How Have Things Been Recently?

[ABSpareEditor]

How has the user experience been on The AnswerBank during the past month, with reduced adverts and a more gentle hand on the moderation?

[choux]

My honest opinion: rank hypocrisy on this thread from some members. The moderation continues to leave me confused and often thinking there is a high degree of favouritism shown at times by editorial intervention and some moderators. Your goalposts must suffer dizziness. Why cannot there be consistency? I don't see any adverts.

[Zacs-Master]

What a happy bunch we are, eh!

[Hazlinny]

Never get ads ...touch wood ...actually don't pay much attention to what the moderators do .. they should know what to do and what not to do! I sometimes think certain people go out of their way to "annoy"
- I could comment but don't as I know it would result in "answer removed"!

[MissTerious2]

I must say I agree with Choux about moderation, especially in the news section. There is one particular aber there who should have been gone long ago and is constantly deliberately rude and annoying. If I were a new user and seriously interested in discussion and debate, i would be leaving the site quickly, and not returning. Others have said this too - I seriously think now that this person has links to the management. If others acted this way they would be banned by now.

I am glad that we now seem able to speak out openly without fear of suspension.

And yes moderation should be consistent. Site Rules should be followed by all and moderation should be all about Site Rules. Nothing else. No exceptions.

[MissTerious2]

But it's so good now without all those adverts.

[pixie374]

Doug, "lighten up" would be a good thought imv!.
I haven't seen a difference in ads, entirely as I don't tend to see them anyway- they were overwhelming on a mobile device.

Moderation- was the reason I decided to give up here recently. It seemed to suddenly become very heavy-handed and irrational and nothing to do with Site Rules. I still think that rather than just "answer removed"- there should be a number of the rule "broken". Would prevent any speculation.

[pixie374]

Can I ask one question, Spare Ed, out of interest? Can a mod reinstate a removed post?
Obviously, it will always come across a little biased... if 30 mods see and decide to leave a post standing, bur just one removes it. They all look bad...
Can they reverse a removal?

[THECORBYLOON]

Only the EDs can re-instate or edit posts and only they can move a thread to another category.

[pixie374]

Thanks tcl- but clearly, that would be hugely negative to the site, and very biased- if it only took one mod to remove- but none, even if 100 disagree, could reinstate.
That cannot be right.

[ClareTG0ld]

I think that owes something to how the removal option works. Mods can, for example, re-open closed threads (although they are discouraged from doing so), because the "close/reopen" button is always around, whereas deleting a thread or answer removes it entirely.

Perhaps it should be rejigged, but would presumably require a complete overhaul of how the site is set up, and how the functionality works, which is presumably no small task. Additionally, as long as mods are effectively free agents, with only minimal communication between them (if any), then overturning a decision that's been made without discussion risks undermining that decision if it was made in good faith.

I don't personally see why there hasn't been some sort of "mod-only" room set up, even if that means doing so "off-site", as it were -- eg in an invitation-only Discord channel. Among other things, that extra communication would surely improve the consistency of moderating standards.

[THECORBYLOON]

I doubt there are a hundred Mods but even if there were, your claim is based upon them all seeing a post prior to its being deleted which is unlikely.

It might be that there is a meaning behind what has been posted which is not immediately obvious and might be overlooked by most.

With a bit consideration, the intended meaning might be recognized as breaking the Site Rules and reported or deleted.

The EDs can re-instate a post, so if they decide that one Mod is wrong, the post will re-appear.

[MissTerious2]

/I don't personally see why there hasn't been some sort of "mod-only" room set up, even if that means doing so "off-site", as it were -- eg in an invitation-only Discord channel. Among other things, that extra communication would surely improve the consistency of moderating standards./

I did actually ask about something like that where mods could be in contact wit each other. I'm sure it would make for better moderation.

[pixie374]

That was hypothetical, tcl- I have no idea how many mods there are. My point was purely that many may see and leave a particularly post- but it only takes one to overrule them?
That obviously makes no sense ... I don't even think mods need to be in touch with each other tbh.
I just think the Site Rules should be clear and numbered, and a removed post should have that number included, so that it is clear.
It should not- obviously- be down to individual mods and their feelings. It should be easily accountable.

[Zacs-Master]

Maybe a post should only be deleted on the agreement of 2 mods, a bit like the 2 keys scenario for launching a nuke?

[pixie374]

That would be a start....

[ynnafymmi]

@15.33.We all know the troll you are on about,missT.However,g seems to have friends in high places.

[barry1010]

Pixie, there are 16 mods

[pixie374]

Thanks Barry- I didn't know, but my only point is- there should be a clear list of rules, which "should be" identical for posters and mods. And if one is broken- just a number will tell you and everyone, why.

I genuinely can't understand how it is so random, why nobody is allowed to know and why just one mod (out of 16) is able to just overrule all the others?
Irrational.

[THECORBYLOON]

PIXIE, "It should not- obviously- be down to individual mods and their feelings. It should be easily accountable."

The Mods are accountable, to the EDs.

[barry1010]

There is only one set of rules and guidelines. Mods volunteer and a need to confer before acting would make things too complicated and could leave a very offensive post in situ for a long time before more than one mod was online and the same time and then make a decision.

If anyone feels a post has been removed when it shouldn't have been, the ABEds should be the ones to decide. That may make the Eds aware if a mod is acting in a way they shouldn't.