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

What happened to the subject line?

You got your nick name back, I see, RF.

Bel, I don't understand you. You are obviously upset about the level of moderation on the site, but when one of your posts is moderated by some faceless, pimply youth, you don't question the decision and ask it to be referred to the people who manage the website. You just take it as it is.

The only way to change the level of moderation on the site is to point it out when there is a stupid decision. And it's no use pointing it out to us, you have to point it out to the Eds. Otherwise they won't be aware of the moderation at all.

Yes, it's not the first two words of my nickname that were the problem, although I can't type the second one here. It was what followed (which is in several posts further back in this thread) that was yikesed.

RF

I've replied to the mods using http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/contact.shtml as the email I received said "do not reply to this email".

Let's see what happens. When I appealed the moderation of my avatar on the read-only beta system it took two weeks to get a response, so I won't be holding my breath.

RF

Milfed or so? I thought it was a word you had made up.

Gnomon, I objected to the moderation email which started this thread.
The article is there again, you can read it in today's

I deemed it not worth to object to the vanished first Post in this journal. Some petty, sad soul decided to yikes it. Some [] moderator decided to uphold the complaint by referring to a rule that I can find nowhere in the house rules. If they make up rules on the spot, there's not a lot we can do. I decided it was not important enough to get the eds involved; they have a lot of other things to do and are always so supportive I don't want to make use of it unless it is necessary.

When I clicked on your link, I was invited to take part in a survey. Since it was a matter of my favourite website, I agreed.

On the next page it said that 'currently' they were 'only looking for UK residents' to take part.

I feel dissed. (But I went away quietly. )

Sorry Bel, I've lost track of what's going on here, since your posting (number 1) that explains it all has been hidden. Not to worry, I'll go somewhere else.

I've no idea what's going on, either, as I put off looking at this thread in view of the huge number of posts.

But I have got through it now, confused as before, but I notice that in Post 61 and Post 102 some words, or rather parts of words, have been converted into links (which lead to nowhere)

WTF? As the actress said to the bishop.

The partially linked words are a way to outwit the filther, in pretty much the same way as adding accents on those terribly offensive words. For example: Belgiùm, Sem<./>pri</.>ni.

Oh. I thought the filter put them in. So how do you do that then?

You put the letters between < . / > and < / . > tags (without the spaces).

like th<./>i</.>s?

oh yeah, thanks, i was wondering about that meself

I have noticed minor editorial alterations outsmart the filter. I usually spell friggin' with an apostraphe, as there, but when I took away the apostraphe and put in the g, it was rejected.

I suppose better to have some moderation than no moderation at all. Like Gnomon I would advocate whinging where it matters, but like Gnomon I'm complete lost as to what's going on anyway. Oh

I see the powers that be have returned your first posting Bel! Congrats on that but somebody should have apologized for the inconvenience at least.

They did post an apology but it was was moderated and removed.

I don't think anybody questions the need for moderation in online foroa. Keeps us honest. I think we'd like to help it work better.

The humour part started when somebody who built the filter list put obscure insults on it, resulting in rather amusing dilemmas on the part of those of us who, ahem, never curse in these venues. We were surprised at being blocked. We then had to read and reread posts in a frantic attempt to develop suspicious enough minds to find the 'errors'. Then we laughed at being blocked because we were discussing such odd topics as home cleaning, street music, and stripedy cats.

What's frustrating our editor, I believe, is a twofold problem resulting from the nature of automated modding:

1. Articles are blocked without our having any way to find out what the offensive expression was. In context, the expression, such as 'earmuffs' written as two words, is not offensive.

1a. Our editor had never heard of the second part of 'earmuffs' being used as a rude word. She is a nice lady, and is multilingual. She does not hang around those sorts of bars.

1b. I am a native speaker of a furrin version of English, and I don't know all these obscure cusses. Witness my delight at discovering Gordon Bennett.

2. When you use computers, you get messages that only look like English. You often forget that these 'messages' are spat out by a computer algorithm. You take it personally. If the message seems to be inappropriate, you feel dissed.

2a. Writing a brand-new entry - not a forum post - with the intention of putting it in , and then getting a message saying 'We've just blocked this, because you are off-topic for this forum', leads to confusion. We forget it is an algorithm problem, and try to reason from the text. What could possibly be offtopic in ? What haven't we discussed yet?

2b. People who have read Kafka get the creeps from silly computer messages.

2c. People who have read Douglas Adams get ironic when they get silly computer messages.

I hope this helps a little. I think it would have been clearer had not someone decided that quoting the error message in Bel's original journal post violated subparagraph B of the obscure code in the Beware of Tiger drawer.

Well, as always, the eds were really helpful.

They found out that the moderation email which caused this journal was sent by mistake. *They* apologised, although it wasn't their fault at all. They then went on to tell me that my first post did indeed break the house rules (and said they'll have a look at the house rules because I really couldn't find this specific rule). I then altered the post slightly, and now it is back.

The eds are ace.

Yay, Eds. Vote of appreciation, here.

Still, the problem with words which trigger the second filter remains.
I guess we'll have get used to articles vanishing for no reason we can see, then reappearing after a moderator has taken a look.

Writing Challenge: Write a piece of prose (2,000 wds or fewer) beginning with the line:

People who have read Kafka get the creeps from silly computer messages.