Do The Moderators Get Monitored

[Gromit]

It is always a pity to return to AB to find a question has been deleted or a post has been removed. It is especially annoying if you have read the deleted item and found nothing wrong with it.

I assume it is the work of an over zealous moderator rather than the Ed.

Have any moderators ever been sacked?
Do they get told off if they delete perfectly good posts and threads?
Do you keep a record of moderators actions?

On the whole, this site works well, but over censorship is spoiling it slightly in my opinion.

[ludwig]

// I only ever delete spam. I prefer to let posts stand so that readers see the authors in their true colours //

Sounds like a good policy. When I see something obnoxious I often hope it stays in place so that people can see who said what and form their own opinion of the poster accordingly.

Having said that, we don't want youtube type comments being allowed to stay. I think the mods do ok.

[AB Editor]

PP does point out that, sometimes, we have to snip things back to protect the log term interests of the site - I can understand how this seems like censorship when it happens though. We could just do without going to court!

[LazyGun]

Would it be technically possible to leave the title of a thread that has been removed, together with a brief comment as to why it was removed Ed?

And I really must be entering early-stage dementia - I was absolutely convinced there was another thread submitted in R&S other than Naomis that referred to Scientology in its title, but i can no longer find it....

[Sharingan]

There was a Scientology thread LG, you're not imagining it:)

[Sparkles62]

I agree lazygun.
there is nothing more infuriating than chatting away on a thread, you go to make a coffee and everything has gone when you get back.
You spend ages looking for it until you realise that t has been deleted.
If the title could remaim on site for a while (24 hours ) would be enough, with some sort of explanation, eg;
Thread removed due to spam, obscenity, hectoring/ bullying etc, at least you would know why it had gone.

[ummmm]

I did suggest ages ago that it might be an idea to leave the user name where an answer is removed. So your avatar remains and instead of the answer you see -answer removed-

Half the time I can't remember who wrote what.

[AB Editor]

LazyGun, I think there was one removed with that in the title.

The problem is that leaving the thread title doesn't add value to the site, and leaving a reason would become tedious/expensive

If it helps, mods usually give us reasons for the removal, so we can review fairly efficiently.

[jno]

if a thread is removed, I'm never in the least bothered why. I know it's because something objectionable was found in it, but it's of no interest to me whether it was thought libellous, abusive, indecent or whatever. I'm surprised others care about this.

I remember the BBC thread now. There was I think some question about the bona fides of the OP, on another thread; perhaps it was he who was removed?

[jno]

it's all coming back to me... on another thread, the OP, HPSauce, claimed to be a banned user. I reported this myself, since it's clearly against the rules. I presume one of the editorial team then banned him again, which would have removed the BBC thread.

[Gromit]

Good work jno. That's it. There was nothing wrong with the thread, the OP has been banned.

The post does not appear on the News section listing, but it is there somewhere

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1251594.html

[LazyGun]

@Sheringham - Thanks for the confirmation - Always nice to get some confirmation one is not going loopy :)

@Ed Thanks for the response - I am a user and graduate of the CiF section in the Grauniad, where they do give a brief reason as to why a post is removed - Personally, I think it would add value to AB, since it makes it a more memory-friendly place, but - your site, your rules :)

@jno - I am surprised you are surprised :) - Curiosity is an abiding impulse for me and many others, so the reasons why stuff happens is very important. Might explain my love of and affinity for science, I guess :) I would have assumed the majority of people who contribute here would appreciate some explanation as to why a post or thread has been removed or deleted :)

[jno]

I think all the Guardian's deletions say is "comment was removed because it didn't abide by the rules" or something, don't they?

[ludwig]

// I would have assumed the majority of people who contribute here would appreciate some explanation as to why a post or thread has been removed or deleted :) //

I would.

[jno]

I've found HPSauce and he has been banned

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/members/hpsauce/

so that should explain why his threads vanished, including the BBC one. There may be a case for reprieving some interesting threads begun by someone who's been banned, but you'd have to draw the Ed's attention to it, which is what Gromit's done here.

[LazyGun]

I might be misremembering then jno - My recollection is that they would offer more broadbrush reasons for removal than a blanket "breaks Site Rules" -

To be clear though - I am not requesting that a reason is given for the removal of a response to a thread - that would be tedious - but I do think it might he helpful to leave the original title to a thread, where the whole thread has been removed, together with a brief comment as to why, if only to reassure people like me that their memory is not failing :)

[jno]

there's one here at 5.47am, LazyGun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/16/whistleblowers-new-generation-american-patriots

"This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs." I think that's standard. Doesn't give any more information than is implicit in deletions on AB: it broke the rules.

[aelmpvw]

can i monitor the monitors who monitor the moderators?

[naomi24]

I find it really frustrating when I’ve contributed a considerable amount of time and effort to a serious thread – and then log in the next time to find the whole thing gone. Like LazyGun, I search in vain, wondering if it’s me or the zappers. Perhaps if just the offending posts could be removed? Actually, I do remember one time when I asked for a thread to be reinstated so that the discussion could continue – and it was, minus the offending posts. Good stuff!

[jno]

you want to be the Ed's boss, aelmpvw?

Good luck with that.

[LazyGun]

@jno - Again, to be clear - I am not suggesting that a reason is given when a post in response to a thread is removed - We already get that with the "post removed" comment - What i do think would be useful is leaving the title of an original thread when the whole thread has been removed, together with a brief comment as to why.

Case in point - the Scientology thread that was removed. I did not actually contribute to that thread, but if I had, it would be nice to know my memory was not failing, and the nature of the reason for removal.

Looks like I misremembered with CiF then - I was sure that once upon a time they would give more precise reasons for the removal of a specific post...