Writing Ideas Organiser Software
Technology2 mins ago
Drumming Up More Members For Ab
259 Answers
Has admin considered advertising and letting the world know we’re here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I've watched progress on this site for many years and have some observations.
My first username was 'Kidas'. I joined in 2011, mostly to get answers to crossword clues from the knowlegeable and competent solvers on here. From about 2017, I became a bit more active, as the site seemed like a bit of fun, and there were some smart and kind people on here.
I never really had any issue with the moderators, partly because I always 'played nice' and partly because I've been moderator/admin on quite a few other sites and know what a thankless task it can be to keep the internet under control.
About a year on, in May 2018, there was a major failure of management and governance.
A moderator deleted the account of a 15-year-member in good standing.
Any website with user-generated content needs a strong user-base. No such website should permit moderator-level users to delete an established user account in good standing. At the very least, such actions should require specific approval and authorisation from senior super-users. On this site, that decision should have gone before Ed or SpareEd at the absolute minimum.
I was not directly involved, but it showed me that the site did not have competent management. So I left.
As is often the case, I returned under a series of usernames.
One of those was 'Vlad'. 'Vlad' was a bit silly, but he made some good contributions including a best answer.
Vlad's account was deleted within a few hours of his first posting.
I did not get upset about it. 'Vlad' was silly. But there was no warning. No, 'behave or this account will be deleted' No messaging except for some mild public annoyance from another user. It turns out that user had deletion powers and deleted the account. There was no indication to 'Vlad' that the other user had that power.
OK. 'Vlad' was not a member in good standing. But my point is that there was no indication that a fellow user who was expressing mild annoyance had the power to kill the account, or any guidance about how to modify behaviour to avoid the deletion.
Another failure of management and governance.
Another account was 'IJKLM'. There may have been others, but I don't remember them. My most recent account name was 'Rationalist'. It appears that login still works.
I tried (and largely failed) to bring some sense to the users who were spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies about science and other issues.
Some on here won't believe me, but in my day-job I am a globally-recognised expert in certain fields. Relevant multinationals fly me in to their strategy meetings and pay large amounts of money to hear my analyses and insights.
I posted some good information on here in response to some questions in my area of expertise. Other users came along and gave contradictory advice which was simply, factually wrong.
Their commentaries were mostly founded on prejudice and false information spread by conspiracy theorists.
Again, that's absolutely fine, if you want a site that attracts and rewards conspiracy theorists.
It's just not for me.
I mentioned at the top that in 2017 I found the site to be fun with some kind people.
The vast majority of those people left in the period following the 2018 incident. The conspiracy theorists, liars and unkind people remained.
This is not just normal website churn. As is so often the case, the ignorant people were loud and aggressive in their ignorance (Dunning-Kruger, anyone?). The smart people just quietly took their skills, knowledge and wit elsewhere.
I daresay some people who remain feel they won a victory when certain other users stopped contributing. They are welcome to that view. I doubt they will understand that the price of that victory was severe damage to Answerbank as a credible site.
Do I have a suggestion for the future? Yes, See post below.
My first username was 'Kidas'. I joined in 2011, mostly to get answers to crossword clues from the knowlegeable and competent solvers on here. From about 2017, I became a bit more active, as the site seemed like a bit of fun, and there were some smart and kind people on here.
I never really had any issue with the moderators, partly because I always 'played nice' and partly because I've been moderator/admin on quite a few other sites and know what a thankless task it can be to keep the internet under control.
About a year on, in May 2018, there was a major failure of management and governance.
A moderator deleted the account of a 15-year-member in good standing.
Any website with user-generated content needs a strong user-base. No such website should permit moderator-level users to delete an established user account in good standing. At the very least, such actions should require specific approval and authorisation from senior super-users. On this site, that decision should have gone before Ed or SpareEd at the absolute minimum.
I was not directly involved, but it showed me that the site did not have competent management. So I left.
As is often the case, I returned under a series of usernames.
One of those was 'Vlad'. 'Vlad' was a bit silly, but he made some good contributions including a best answer.
Vlad's account was deleted within a few hours of his first posting.
I did not get upset about it. 'Vlad' was silly. But there was no warning. No, 'behave or this account will be deleted' No messaging except for some mild public annoyance from another user. It turns out that user had deletion powers and deleted the account. There was no indication to 'Vlad' that the other user had that power.
OK. 'Vlad' was not a member in good standing. But my point is that there was no indication that a fellow user who was expressing mild annoyance had the power to kill the account, or any guidance about how to modify behaviour to avoid the deletion.
Another failure of management and governance.
Another account was 'IJKLM'. There may have been others, but I don't remember them. My most recent account name was 'Rationalist'. It appears that login still works.
I tried (and largely failed) to bring some sense to the users who were spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies about science and other issues.
Some on here won't believe me, but in my day-job I am a globally-recognised expert in certain fields. Relevant multinationals fly me in to their strategy meetings and pay large amounts of money to hear my analyses and insights.
I posted some good information on here in response to some questions in my area of expertise. Other users came along and gave contradictory advice which was simply, factually wrong.
Their commentaries were mostly founded on prejudice and false information spread by conspiracy theorists.
Again, that's absolutely fine, if you want a site that attracts and rewards conspiracy theorists.
It's just not for me.
I mentioned at the top that in 2017 I found the site to be fun with some kind people.
The vast majority of those people left in the period following the 2018 incident. The conspiracy theorists, liars and unkind people remained.
This is not just normal website churn. As is so often the case, the ignorant people were loud and aggressive in their ignorance (Dunning-Kruger, anyone?). The smart people just quietly took their skills, knowledge and wit elsewhere.
I daresay some people who remain feel they won a victory when certain other users stopped contributing. They are welcome to that view. I doubt they will understand that the price of that victory was severe damage to Answerbank as a credible site.
Do I have a suggestion for the future? Yes, See post below.
Further to the post above, AB's new owner has requested feedback about the site. Here is mine.
1. Decide what you want this site to be.
2. Write three sets of guidelines. These are applicable to users, moderators and employees/super-users respectively. All are posted publicly and prominently on the site. New user sign-ups are directed to the guidelines and have to acknowledge those guidelines and agree to adhere before they are permitted to contribute in any way.
Similarly when new moderators are appointed, they must also agree to the moderator-level guidelines. Those different guidelines must reflect what you want the site to be, and they should also specifically outlaw what you see as negative behaviours, as well as include catch-all clauses to discourage much of the anti-social behaviour AB sees almost every weekend, as wine-o'clock approaches.
Finally, the list of moderators should be public. It adds transparency and credibility, as well as providing new users with a resource for any questions they might have.
A crowd-sourced FAQ would be a big help as well.
3. Recruit a set of moderators who will be firm, but fair. They must enforce those guidelines aggressively but above all, fairly. To encourage fairness, possibly the system might conceal usernames of any post that is subject to potential deletion/moderator action.
Initially, this will be difficult, but it has to be done to return to a more respectful and credible site. Moderators can be (unpaid) volunteers, but they will have to report to one or more super-users – possibly paid employee(s) – who have the final say. The super-users will have powers to easily reverse decisions by rogue moderators. Initially, this is likely to be the most challenging and time-consuming part of the whole re-building process. You might want to reach out to some of the better users from the past to support the moderation process.
4. Any user who transgresses "too often" (whatever you decide that level is) is banned. That becomes an automatic process once they have accumulated a certain number of transgressions. For each username, that is permanent, but the user's other content remains visible on the site, except where it breaks the new rules for contributions.
Some might want each user's 'transgression count' to be public, so that new users can see who are the 'kind' users and who is less trustworthy.
5. Banned users may return under new usernames, but see rule 4. There is a case for some particularly damaging individuals to be banned permanently, but that's not currently possible if someone is determined to cover their tracks.
6. Encourage moderators and other users who are aligned to your vision, to post sensible questions and respond with credible and helpful responses. Ensure that off-topic contributions are deleted or moved to a different thread (That has to be included in the guidelines).
7. There is no point in advertising, or publicising the site until it has been restructured to suit your vision. However, most AB users also use other social media sites. If users choose not to contribute financially, maybe they can be persuaded to publicise the re-vamped site on other social media outlets
Just as an aside, there is clearly a place for the original idea of Answerbank. Yahoo Answers met that need for a while, but was forced to close. Quora is going the same way, following an abortive attempt to monetise it.
There is a need, but it appears very difficult to deliver the intent, without being polluted by trolls, conspiracy theorists, racists and downright lies.
Hope it helps - Rationalist
1. Decide what you want this site to be.
2. Write three sets of guidelines. These are applicable to users, moderators and employees/super-users respectively. All are posted publicly and prominently on the site. New user sign-ups are directed to the guidelines and have to acknowledge those guidelines and agree to adhere before they are permitted to contribute in any way.
Similarly when new moderators are appointed, they must also agree to the moderator-level guidelines. Those different guidelines must reflect what you want the site to be, and they should also specifically outlaw what you see as negative behaviours, as well as include catch-all clauses to discourage much of the anti-social behaviour AB sees almost every weekend, as wine-o'clock approaches.
Finally, the list of moderators should be public. It adds transparency and credibility, as well as providing new users with a resource for any questions they might have.
A crowd-sourced FAQ would be a big help as well.
3. Recruit a set of moderators who will be firm, but fair. They must enforce those guidelines aggressively but above all, fairly. To encourage fairness, possibly the system might conceal usernames of any post that is subject to potential deletion/moderator action.
Initially, this will be difficult, but it has to be done to return to a more respectful and credible site. Moderators can be (unpaid) volunteers, but they will have to report to one or more super-users – possibly paid employee(s) – who have the final say. The super-users will have powers to easily reverse decisions by rogue moderators. Initially, this is likely to be the most challenging and time-consuming part of the whole re-building process. You might want to reach out to some of the better users from the past to support the moderation process.
4. Any user who transgresses "too often" (whatever you decide that level is) is banned. That becomes an automatic process once they have accumulated a certain number of transgressions. For each username, that is permanent, but the user's other content remains visible on the site, except where it breaks the new rules for contributions.
Some might want each user's 'transgression count' to be public, so that new users can see who are the 'kind' users and who is less trustworthy.
5. Banned users may return under new usernames, but see rule 4. There is a case for some particularly damaging individuals to be banned permanently, but that's not currently possible if someone is determined to cover their tracks.
6. Encourage moderators and other users who are aligned to your vision, to post sensible questions and respond with credible and helpful responses. Ensure that off-topic contributions are deleted or moved to a different thread (That has to be included in the guidelines).
7. There is no point in advertising, or publicising the site until it has been restructured to suit your vision. However, most AB users also use other social media sites. If users choose not to contribute financially, maybe they can be persuaded to publicise the re-vamped site on other social media outlets
Just as an aside, there is clearly a place for the original idea of Answerbank. Yahoo Answers met that need for a while, but was forced to close. Quora is going the same way, following an abortive attempt to monetise it.
There is a need, but it appears very difficult to deliver the intent, without being polluted by trolls, conspiracy theorists, racists and downright lies.
Hope it helps - Rationalist
I’ve said this before but newbies are not welcomed on this site, even when they are greeted they are viewed with suspicion, why is this? Because users here have chips on their shoulders about events that happened years ago so the paranoid mind assumes newbies are a threat of some kind.
You never see this on other answer sites, I could ask a question on quora and no one will suspect my motives or my identity they will just answer the question.
The old users dominate and act like they own the site which is very off putting, not to mention the constant dragging up of past events. No effort is put in to answer questions in the q&a bar give opinions or snipe at the op or another user they have history with.
The problem is not the site, but it needs to decide if it’s a serious q&a site like quora or a chat site
You never see this on other answer sites, I could ask a question on quora and no one will suspect my motives or my identity they will just answer the question.
The old users dominate and act like they own the site which is very off putting, not to mention the constant dragging up of past events. No effort is put in to answer questions in the q&a bar give opinions or snipe at the op or another user they have history with.
The problem is not the site, but it needs to decide if it’s a serious q&a site like quora or a chat site
Mrs Cheese I agree 100 per cent with your post that’s why avoidance should be displayed at all times , if you don’t get on with a poster then it’s simple, you neither follow them round the site or engage in typing a conversation with them, no contact me and no friction and less others getting involved
"Moderators can be (unpaid) volunteers, but they will have to report to one or more super-users – possibly paid employee(s) – who have the final say. The super-users will have powers to easily reverse decisions by rogue moderators."
The EDs appoint or, as I believe, ask if someone wants to be a Mod and the EDs already have the final say over deletions and suspensions.
I don't know what the process is for banning someone and if an ED decides it was not appropriate to do so, how easy it is to re-instate that person.
I do know I was banned under this username by the ED several incarnations ago and found out by accident later that I had been re-instated but no idea what they did to achieve that.
The EDs appoint or, as I believe, ask if someone wants to be a Mod and the EDs already have the final say over deletions and suspensions.
I don't know what the process is for banning someone and if an ED decides it was not appropriate to do so, how easy it is to re-instate that person.
I do know I was banned under this username by the ED several incarnations ago and found out by accident later that I had been re-instated but no idea what they did to achieve that.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
*Some* good stuff from Rationalist. Though I need to read it all more thoroughly (tonight/tomorrow, sorry, have a bit of a thing on...), one thing jumped out -
"A moderator deleted the account of a 15-year-member in good standing" - "...On this site, that decision should have gone before Ed or SpareEd at the absolute minimum."
As far as I'm aware, *all* Moderator actions are flagged to the Eds & they can stand by the decision taken (btw, it could have been an Ed that banned the user in the first place) or reinstate the account.
"A moderator deleted the account of a 15-year-member in good standing" - "...On this site, that decision should have gone before Ed or SpareEd at the absolute minimum."
As far as I'm aware, *all* Moderator actions are flagged to the Eds & they can stand by the decision taken (btw, it could have been an Ed that banned the user in the first place) or reinstate the account.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV51 mins ago
ChatterBank81 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Music91 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.