (that had different timetables) vaguely insulting as I am sure both the site users & the moderators are capable of understanding different elections different rules. I must also emphasise that I do understand that the BBC is a unique organisation in a unique position & that in an election period it must maintain a certain amount vigilance to ensure it remains impartial but once the polls close and our (i.e. we the site user) comment can no longer influence anyone's decision we should be free to comment, this most certainly was not the case with local elections. Now before we go round in circles may I say I hope you will keep my comments in mind next time a multiple election scenario arises and agree to differ on opinions of editorial policy about postings after the recent elections.

Hi,

It's certainly not possible for a moderator to know whether phrases like,

"I voted for UKIP!" or

"It looks like the Conservatives are going to get the most votes!"

Apply to local or European elections.

You and other site members *were* free to discuss the elections throughout the election period - on the Hub - although you didn't take up the opportunity yourself, HappyDude.

BBC political editorial policy isn't set by the DNA team or the h2g2 Team but by a central policy unit. If you wish to contact them directly to see if they'll agree to keep your points in mind (should a multiple election scenario re-arise) and agree to differ with your policy please feel free to contact them via the http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback page.

I agree such comments are not clear and as such I would expect them to be moderated but I still fail to see why posts that clearly referred to the local election should of been failed on h2g2 after the (local election) polls closed. As I have previously indicated I believe both the site users & the moderators are capable of understanding different elections different rules.

As for contacting the central policy unit, surely it is the job of the site Editors to represent their sites & the views of the users. If the Editors believe that my views are unreasonable or a minority view and choose not to make such representation so be it.

Apologies for my pre/post confusion, Jimster, but I really thought the Election thread was on pre-mod.

Hi HappyDude,

".. both the site users & the moderators are capable of understanding different elections different rules."

I do understand where you're coming from HappyDude, but it's necessary to take a few extra details into account. If the BBC breached the European ruling they would face a fine or a jail sentence, so asking people to understand and take on board the ruling would involve a risk, entirely carried by the BBC.

The regular community members would probably co-operate and know about the restrictions, but that's unlikely to be true of all new members.

The moderators don't see the interface you do, they moderate on a post by post basis, and see postings in the order in which they are posted (ie out of sequence) - so it would be genuinely difficult for them to work out which election a single posting referred to.

I hope this helps to explain why the policy was implemented as it was.

Hey, Peta, how's it going?

I had a posting removed from the "Today" board a couple of days ago... The email was very polite, but I can still see how the regulars get so frustrated. There were two points in my post, and because one of them was in reply to a post that had been removed my post went too, meaning that anyone who had responded to my second point lost their posting too, and so on ad infinitum. There's got to be a better way...

It looks like the Conservatives are gaining in the polls over the Liberals....although the NDP may make up the balance of power in a minority government.....

Hi Peet,

I know, the current h2 system doesn't work very well. We're going to be slowly moving the messageboards over to DNA, and we're currently working on the policy and set-up, so hopefully things will change over the next year. There is a better way, but we need DNA technology to be able to enable it!

Peta, I think right from my first post I've indicated that I understand where the BBC & the various DNA sites were coming from and that I understood the need for vigilance by the BBC. Now I know it takes time to convince the BBC's policy makers we can be trusted but you have a great track record of doing such convincing, the amount of freedom we have now compared to when the BBC first took over h2g2 is amazing and I genuinely think the the users could have been trusted in this situation. There is no shortage of people willing to press the "Yikes" button if an inappropriate post is made (I've even done myself on occasion) and if a post did not make its position clear about which elections it was referring I would expect it to be failed. Now it's likely to a minimum of four years before this situation arises again so in many ways this conversation has been largely academic but there is one very important point I hope I've got across which is, when it comes to fighting the corner for h2g2 and making editorial policy that (within reason) you can trust us.

Consolidated Statutes and Regulations-
Canada Elections Act ( 2000, c. 9 )

484. (3) Every person is guilty of an offence who......
(b) knowingly contravenes subsection 23(2) (communication of information for unauthorized purpose);

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-2.01/

This and other sections of the act forbid the transfer of election information from one end of the country to the other during open polls. Given that Canada has five and one half time zones and the polls all close at the same hour but not the same time as it were, that is a 5 1/2 hour period where it is illegal to make advance results to the western provinces from the eastern ones.
That would include the media and all internet services, as in your sister CBC.

Given that the ultimate authority in government here in Canada is still the Queen (even though we have a Constitution), who is responsible for regulating posts on Hootoo or the Beeb in regard to the Canadian election? The poster or the service? Just wondering.

(The election is in 6 days.)

As I under stand it (I'm sure the Ed's will correct me if I'm wrong) the poster providing that the service make all reasonably attempts to (a) prevent such post & (b) remove such a post once informed it has been made. Under Canadian law I've not a clue

As I under stand it (I'm sure the Ed's will correct me if I'm wrong) the poster providing that the service make all reasonably attempts to (a) prevent an illegal post & (b) remove such a post once informed it has been made. Under Canadian law I've not a clue

"The moderators don't see the interface you do...and see postings...out of sequence"

This has been pointed out repeatedly to be fundamentally incompetent.

often you find yikes posts being allowed when in context they should not be or disallowed when they should remain, and it is usually due to the lack of surrounding context.

While it is reasonable to give them the posts in the order you do, not providing them with the surrounding posts prevents them from being able to do the job properly.

given that we don't stand a chance of ditching moderation completely (for good reaons), how about putting some work in to get a proper moderation system, rather than the factory pre-broken system we have to put up with now?

I should point out that with *every* post in the moderation system, the full context for a post is only a click away. If the moderators don't choose to use this to inform their decisions in cases where context is necessary, then the problem isn't a technical one.

so, it is incompetent moderators rather than an incompetent moderation system which is at fault.

why am I not surprised.

does this mean a ressurection of the area we used to have where we brough up clearly faulty moderation decisions, or are we as the people who didn't post it just supposed to ignore it and leak the info back out over the next dozen messages or so?

xyroth, please don't insult people that you don't know, who are trying to earn a living just like you. Especially when you have no idea what they are doing, or how they work.

The Moderators moderate out of context, because to do otherwise would mean moderating from the interface we all use. This would mean scrolling past posts previously moderated by other people, and it's just not feasible to add that much time to their jobs. If they had to check the context of each post, they wouldn't be able to moderate the number of posts that they are contracted to moderate per hour, which would mean an all round worse service for everyone.

Moderation 'mistakes' are often misunderstandings, and not usually on the behalf of the moderators. The amount of moderation decisions that are overturned less than one percent of total moderation decisions, and that's not only on DNA. I *might* find one a day out of the 10s of thousands of decisions made. Maybe. So please stop calling them incompetent.