x Turn on thread page Beta

Moderation statistics :) watch

Announcements
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by geoking)
    No you wouldn't - in the cases where the default "keep tsr friendly" has been removed, you put in the filler instead into the explanation. Think of it as a global, nameless report history done monthly into a lovely table with pretty graphs and the like.
    What filler? Either you put in an explanation of why it is actually offensive, which requires a lot of legwork, or you leave the default comments, which have no benefit.

    Imagine you get a report, and you see a load of cards for "offensiveness". If those offensiveness cards just have the default warning comment, then how do you know if we're being too harsh in judging what is offensive, or whether people are being genuinely offensive?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by geoking)
    So clearly you're problem is with the notion of showing the cards overturned. And yes, it IS unquestionably a sign of poor moderation if contested cards is high for ambiguous topics like offensiveness (something TSR has a problematic focus on) but with a low reversal rate. Moderation is subjective, therefore this should be reflected. If the stats don't show this, then clearly there's something amiss with attitudes towards moderation and being humble.
    No, it's not just an issue with that. But that is certainly an example of a flaw with your notion.

    It's not unquestionable though, not without context. You don't know why the card was contested, nor what the post was - and I think it's fairly apparent that people like to test their luck if they think they have even the remotest chance of getting it reversed, regardless of whether it actually should be.

    Modding is subjective, yes. But that doesn't mean that contested and overturned figures should be equal, or close - that wouldn't be a sign of being humble, that would be a sign of not actually doing our jobs, and letting offensive posts off the hook purely because they protested.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    What filler? Either you put in an explanation of why it is actually offensive, which requires a lot of legwork, or you leave the default comments, which have no benefit.

    Imagine you get a report, and you see a load of cards for "offensiveness". If those offensiveness cards just have the default warning comment, then how do you know if we're being too harsh in judging what is offensive, or whether people are being genuinely offensive?
    You know by deciding the results before examining the evidence.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by geoking)
    So clearly you're problem is with the notion of showing the cards overturned. And yes, it IS unquestionably a sign of poor moderation if contested cards is high for ambiguous topics like offensiveness (something TSR has a problematic focus on) but with a low reversal rate. Moderation is subjective, therefore this should be reflected. If the stats don't show this, then clearly there's something amiss with attitudes towards moderation and being humble.
    Why would it mean that? If the number of contested cards is high, and the reversal rate is low, it could also mean that a lot of people contest their cards and yet their posts did happen to cross the line, which leads to the cards being upheld.

    In other words, once more, those conclusions cannot be drawn from stats. Context would be required.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    And yes, it IS unquestionably a sign of poor moderation
    I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    What filler? Either you put in an explanation of why it is actually offensive, which requires a lot of legwork, or you leave the default comments, which have no benefit.

    Imagine you get a report, and you see a load of cards for "offensiveness". If those offensiveness cards just have the default warning comment, then how do you know if we're being too harsh in judging what is offensive, or whether people are being genuinely offensive?
    Er that's not how the current system works (:wtf:)

    I'm talking about what people see on their report page, the thing that a moderator fills out when they actually give the warning:

    Example 1 - generic explanation done by the system:

    Offensiveness/trolling
    Please don't make offensive posts. The Student Room is intended to be a fun and helpful place for everyone - let's keep it friendly.

    Example 2 - this is an example of what is literally on my report page, albeit amended:

    Offensiveness/trolling ( Please do not fist fight with other users or bring their mothers into this (

    All of that currently exists. I'm just saying collaborate it for a community report.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by geoking)
    Er that's not how the current system works (:wtf:)
    Talking as someone who has to deal with the current system on a daily basis - Yes it is actually.

    I'm talking about what people see on their report page, the thing that a moderator fills out when they actually give the warning:

    Example 1 - generic explanation done by the system:

    Offensiveness/trolling
    Please don't make offensive posts. The Student Room is intended to be a fun and helpful place for everyone - let's keep it friendly.

    Example 2 - this is an example of what is literally on my report page, albeit amended:

    Offensiveness/trolling ( Please do not fist fight with other users or bring their mothers into this (
    The former is typical, custom comments like the latter tend to occur when a full explanation is needed for various reasons (multiple rules broken: e.g. do not avoid the swear filter, and refrain from making personal attacks; previous warnings about the same topic going unheeded, etc.) - the former is of no use in these reports without having a proper explanation added.

    All of that currently exists. I'm just saying collaborate it for a community report.
    Yes, it currently exists, but a lot of it only exists in the moderators heads, with what's actually in the database being the generic "don't be offensive" comment: which as I've explained, isn't of any use for drawing meaningful insights into moderation standards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    No, it's not just an issue with that. But that is certainly an example of a flaw with your notion.

    It's not unquestionable though, not without context. You don't know why the card was contested, nor what the post was - and I think it's fairly apparent that people like to test their luck if they think they have even the remotest chance of getting it reversed, regardless of whether it actually should be.

    Modding is subjective, yes. But that doesn't mean that contested and overturned figures should be equal, or close - that wouldn't be a sign of being humble, that would be a sign of not actually doing our jobs, and letting offensive posts off the hook purely because they protested.
    With the moderation on TSR being focused on offense, which is subjective, there is going to be a load of grey area. Something needs to be done to highlight and address this, and showing the hilariously near-perfect conviction rate of the moderation team would surely get the wheels turning.
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Why would it mean that? If the number of contested cards is high, and the reversal rate is low, it could also mean that a lot of people contest their cards and yet their posts did happen to cross the line, which leads to the cards being upheld.

    In other words, once more, those conclusions cannot be drawn from stats. Context would be required.
    Because the moderation should be objective as possible, not subjective, and the current trend of offense based moderation will only lead to disputes and problems. If it was done akin to a presidential debate, then a more definite set of rules can be brought in, making the people less able to contest their post, and more understanding of the issues. In short, you're reducing the grey area.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks that.
    You're going to have to try a lot harder than "you're wrong"....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Talking as someone who has to deal with the current system on a daily basis - Yes it is actually.



    The former is typical, custom comments like the latter tend to occur when a full explanation is needed for various reasons (multiple rules broken: e.g. do not avoid the swear filter, and refrain from making personal attacks; previous warnings about the same topic going unheeded, etc.) - the former is of no use in these reports without having a proper explanation added.



    Yes, it currently exists, but a lot of it only exists in the moderators heads, with what's actually in the database being the generic "don't be offensive" comment: which as I've explained, isn't of any use for drawing meaningful insights into moderation standards.
    Why isn't the standard rule not good enough? If it's good enough to slam on someone's report history why is it then not good enough for other people??

    And you said if more explanation is needed, then it is given...

    Either you've found a problem with the existing moderation or are making holes where there are none.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by geoking)
    With the moderation on TSR being focused on offense, which is subjective, there is going to be a load of grey area. Something needs to be done to highlight and address this, and showing the hilariously near-perfect conviction rate of the moderation team would surely get the wheels turning.
    That doesn't actually address any of the points.

    And do you actually know what the current rate of overturn is, or is this all speculative?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    The stats would be pointless to mods, and even more pointless to users. It's a good idea in theory, but as mentioned above, stats would be skewed depending on section they mod, how long they have been a mod, and influx of trolls on certain dates.

    Since the mods don't even have access to this, I highly doubt users will for a long time, if ever.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Everyone being geoking? The only benefit given so far seems to be transparency, or variations on that. The point isn't whether it would take long first and foremost, it's whether it would actually be worth doing - and no-one, as far as I can see, has addressed the issue that the stats would be completely meaningless unless you could see AAM and/or everyone's community record.
    Why not give it a shot? I have never seen so many mods jump to defend something so avidly. It just looks incredibly suspicious and that you are desperate to keep something hidden.

    The changeover to cards doesn't mean there was a problem before, it just means this new system offered some benefit or improvement that the old one didn't.
    So how many bans did you have with warnings compared to cards? What benefits has there been? Again, it just looks bad.

    You want to give feedback/input? Great, go ahead, no-one is saying you shouldn't. Hey, there's even a section for it - the one this thread is in, in fact.
    Well I have given enough feedback over the years to mods and it always gets ignored, plus I'm not ignorant enough to believe that you would take on feedback if you won't post stats.


    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    If you wanted useful stats, yes it would be - cards issued per month is meaningless without context. I remember a night, not long after I started, where there was an invasion from 4chan, resulting in a good couple of dozen new members being banned, but not before some had managed to get a few bits of illegal material posted on here. If you look at that months cards, you see 24 bans issued on one night: without the context given above, what does that actually tell you?
    Then add that detail in, or you could simply not assume people will start some witch hunt and actually possess common sense.


    You'd need the reasons for each card - and I'm not talking about the generic "please don't make offensive posts" card comments, because that could cover anything from inciting hatred/calling for violence against black people to just calling another member a bit of a pillock. To do that, you either need to make card comments specific to each warning, or have the mods write up a reason for each card for the reports.
    Likewise overturning cards - there's no reason for it being reversed saved - it could be anything from a card being unjust to a new mod learning how to use the warning system on a set of dupe accounts.
    Well I think that sums up how the system is broken if you lump racists and casual insults (which could be true) together.
    As for writing up - make a database :facepalm: It should be automatic and require no input after setting it up.

    Without context, the stats mean nothing, and the context isn't saved in the database, that requires the mods, SLs and CT to sit down and produce it - which requires a lot of time.
    Then your database needs improving, and no, it wouldn't take much time at all.

    (Original post by superwolf)
    I thought it was near-perfectly phrased, and thoroughly apposite. :proud:

    I shall repeat myself. They treated OP's arguments with exactly the degree of respect they deserve.

    I don't think I can express myself any more clearly without being carded for offensiveness. :teehee:
    Point in case. You mean they dismissed his points, ergo they didn't give a counter argument :rolleyes: What a surprise.
    It's also hilarious that all those defending mods who are not mods are subscribers....
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by geoking)
    Why isn't the standard rule not good enough? If it's good enough to slam on someone's report history why is it then not good enough for other people??

    And you said if more explanation is needed, then it is given...

    Either you've found a problem with the existing moderation or are making holes where there are none.
    What? The standard warning comment is one of the generic ones in example one, the custom one in example 2 is rarely used. Meaning more explanation is required - which comes from us, it's not saved anywhere: if I warn someone for being offensive, using the standard comment "don't make offensive posts", I don't record what was offensive about it anywhere - that is purely in my head, to add it I'd need to write it down. Which brings us back to the issue of it not being a simple thing to put together.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Point in case. You mean they dismissed his points, ergo they didn't give a counter argument :rolleyes: What a surprise.
    It's also hilarious that all those defending mods who are not mods are subscribers....
    I said they gave him the respect he deserved. :dontknow: Feel free to extrapolate however you like.

    And I'm not a sub, never paid a penny to TSR in my life.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Then add that detail in, or you could simply not assume people will start some witch hunt and actually possess common sense.
    Less of an assumption, more of an intuition from years of using this site as a user and a mod.

    But, yes - we'd need to add that detail in: which is my entire point - for the stats to be useful, you'd need a lot more info than is stored in the database.

    Well I think that sums up how the system is broken if you lump racists and casual insults (which could be true) together.
    They're lumped in together under the warning category offensiveness, because both are offensive. So if you were to do a database enquiry to return the number of warnings and their types, racism and insults would appear as the same thing.

    As for writing up - make a database :facepalm: It should be automatic and require no input after setting it up.
    So, we'd need to add the explanation for the warning into that database after warning - which moves it from an end of month bit of paper work to ongoing paperwork, and doesn't solve the problem.

    Then your database needs improving, and no, it wouldn't take much time at all.
    The context isn't stored in the database because it's not necessary to store it, and it would take a long time to produce a proper explanation for each card issued each month.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Why not give it a shot? I have never seen so many mods jump to defend something so avidly. It just looks incredibly suspicious and that you are desperate to keep something hidden.

    So how many bans did you have with warnings compared to cards? What benefits has there been? Again, it just looks bad.

    Well I have given enough feedback over the years to mods and it always gets ignored, plus I'm not ignorant enough to believe that you would take on feedback if you won't post stats.
    If this is going to take mod/Dev/CT time, I think it's fairly apparent we'd need a better reason than 'why not?'. I hardly think it's suspicious to be asking the benefits of something - the fact you're going on the offence here kind of suggests you're struggling to think of any, or I'm sure a tangible list would already have been provided.

    ...It look bad to make changes to a site? :erm: There are a fair number of benefits, though it's really a discussion for another thread - but for instance it's an automatically escalating system now, which the previous wasn't.

    I think you're mistaking the opportunity for feedback with every piece of feedback being implemented. You're free to offer suggestions, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's something viable or useful to add/change. It's considerably more likely that useful feedback will be taken into account than that meaningless statistics will be posted, however.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    That doesn't actually address any of the points.

    And do you actually know what the current rate of overturn is, or is this all speculative?
    Yes it does. You are human. You are not perfect, running a system based on subjective rules, yet are right how often? Don't you think the error margin should be higher or have you been all given months of 9-5 training?

    (Original post by BurstingBubbles)
    The stats would be pointless to mods, and even more pointless to users. It's a good idea in theory, but as mentioned above, stats would be skewed depending on section they mod, how long they have been a mod, and influx of trolls on certain dates.

    Since the mods don't even have access to this, I highly doubt users will for a long time, if ever.
    So stats you are unaware of would be useless. Well if you can't see stats how else can you see if there is a problem or not? :lol: How is showing trouble hotspots in the forum a problem?! Surely it shows something isn't quite right with that part of the forum?!

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    What? The standard warning comment is one of the generic ones in example one, the custom one in example 2 is rarely used. Meaning more explanation is required - which comes from us, it's not saved anywhere: if I warn someone for being offensive, using the standard comment "don't make offensive posts", I don't record what was offensive about it anywhere - that is purely in my head, to add it I'd need to write it down. Which brings us back to the issue of it not being a simple thing to put together.
    Sounds like moderators aren't doing their job then if you think the standard one isn't good enough to explain clearly why someone was moderated...
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by geoking)

    So stats you are unaware of would be useless. Well if you can't see stats how else can you see if there is a problem or not? :lol: How is showing trouble hotspots in the forum a problem?! Surely it shows something isn't quite right with that part of the forum?!
    It would most likely show the most active parts of the forum. We know this information already.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by geoking)
    Yes it does. You are human. You are not perfect, running a system based on subjective rules, yet are right how often? Don't you think the error margin should be higher or have you been all given months of 9-5 training?

    So stats you are unaware of would be useless. Well if you can't see stats how else can you see if there is a problem or not? :lol: How is showing trouble hotspots in the forum a problem?! Surely it shows something isn't quite right with that part of the forum?!
    Again, do you know the current figure, or are you just speculating?

    You seem to be equating you not having the stats to them not existing - clearly the mod team are held accountable to the SLs and CT, who actually will have access to the relevant data. The question here is how would the general TSR users having access to them have any benefits, not whether statistics in general can highlight issues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BurstingBubbles)
    It would most likely show the most active parts of the forum. We know this information already.
    Really? Or is it that you have a general idea but don't have the actual information?
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Again, do you know the current figure, or are you just speculating?

    You seem to be equating you not having the stats to them not existing - clearly the mod team are held accountable to the SLs and CT, who actually will have access to the relevant data. The question here is how would the general TSR users having access to them have any benefits, not whether statistics in general can highlight issues.
    You lot may be the only people on the planet to be arguing against having more information at your disposal :lol: I don't know the figure, neither do you, therefore shouldn't it be found out? Or is moderating in ignorance is a good idea? :curious:

    Do you know they have access to that data or are you guessing? Yes, that's rhetorical because we both know the answer

    At worst, it'll make people trust the moderation system more because it's more transparent, and therefore accountable. I really, really, really shouldn't have to be repeating that or the reasons why transparency and accountability are inherently good things. Best thing is it'll help rehaul the broken moderation system that is based on "offense".
  1.    
     
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.