My sentiments entirely.
Too many postings get deleted here
- Thread starter Schmizzkazz
- Start date
You're able to understand this:
Therefore, you're actually able to understand the logic behind that idea. But I won't insist. I just wanted to help.
To turn the forums into chat boards? To walk away from the original vision for these forums, which is to complement the dictionaries?
Where did I say that?
Concealing posts would be removing them from the public view. Add to this that a private message can be sent multiple members at the same time. Surely that provides all the aspects you are looking for, apart from momentarily posting an off topic chat/comment in the public forums. 
Not if it becomes obsolete thanks to a new piece of code that fulfills what Rule 2 enforces.That would be the outcome if rule 2 becomes obsolete.
Ok, so the off-topic comments will be hidden. That stills fundamentally changes the nature and purpose of these forums.
I'm not fully convinced about @machadinho's idea but, definitely, the expected increase on the number of complains to moderator shouldn't be a reason to disregard it because that problem has an easy solution: more staff.
I thought you didn't like that sort of answers but I'm glad to see that you too like them.
Yes, they are: Conversations Privacy
Hey, @rarabara. It looks like the purpose and vision of the forum you refer to are substantially different from those of WRF. I think learning a new language could be a side benefit of engaging in WRF threads, but the main goal of these forums is to work as dictionary entries. In fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is high, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.
that is ok. but some speculative conversations ,I think, are warmer and more modern in style. modernity/modernism requires good communication.
this does not mean that, that forum (also) did not include such members.
I would love to understand what you mean by that. Would you mind describing what kind of conversations you are looking for?
I mean some side specifications might be good for this website if a revision is considered.
I see. Well, to your point:
Imagine how challenging and frustrating it would be for a newbie to identify the straightforward answer to their questions if the thread contains side comments that are unrelated to the main topic.
... unless they're hidden, though not deleted...
Which requires 1) implementing a code (with increased operating cost); 2) replacing an existing mechanism that works perfectly fine for hundreds of forum members and dozens of moderators with a new mechanism that could potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary churn and endless back-and-forth discussions between Senior Members and moderators. You didn’t explain yet how you envision Senior Members implementing the code you’re advocating for. Could other Senior Members or the post author remove the code and undo the changes? How do you prevent misuse of those powers?
not for the whole of forum, maybe some specific part(s) be set for that. I cannot provide very clear or transparent suggestion but the thing I imagine might provide an option to the website to be more crowded and more qualified.
I can develop websites only for presentations (not forums) in the current position. therefore, I cannot provide a very clear suggestion.
but to me, as you are about to repeat a point or already repeating that point, I also would like to remind one of my honest and parallel idea to my previous expression: "it does not seem aesthetical also to let a door remain open, amongst multilinguals for argument. "
Over the years, the forums have expanded their capabilities to a wider scope of discussions in some contained areas. You may want to explore some of those within a few months, because they require you to be a member for at least 6 months, which allows a reasonable window for you to become more familiar with the overall WRF atmosphere, rules and culture, provided that you are a regular participant.
I am afraid I don’t fully grasp this portion of your post.
Perhaps you could tell us in your native language? Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.
Perfectly fine?
Please have a look at the OP.I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.
I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.How do you prevent misuse of those powers?
Yep. That's why the PM system is unsuitable for side comments.
Multiple members, but not all members, including future or otherwise uninvited ones.
Thanks for your effort to make your thoughts more transparent, @rarabara. I appreciate it. If I understand you well, you are saying some debates you have witnessed are unpleasant? I believe many users can relate to what Velisarius mentioned some time ago:
If I understand you well, you are saying some debates you have witnessed are unpleasant? I believe many users can relate to what Velisarius mentioned some time ago:That’s an unpleasant experience as well.
OK, so do moderators, which is why they only intervene when there are violations! Wouldn’t the same self-regulating principle apply with the current rules? Think of it.
That’s even worse! It would require a sophisticated AI that also understands the psychology of forum members who think their side comments are so precious they need to be preserved at all costs. Imagine the number of complaints to moderators because the code is acting up or “censoring” reasonable content.
Yes, it works perfectly fine for the vast majority of the forum members. Those who insist in circumventing the rules will face the consequences, as it is explained in the forum rules they agreed to upon joining.Perfectly fine?
What makes you believe that those side comments will be relevant to all the participants or future members?
Last edited:
Are you volunteering to moderate ? Because I don’t believe moderators are paid staff, but rather enthusiastic volunteers. The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers. Like I said earlier, a complete lack of empathy for Mike Kellogg and his team.
The problem, though, with what you're suggesting, is that Mike has no incentive to do it. WRF is run as a business: the forums are a free adjunct to the dictionary part of the site which pays the bills, and like any astute businessman, he likes to keep his customers happy and part of the purpose of this forum is to facilitate feedback.Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.
Perfectly fine?
I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.
I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.
But the 'trade-off' is the cost of implementing any software upgrades against the benefit in terms of making the site run more smoothly and efficiently. I'm afraid making Rule 2 "obsolete" doesn't enter into that equation. Allowing users to regulate themselves is a recipe for disaster: if they could be relied upon to do that, there would be no need for moderators and all posts would conform to the rules which are in place.
I don't believe that. Side comments are irrelevant by definition.
I failed to make myself clear. The additional computer code would simply allow senior members to hide or unhide some posts for newcomers to a thread. That's all.
Maybe he does.
Last edited:
Do you mean that there wouldn't be enough volunteers to moderate the forums with more traffic? I don't think so. (Less that) 5 days (with a week-end in between) were enough to create a group of volunteers to build WR's Catalan/Spanish dictionary (still under construction) and the number of potential candidates was way way lower than those that you would have in any of the forums with more traffic and the extra staff that you would need to cope with the extra reports would be lower too that the number of members of the group of volunteers building the quoted dictionary. Sincerely, I don't envision a shortage of candidates to moderate as a possible problem but maybe I'm too optimistic and a previous step would be needed to play it safe: to see if you have enough candidates to increase the moderators team. However, if people really like the new feature but don't want to volunteer to make it a reality, they don't really deserve the new feature. Anyway, that's not the main point here, I think the main point is if @machadinho's idea would be a good one and I'm not sure yet.
Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".
I agree. I meant to say to regulate each other instead of themselves.
Sorry. I shouldn't have said that.Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".
that was presumably different implication. but I am unsure what you expect by your this wording ["high"]:Thanks for your effort to make your thoughts more transparent, @rarabara. I appreciate it.
That’s an unpleasant experience as well.
if you expect me to write rather literal poems ,then sorry,I think I can't
but if you expect me to write academic articles in refereed and trusted journals,I think I can do that perfectly (in english)
just one point; when the flow is too fast here or at some other forums, some failures are happening but generally are corrected by my revision/edition.
meanwhile, turkish and kurdish are my native languages.I am highly professional in these languages.
Last edited:
well, my english is about to B2-C1.I would say learners with at least a B1+ or B2 level, @rarabara, would benefit the most from these forums, considering the style and other discursive elements.
A couple of interesting pages publicly available on WR
We currently have a team of 44 moderators(+ 1 lapsed moderator)
Staff members
The dictionaries have 20 editors listed
Dictionary editors
There is some cross over, with 2 mods on that team.
Only one person (outside of Mike) is listed as WR staff.
I have no idea how many active members there are on WR, but suggest that those advocating increasing the moderator team to cater for off topic chat are totally out of touch with the aims of WR, this is no chat board. I suggest that far from being easy to increase the number of moderators, the reality is it is far from simple to retain existing moderators, due to members not respecting the forum rules.
We currently have a team of 44 moderators(+ 1 lapsed moderator)
Staff members
The dictionaries have 20 editors listed
Dictionary editors
There is some cross over, with 2 mods on that team.
Only one person (outside of Mike) is listed as WR staff.
I have no idea how many active members there are on WR, but suggest that those advocating increasing the moderator team to cater for off topic chat are totally out of touch with the aims of WR, this is no chat board. I suggest that far from being easy to increase the number of moderators, the reality is it is far from simple to retain existing moderators, due to members not respecting the forum rules.
Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:
check the point for you given in my #182nd post in this queue.Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:
The moderators here are out of control. I don't participate much anymore for that reason.
I hope you'll forgive me for repeating the answer I give in post #179:
If we (the mods) were, as you evidently feel, "out of control" we wouldn't bother. We'd simply delete your post and probably the rest of the thread as well, and have done with it. The reason we haven't done is to try and address members' legitimate concerns over all this. You may or may not see it, but I care about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".
Having said that, it's entirely up to you, obviously, how much you choose to participate in the forum.
I shall also not be participating so much until some time.
FREEDOM=MODERNISM
(but this website (surely) lacking)
I shall put this to the test.
Well, there's freedom to, and freedom from. In this instance, they are in conflict. One person's freedom to chat and derail interferes with another person's freedom from chaos and disorder that would interfere with finding valuable information. For me, the moderation in my favorite forums increases my freedom to find the information I need.FREEDOM=MODERNISM
I'm a heavy forum user who seldom asks questions, because I can usually find answers. This is a direct result of strict moderation, combined with moderator responsiveness to reports. If I find a useless thread that's five years old, I report it, and it goes away. If I find three threads where one would suffice, I report it, and if the moderators agree with me it's tidied up (and if not, that's fine too - they can judge that better than I can.) If a response is deleted that I think was actually useful, I report that too, and sometimes it comes back! What might seem heavy-handed is accompanied by a will to work to the benefit of most users. Truly.
In case anyone hasn't figured this out, the basic fact is that nothing of substance is going to change about its moderation. Least of all based on users' comments. The model is established and the personalities entrenched.
Is the moderation often too agressive? Yes, I think so. Just a day or two ago I saw a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate. A moderator immediately slapped it down. And then, a few minutes later, another moderator came along and slapped it down some more. That's a bit much, as far as I'm concerned.
But you know what? It's not going to change. It would be more productive to complain about the weather.
Once I figured that out, I started feeling less frustrated.
Is the moderation often too agressive? Yes, I think so. Just a day or two ago I saw a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate. A moderator immediately slapped it down. And then, a few minutes later, another moderator came along and slapped it down some more. That's a bit much, as far as I'm concerned.
But you know what? It's not going to change. It would be more productive to complain about the weather.
Once I figured that out, I started feeling less frustrated.
It seems to me that the point of this thread, and certainly the aim of all the posts I've made in it, is to try and change that perception.
Obviously, given the core purpose of the forums, the basic framework of rules is unlikely to change significantly. You're complaining about moderation being too "aggressive", citing as an example "a post that didn't strictly follow the rules but that was obviously legitimate". Forgive me, but that is a subjective judgement. What would you have preferred us to do? Turned a blind eye on the basis of 'He/she meant well' or 'It's the thought that counts'? I will say that it's comparatively unusual for a moderator to edit a post and then another moderator to edit it further or remove it altogether, but it does happen, especially where subsequent posts have referred to it or we find it's sidetracked the thread.
I can't say any more than that without knowing which post it was and why it was 'slapped down' as you put it - and I can't do that in a public forum. But I will say this: we're not psychic, and nothing is likely to change unless people ask for a change to be made. I don't necessarily mean complain, but I've said repeatedly that I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be encouraged to ask why we take the decisions we do. In the long run, a better understanding of the whole moderation process, and how it works, is likely to lead to a less frustrating experience for members and ultimately, less work for us.
In a case like that, if you are convinced the decision was wrong, I suggest you report the post (or the one above it, if it was completely removed) to describe why you thought the information in the post was valuable. What seemed obvious to you might not have been obvious to the moderator, and (s)he can consult with the rest of the forum team to confirm the decision. Or they can help you understand the basis for it, in private.
It's amazing that there are posts getting deleted even on THIS page.
I do appreciate how much time and effort you are expending on this thread. But note that you are explaining and justifying. Both admirable activities, but not the same as really considering the validity of the concerns expressed.
As far as the specific post I mentioned... It wasn't anything important, and it wasn't even deleted. It was just a reasonable question that didn't quite conform to the rules. So one moderator replied pointing out that fact. Ok, sure. Fine. Then, a while later, another moderator also criticized it. That seems like piling on. Hardly tragic, but representative of the zeal with which moderators tend to approach their duties.
Let me ask you this: When, in your experience, have user comments led to a substantial policy change on this forum?
Again, as I said before, even though I find the situation frustrating, I accept it. (No choice, obviously.) When it starts getting to me, I go away for a while. So far, I have come back.
There are two main concerns which have been coming across to me in this thread.
One is that a number of members clearly feel that the forums don't operate in the way in which they think they ought to, or the way in which they would like them to. I think the point has already been made that the forums are a free service provided by the owner Mike Kellogg to fulfil the purpose of enhancing the dictionaries which are the core element of WRF, and that imposes constraints on how the forums can be run. The goals - the vision, if you like - that he's set out as being what the forums should aim to do are unlikely in my view to be altered significantly. There are quite a large number of other language forums out there which people can use, which have different aims and policies, and I know we have a number of members who use other forums as well as ours.
The other concern seems to be the way in which moderation is carried out. I will put my cards on the table and say that in my opinion there is never any justification for a moderator to be rude to another member. We are all real people (despite the impression some members seem to have to the contrary
) and we express ourselves differently. I think most of us make determined efforts to explain why we do things the way we do in a way which treats members as valued participants in a collaborative community. The prospect of anything resembling a mass boycott, leaving us to answer all the questions ourselves, has got to be every moderator's worst nightmare: we just couldn't do it, the forums would collapse under the strain. So it really isn't in our interests to antagonize members unnecessarily.Over a period of time, we've experimented with making certain adjustments to the way moderation is done. The majority of communication is now done by private 'conversation' with the individual member and the amount of visible intervention in threads is, by and large, kept to a minimum. This is done with the aim of keeping the thread looking neat and tidy, (I personally think it looks awful to have a thread with a whole load of deleted posts in it) but also opens up an avenue of communication for a member to query anything they don't like, don't understand or don't agree with.
The example which springs to mind is the introduction, in the majority of forums, of "reactions". These had been requested by members on a number of occasions before being introduced following a successful trial in half a dozen or so forums last year.