JE
JeffTheGentlemanOriginal Poster
Aug 5, 2011Hi folks,
I have a good idea to avoid any kind of trouble in forums. If it was up to me, I would control any thread before it is posted. If it is approved, then it will be posted. But it is not up to me, I am not the administrator of the site.
However, I suggest that TT1 and/or TT2 consider my idea. Too many sites use this kind of pre-control.
If this pre-control existed here, I am sure that some threads would have never been posted.
Isn't a good idea? Think about it.
Kind regards,
Jeff
ReactReplySubscribe
Replies
- MA
mallardm45Aug 5, 2011It's a good idea for sure however it has been mentioned many times over and so far nothing has come of it. Lets just wait and see what improvements TT1 has in store for us and maybe he will have the problem already solved. Always mention ideas that help keep the site above all the rest because help and advise is always needed.
ReactReply - JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011[quote]It's a good idea for sure however it has been mentioned many times over and so far nothing has come of it. [/quote] Ok, but now it is needed more than ever.ReactReply
- CO
Curt, or CowboyAug 5, 2011Pre-approval. Hmmm......... No. I think that would cause a tremendous amount of work for the administrator/moderator. Methinks it's far less work, and just as effective to simplyactivelymoderate the forums as they are. The current problem ( as I see it ) is no moderation at all !ReactReply - COCurt, or CowboyAug 5, 2011[quote] It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] Most of the time it isn't the thread, but just a very, very few posters into it.ReactReply
- JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011[quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.ReactReply
- EV
EvansBetterHalfAug 5, 2011[quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.ReactReply - JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.ReactReply
- JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011[quote]I am with you 100%, but consider this... what you are proposing with the number of posts and members is a full-time-24-7 job. Are you ready to pay the kinds of membership fees that would be mandated by such an idea ? It would take at least 6 fulltime employees to just stay on top of forum post, pictures, invites, friends, etc. And constitute Censorship of the worst kind, because WHO then would control the minds of those who would read and respond to any idea posted.[/quote] I know it is not an easy job. I did it myself. I work in journalism and a while ago one of my tasks consisted to read and approve comments about political articles. It was very much efficient, no even one bad comment passed. I have rejected the third of them. I believe that if TT1/2 will set this system, there will no more be any bad post, thread and comment in all TN forums.ReactReply
- T=
Tom === Thomas S. TierneyAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.ReactReply - JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011
Me too, LOL
ReactReply - EVEvansBetterHalfAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That thread, amongst many, keep going becuase admin was not paying attention....exactly to my point.ReactReply
- T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That thread, amongst many, keep going becuase admin was not paying attention....exactly to my point.[/quote] NO! It is not "admin" fault!!! That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.ReactReply
- JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011
I still think that if the pre-control system existed, this thread and some other ones like it wouldn't even have been created.
ReactReply - EVEvansBetterHalfAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That thread, amongst many, keep going becuase admin was not paying attention....exactly to my point.[/quote] NO! It is not "admin" fault!!! That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.[/quote] Yes it was Admin's fault. They could have stepped in and deleted the garbage going on. That is evident for thier ability to delete the "Suspending my Donations" thread. When it is your site, you control the content, top to bottom and right to left.ReactReply
- JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That thread, amongst many, keep going becuase admin was not paying attention....exactly to my point.[/quote] NO! It is not "admin" fault!!! That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.[/quote] Yes it was Admin's fault. They could have stepped in and deleted the garbage going on. That is evident for thier ability to delete the "Suspending my Donations" thread. When it is your site, you control the content, top to bottom and right to left.[/quote] That's why the pre-control system I suggested is necessary. There are too many other threads that are still there while they shouldn't.ReactReply
- T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyAug 5, 2011
Like this one.
ReactReply - T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyAug 5, 2011
Can I hear an "AMEN" ?
ReactReply - MEMemberAug 5, 2011
I do not think precontrol is needed, just leave the threads as read only to those who are not Cert, that would make it easier to moderate. and it would encourage certification to those who want to participate.
It is easy to post if you are just some spammer who know one knows who you are.ReactReply - RU
rusty62Aug 5, 2011[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]As I said in private chat with you, it would create a backlog far beyond the abilities of moderators to handle. I belong to a dozen or more forums, and NONE of them require preapproval to post a thread. There's a reason for it. It is faster, and more efficient to deal with a thread gone bad after it's gone bad. 99% of the threads are just fine.[/quote] But too many sites use this system and it is working well. Perhaps the site needs to recrute more and more moderators.[/quote] As an admin on another site, I can tell you that Rabbit's approach is the most feasible. I spend far more time killing off the spammers and twits. Correcting or deleting a thread after it starts is more efficient.[/quote] Well, ok. It might work in some sites and might not in others. About this website, it seems that a post-control isn't efficient. Not so long ago, Cheef_1976 has caused troubles for more than 2 weeks. Nobody was able to control. Do you imagine? More than 2 weeks of trolling!!!! It wouldn't happened if the pre-approval system existed here.[/quote] That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.[/quote] Ohhh - so Cheef caused so much trouble - look here - look there - hmmm what trouble - I don't see any trouble. Then I clicked of one or two of Cheefs posts some time ago and deciided i need not waist my time clicking on anymore Cheef posts or on the treads so I suppose i can not see so much trouble - I can say with some accuracy 60 % here need to get out for awhile, get some air and live a little life outside of this superficial cess pool we have out on the web. I have been in the social media places on the web nearly since such places have become available. I can never appreciate enough the power of one using the filter god put between our ears.ReactReply - A
AAug 5, 2011Any pre-control bears a seed of censorship. There would be a lot more point in more efficient after-control, like for instance a "vote-machine". Each thread an individual posting would have "like" and "delete" buttons and if like 80% or more of certified members within certain time frame (like 24 hrs or minimum 50 clicks) would vote for "delete", a posting or thread would be automatically gone. One receiving over 80% "like" hits again would be marked on a list in bold letters so easier for occasional users to select relevant threads. Simple as that. Peer-managed threads is most efficient way of doing aftercontrol and would not increase burden of any single person too much.
There are a lot of threads that are of limited interest to most of the readers. Some even seem to be obnoxious/repetitive etc. Nevertheless that given moment the OP may be bothered by the thing and thus concern being legitimate. Exception of course the constant flaming topics like erection, where a well-formulated subtopic "erection in nude environment" article would be a button on the front page or to be clicked during registration process and accessible easily any given time.
ReactReply - JEJeffTheGentlemanOriginal PosterAug 6, 2011
Hi again folks,
Thanks for all those who gave their opinions. Like someone said, all ideas are welcome.
I saw that my suggestion were understood as an eventual censorship, which isn't my aim. Lets say that indeed a pre-control could slow down the forums. When I did it myself few years ago, it worked well, but it was about a thread concerning opinions about events (mostly political and judicial). Perhaps setting this system here is interesting in theory, but technically it is difficult.
No worries. The solutions are there.
I- Forums's moderators shouldn't be the same ones who moderate the chatroom.
II- Forums's moderators wouldn't be allowed to post any thread or to reply to anyone. Their duties is just to control.
III- The site owners will set rules about posting and the moderators will just see if they weren't broken. Only in that case, they can reject the post.
IV- This site needs to recrute too many professionals to do this. I know it may take a while, but I think it is to be considered seriously.
I hope what I've argued woud convince this time.
Kind regards,
JeffReactReply - PH
PhilfreeeukAug 6, 2011[quote]Congratulations to all who have posted to this thread using quote nesting and have not fallen prey to the quote anomaly. That's unusual. RE: the topic, writing as an admin and a mod on other sites, this old hand is against it. One of the primary attractions of Web forums is the immediacy. It's not on-the-fly like chat, but it IS a fairly fast response time. Universal post moderation poses issues, e.g.: • A person having a problem with the site asks a question, but must wait for a mod to approve it before it is posted — the question is unasked and the problem is unresolved until then; • When it is posted, any response is delayed, and people who are responding do not know if others already posted a solution; • The OP's reply and the success or failure of the solutions offered is delayed; • Conversations between members via the forum are pretty much stymied, and they might as well use email as the forum; • If there are no mods logged in, posts go into limbo until one shows up; • Personal conflicts between mods and members could result in letting posts sit for a few days, or deletion of posts without a comment; • "Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!" -- King Mongkut of Siam I've been on dozens of sites over the years, and never have I found one where posts require approval. A few limited posting privileges for newbies until they achieved a certain number of posts, but none required every post to be approved. With nearly 100,000 members, TN is a handful at the best of times. It is counterproductive to introduce bottlenecks where they aren't required.[/quote] Well said Bob. It's the lack of moderation that makes this site so good. This system is fine when TT is on the ball. NF was control , you were lucky if your post appeared in less than 24 hrs, and when it did appear, half of it was missing. If that happens here, me and my 5 thousand posts will be long gone.ReactReply - COCurt, or CowboyAug 6, 2011[quote]NO! It is not "admin" fault!!! That idiotic thread would have died instantly if fools did not keep posting to it. And yes, I was one of the fools who kept it active.[/quote] As was I, but I do believe it *IS* admin's fault ! If there was active moderation, it wouldn't have happened at all, or been thwarted early on. [quote]Yes it was Admin's fault. They could have stepped in and deleted the garbage going on. That is evident for thier ability to delete the "Suspending my Donations" thread. When it is your site, you control the content, top to bottom and right to left.[/quote] Agreed !! Obviously, they do have the ability to remove entire threads. Whether they have the ability to moderate is still an open question. [quote]Well said Bob. It's the lack of moderation that makes this site so good. This system is fine when TT is on the ball.[/quote] We disagree ! Proper moderation would kill the trolls, insults, lock irrelevant and useless threads, limit the most agregious offenders, and such. [quote]NF was control , you were lucky if your post appeared in less than 24 hrs, and when it did appear, half of it was missing.[/quote] And that could happen here as well. If *I* were a forum moderator, it's easily probable certain folks would have wisdom and relevant comments posted, with insults and flames removed. Censorship ? Perhaps, but 14 pages of flame war which buries what starts out as a relevant and informative thread is just not acceptable.ReactReply
- T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyAug 6, 2011[quote]Congratulations to all who have posted to this thread using quote nesting and have not fallen prey to the quote anomaly. That's unusual. RE: the topic, writing as an admin and a mod on other sites, this old hand is against it. One of the primary attractions of Web forums is the immediacy. It's not on-the-fly like chat, but it IS a fairly fast response time. Universal post moderation poses issues, e.g.: • A person having a problem with the site asks a question, but must wait for a mod to approve it before it is posted — the question is unasked and the problem is unresolved until then; • When it is posted, any response is delayed, and people who are responding do not know if others already posted a solution; • The OP's reply and the success or failure of the solutions offered is delayed; • Conversations between members via the forum are pretty much stymied, and they might as well use email as the forum; • If there are no mods logged in, posts go into limbo until one shows up; • Personal conflicts between mods and members could result in letting posts sit for a few days, or deletion of posts without a comment; • "Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!" -- King Mongkut of Siam I've been on dozens of sites over the years, and never have I found one where posts require approval. A few limited posting privileges for newbies until they achieved a certain number of posts, but none required every post to be approved. With nearly 100,000 members, TN is a handful at the best of times. It is counterproductive to introduce bottlenecks where they aren't required.[/quote]ReactReply