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

Your post 40 is mostly agreeable, Aly but I wonder if you can actually change things very much.

There's one in every group. Look around and, if you can't see one...

From these shoes, warts & all is OK

>>
Kea, look at your posting here. It reflects the amount of emails being sent by some of you to the mod/CE teams (not just you Kea).
<<

Aly, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't had contact with the mods or CEs for MONTHS. And I certainly wasn't emailing them in excess.

(in fact a quick look at my outbox - I haven't emailed the CEs/mods since Nov last year).


>>>
One researcher said the following about this thread. I actually can’t put it better myself so I’m going to copy it here.

“1) Moderation or "Why can't I claim I'm being harassed by the Mods? The BBC used to let me do it!"

2) Technology or "How dare you try to modernise the site? The BBC never did!"

3) Volunteers or "I'm well within my rights to s**t on the volunteers! The BBC used to let me, after all."

I don't by the way consider this a fine example of h2g2 community spirit.”
<<<

It's customary on h2g2, when using other people's words, to link to them so they can be read in context.


I haven't seen anyone shitting on the mods. I'm sure there may be individual instances of it, but if you are going to characterise critique of moderation as 'shitting on moderators' I think it's reasonable to give some specific examples. Otherwise we have a major misunderstanding.


But I do agree with you that things have changed. FWIW, I tried to get these changes addressed before we moved. All the issues that have arisen since the moderation system was set up were seen ahead of time (issues to do with boundaries, how individual moderators would handle criticism, how the *community* would manage the changes etc). I was told that these things could all be sorted out later, after we moved. They haven't been really, or they have been in a very ad hoc, reacting as we go along kind of way.

To be honest Aly, pretty much every communication I have seen from you comes across as patronising or condescending. Probably if we were working together we wouldn't get along. That's not such a biggie, and I think it's fine for people to have their own personality and posting style. But the problem here is that you carry an enormous amount of power and what you say and how you say it has implications far beyond anything us researchers say.

I also like change. In fact in RL I would say I am one of the people who fronts up to change better than most people I know. What you are seeing here is not resistance to change per se (although actually it's fine for people to be uncomfortable with change itself and to need time and good process* to handle that). What you are seeing here is people with massive amounts of experience at community, including this community, who are saying WHOA! there are some serious problems here. We love this place and it's painful seeing these things be gotten so wrong. This doesn't mean I don't have appreciation for the many good things also being done. It means that some things have gotten so bad in the community that we can't see any other way of responding.


I don't believe you have a very good understanding of the community side of h2g2. That's not such a harsh criticism, because I think one really has to join the community to get a good intuitive understanding of it it. But it's hard to tell whether the community is a priority for the new owners. Certainly the community has been put on the back burner. That makes sense at one level, because last year the volunteers were stretched so thin. But we have had enough time now for things to settle down and I don't see that changing. You say you want us to be more constructive. My question to you is, do you understand why so many of the researchers who have given years of time to this place are no longer doing so, and why those of us who want to work on the community side of things are unable to?


I can probably be more specific about which processes I see as not working very well, and I can certainly be proactive in solving the community problems. But I'm reluctant to put energy into that until I know that the community is a priority again and that we will be supported to be involved and that our experience and knowledge will be taken seriously.

Rod, I really wish it was only one person. In fact I wish it were only me. I wish I was the only person on h2g2 who had a problem with what is going on, then you could all ignore me, or count me as your pet troublemaker or whatever (oh, there's that kea going on again). Unfortunately it's not.

~jwf~, yes Ed has left the site.

I'll regret this the second I post, but here goes.

Why have a Comms team if decisions like this are going to be announced at random whenever someone on the board feels like it?

Regardless of my opinions on the matter, this thread was asking for trouble the second it was started.

kea, that (wry) comment of mine re
'one in every group so look around and if you can't see one, start worrying'
wasn't aimed at you - or anyone in particular. It was, basically, suggesting that we all look at our behaviour occasionally...

In principle I agree with Aly's sentiment but can't see that her presentation is going to make much difference.

Methinks the mods are (or have learned to be) thick-skinned enough to cope with the unpleasantness that arises occasionally. These issues affect us in different ways and I, personally, sometimes see these outbursts as perhaps unavoidable - and a sort of therapy.

A bit like real life in fact

warts & all

Thanks Rod, that makes sense now

Yaay, communication where we take the time to check things out and clarify and understand

Ok, I'm a little confused here, so maybe one of the CEs could clarify?

One the one hand, we've been told for 6 months that if there are problems onsite, to report them using the moderation system. This has not been limited to merely yikesing posts, but has included reporting patterns of behaviour that may not be obvious to individual mods or CEs, and if there are problems with mod decisions to escalate that up to the CEs.

My understanding of how the mod system was set up, was that this was so that we didn't have the situation with the bbc where mods weren't seeing context, esp over time.

On the otherhand, we have this new rule that bans us from discussing individual moderation decisions, and one reason seems to be that the mods are overwhelmed by emails.

Are those two things not contradictory? If there aren't enough mods to manage the system as it was set up isn't a better response to increase the mods, or change how their workload is managed?


Aly's point about sending in one email rather than many is probably a good one, although I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is (too many emails overall, or too many different email?).

A useful proactive approach might have been to make an Announcement with clear protocols about what works from the mods's end (the rest of us are after all blind to the mods' workload and processes). It could have included an explanation of the difficulties the mods are facing (so we in the community understand what the problems are), and that if the protocols are followed then it will make everything run smoother on both sides of the fence.

Instead, we get a new rule, introduced with no warning, and without any consultation with the community despite this being a fairly big change for the community. And then after some discussion we get told that we've caused the problem because we've been emailing the mods too much, despite having been told that this is exactly what we should do!

I have a question. Not aimed at anyone in particular

Why does this have a feeling of 'them' and 'us'. I could understand when we were BBC staff and users. But now
?

The mods are now just us, researchers who care about h2g2. We *are* community members.
Ok you may not agree with them, but we are both remarkably similar. It's not like people can't join if they want to.

Don't worry. I don't expect an answer just confused by it really!

>>It's not like people can't join if they want to.

Actually, some people can't join because of the limitations that were put in place ie the requirement for RL IDs.

Also, afaik the moderation system also includes Aly (and Brian?), so no, it's not just 'us'.



The reason there is an us and them, is because the structure of the consortium, and subsequent groups, were set up as separate from the community, to the point where the community is blind to much of what goes on. Even the people who are completely uncritical of anything refer to the group of people running things as 'you' or 'they', not 'we'.

I just think it's better to be honest about that, and figure out how the boundaries will work as a result, than pretending that we are all one, and that the community has much involvement in the running of the community.

I'm not awake enough for this.

TRiG.

I'm sorry if you've taken my querying your years of experience as a personal attack, but it wasn't meant that way. Moderating is *not* the same as running a Community. Again, I can't know what your 13 years are, and perhaps you feel it's none of our business, but you brought it into the conversation as a way to demonstrate your credentials, but we are not to know if this is something that's been discussed with a team who are experienced at running a large and old Community, or as a moderator who is very upset for her fellow moderators taking abuse. Understandable, but not a way to make decisions.

I think you also missed the point a few people made that Researchers have NEVER been allowed to be rude to Moderators OR community members. Emails were sometimes rude yes, and we dealt with them when they came to our attention.

If Researchers are constantly sending emails which mods and CEs are replying to each one, or replying to some and not others, then more training is needed. Having spoken off site to someone who became a Moderator on here there was absolutely NO TRAINING GIVEN. h2g2 can't rely on untrained moderators - being a Researcher first is not enough.

I sent a lot of the Community management books I had to Z, I appreciate there's a lot of reading there that yes I was probably paid to read (although I more than likely read it on the train in my own time) and some people have lives outside h2g2. I did that so the Community could benefit, and I'm more than happy to do some training - I've hestitated to offer before, as I've said because I don't want to butt in. I used to train the hosts of other messageboards in how to handle emails because the Community could be so demanding of the BBC because they paid their salary, so we had to learn how to respond in ways not to make the situation worse. The biggest thing I had to get through to people was you can't give a second opinion on your own decision! It has to be someone else.

As for your comments about italics being a badge of power, again there is a real lack of understanding of the h2g2 Community there. It's more about us seeing you as part of a TEAM. Not a powerful person. Italics say you're working with the other italics, not, as you haven't either denied or confirmed, alone.

Personally I think h2g2 is very adaptable to change. Yes, we storm! But we've had two changes of ownership, this not being the worst one - the BBC coming in made such a big change, and we got through it and carried on building the Guide. We've had huge disruptions to the Community with one or two very disruptive Researchers, some of which changed a lot of the way the site was run, and even within the BBC we went from a shiney new site with a large team, designers, artists, developers, as well as a dedicated Community Team to being the old forgotten uncle in the corner nobody really knew what to do with, so we were just left alone.

No we don't want to be run like the BBC (although I think they got it right once moderation was sorted out in the early days), but we also don't want it to appear one person is making arbitary decisions. Please, let me help train the people who respond to the emails, because I think that is more effective than cutting off lines of Communication.

I'm sorry you felt you had to tell one Researcher to only make one post at a time! Some people on h2g2 don't like long posts, I've seen people being asked to post less (!). Now I don't agree with that, but it may be someone trying to keep things short. Or, perhaps they are replying to different postings in the thread? I've done that before, a different posting to each person. We also seem to be alone online in that we don't have an edit button.

I don't have a problem with several short posts. Sometimes, if I see a very long post my eyes glaze over and I just scroll through.

I'm completely clueless as to what has caused the initial post.

It's always been a bit random (during BBC times) what was and wasn't allowed. I once posted a mod email, which was yikesed and removed. Many others did the same and nothing happened.
Generally, moderator decisions were often discussed - I've done so myself. I can't see what's wrong with that per se. Naturally, I'd draw the line at rude and/or abusive posts, though, but that's what we have the complaints system for, don't we?

It seems to me that if some members of the community have the power to remove posts, and that no discussion of individual decisions will be tolerated, abuse of the system is not just likely it's absolutely inevitable. I take the point about moderators feeling that they can't respond to criticism, but there are better ways to deal with that. By all means have a zero tolerance rule on being rude towards moderators, as Mina says was always the case. Go further even, ban things like "this decision was stupid", but it's essential we are allowed to say "this decision was wrong" - in public view. It's annoying to have your decisions questioned in public, yes, but we shouldn't have to protect moderators from that. It's quite different to a personal attack.

Z - I don't see how it's relevant that people are free to volunteer to be moderators themselves. It's a bit like saying you can't criticise politicians because you're free to stand for election yourself (of course you'll have to give up your old life to dedicate yourself to this and it will probably end in failure, but it's the principle that counts).First of all, joining the moderation team will presumably have no effect on moderation decisions affecting you personally. If it does, then we have a much bigger problem! So it's irrelevant that you could participate in moderating other people. Secondly, not everyone has the time to get involved. I'm very thankful to all the people that do give huge amounts of their free time to h2g2, and I can already see that h2g2 is improving rapidly since the BBC days. But, some of us don't have that time, or reasonably choose to be less involved. That doesn't mean that we should be excluded entirely from the politics of the site.

Hi Dogster

I do get what you're saying about not everyone has the time to volunteer, or the inclination, but they are all still stakeholders. And that's so true, though it's not just by volunteering that you can make a difference, it's by taking part in the community in a positive way, it's by giving constructive feedback.

If there's a moderation decision that's wrong then their are two reasons why it may be wrong:

1. The mod didn't interpret the guidelines and policy correctly.

OR

2. The guidelines and policy are wrong.

(The Guidelines I'm referring to are the house rules, and the mod guidelines, which are available on h2g2 itself - so nothing big and secret).

If it's a case of the mod not interpreting the guidelines correctly then it's not a systemic problem, and it's a matter for the CEs and the mod team leader to deal with, but it's not a wider issue for the site. I don't think it's fair to call a volunteer on that in public, by all means send a private email to the CEs through the appeal process, and it will be dealt with. But it's likely to be highly embarrassing for the volunteer concerned, and it's even worse if it's all done in public.

If on the other hand it's a borderline issue, where either the guidelines aren't clear, or the guidelines are incorrect then it's a wider problem, not a mistake made by one person. Then by all means start a thread about the rule in general, or asking for clarification of the guideline but keep the tone respectful and positive : this is *just* what you are doing now.

(Also of the house rules can't be made by a majority!.. For instance if everyone wanted to post libelous material, h2g2 still wouldn't be able to publish it as they would run the risk of being sued, it can cost £1000s of pounds to fight a libel case, even if you win).

I just wanted to correct something re training, Mina, I'm not sure which mod you spoke to, but if that's the case with one person it's definately the exception not the rule. But the last recruit we had has had at least 8 hours 1:1 training, and even then still isn't fully 'solo' and is still getting a lot of support.

I know some mods have experience of modding elsewhere and have said that they don't need so much support, but as far as I know it's been offered to everyone and most have taken it up.

Thanks Z, possibly this was a one off in that case. There was a time *every* moderators decision was checked - I realise that was due to having a big team at the time, but that was helpful for their learning how h2g2 worked.

One thing I'd like to clear up is (to everyone, not just Z)... moderator or not, anyone contributing to building the Guide, via the Edited Guide or trying to make the Community better (one can't work without the other) is *already* a volunteer. Even if they aren't in an official scheme.

*Nobody* pays Researchers for writing entries, and once again we are needing advertising to pay to keep us going - which I don't have a problem with. But without *our* entries, there'd be no visitors to advertise to.

Mina I completely agree - we're all here to build a guide. I guess that's what makes me sad about the division between 'them' and 'us' that seems to be inevitable, and I don't know what we can do about it. We're all here with the same purpose. We might not always agree on the way to do things, but I think that everyone is here for the same reason, with the same goal.

"Them and Us"
It's built-in and as you say Z, inevitable - not to be got rid of this side of paradise.

There WILL be hiccoughs no matter what we do or how we do it.
There WILL be people who get fed up and either slide away or stompoff innahuff.

And, of course, there will be occasions like this when things come to a boil but, all-in-all, it's really just a bump in the road, isn't it?



Now, everyone settle down, stop wasting time and get on with the job, eh?

Z,

I think your approach would be right if we were talking about a sort of technical problem where it's just a matter of correctly (or incorrectly) applying expertise (guidelines). But it's not that - it's much more akin to politics and so it has to be dealt with in a way that makes sense politically. This is so much better when done out in the open.

How embarrassing is it really for mods to make a mistake and be called on it in public? If they find it so, perhaps it should be part of the training that they realise that everyone will inevitably make mistakes, and that there's no shame in having your decision changed in this situation (especially as they are anonymous)? Incidentally, I'd make the same comment about the announcement in this thread - it's an understandable decision but the wrong one, and several people in this thread have given cogent reasons supporting that. There'd be no shame in changing the policy, in fact I think it would inspire a lot of confidence.

Anyway, I don't want to give the impression of being too critical - as I said, I'm very grateful to all the people who have made the new h2g2 such a success, and almost entirely positive about the changes, which is why this one policy announcement was such a shock. And of course, I agree about the libel thing. It's a shame that UK law is such as it is, but there you go - nothing we can do about it on this site.