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

Perhaps Effers you could set up another thread about modding, like Taff did the other day when he had an issue with editing

Effers,
You should relax, otherwise everybody is going to ignore you completely.

I felt sympathetic for you and said that about post 6. Now, certainly I think I should know you better.

Kea was quoting StoneArt,nothing to do with you, it´s clear, you even ask for apologies, but insist on "someone" who was a peer now is staff... blah, blah.

Now this thread is derailed by you. You are not satisfied with the post yikesed, you want to be talked about...?

I think I´ve better things to do... a lovely november morning here too

I've just yikesed post 74 because I am not 100% sure it's accurate, and it really doesn't do any good to have inaccuracies or speculation about how moderation works littered around the place.

This bit is accurate:

>> Yikesing is what happens when someone presses the yikes button. The post isn't immediately removed, but is referred to a moderator. That moderator makes a decision to either leave the post visible, hide the post, or refer the post further up the chain. That is all exactly as it was with the bbc, except that because we have volunteer moderators it can take a while for a decision to be made. Posts usually used to disappear within a few minutes with the bbc, now they can take much longer.

The rest of it, I hope can be checked out by someone involved in the process.

Sorry about that.

I now return you to your original programming.

Ben. It took me ages to find that page, been meaning to for a week or so. I could say something about the state of the Help Pages, but I won't until I can offer some help

btw, I haven't seen any mods/ex-mods speaking out of turn.

Sorry Peanut

There have been quite a few examples I can think of where an established researcher has created a sock-puppet account to either ask an embarrassing question or fly a kite on something. Established personalities get pigeon-holed as people react to the poster not the post. I know there are some who won't participate in threads I'm in or who read their own meanings into things I write based on what they *think* they know about me. I'm sad to admit I do the same thing with one other researcher

So here's a fun idea

Why don't the Eds randomly shuffle the IDs at the start of every month? We can spend weeks working out who's who and spend more time reading what's written instead of what we imagine is being unsaid?



Just sayin'


Personal info is a no-no and it's frankly rather creepy that anyone should suggest it. If nothing else, a lot of people post from work ... post a *lot* from work. On another board I know, one woman was terrified after another poster said "I know who you are and I know where you work. I'm emailing screenshots of all your posts to your boss"

No worries Maria. I've said everything I needed to say..and plenty others have said to me via email..but are too nervous to voice.

And yes it is a stunningly beautiful November morning here...and truly deeply poignant as it's Remembrance Sunday. Just going out into the garden, sends me..that's the advantage of being this way. It's all too beautiful as it comes in on you, and you can feel as one with it.

I have to watch the Cenotaph service about to start, for all those people..which makes my petty worries and paranoia utterly pathetic. At least I still have all my limbs and can see.

I know how little I now contribute to this place. I probably deserve to be ignored..so feel free.

Journal to write later.

Unsub...

The moderation team would like to make it totally clear that only those who have been granted moderation status would be able to see the details of a previously hidden post.

None of the other volunteers are able to do so.

We hope this puts speculation to rest.


h2g2 moderators.

It seems to me from all the discussion that the current level of new H2G2 anonymity is considered by the majority (on this thread) as "just right" - not too much (no mandatory personal information) and not too little (no restriction to access to other members personal spaces).


I would say that new H2G2 therefore has the Goldilocks formula:
At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.
"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
"This porridge is too cold," she said
So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

>>
I've just yikesed post 74 because I am not 100% sure it's accurate, and it really doesn't do any good to have inaccuracies or speculation about how moderation works littered around the place.
<<

Ben, I'm appalled. If what I wrote was inaccurate, then the solution is for someone from the Community team to correct me.

My posts aren't litter

We've *always* talked about moderation processes here and there are many 'inaccurate' and speculative posts about moderation onsite. In all the times I've talked about moderation onsite I don't think I was once moderated under the bbc, even while the Eds were asking us not to talk about it too much.

There is another issue here. Are you yikesing the post as a researcher, or as a Senior Volunteer? If the latter then I think you need to state so in your post. If the former, then why do you care what I've written amongst all the other inaccuracies onsite, or all the other things you don't like?

Either way, I can't see how it breaks the HRs.

I'm sorry kea. Moderation is so hugely contentious that I (personally) think its very dangerous to have inaccurate information around the place.

I don't know (either personally or as a Senior Volunteer) whether the second part of your post was accurate, which was why I yikesed it, specifically for referral to those who do know these things.

I DO know the first part was accurate, which was why I quoted it as accurate and said as much.

I've no idea whether I yikesed it as a person or a volunteer; I find it hard to separate the two, to be honest.

I hope this helps explain what I did and why I did it.

Ben

Come on you guys the PS is/should be at the heart of DNA and h2g2, second only to guide entries.
In most cases the front page of that PS tells you about the fun side of a person, but if you want to know more you must dig deeper.
It's researchers themselves who play the game. They can either keep their hands close to their chest, show some emotion or bluff just as in real life. How much info should they reveal, if any, before they join the game.
Do too many just jump in, wearing a hoodie and expect others to throw their money into the pot?
This link has been posted before :- A644681

Sorry Ben, I have to side with Kea on this one, that's not what I expect the yikes button to be used for either. We're being yikesed on accuracy now? Really? In that case you had better yikes the post before it as well. I stated the Eds would probably see it, which clearly they don't. That should deserve being removed from site, shouldn't it? Just because someone gets their facts wrong, doesn't make it offensive. That's what I expect a post to be removed for. Good grief, what's this place turning into?

Since this thread has inspired many to go outside to take advantage of this fine November morning, I should mention that the weather might be favourable for the appearance of solar arcs and halos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(optical_phenomenon)

So my post didn't break the HRs, but because it's about a contentious issue (contentious to the site), it's been hidden and referred?

That's really bad.

Yes, moderation is an issue. But stopping us from discussing it is not a good way to make it less contentious. Quite the opposite I would have thought.


>>
Moderation is so hugely contentious that I (personally) think its very dangerous to have inaccurate information around the place.
<<

More dangerous than all the speculation that's now going to ensue? As I said, the solution to any inaccuracies would be to post a correction onsite.


>>
I've no idea whether I yikesed it as a person or a volunteer; I find it hard to separate the two, to be honest.
<<

I didn't say as a person or a volunteer Ben. I said as a Senior Volunteer or as a researcher. One has access to knowledge from the other side of the fence, the other doesn't. If your reading of my post raised concerns because of what you know from the other side of the fence, then that would make the post from you as SV (IMO). You may have concerns as a researcher as well

And I'm now doing a bit of a double take at the use of the word dangerous.

No, Radox, I'm not yikesing for inaccuracy. I used the yikes button as a way

- to draw the CEs attention to ...
- a post about moderation processes ...
- by someone who is known to be very well-informed about all community issues and processes

By yikesing it (rather than emailing them about it) the events relating to that post are easier to track.

My concerns with the second half of that post were that it spoke authoritatively BUT was in fact speculative AND people know kea's well-informed about these things AND people get very concerned and distressed about moderation issues.

If what it said is true, then I am sure it will be back.

Now, if you will forgive me, I need to work on the Community Artists' processes for a bit before I go to my Edinburgh Skeptics' book club meeting.

Ben

I do hope that well-informed doesn't mean infallible or not allowed to make mistakes. I certainly don't consider myself to be 100% accurate in everything I say onsite.

Shall I take it now that I can't post an opinion about moderation because I'm well-informed, without risking having the post hidden?

Oh, right. I stand corrected (it explains the limp).

BTW, I've always been sceptical about Edinburgh as well.

>>If what it said is true, then I am sure it will be back.

The post has been hidden. Reasons given were that it broke the spirit of the HRs, and the Moderators Code of Conduct. Nothing about inaccuracies or trueness.

I've journalled about it if anyone wants to discuss it further.

*tentatively steps into the web to give her *

I forgot to note who said this: "[the] most unique feature [of h2g2] and the reason its so damn sticky is that it's paradoxically anonymous and very personal"

Brilliantly put. Perfectly true.

RadoxtheGreen: "Personally, I would rather trust my details to the people here than I would to the huge corporation that is the BBC"

Right on the money. I was here before the BBC took over and saw how it changed h2g2, and some of the people who became BBC staff. I hope none of the newh2g2 staff will ever instantly change my opinion of them in such an unpleasant way.

Peanut: "One change that I would like to see is the ability to move messages posted on your PS into your conversations list and away from your intro thingy"

This is the one thing that has always required attention and I hope will be addressed by newh2g2. Presumably, if someone posts something obviously offensive to your space you can contact the staff and request it is removed. But we all have different levels of sensitivity, and your personal space is a place you should be able to 'remove' conversations (that maybe only *you* know touch a nerve, or just aren't in keeping with how you want your *personal* space to be) from. I think this is a very relevant point to the anonymity/transparency debate. Other, than that, I think post-BBC h2g2 has the right balance of both, from what I've seen so far, just as Douglas' original site did.

Ancient Brit: "Come on you guys the PS is/should be at the heart of DNA and h2g2"

A PS *can* be at the heart of the individual researcher, but I don't see how it can be at the heart of h2g2. Please explain?