Moderation statistics :)

I'm not sure how those particular examples are relevant to a topic. "I got a card for calling someone X name, which I didn't know was considered offensive" et al. is something that can't be shown through statistics. For that kind of detail and transparency, you'd need a detailed log of the cards given (either showing the carded post, which obviously isn't an option, or having the mod team going to the extra effort of documenting the exact reason for the card, for public consumption, which again obviously isn't an option). It's not possible to show quantitatively. Also, it's very easy to say "I used a controversial word that I thought was innocuous; the mod team considered the word unacceptable, and I'm willing to bet a large number of the userbase would also be equally unaware of the word's offence. We need more clear rules on offensive language [which is the obvious solution, rather than a monthly database report], or transparent statistics showing precisely why the card was given." Example given; rules not broken.

Sure, number of cards given, reversed, and bans given is easy to collate via a database query. But those stats themselves tell the users nothing. To be actually useful, you need more data. AAM threads created; card frequency within the userbase or by [anonymised] user; frequency of cards by reason; frequency of ban reason; reason for reversal (sometimes we make clerical errors; sometimes it's misjudgement; sometimes it's a new mod getting used to the job); mod recruitment; mod retirement; contextual data and descriptions. Suddenly this is no longer an easy query, and is suddenly a monthly audit, requiring hundreds of hours of dev, moderator and CT time per year. You can understand why TSRG may not be particularly keen on this.

Rest assured the thread will be read when the CT are back in the office. I think you can tell by the reception of the thread that it's not just the mod team that have problems with the idea.



If you think a card was given in error, you can make a thread in AAM querying it. If another mod looks at it, and thinks the card was a mistake, it'll be reversed. If not, it'll stand.

What is wrong with thinking just a nanometer outside of the box and consider bringing back more than just statistics then? Instead of going "statistics won't show that so there's no point!!" how about "well this bit of information would be more useful, so we should consider showing this"....

If, on top of the stats, you also showed a table of username - warning - reasons (link to post), so basically have everyone's history public, that would unquestionably help to highlight areas that aren't covered well by the rules, and areas where the users and moderation don't see eye to eye.

Even though your example is given, the difference between saying that and giving the actual example is what exactly other than asinine bureaucracy..?

The fact the moderation flat out doesn't want more transparency or accountability considering it is all a behind closed doors process shows how broken the entire system is.

What is wrong with thinking just a nanometer outside of the box and consider bringing back more than just statistics then? Instead of going "statistics won't show that so there's no point!!" how about "well this bit of information would be more useful, so we should consider showing this"....

If, on top of the stats, you also showed a table of username - warning - reasons (link to post), so basically have everyone's history public, that would unquestionably help to highlight areas that aren't covered well by the rules, and areas where the users and moderation don't see eye to eye.

Even though your example is given, the difference between saying that and giving the actual example is what exactly other than asinine bureaucracy..?

The fact the moderation flat out doesn't want more transparency or accountability considering it is all a behind closed doors process shows how broken the entire system is.

Well ignoring the trolls obviously...

You do realise that quite aside from not being paid for what they do for this community, most mods are either students or employed elsewhere? That means that they simply won't have the time for doing a lot of paperwork when on this site. And perhaps sometimes, when they log on here, they just want to chill and enjoy themselves as well.

Under your proposal, if they wanted to keep up the current moderation rate, their time spent being mods would have to double or more. At which point they should get paid, because it would turn into a full-time job.

There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, and it's very encouraged. Your original point was that these stats would increase transparency and it would be very easy to do. I just told you that to release these stats and the supplemental information required to make it useful would be a huge undertaking - with a large time and financial commitment. Not only that, but to release the sort of information you allude to (username, warning, posts) directly undermines our current moderation policy - and why would we change it to include that? Then there's no point in removing offending posts off the site - you can just see them in the monthly moderation report. Posts are removed because we don't want them to be publicly available on the site - hence, it's silly to rerelease them, publicly, on the site. Similarly, we keep users' infraction histories private - it would be unfair on users to release this information to the rest of the forum. Hence why the only way I would support a public record of warnings by user is using some form of further anonymisation - such as a separate ID number or a product of encryption or whatever works.

The reason we don't allow people to discuss why they get warnings is twofold:

1. If we remove something from the site, we don't want that content reproduced
2. People often misrepresent the reason for their warning (although you didn't)

We have to draw the line somewhere, and in the case of this, we've drawn a zero tolerance policy for discussing warnings on the site due to the slippery slope it creates (similar to the Edexcel exam discussion rules we had in place - innocent discussion easily becomes not such, and the line between the two is grey. A clear line allows for more transparent and objective moderation). This is an entirely bureaucratic difference, but them's the deals.

No one in the moderation team is arguing against transparency or accountability (we're already all incredibly accountable for our actions), a few members of the mod team simply disagree with your proposal.

And you do realise that the process that I stated would be automated from a script that only has to be written once? So in terms of work for mods, there wouldn't be any

Fair enough. I'll grant you that one.

Quite aside from the objections made above, though, about user privacy and all... let's say they did that. Who on Earth would actually go through what will probably be hundreds of reports each month, analysing each and every decision? Would you honestly sit there every month, going over them?

It's not just trolls though, some people just genuinely don't understand why their post was removed, regardless of how bad the content was. And how do you distinguish between the two? At some point there will be a cut off point where you either count them in the stats, or discount them as a troll. It can be a difficult line to draw in some cases.

I'd also be interested to see your response to my previous post.

The success rate being high is a bad thing?

How do you propose the stats be meaningful then, taking into account the privacy of people's warning history, and that you can't access binned threads to see what was warned/why?

For instance, if you were told that 95% of card given weren't overturned (I don't know the actual figures) that's in no way indicative of whether the modding was good or bad, without you having more insight into the reasoning.

I'm not against the notion, but unless you can provide an example of tangible benefits to it, I'm not in support of it either. It just seems unnecessary at this point.

Fair enough. I'll grant you that one.

Quite aside from the objections made above, though, about user privacy and all... let's say they did that. Who on Earth would actually go through what will probably be hundreds of reports each month, analysing each and every decision? Would you honestly sit there every month, going over them?

I think one of the main problems with the moderation of the forum is the end goal. The goal is to make sure no one is offended. It shouldn't be. The main goal surely should be to make sure it's a healthy environment for interesting discussion.

at least the system is transparent and moderators can't be accused of running a rigged show.

But now you're trying to fundamentally change the nature of the forum, one that the business has long since decided works for them and that they've taken long strides towards maintaining. Hoping for that all to be overturned is naive on your part.

And you make the point that people here are academics. Yes they are, but 15yr old students who are used to social media will not treat this place the same way that 27yr old post grads will and you know it. A site like this has to cater for the lowest common denominator and make it a safe place for them or it's no longer viable.

Again, that's just naive. Of course people will still complain.

That son, is just garbage. Here's why;


-The forum use to allow debate, however moderation has changed and become about defending people over logic and truth. The amount of times I've been warned for saying the sky is blue is just absurd.

-The forum use to be for students e.g. those at uni. Only as the user base dropped off did they change it to encourage those younger than 18 to join in. They have contributed **** all aka AMA threads, games, I don't like "insert religion", and the best "Why am I single?" thread. Great target market right there. Those users won't just log on and be gone within a few minutes...oh wait (and yes, go look at the website stats).

-Maintain? No, they changed it. Look at the pathetic rep change. You can't give neg rep because it might hurt some kids feelings? Wow, lets hope these kids get to keep living in their little cotton filled bubble.

The people running this site are as fickle as British politicians. They simply try to cater for everyone by running back and forwards without accepting that such a task is impossible. Make a choice and back one set of people. Sadly the only people this forum supports is those who hate to hear truth and can't debate a point, but would rather repeat nonsensical mantras.

Firstly, nice little bit of patronising there.

Secondly, why do you view expansion as failure?

And thirdly, it is perfectly possible to discuss and debate without causing offense. Although, after frequent altercations with you on this site I fully understand that you are not aware of that fact.

Is there some bilge on this site? Unquestionably. I've advocated for the chat forum to be binned many a time. But there are also some brilliant resources for GCSEs, A levels and equivalents. Dismissing that because it's "not for university" is nothing but childish.

Finally, there are few people on this site I'd trust less to talk impartially about the mods than you since you've shown repeated and gleeful ignorance of the rules and utter disdain for anybody who tries to enforce them.

How is writing one SQL statement a "huge undertaking"? Obviously I'm presuming the database structure has some sort of sensible coherency behind it, but the notion that it'd be some monstrously large and expensive project is based on literally nothing.

So, given that we've agreed statistics alone wouldn't work, you want more information on the context and reasons behind cards - data that isn't stored anywhere and would have to be manually produced, done every month and formatted such to make it consumable by the userbase at large, along with data on who was given the card, and a link to the post. Firstly, we need to find a way to lift the posts out of a private area of the site to make them viewable again (I return to the point of why would we want to do that?), then we have to manually remove entries that are unsuitable to be re-published on the site for one reason or another, then we have to deal with the complaints that are generated by users unhappy about everyone else knowing why they got cards, and an endless stream of things all the way down the rabbithole. I have no idea why you think doing all this is as simple as writing one SQL statement. I'm not even a web dev, or know anything about web dev, but you seem to underestimate how much time it takes for the devs, CT and mods to actually do the things they do on the site.

But now you're trying to fundamentally change the nature of the forum, one that the business has long since decided works for them and that they've taken long strides towards maintaining. Hoping for that all to be overturned is naive on your part.

And you make the point that people here are academics. Yes they are, but 15yr old students who are used to social media will not treat this place the same way that 27yr old post grads will and you know it. A site like this has to cater for the lowest common denominator and make it a safe place for them or it's no longer viable.

Again, that's just naive. Of course people will still complain.

I think I'll let jimbo1234 argue the brunt of what you're saying, but I'll add something:

The part in bold is relevant both ways though. The question is which leads to a better forum? 15 year olds who dash on through looking for a quick answer are as valuable as long term members? I doubt that.

That can't be right though because on your report history, it shows the original post that was moderated. Therefore a SQL statement would still work to bring back all the information....And yes, it's clear you're not a web dev, don't worry, and no I'm not underestimating any of this - it's quite ironic for you to say that considering your lack of experience with these things

Again, transparency can help clear the subjectivity of things. As I've said before, I've been warned for using a word which is debatably acceptable, so it's very likely other people will be warned for making the same "mistake", and it's even arguable if it is a mistake or if a moderator is being too uptight.

Working as a web dev - it is surprising the amount of time that it can take for simple things in a reasonable sized company. Take changing a colour for instance, for simplicity we will assume this colour is only referenced in one place - first you have to document the request, for instance create a ticket, documenting the request, reason for the request, etc. Then time needs to be allocated for the request, and the change is made. First the code needs to be rolled out to the test site, to ensure that you have correctly changed the colour, that the change hasn't caused any other effects, etc. Finally then the change can be applied to the live site. The whole process can easily take an hour (excluding wait time), just for 6 characters to change.

Now, even if I accept that a SQL query could bring back all the required data, it would far from be a simple query - it would have to look up data from the multiple tables and would request a large amount of data. Such a query can't just be run in the middle of the day, due to the performance impact of running a complicated query - at worst it could lock up the board if the database is badly designed (remember the forum base-code is vbulletin ) Then you need to process the raw data into something understandable, a SQL dump isn't going to be useful to anyone. So I have to agree with Hype that the amount of work is not exactly trivial, even if the base query would be (which, although I haven't worked with vbulletin in many years I don't believe it would be).