A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Peer-based moderation

Posted: Jan 15, 2015

Moderators are thinking about doing peer-based moderation based upon the number of likes/dislikes in a post (see Main Board). Basically, if the amount of dislikes outnumbers the amount of likes, the post can be removed. Thoughts?

Personally, I think adults shouldn't need to be moderated at all, though I would be strongly for an option that would alllow me to "block" certain posters, based upon email address.

;

Moderation - Chavera

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, I think this is a terrible idea! Isn't it enough how we get monitored to death on our jobs? So what if a person posts something another person dislikes! I AM NOT CHARLIE, but think we should not try to muzzle people unless they are rude to others on the board.

So what ... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
>>So what if a person posts something another person dislikes!

The post should stay as long it's not violating the other TOS. Read the message again, all disliked posts are not subject to deletion.

People dislike posts for many different - reasons

[ In Reply To ..]
Some people dislike a post, not because they disagree with the post, but because they dislike what happened to the poster. In that case, they're showing support for the poster.

I think the moderators need to just act regading their Terms of Service. Unless there's profanity, links to personal web sites, etc., the posts should remain. If a disagreement breaks out, it's okay for it to stay. We are adults after all and it is okay if we disagree with each other.

I don't want peer moderation - Nick

[ In Reply To ..]
Je ne suis pas Charlie, but this is America and I seem to recall that we still have the Freedom of Speech. I say we all keep it civil, we say what we like, and if people don't like and/or agree with what I post, that is fine with me. We are all entitled to an opinion.

Speech - Jen

[ In Reply To ..]

"this is America and I seem to recall that we still have the Freedom of Speech"

I don't mean to pick a fight, it's just that this is a pet peeve of mine. I saw it a lot on the old CNN forums when people would complain about censorship and that their rights were violated when CNN would remove messages.

We do not, in fact, have the right of Freedom of Speech on this forum, or any other privately owned message system. Our First Amendment rights prohibit the government from censoring our speech (with limited exceptions), but the First doesn't apply at all on systems like this.

We are given the privilege to post here, by the owners of the site, and they or their agents (moderators) can restrict or eliminate that privilege for any reason at any time. And if/when they do, our rights have not been violated in any way.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Can you tell I used to be a moderator myself? :-)

I think it would be highly inaccurate - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Not every one takes the time to like/dislike so it would be incredibly subjective. This is easy to see when one looks at the number of views versus the number of people who have clicked the thumbs up or down.

They need another option to their survey - clyde

[ In Reply To ..]
Rather than whether we want peer modertion, the question should be whether we want moderation. As mentioned above, the like/dislike feature is very subjective. The people who like that post may be saying they prefer peer moderation over moderator moderation, whereas the people who dislike that post may be saying they want no moderation. It should be a survey like this:

A. Moderator moderation.
B. Peer moderation.
C. No moderation outside of the TOS.

It will simply allow - xx

[ In Reply To ..]
the bullies to shout down anyone who disagrees with them or anyone with whom they disagree. Anyone who disagrees with a post would just "dislike" it and get it removed.

Just because someone's opinion is different is no reason to remove the post. That would simply drive away everyone but the lock-step thinkers, and the board would soon become useless as a place to exchange ideas.

to xx...SM - Old Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
A majority of dislikes is not the only criteria that the mods would use if their new plan gets voted in. There would have to be a complaint lodged against the post (which is accomplished by clicking the options box next to 'Reply by Email'). Once the post gets reviewed for content and/or breaking the rules, they'd look at likes/dislikes to determine their final decision. Like other posters have said, the like/dislike feature is too subjective, and I don't think it is a good measure of a posts value/appropriateness.

Yes, i understood that - xx

[ In Reply To ..]
but all that requires more time and more effort. It will become obvious that it is easier just to remove posts based on the like:dislike ratio, and the bullies will win.

Lots of forums have moderators. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
What is the uproar about? Show me one forum that isn't moderated. Newspaper forums, website forums, any kind of forum will be moderated. It doesn't bother me. The MT Stars moderator has deleted a few of my posts over the years, and she explained why, and I accepted it.

I think - Jen

[ In Reply To ..]
I think you may have misunderstood the question at hand.

and they are not as heavy-handed as MTSTARS - I post all the time

[ In Reply To ..]
lots of places and have never received this thin-skinned approach. Let it roll. Of course, it seems more personal here because it is so few comments. Most forums have 200-300 even 1000s of comments, where you can brush it off and figure the comment applies to someone else. Here, you feel as though you are having a strange direct conversation with a person and other people jump in and you can't figure out who you are talking to. People take that way too personally. If you make a comment and 2 people comment in opposition, don't take it personally as though you are being attacked. Wait, the rest of the convo will show up, probably.

Just because a post gets dislikes - CINDY

[ In Reply To ..]
That's what a discussion is, likes and dislikes. If every post was a positive liked post, there would be nothing to discuss. Just because we hit dislike doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. There are many subjects to discuss and I don't think that should have anything to do with whether the post is removed. Only if its vulgar, offensive or whatever other rules they go by, but the amount of dislikes versus likes isn't really a reason to delete the post. We learn lots of information from this board. And just because I might not like somebody's opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.

You took it wrong - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It's not compulsory to remove all the posts with higher dislikes than likes. They are just trying to add up 'disliked as well' reason for moderators.

Yeah... - Jen

[ In Reply To ..]
I certainly appreciate that the mods are looking into ways to improve the - quality isn't the right word, but it's all I can come up with at the moment - of the moderation. And I don't envy them the task.

That said, I don't think this is a good approach. It essentially turns it into a popularity contest.

Take the political board. I've seen claims from both sides that the likes/dislikes are being manipulated by the other side. Right or not, posters will still believe that the 'other side' is gaming the system, which will fuel any anger over future moderator actions.

My preference would be a clear, somewhat minimalist policy, stating what will get a post removed vs a temporary or permanent ban; posted in a sticky, with the mods erring on the side of too little rather than too much enforcement.

Thank you, I agree - One of the Mods

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not in favor of a popularity contest! I hope everyone gets to voice their feelings, opinions, etc. I wish they would get rid of the like and dislike buttons and let people discuss all viewpoints. I personally think a lot of people get their post removed because they dont read the rules, plain and simple. For the most part, things run smoothly and I enjoy reading all the posts. We have a great group of people here.

Thanks all!

I agree - Dislikes like/dislikes

[ In Reply To ..]
It is waaaay too easy to game the likes/dislikes. I went 5 places today where I could have gamed the votes. Every place gave me another opportunity to vote. You can bet it will be people who have a bone to pick who will be driving through every fast food place in town to stack the votes.

I also think it will be the death of the coding board, where a few folks who just seem to hate coders and anything related to it turn every thread into a rage-fest. Their new weapon will be the dislike button.

For some posters, however, the dislike button - is a better way to disagree than - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
to get into an argument. Also, being able to verbally disagree with certain posters sometimes depends upon which side of the fence you're on. The like and dislike buttons are at least impartial, and don't try to figure out whether a left wing or a right wing person pushed the button.

I can assure you - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Every post I have ever had removed garnered more likes than dislikes. In my experience, it has far more to do with the bully majority that does the reporting, not the content of my post. A moderator threatened to ban me recently - with one warning - in spite of the fact that my post was not inappropriate - it just wasn't liked by the person who obviously reported me.

I hardly ever post anymore, but every time I get a post deleted, I am threatened by a moderator. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

my take on this. - nana7

[ In Reply To ..]
The moderator is creating a mess.

If cry babies want to complain and if your post is not breaking the rules set the moderators, then the person that complained about your post should be banned and "punished" like a child. First time 1 week ban, 2nd time 1 month ban, 3rd time permanently. Any bullying banned permanently.

We are not children on this board and I am totally sick of the bullies and whiners.

The other day there was a poster that basically called an OP a liar after the OP said it was not her. Then she proceeded to try to bully me in her post and was told by several posters she was being a bully.

I did not report her, nor would I, I can handle myself and don't need the moderator to intervene for me.

As far as I am concerned she broke two rules, she called the OP a liar and tried to bully both the OP and myself.

Second, if someone gets banned for any reason the moderator should publicly post the banning along with the nickname. Maybe then everyone would think twice about what they say and do. Then you can't hide behind your keyboard.

Third, I think everyone should have 1 nickname and stick with it. Your nickname should somehow be linked to either your email address or IP address.

This board has turned into nothing but fighting and bullying. It used to be a board where we were able to have grown up discussions. Seems to me since these new moderators took over the hatefullness and nastiness has presented its ugly horns.

those measures sound far too draconian for me - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not in favor of threats, punishments, banning, or public shaming.

All I have ever felt about the politics board is this: People should have the freedom to respond to posts. Far too often, rebuttal is viewed as attack. Far too many well-reasoned posts are deleted. Far too often, certain posters dictate what may or may not be discussed, and the moderators tend to support them.

You hit it right on - the nose

[ In Reply To ..]
What is supposedly bad language to one generation is really not to perhaps those slightly younger and/or of a different mindset. I have been dumbfounded when using what I thought was pretty much everyday language, no obscenities, but people objected to certain words I used and my posts have been deleted for the flimsiest of reasons.

I think the rules should be very clear and very relaxed, which you would think the moderators would want. The politics board, however, seems to go out of its way to allow people to be offended by all sorts of imagined slights and what they consider offensive language or questioning of sources and they get comments removed for the most ridiculous of reasons, yet some of what you read on there, no matter how heinous, is allowed because you are supposedly allowed to say anything about politicians.

I definitely think that board in particular is way too heavily moderated.

Agree, and too many people use that fact to - game the system by reporting - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
all these imaginary slights to the moderator, who takes their word for it and bans indiscriminately. These thin-skinned people do this whenever they're called out on false information, or disagreed with, and can't come up with an adult reply. Instead, they just cry "foul" and try to get the person that called them out banished from the forum. The double-standard in this respect is huge, and makes it difficult to type anything at all without a lot of undue proofreadig and editing, to make sure NOTHING you posted could be construed in the wrong way. And yet it still happens anyway.

I think the main reason bullies here keep on - bullying is that certain individuals - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
are allowed to do so because their beliefs align with the moderator's personal beliefs. So moderation tends to be in their favor. I think we're all big girls (and boys), and can both dish it out and take it. I think moderation should only be for serious things like death threats against another poster. Other than that, I think we're all capable of holding our own in a heated debate without needing someone to do it for us.

I never did get the whole like/dislike thing on any site - So what, who cares?

[ In Reply To ..]
Give your opinion, make your statement and move on!

They're a form of feedback. I think they were - a valuable addition to these forums.

[ In Reply To ..]

Same Here! - see msg

[ In Reply To ..]
I never understood the like/dislike thing on this type of forum, either. It wasn't always there.

Fact of the matter is, there are some cranky people who just like to dislike. Jeepers, I got a dislike on a post that I said it's wrong to abuse children.

I think it's wrong to "dislike" just because you disagree. Just post your "dislike" in words (politely and maturely), and move on.

And the peer moderation. I think that's a terrible idea. There are bullies and immature little brats on here, so why should a bully or a brat be in charge of anything?

I think a moderator or two is a very good idea. People can get downright abusive on here. I am in favor of more than one moderator---if there are two, they can at least bounce things around to a degree.

Meant to Mention - see msg

[ In Reply To ..]
I think the like and dislike thing just fuels a fire. When someone dislikes a post, the original poster or a sympathizer comes on and says "why the dislike?", then it goes on and on, and an argument that might not have gotten started, gets started.

And it is very subjective. If someone posts a chili recipe that uses lots of hot peppers, someone who doesn't like hot peppers is going to dislike it. It's just dumb. A lot of things are just a matter of opinion and taste.

I don't think the like or dislike should be used for any means of banning a post or poster, however small it weighs into the decision.

Unfortunately, I think there are those that try - to play the mod on the Politics board

[ In Reply To ..]
I think sticking to the guidelines would be fine and the frivolous complaints should be ignored, yet many on the Politics board try to get posts removed by crying personal abuse, when in fact they are nothing of the sort, while some manage to be just as abusive but in a sneaky way, and many of us do not have the time nor inclination to wheedle the moderator and make frivolous complaints.

Also, you are not allowed to question sources - on a Politics board, really? How can you have a discussion unless you base it on facts, and there are so many sources out there now that are spreading misinformation and easily provable as false, but if you can't question them? What? Really?

Not sure number of likes or dislikes is good either. Sometimes I doubt whether some of these people have jobs at all, they just seem to have way too much time on their hands with endless long ambling posts full of talking points and others congratulating them on their wonderful posts, and they probably would end up spending the day just disliking posts en masse to get them removed and have a nice board that is all their way.

Your blocking idea might be good, but I wonder if it would be asking too much of the moderators.

The political board is a a beast in and of itself - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I steer very, very clear of it LOL

I think it's an interesting look into how certain - parts of this country think.

[ In Reply To ..]
It's frequently a SCARY look, but still a look into American political currents and undercurrents.

I almost "Liked" your post - lol - but I don't approve of

[ In Reply To ..]
blocking except for truly personal destruction, not silly name calling, commies, teapots, whatever. If the language becomes personal and gutter-mouthed or if there were porn or something posted, obviously those things need to be censored/blocked.

The whole questioning of sources things has me baffled as well. From a debate point of view, it sort of destroys true debate. It's like fighting with air. So, your great-grandmother's ghost told you, while you were in the attic, that this political point was true--okay, we start from there. Yeah, right.

On the other hand, I have had it pointed out to me (whether it should have been allowed or not) that my posts were from a questionable source (most of the time not in a very sportsman like fashion). It has made me wonder and cross-reference more. But when all of the sources you find on a new topic are from one particular bend, I think that is relevant in and of itself.

By blocking I was referring to - the OP suggestion

[ In Reply To ..]
As below:

"Personally, I think adults shouldn't need to be moderated at all, though I would be strongly for an option that would alllow me to "block" certain posters, based upon email address."

That way, we could block the people we know we don't want to hear from and they us - many of them have monikers, some do not. Personally, I choose not to because I have seen a few with monikers get attacked so would rather keep them guessing - not that I post much anymore either.

NB if you get "temporarily" banned from the politics board and request to be reinstated, be prepared to not be reinstated and never get a response.

I feel that is really not fair - if you are banned from the political board for all the garbage that goes on there, fine, but why should be banned from other boards where you have not offended anyone's delicate sensibilities? Pretty rotten in my book, we should still be able to participate on the other boards.

I totally agree with you - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I used to post of the Politics Board quite frequently but the crazy "unwritten rules" known by "some" has gotten ridiculous. For the most part I have decided it is not worth my time to post anything on that Board because the "tickler file" just keeps rotating their same talking points. When one side is excluded and the other just keeps repeating misinformation, it gets too boring to participate. I am sure they have lost a lot of interest since many of us have mostly quit posting there.

I understand the whole not questioning sources thing - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
only because each side have their own slanted media outlets to pull info from. If I post something from Huffington, everyone on the right will spend the rest of the thread not discussing what the article is about, but how Huffington is a left-wing rag and so-on. Best thing to do in that case is rebut the info with opposing information - people will decide what's trustworthy, right or wrong.

I agree with you on the likes and dislikes, but like another poster said, the politics board is a beast unto itself - the same ideas for the rest of the site may not work on the politics board. I like what one of the mods said further up - just follow the rules, it's that easy :)

You all are missing something here .. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It's not mandatory to remove every post where dislikes outnumbers the likes.

They are just trying to limit moderators what they can review.

Similar Messages:

Jan 15, 2015
link below ... ...

Dec 01, 2016
Ask my age and I'll tell you that I'm old enough to remember an age of relatively peaceful - and even constructive - coexistence among Americans, whether they self-identified as "conservative" or "liberal." I say "relatively peaceful" because I don't mean to imply that people didn't have strong feelings about issues, or that there weren't passionate disagreements. But there wasn't the raw, nasty, unreasoning hatred that I see today. Ask my age, and I'l ...

Nov 22, 2016
What are your thoughts on home-based businesses like with a multi-level marketing company? I have been hearing there is huge money making potential with these companies. ...

Nov 12, 2009
I'm curious what your stand is, then, for those who cannot afford health care due to lack of insurance?Do you feel that health care is a priviledge reserved only for those who can afford it?Do you feel that "there will be poor, always, pathetically suffering" (Jesus Christ Superstar) and that it is not required that others concern themselves with it?Do you feel that private charities should take over this aspect of poor people's lives?Do you feel that those who are poor are poor becaus ...

Dec 26, 2009
Just curious the best places to search other than nolo.com, google, etc. I am trying to learn as much as possible about "opposing counsel," right down to politics, , you name it. I've found a couple things so far. Personally, this lawyer has been a rotten egg from day one re my divorce. Thanks a million (which we'll never get paid)! PS: Another thing I've notices is not getting replies to my posts (yes, the box is checked). The only one was that con artist fo ...

Dec 24, 2009
I just read an article that Pizza Hut uses a silicone-based chemical in their pizza cheese. I used to love pizza huts pizza. Now?.....ewwww http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=4855 ...

Aug 15, 2012
Figures. We're such a mean country. ...

Sep 12, 2012
I had replied to the poster on the faith board regarding the religious part of her post. Here is the part that pertains to the political portion of her post: It's not hard at all to understand why people will support Gov. Romney for president. He has the experience, knowledge. He understand issues the American people are facing. He has ideas on how to put people back to work. Mr. Romney will have people of all races and women in his cabinets. He will not rule the country acco ...

Apr 06, 2015
One of President Obama’s key advisers in drafting the health-care legislation that is now law says Obamacare will eventually spell the end of employer-based health plans. Experts from both sides of the aisle aren’t upset by the idea of removing employers from the health-care equation. However, both sides are also skeptical that Obamacare will have the effect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel predicts. Emanuel is quoted in the New York Times saying that a few blue-chip companies will be the tip o ...

Jul 25, 2014
I believe this supersedes that noted below, but I will defer to the experts. ...