dealmeinfo
Newbie
- Mar 18, 2010
- 5
- 1
yea, I dont have many posts yet and it restricts me big time
-
Please take a moment to look over the Suggestions & Feedback rules before making a post: READ RULES HERE
Is the moderation system braindead?
- Thread starter adultonly
- Start date
heartydreamer
Newbie
- Dec 8, 2009
- 43
- 23
True i am unable to post as many response as i have though coz of the machine moderation.
Every time i try to respond to some thread, i dont no what triggers the mod, but it keeps popping up saying am violating.
But I feel its perfectly justified as if a person wants to access this treasure, he needs to be put to such kinds of tests.
hope ill get enough time to participate.
I LUV BHW what ever it is..
Every time i try to respond to some thread, i dont no what triggers the mod, but it keeps popping up saying am violating.
But I feel its perfectly justified as if a person wants to access this treasure, he needs to be put to such kinds of tests.
hope ill get enough time to participate.
I LUV BHW what ever it is..
Actually, the thing is not that the moderation should be more tolerant.
Yes, it would be great if it could be smarter.
But absent that, the VERY FIRST step would be to make it more INFORMATIVE.
In other words, actually TELL users what exactly triggered the moderation system.
This is about being INTUITIVE and user friendly.
In the meanwhile it would be really awesome if you guys could come up with a feature that allows users to SUBMIT POSTINGS FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL.
That would provide you with an option to see which postings trigger the system WRONGLY, and all LEGITIMATE users would still be able to submit their postings.
I really think, that'd be a great compromise.
I actually suggested this a couple of weeks ago when I was talking to the admin, unfortunately I didn't hear back from him.
Still, this would seem to me like a very good compromise: retraining the strict moderation system (for all the valid reasons previously mentioned), while providing users with an option to still submit their postings and have someone (admins/moderators, trusted users) REVIEW such postings.
- adultonly
Yes, it would be great if it could be smarter.
But absent that, the VERY FIRST step would be to make it more INFORMATIVE.
In other words, actually TELL users what exactly triggered the moderation system.
This is about being INTUITIVE and user friendly.
In the meanwhile it would be really awesome if you guys could come up with a feature that allows users to SUBMIT POSTINGS FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL.
That would provide you with an option to see which postings trigger the system WRONGLY, and all LEGITIMATE users would still be able to submit their postings.
I really think, that'd be a great compromise.
I actually suggested this a couple of weeks ago when I was talking to the admin, unfortunately I didn't hear back from him.
Still, this would seem to me like a very good compromise: retraining the strict moderation system (for all the valid reasons previously mentioned), while providing users with an option to still submit their postings and have someone (admins/moderators, trusted users) REVIEW such postings.
- adultonly
Still the system here seems very restrictive in terms of post numbers, with regard to being able to post without difficulties, or posting links, etc. People throwing statements out here like "just get 100 posts" or "newbies with less than 50 posts", etc.
A quick view of members list sorted by post count shows that there are currently about 780 members with 100 or more posts, and about 930 or so with post counts above 50.
So... out of 112,186 members... over 99% of the members here have restrictions based on post counts. Many, it seems, have been here for over a year and most still are classified as "newbies".
Doesn't this strike you as a little "overkill" with regard to the restrictions imposed on 99% of the members of a forum?
I mean, stopping spammers is one thing, but imposing major restrictions on 99% of members is another thing entirely.
Or did I calculate wrong?
Just my opinion.
ChapeauNoir
Newbie
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7
- 3
Wow, VERY good point! Didn't occur to me to look at member numbers that way. But, yeah, is restricting >99% of users overkill? Do you even need to ask?
There are probably some fake bot registrations in that total, but still. I wonder how many of those 111,000 signups just turned away in frustration. Would be interesting to see how many made a few posts (or none because they couldn't get though), say half a year or more ago, and then never came back.
There are probably some fake bot registrations in that total, but still. I wonder how many of those 111,000 signups just turned away in frustration. Would be interesting to see how many made a few posts (or none because they couldn't get though), say half a year or more ago, and then never came back.