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

it was a title, anyone can change them, anytime and with less transparency than has been shown in this one case. Do I have to give full chapter and verse on my reasonings, future plans for h2g2 and desires for a new world order cos I just changed it? Or are we just concerned cos it was the first post that had its title changed and none of us can do that?

If an actual post were changed to alter the poster's meaning or content then that would be an issue. But it hasn't happened, so it isn't.

*Honestly* do people really still care enough about this place since we were bought and sold?

I find myself going through the motions here with discussion now about stuff like this.

But then I'm not 'Noesified'.



Carry on though...

Otto, the 'notifying' should have happened in the thread that was edited. If that's not technically possible or easy currently then it should be on the wish list. Or not, if we decide that posts shouldn't be edited.

>>
There's a real danger of seeing one or two incidents as being indicative of some kind of greater trend or thin end of the wedge, when actually there's absolutely no reason to believe that.
<<

With all due respect, and I'm going to say this as someone who's seen some of the stuff behind the scenes, I have to disagree. There *is* reason to believe that, and it's of concern to me that what I'm saying is being seen as making a mountain out of a molehill.

I have a really good sense for process. It's one of my things. I know that others here do too, and I'm not the only one who's been noticing when things are off. I've been trying to balance my critiques with encouraging support for the CEs and mods while they find their feet and work with broken tools. But there *are* things that need to be said. If I or others shut up about this and then come back to them in 6 months time when we've settled in, it will be too late. Protocols established informally or inhouse will have become engrained and very hard to change.

Ictoan have you been reading the backlog? Because posts *have* had content edited.

but it doesn't mean the Senior Partners in Not Panicking did it.
the original thread posts 15 and 18 said
Posted 5 Hours Ago by Geggs has returned from Tywyn. I performed much profitable research whilst there.
This is a reply to this Posting.

Post: 15

Probably the mods trying to save themselves a headache.

I would imagine that the original title had to be checked and passed every time someone posted to the thread, so they are just trying to make their own lives easier by changing the title to a less contentious one. …






Subject: Are you a Katie or a Catherine?
Posted 5 Hours Ago by The H2G2 Editors
This is a reply to this Posting.

Post: 18

Well done for noticing.

The Title was changed after a referral to the moderators. As you know we aim to provide context specific moderation.

In the context of 'What name do you like to be know by', then 'Are you a Dick' is a perfectly appropriate question.

Unfortunately it was showing up on the front page, as one of the most popular conversations, completely devoid of context. This would create the impression that we were having some sort of flame war, and isn't a great tone to set on h2g2, not to mention looking like it was a profanity and against the house rules.

We didn't want to remove the post, as that would spoil the community's enjoyment of an interesting thread.

For this reason we've edited it slightly

so if the volunteer moderators are calling the shots that is different than Not Panicking Senior Management doing so.

>>
But first I have a question. I think the fact that [Post title edited] was left out was an error.

Do you think the editors should go back and put it in?
<<

Do you mean in the title or the OP? I think it should be in the OP.

I agree with Mina, there needs to be consistency. I think time should be taken to develop a protocol around this:

- what wording is used, so it's consistent.

- who has authority to make the changes, and under what circumstances

- when should subject lines be edited as opposed to hidden?


Personally, I think that if a title is going to be edited because it would otherwise fail, then the rewording should be chosen by the researcher rather than the CEs or mods. The post can be 'hidden and referred' until the researcher has been contacted and replied. I have no idea if that's feasible currently given the broken tools and mod/CE workload.

Personally, if I had a choice between having someone else rewrite part of my post, subject line included, or having the post hidden, I'd choose hidden.

Shagbark, the Seniors being referred to by me earlier were the CEs and other Editors and Senior volunteers, not NPL

The only ones calling the shots are those with the spondulicks.

I'm leaving this fascinating chat thread now...

I agree we need a protocol that says:

- what wording is used, so it's consistent.
- who has authority to make the changes, and under what circumstances
- when should subject lines be edited as opposed to hidden?

I'd be really interested to seeing people's opinions on this.

[Bear in mind that if something comes up whilst we're discussing this we're going to have to do *something*]



Kea said: 'The post can be 'hidden and referred' until the researcher has been contacted and replied. I have no idea if that's feasible currently given the broken tools and mod/CE workload.'

I think that's a great idea, I've not done enough front-line modding to be 100% sure if it's feasible, but I'm *pretty sure* that it is. Given that we're working on the moderating tools very soon anyway.

I'm going to hold my hands up and say that we should have a protocol for this and we don't.

Ben is our process gal, but she's also our software design gal, and our studying for dissertation gal, and there's a lot of process to work on.

And if this thread can come up with a workable process then great

Back in August on NOESIS FORUM it was being discuassed about a moderation smiley and using a light blue script for the words
"deleted" or "expunged" but I don't think anything ever came of the discussion.

""I've been trying to balance my critiques with encouraging support for the CEs and mods while they find their feet and work with broken tools. But there *are* things that need to be said. If I or others shut up about this and then come back to them in 6 months time when we've settled in, it will be too late. Protocols established informally or inhouse will have become engrained and very hard to change."

That's fair enough. It's never too early to start to get things right. But I do think that the tone of some of the comments so far in this thread (and in the thread in question) are both unnecessarily strident and unnecessarily paranoid. I for one welcome our new Noesis overlords and will let Robbie kill me as a human sacrifice to the great god Imhotep.

And a number of posts complaining about 'offence' have entirely missed the point.

In short, I don't think the balance between critique and support is right.

I am not commenting on most of this thread because it is extremely thought-provoking and I want to see what people think. You would not believe how many points I've not replied to! However,



>> Can we please have the full list of words posts in an A page?

I'm not sure we can. I think the contents of the filther are considered part of the proprietary information passed to us by the BBC. Putting it bluntly if I say that

My Documents
My Network Places
Recycle Bin
Internet Explorer
Adobe Reader 9

are in the filther (to pick some words at random from my desktop) then someone can use them to taunt the BBC mods. So, no, that information is confidential, so far as I know. (I, Ben, author of the Short Guide to Short Words hate typing that, by the way).



>> Anyone reading that thread now would have no idea that the post had been edited.

Plato mentioned that in Noesis; there absolutely IS a record of what changes were made, it's just not visible on the site. I think Plato and now Mina and kea have a very good point, and I have written the designs for the mod tools so that if a post is edited by a mod then the fact it has been edited, and possibly the reason (copyright, defamation, profanity, etc) should be shown in the post. I assume that dna can be ammended to accommodate that.





I mentioned elsewhere that we did NOT get the full set of mod tools from the BBC. We didn't get the tools their external mods were using, for a start, and what we did get was further damaged when we ripped the BBC-ness out of dna. As a result the complexity of what should be a simple process is horrible.

So the service we can currently provide is hugely stressful for all concerned. For your fellow users of the site. Whom you know, drink with in meets and may even like.

Ben

I have a very reasonable workable process. It's the one we were using about 8 years ago. Can't remember anyone having much objection to it then.

B

Which was?

Historically, we've had that problem with OPs being hidden and so the subject line reads as no subject in convo lists. That's something that researchers have always said they'd like changed. So maybe we could solve that problem at the same time.

Can an automated email be set up: if an OP or subject line fails the HRs, then the email goes out explaining what the problem is, and giving the researcher a way to respond with the changed wording?

That means that the CEs never have to edit the subject line for FP acceptability.

Would we want to have the OP editable by the researcher as well? I'm thinking about continuity of the thread, so that everyone in the thread can see what started the discussion. This is an issue for debate threads, and Ask, but maybe also other threads too.


>>
[Bear in mind that if something comes up whilst we're discussing this we're going to have to do *something*]
<<

Agreed and completely understandable, but my preference would be to use the pre-move status quo until we have good processes and protocols in place.

I thought this was the process

editing in the short term would be done to star the odd swear word but mostly used for broken links

if posts were unsuitable they would be hidden

I thought there was a concensus for this with all the workshop discussions and with the more behind the scenes discussion

it was also noted that given that editing was bound to be contentious, it would be an issue that would discussed again if it was thought that a change from this editing process was necessary after a period of settling in

again *confused*

I find it really fascinating that the majority think it was fine, and there are three people making a real fuss, and now we're to discuss our decisions again? Are you sure, Z? The volunteer schemes (e.g. the moderators) were open to all interested. Mina preferred not to apply in the first place. Others backed out. Fine. Not everybody can give the time needed. But instead of working with those who took it on, they do their damnedest to work against them, stir up the threads - and we comply?