status-duplicate NamePros Moderation and Self-Moderation? What the ???

[Ategy]

I've started a new thread for this here as it's not quite the same issue as "likes" ...

This is a step toward our goal of providing the necessary tools for self-moderation. Our current moderation system doesn't scale, and we're quickly outgrowing it. We'd like to be able to eventually promote or demote posts based on consensus. Right now, our moderators spend a lot of time handling issues that could easily be sorted out by a consensus-based system, but we really need to reserve their time for handling issues with less obvious solutions.

There are so many things that don't make sense here I don't even know where to start ?!?
(Well .. I am starting with this thread asking for clarifications I guess .. lol)

First of all .. what exactly does self-moderation entail? I've never heard of this term for any forum. (For very good reasons I'm thinking .. lol)

xF moderation scales very well .. if you scale the size of your moderation team in sync with the size of your community. NamePros moderation is weak and lacking at the moment not because of infrastructure or the quality of your moderators .. it's because you're moderating a million member forum with less than a handful of active moderators. As a former forum owner/admin I can quite clearly say expectations of properly maintaining a forum the size of NamePros with the current moderation availability and capacity are quite simply ludicrous.

Seriously ... there are likely thousands of members paying $60-120 a year .. plus what is surely significant advertising revenue ... NamePros is likely a 7-figure business .. get more moderators!

More importantly .. what does "promote or demote posts based on consensus" even mean? You're going to trust the masses to moderate .. and not just that .. the masses use of the often improperly used "like" system. To me this sounds totally unreaslitic and insane .. I am NOT saying you don't have a magic pill up your sleeve and will prove me wrong ... but I'm sitting here with 17 buckets of popcorn for what is sure to be an absolutely epic explanation! lol

As usual .. I really could go on and on .. but I'm going to make it really easy for you guys and not let an lengthy post by me be an excuse not to reply or explain yourselves ... so in the end ...

1- What the heck are you talking about ??? lol

2- GET MORE MODERATORS !!!

3- After you're done with #2 .. again ... GET MORE MODERATORS !!! lol


Waiting for the epicness ...

 

[Tia Wood]

It says they are rolling things out slowly and experimenting. Seems reasonable to me. Post the whole quote.

We're not quite done with the design yet. Maybe. We're not sure. We figured we'd deploy it and get feedback, since we're a little torn about the best way to display the information without either cluttering the bottom of the post even more or having a lot of redundancy.

This is a step toward our goal of providing the necessary tools for self-moderation. Our current moderation system doesn't scale, and we're quickly outgrowing it. We'd like to be able to eventually promote or demote posts based on consensus. Right now, our moderators spend a lot of time handling issues that could easily be sorted out by a consensus-based system, but we really need to reserve their time for handling issues with less obvious solutions.

Of course, we don't want such a system to result in censorship of unpopular opinions or other forms of abuse, which is why we're rolling out the components very slowly and experimenting as we go. It's a delicate matter, and we intend to treat it as such.

There's definitely going to be some change to how we display post reactions going forward, as we want to convey whether there is a consensus on the quality and relevance of a post. If you have suggestions about how we can best do this, please let us know.

 

[oldtimer]

what exactly does self-moderation entail? I've never heard of this term for any forum.

"Self" is probably referring to the "Forum" here , it kind of means that the forum will moderate itself. Perhaps it would have been better to say "Community Moderation" in which all members will act as moderators if they come to a concensus that something is inappropriate in a post or thread, this might actually be a good idea. IMO.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Sites like StackOverflow, HackerNews, and Reddit use their upvote and downvote system in this way. All very successful and designed intelligently so it doesn’t get abused much.

Anyways, likes are not going to be used for moderation. It was a miscommunication.

Ya, there will be community-driven moderation in the future, but it hasn’t been developed yet so we don’t have anything else to share at this time.

Moving on for now.

 

[Ategy]

Sites like StackOverflow, HackerNews, and Reddit use their upvote and downvote system in this way. All very successful and designed intelligently so it doesn’t get abused much.
Anyways, likes are not going to be used for moderation. It was a miscommunication.

Yeah .. for that sort of thing there are plenty of ways it could work .. I'm not against a separate-from-likes system at all .. it was just the miscommunication that it would be linked to Likes that got me (very .. lol) concerned! No issues now that you've cleared it up.

Although ... ... none of that actually changes:

1- I still think the ACTUAL problems with the likes system should be addressed.

2- I still think the old LIKES (display) system was better than the new (compacted) one.

3- And as much as I think the current team are truly great moderators, NamePros severely lacks anything remotely close to adequate moderation coverage and needs to get more moderators! lol

(Truly my comments have nothing to do in any way with the quality of your work, as I genuinely think you are a fantastic asset to; and integral part of NamePros .. too much so .. which is actually the issue .. lol)

"Self" is probably referring to the "Forum" here , it kind of means that the forum will moderate itself. Perhaps it would have been better to say "Community Moderation" in which all members will act as moderators if they come to a concensus that something is inappropriate in a post or thread, this might actually be a good idea. IMO.

Yup .. I do agree with you *IF* it's a separate "scoring" system than the current "Likes" system (because likes/dislikes are a total mess to base anything on because they are given for a multitude of reasons ... I'd go on .. but I've already said it here and in the other thread). However, Paul's post was in reply to my comments on the changes to the actual "Like" system .. so all my ensuing comments were me being again using "likes/dislikes" for moderation ... and not an opposition to some kind of community based (SEPARATE FROM LIKES) moderation system.
(Effectively indirectly GETTING MORE MODERATORS ... lol)

It says they are rolling things out slowly and experimenting. Seems reasonable to me.

Doesn't matter how slowly they would have done it .. using the like system in any way to moderate is a path towards chaos. They admitted they "miscommunicated", and I really don't feel my reaction and comments to what they did originally communicate was unjustified in any way. In fact one could say that my reaction was proof that I actually care about the community and how it's run!

Post the whole quote.

Nope ... quotes aren't meant to be used to quote an entire post if the entirety of the post isn't relevant or in context .. as a former forum owner/admin I'm not a fan of needless forum bloat (I bloat forum databases with new sentences, not needlessly quoted ones .. lol) .. I only quote the relevant on context parts .. the link is there specifically for people who want to read the less relevant parts ... as in theory if you really wanted complete A to Z context it's not just his whole post that should have been quoted, but the whole thread up to that point that would have needed to be posted! I also clearly stated from the start that this was a continuation from another thread.
(admittedly I could have posted the link, but guess I figured people would just click the quote directly below my comment)

In fact .. the only part that I was specifically referring to was "This is a step toward our goal of providing the necessary tools for self-moderation. Our current moderation system doesn't scale, and we're quickly outgrowing it." .. combined with the fact that he was replying to a post about the "Like" system (which I think I made very clear in my posting above).

From that anybody who was interested could very easily figure out what I was talking about.

 

[Eric Lyon]

I'm not a fan of needless forum bloat (I bloat forum databases with new sentences, not needlessly quoted ones .. lol) .. I only quote the relevant on context parts .. the link is there specifically for people who want to read the less relevant parts ...

The irony

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/like-this-post-if-you-liked-the-old-like-system.1151803/

status-duplicate

The primary thread for this is:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/help-namepros-decide-on-community-driven-moderation.904576/

Keep in mind the thread is asking how it should be done. It's not asking how it should not be done.

Related on this topic:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/let-users-moderate-their-own-threads.681548/
  
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7255952/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7255712/

Hope that helps,