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

I appreciate that it IS a huge site, with as many opinions as there are people. I also understand that much of what needs doing, is quietly done through other direct channels. But I am going to guess that in this particular case, that has so many riled, to no effect.

"It means we should all have room to make mistakes and be given opportunities to make amends." as you say, but just how many more opportunities? I'll only guess at the number of "opportunities" by the many researchers, and suggest that it has hit a 3-digit count.

Anyway, I've said a bit, offered a bit, and hope that somehow things in general can calm down soon. Thanks for listening.

At the risk of picking at scabs, pouring fuel on the flames and mixing my metaphors, can anyone explain to me what's going on, either in summary of with a link? I see that a number of well-respected researchers have quite worrying comments in their usernames....

"I also understand that much of what needs doing, is quietly done through other direct channels. But I am going to guess that in this particular case, that has so many riled, to no effect."


I think you'd be mistaken to guess that; it's way too early to say that our approach has had no effect. As the Researcher in question has been away for the last week, who can really judge? Maybe the discussions we had offsite will have helped. Maybe our constant reminders to use to Complaints Button instead of grabbing a virtual pitchfork will have some effect. Maybe the natural burn-out that people experience with websites has coincided with this week's events, meaning we couldn't have prevented the outcome, only how it came about. Maybe we have lessons to learn in-house.

Actually, let's not get carried away

It's been interesting seeing comments this week to the effect that this wouldn't have happened in the days of the previous team. It shows at least that people have short memories. There will always be a group who are vocally dissatisfied with the way the site's run. That's how things get done really. It's our job to hopefully remind people that we also do some things really well (more on that next week, by the way). No doubt when we all eventually leave, those who follow us will have to contend with our legacy. Haha!

>> it's way too early to say that our approach has had no effect.<<

Jimster, would it be fair to say that you have to treat each episode as a separate event distinct from previous events (which may have resulted in action such as premod)?

Because I think this whole thing has been going on for, what six months? I know that you have been taking action in that time (and am somewhat mystified that people think you haven't). But from my own perspective I'm not sure that the *overall situation has improved at all (as opposed to the last week's events).

When the researcher in question was on premod (for quite a long period of time) a different kind of annoyance factor occured as the researcher posted mulitple posts in a row, in many different convos that were all hidden temporarily. I essentially had to leave Ask for a period of time (not leave just one or two threads) because of not just how annoying it was, but also because of how it actually rendered those threads unworkable.

I also suspect that that time of premod 'taught' the researcher how to post just within the House Rules. He explained a number of times that he would be taken off premod when his posts stopped breaking the House Rules, and from the outside it looks like eventually he learnt how to post so he could get off premod, but it was more like a mechanical this will pass this won't kind of thing rather than him understanding the underlying problem. So he can now continue the posting in the same disruptive way but there are very few individual posts that people feel warrant a yikesing.

As you said above it's about the intent of the researcher, but many people are now finding it incredibly hard to believe that there isn't at least some degree of intent to disrupt in this situation by the researcher concerned.

Unfortunately I took the other option being advocated (avoid and ignore) so I feel too out of the loop to make a formal complaint about the current situation. I do still feel affected by it though, and it would be useful to know if there is any value in making a formal complaint about the overall situation or if you need to to be much more specific than that.


One thing I've especially appreciated in the last few days has been the number of posts you've made in various threads explaining your view and thoughts and some of the possible solutions. I find it very useful to have this degree of Italic presence in the situation

By the way, the fact that Misc Chat suddenly blipped on the radar again happened because we were able to get a little technical assistance to add that forum to the drop-down list that we use to move Conversation threads. As soon as that was added (and the Games Room created), we began to look at Ask h2g2 and weed things across that might have been more suited elsewhere.

At no point did any one Researcher play a part in that decision, either positively or negatively.

Re: "this wouldn't have happened under the previous team"

Well, it did, didn't it?

I joined in August 2000, and have seen a lot of hootoo stushies in my time. What's been really noticable is that all the teams have grown into their jobs. Yes, by the time Mark and Peta moved on they were pretty good at what they did, but they were .... at the beginning of their learning curves, shall we say, and they made some cr@p decsions.

When they left and the younger generation of italics were directly exposed to this sort of sh*te they made some cr@p decisions. BUt they too have become noticably better as time went by.

There never was a 'golden age of h2g2'

B

No proofreading

*when* they were at the beginning of their learning curves....

There's never been a golden age of anything; it's just human nature to hark back after one.

Peta and Mark had a much smaller community on their hands, but they had their share of problematic researchers to deal with.

Traveller in Time on top
"Hmm, how about a magic sign ?

When a posting gets 'temporary hidden' (not premoderated) 'everybody else' wonders what will happen with it. So the attention is already drawn to that particular posting.

Then there are three things that can happen: The posting remains hidden or it is disclosed again. The visible again phase can have two options again either there was rally nothing wrong or this was a part of a larger situation and the er replied to the 'nothing wrong' email. What if we all get to see a flag on such posting ?

So postings with an inhouse knowledge of complaint show up marked. This should not contravene with any form of the privacy act, but would give some confidence in the matter of inhouse focus. Then again this would be just more work for the already small inhouse team. Special when Researchers become aware their complaints are really beeing used.

[There has been complaints about this posting] could be the label for such postings / entries.


Hmm, how about hundreds of entries only appearing to be junk. I think there is a security risk in those. One could easily hide some secret codes in them. "

Why can't we have an ignore button like they have on Gateworld, if someone really hacks you off all you have to do is hit that button and you never see anything they Post, of course you can see a specific posting if curiosity gets the better of you of course it may disrupt the flow of a thread but isn't that a small price to pay?

I like that idea.

Traveller in Time rereading some old threads
"I think it was concidered a little 'anti-social'. "

Well we are talking Ant-Social behavior, it wouldn't block a person's postings to everyone the same way a pre modded post would, just on the blockers account

How about 'The Pack' those who take it upon themselves to 'hound' a 'lurker' who they consider to be a 'stalker' or a 'troll' ?
F1599166?thread=1172944

are we talking about a specific researche here?

It's a general point I make.

As an old curmudgeon 'Lurking to Learn' I could make it personal if prodded since I suffered along these lines as a Newbie and I am getting a 'Pack' approach on making approaches to the Message Boards.

<>

Yes, the élite.. I've encountered them..

>> How about 'The Pack' those who take it upon themselves to 'hound' a 'lurker' who they consider to be a 'stalker' or a 'troll' ?
F1599166?thread=1172944 <<

Ancient Brit, there is a problem with the impression created by your comments concerning the thread for which you posted that link.

The point of that conversation was to encourage people to think about why they react to some researchers the way they do, whether problems are created / exacerbated by the community in general (or at least sectors of it) and what *each individual* suggests could be a better way for us all to get along together more productively, in the hope of making H2G2 a more pleasant place for *everyone*.

Sure, for a while in the middle it degenerated into a rehash of a previous argument, but the people involved were soon made aware that raking over old coals is never productive and if they wanted to do that then go do it somewhere where it won't bother the majority. In fact, that would be my recommendation for a disagreement of any kind between researchers (see Post 305 and the replies in the conversation to which you provided the link).

There were actually some very thought-provoking and, dare I say it, sensible suggestions made in that thread. I recommend reading it all before putting it forward solely as an example of a 'pack' ganging up on an individual.

Just setting the record straight.

<>

I feel the need to point out that your statement is contradictory. A lurker is someone who is subscribed to a thread but never posts, therefore they cannot be a stalker (a poster who constantly checks other posters thread list and follows them) or a troll (a poster who makes deliberately offensive and/or inflammatory postings). If you're going to leap into things you don't fully understand you could at least get the terminology right.

<>