Suggestions

:-) Everyone who's repsonded. Many many thanks for all the opinions and suggestions. I'm almost drained just trying to catch up with all the reading (or maybe that was the 4 and half hours in Ikea!).

Personally [ notice that word is used carefully :-) ] , I like the member moderators suggestion. Giving them the ability to transfer a thread to another board, while automatically sending an email to the original poster, etc. would be perfect example of how to remove the annoyance of someone RR'ing a post, as well as the overhead of it having to go to support. (That's just one example - I know there are many)

I'm going to take everything on board, discuss all these options with the GR team and how and what to implement, and then post the plan on this board, but I want to act quickly and get moving on some of the easier to implement changes which I can gauge from opinion are essential.

Thanks again to everyone.
Cheers Phil

Personally I think that there are 2 slightly different issues here:

A) Posts that are reported because the reporter genuinely believes that its content in some way infringes the sites rules, recommendations or breaches someone's privacy.

B) Posts that are reported simply because the reporter either personally objects to the post's content or whose motive is simply cause annoyance to others.

At the present time once a report has been made the post is immediately removed from view and is replaced with "This post has been requested for review". That action no doubt pleases both reporters types A) and B) but I suspect probably gives greater satisfaction to reporter type B) because of their motive.

I am therefore inclined to suggest that one of the following actions needs to be taken urgently:

1) If the status quo is to remain then allow the reported post to remain on display until a GR moderator has decided (Hopefully within 24 hours) whether or not it should be removed. That at a stroke should make the act of reporting a post for reason B) less satisfying and hopefully reduce the number of posts reported for that motive thus reducing GR's wasted time and the frustration of some of its members.

Or:

2) Completely remove the procedure whereby members (Free or paying) can report a post by simply clicking the "Report as Abuse" button above the post itself. Instead GR to utilise its highly experienced customer service team to monitor and moderate all posts.

Or:

3) Only to allow a GR member to report a post that they consider a breach of GR's "House Rules" by sending a personal email to [email protected] on receipt of which GR's moderators then decide whether the post reported should be removed or not.

I would also suggest that if GR discovers that a member continually makes requests for review which GR's moderators find unsubstantiated then that member be subject to the same treatment as metered out to a poster who is found guilty of making posts which breach GR's house rules.

I.E.

Dependent on the severity of the abuse, Members will receive a first warning telling them why their abuse report has been rejected and why they are receiving a warning.

Should a Member be reported a second time for similar abuse they will receive a final warning.

Upon a third report of similar abuse Members will be permanently banned from the Genes Reunited service.

Yes R.....paragraphs please...sheesh!

Hi R,

You seem to make some very valid points here but could you edit it to put a few line spaces between them please as it is VERY difficult to read and separate them?

Dea Xxx

The following recommendations are my two Canadian cents worth.

Once a thread has been reported perhaps the “views” column could be changed to “Review requested” and a red X be placed beside the thread and within the thread, once reported the “report as abuse” on the post under review should change to “This post is under review” in red. This would prevent multiple complaints on the same issue.

If someone wishes to report a thread or post within a thread, (I think this happens now) they should be presented with a drop down menu with a limited number of choices e.g. “duplicate”, “ abusive”, “personal details revealed” “commercial activity” etc.

Complaints should be reviewed on a priority basis, Personal data and abuse being at the top of the hierarchy.

Once a thread or post within a thread has been reviewed the “informant” and the thread or post owner should be advised of the results of the review egg “we have reviewed the request for review on your post (insert id of post) and it has been determined that the contents meet (are in violation) of the T&C of this site. If found in violation a very brief explanation of why (personal details, duplicate etc). .

Once such a post has been subject to a review and is in compliance perhaps a header note to the effect “This post has been subject to a review, and on xx/xx/xxxx, it was found to comply with all T&C etc)” should pop up if there is a subsequent complaint lodged

If a thread has been running for more than 3 months the review flag should be displayed, but the contents should remain. As was demonstrated in the “PLEASE DONT POST” thread, which just celebrated its 1st birthday recently, members who were unfamiliar with the theme of the thread were in favour of the scarlet letter, but when advised of the theme and the contents of the first post they changed their minds.

This does not preclude the reporting of a recent post within any “old” thread and such report would be subject to same scrutiny as those I suggest for other threads/posts outlined below.

If a post is reported as a duplicate when the informant clicks on “duplicate” there should be a prompt to add the thread number of the duplicate post(s) to the complaint. The contents should remain until reviewed. Once reviewed the contents of the thread, if in violation, should be appended to the first post of the duplicate stream and the contents of the moved thread be replaced with a single post “this thread appears to be a duplicate of a previous thread and contents have been moved to XXXXXXXXXXXXXX” and the thread be locked.

If thread is flagged for abuse, personal details or email addresses I feel the post should be removed from view and those complaints be assigned a priority review status within GR. If subsequently found in violation it should be locked and the first posting should be replaced with a notice “this thread has been reviewed and found to contain xxxxxxxxxxxx and has been removed”.

The notices on threads/posts found in violation should remain for about a week or two then the thread or post completely removed

If a person within 3 months maliciously complains 5 times they should be issued a warning that subsequent malicious complaints could result in a suspension, 10 within 6 months would be an automatic suspension of posting privileges.

Only those paying for membership should be able to lodge a complaint directly on the post, if a non-paying member finds an objectionable post they can click on the “report” button, go through the process, the complaint would go to GR but not be registered on the post until a review has been completed. This would give those extra eyes to pick up any violations but hopefully prevent malicious complaints from those who just want to complain.

As to volunteer reviewers I am somewhat troubled by this concept, however if GR were to ask several long standing members who regularly participate in the boards to become volunteer advisors they could assist GR on possible contentious posts, with GR having final decision of course.


Some of this may have been covered before but these are just my thoughts

Edited to set up paragraphs .... did this on Word properly formatted with paragraphs copied and pasted directly here I guess it loses the formatting once pasted .... sorry
Robert

Now if I had the intelligence for the words to put it that way TeresaW that is pretty much as I would have put it... :-)

I have moderated a site also and it did cause problems with one of the other moderators. Not that I did anything wrong just for the fact I had not been using the site as long as others and one particular person thought she had power over me in the past had now been taken away.

It was a completly different set up to this site and really we were there to help new people and as I was online most of the day I made a good candidate for the job.

Maybe there could be somesort of voting system for anyone interested in being a moderator, rather than how many people you had in your tree?


jax

Shows how long it is since I RR'd anyone, there's already a menu for reasons in the RR prompt screen! When did that happen?

I really do think member moderators would be really useful to the site, and no, going on other forums that already do this, there is no upset or grudge caused by this. The problem with the help clinic was much more than just the fact that a few members ran it, but we won't go into that, its another subject entirely. But, with member moderators, who would of course be screened carefully, after all, anyone who has been reported and had threads/posts removed would appear in their records, and who had NOT been involved in any contentious threads, (yes I know, there are few people who haven't :-D), then these people would not be the cause of any resentment.

It DOES work on other forums, there is no resentment, mod actions are accepted by members and people just get on with it. Anyone who has ever moderated a site, and I have, will know that in most cases, the mods will only action if the thread/post is deemed to be breaching any rules. If grown up people can't accept that, then there is no hope for any of us.

We cannot be scared to post because someone might RR us because they don't like us, we can't be scared to offer an opinion on a debate which differs from the OP's own view, because we might be RR'd, and we cannot and must not tolerate consistent vindictive reporting as has gone on before. Therefore, apart from a few adjustments to the RR system itself, the only option there is, is for GR to employ more paid staff, thus throwing our subs up in price, or for member moderators who value this site, to be able to deal with the sometimes petty complaints that come in.

Moderators on each board would not have to be named would they?Or if they do it does not have to be under their board name/real name does it...
They could just be given numbers or something then they can stay anon and if found not doing their job properly it can soon be given to someone that would do it with fairness.
IF it happened I dont think that any Volunteer Mods should be given any special privileges like free membership or anything as that really does wind people up....

If I request a review I always send a pm to the person outlining the reasons why, mainly breach of privacy and Data Protection. I have also posted on threads in the past that I have requested review when personal attacks have ensued.

The help clinic was different in that it created a hierachy amongst members who help on the boards doing searches and indicated that the members who where in the help clinic were better researches than those on the general boards, which was simply untrue. Also the criteria for selectiing the members to operate the help clinic was flawed. Although some that were selected were excellent researchers, some where not.

Moderators are completely different and will ensure the smooth running of the boards.

After giving this some consideration, my opinion is:-

If RR is not flagged as abuse or showing personal details about a living person does it need to be removed from view? NO

RR reason should be displayed? YES

After Mod action and post is ok, it should still indicate RR'd and results? YES I would also like to have the abiltiy to to report the same post twice removed unless it has been edited. In Ginny's thread the initial post is selected over and over again because if that is removed the thread will be whooshed. You should only be able to edit for forty five minutes after posting. I say forty five minutes because I sometime post census records and go back later to edit off all the unnecessary information.

After Mod action and post not ok, results should be displayed? YES.

Confirm warning dialog when you click on report link? YES

Anyone who reports 10 posts and Mod decides to overrule then that person loses the ability to use report? It would depend if it is going to be category based. I can see that there could be some grey areas, when a person has reported because they think there may be an issue with the post and has done so erring on the side of caution rather than reporting maliciously and Mod disagrees and reinstates a post that would be one count against them. I think that a pattern of a way a person posts needs to be established over the 10 posts and it should be 10 frivolous reports and they lose the privilege to report using the boards but can however do so via email. I do think that reporters names should be withheld in all cases as this can open another can of worms.

Support should action the reported posts today or tomorrow? YES within 48 hours would be good but 24 hours more preferable.

I also agree that moderators are needed all on the boards.

I like the idea of member moderators too....but would that then cause upset with others just like the "Help clinic" did?

I would rather ask a poster to remove details of living people rather than reporting but I have had an unpleasant pm from someone for doing this in the last couple of days, and now think I should of just reported it instead.....To save all the hassle...maybe thats why people are doing it?

I have reported two duplicates very late at night from members who have repeated the same request more than once and although have been asked not to...they continue to do so. The threads were gone by the next morning after I had given the links to their other threads .

I think if someone has hit submit more than once we should just mention it is a duplicate rather than reporting, it will then give the poster the chance to remove it, rather than them thinking they have commited a crime

jax

Oh yea,see what you mean...Boy its a long time since I clicked that button.

So we quite simply dont need the other then do we?
Or do we?

My tummy thinks my throat has been cut,off to let it know it hasnt and think on what
"Other "
in the drop down box could be for..

Hateful/Abusive
Data Protection
Duplicate
Other

Fanny thats what I got when I just clicked on your post to RR....other could mean:

Im a total ejjiot
I is a nasty peice of work
Spiteful
Bored
Because I can

The list is endless :-D

Ann.
Then MAYBE a drop down box with the option limited to?
Abuse
Personal Info
Wrong board

should be the only options?

I really must find a reason to hit the RR button sometime to find out how it works since new management.... :-D

I posted here links to a couple of sites, as examples, where I know that moderating works -

http://www.genesreunited.co.za/boards.page/board/general_chat/thread/1258744

and I still fail to understand why genes reunited refuse to moderate its site.

bt FannyBG "OK my answer then to that is......
No I dont think it needs to be removed from view if not flagged for abuse/too much personal info..But of course the RR will have one or the other on it wont it?So it will be taken off for the review any way.
Unless its cos its on the wrong board?"

No the RR may not be flagged for either abuse or personal info, it may be just because the person pressing RR has a grudge and makes up a reason. It has happened, all they need to say is 'contravenes T&Cs' and that leaves admin having to read it and find a reason why.

I also disagree with free members being able to report posts. If they don't pay subs and therefore can't post they should not be able to RR.

if rr is not flagged as abuse or showing personal details abt living person, does it need to remove post from view...................Pass on that Q Phil as I dont really get it(I dont mind admitting I am a "little" thick on some things)

OK my answer then to that is......
No I dont think it needs to be removed from view if not flagged for abuse/too much personal info..But of course the RR will have one or the other on it wont it?So it will be taken off for the review any way.
Unless its cos its on the wrong board?

I am still a little lost on that one so am going to PASS again... :-)

Sorry, missed the point about member moderators....excellent idea and also the idea that they can have this facility taken away if they are not being fair

Intersting that we all seem to agree to the none paying members not being allowed RR

if rr is not flagged as abuse or showing personal details abt living person, does it need to remove post from view...................Pass on that Q Phil as I dont really get it(I dont mind admitting I am a "little" thick on some things)

Fanny I think Phil means that if the post is reported for anything other than abuse/persoanl data, it shouldnt have an option to be reviewed

So this would mean people who RR because somone has a thread on the wrong board or has two threads about the same thing...they could not be RR

Im in favour of this because it doesnt take a minute to tell them that they have two threads or whatever...in a nice way of course.