Suggestions

May I suggest that urgent action be taken regarding the reporting or referring of posts for review procedure.

Recently I have noted several posts which have been referred for review shortly after they appeared on the message boards. In some cases where I have seen the original post there appears to have been little or no apparent reason for the referral save for the fact that as a new inexperienced member the OP may perhaps have included their own email address or committed a similar misdemeanour. In instances where I have not seen the original post this has been because the post was referred for review almost immediately, within minutes, after it first appeared.

Referring posts so quickly can have no positive effect in so far as perhaps educating the OP as to what is or isn't acceptable within a post. On the other hand it almost certainly has a negative effect as it may dissuade that poster and possibly others from posting on the message boards.

I suspect that in some cases those referring the post may be doing so either for malicious purposes or out of a misguided belief that it is their duty to report any infringement of the sites terms and conditions of use no matter how minor.

When reporting a post the first task is to indicate the "Category of the offence". The next to add comments. May I suggest that if a thread is reported that the current statement, "This post has been requested for review" be qualified by adding the category of offence quoted and the comments made by the reporter. This would at least alert/educate the OP of their possible transgression.

Were the board name of the reporter also to be added it might reduce the possibility of posts being reported for purely malicious reasons.

May I also suggest that a procedure be put in hand to prevent a post which has been reported but has been reinstated by GR from being reported a second time. An example of this happening is:

http://www.genesreunited.co.za/boards.page/board/living_relatives/thread/1304521

Finally may I suggest that for the benefit of all, that appropriate action such as exclusion from the site be taken against any member found guilty of reporting a post for malicious or frivolous reasons.

Well Said

In my time on here I have RR'd I think 2 posts one of which was extremely offensive & it takes a lot to offend me. And the other which named a child molester, fine for naming & shaming but quite a common name (in fact I have a cousin with same name) so could affect many innocent men.

As said there are some who maliciously RR threads, but there are also some who will deliberately post contentious threads just for effect.

:-D

Well said Jonesey,

It would be good to see changes to the reporting system in the way you suggested


Roy

A good post, overall ...............................



but I am not sure that I like the idea of the name of the reporter being shown on the thread OR given to the person whose post was reported.


That could lead to a witch hunt ............................. from other somewhat malicious people.




sylvia

SylviaInCanada, I understand the point your making but it would certainly make anyone think twice before reporting a thread/post in the first place and if the report was justified then i don't think its a bad thing

I have only reported threads/posts on abt 4/5 occasions in my 8 years but i have always posted immediately on the thread that it was me and my reason why


Roy

Jonesey what the heck is an OP

I'd report any post I don't think is approproiate.

There are to many people here who think they are the board police - so frustrating :-( :-(

OP means 'original poster' in discussion forums. The original poster is the person who started a discussion thread, and OP is used to refer back to that person as the responses grow

Roy

PP thank you :-D

Nanasue

what did you mean by

"I'd report any post I don't think is approproiate.

There are to many people here who think they are the board police - so frustrating"

If you are going to report a thread/post, are you not now becoming one of the board police yourself?

I fail to understand why a person rr'ing a post is allowed to remain anonymous. We are not allowed to post anything anonymously. So why should the same rule not apply to rr'ing a post?

I think it should read " This post has been requested for review by XXX"

I got an email from GR today (Tuesday)

Someone objected to something I posted on a thread on Suggestions


http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.page/board/suggestions/thread/1304889?jump=1304889


and there HAS been a change in GR's policy.


This is what I got ......................


Dear Sylvia

You recently added a message board response using your Genes Reunited membership.

It has been brought to our attention that the nature of this posting breaches the Message Board guidelines and terms and conditions of our website and the item has now been removed from Genes Reunited.

The posting was : I don't know!!



For heaven's sake, ask GR ................. not us!!!

Continuing to create content of this nature may result in your eventual removal from the site.

We thank you in anticipation of your co-operation and adherence to the terms of your Genes Reunited membership.

Kind Regards,

Genes Reunited Support Team





It tells me what was RR'd and removed.




sylvia

do GR actually READ the posts that have been RR'd??

If there is nothing wrong with the post, it should be put back IMMEDIATELY!

Instead of sending messages only to the OP, a message should be also sent to the RR...

I've never RR'd any post, so I don't know if the Reporter gets an email, asking why they felt the post should be reported. I haven't been RR'd either.

It should work BOTH ways.

As per Sylvia's posting, the "offensive" poster gets this message:
Continuing to create content of this nature may result in your eventual removal from the site.

Perhaps the RR'er should receive:
Continuing to report messages that offend no-one may result in your eventual removal from the site

Scozz

I've only just seen this .............


If you RR a post, one of 2 things will happen

1. If GR agree and remove the post, you will receive an email that says something along the lines of ............


Dear xxxxxx

You recently requested a message board response added by Sylvia (xxxxxxx) for review giving the reason, Other
I can confirm that this posting has already been removed.

------

That was one of my posts that xxxxxx had removed about 6 months ago (out of spite!), and then he sent me a copy of the GR email.

I was taken aback by him sending it to me .....

................. but even more by that fact that GR gave HIM my surname, even though my Board Name is supposed to be used in ALL communications from GR.

They told me that the name given by them to someone who has RR'd one of your posts is the name showing on your ACCOUNT.

My "surname" on My Accounts page is now "In Canada" :-D



2. If GR do not agree, they used to always send you an email telling you that the post reported had been judged not to have broken the T&C's (or whatever reason you had given for RR'ing), and had been reinstated.

This does not always seem to happen ........... at least over the last few months.



I think I have RR'd posts about 4 or 5 times over the years ................... for abusive comments or for homophobic or racist comments. And only for those reasons. I have never reported any posts for disagreeing with my opinions (that's part of "discussion"!), or for fun, etc etc.


The post by me that xxxxxx reported was because I disagreed with him, someone then RR'd his post, and he decided it was me ....... so he retaliated by RR'ing my post. I did not RR his post, and I was in bed when everything else happened!



There have been several occasions over the years when someone seems to RR posts for "fun" ................ I even had "hello" RR'd one time :-D

This was particularly bad some months ago .......... and GR did say then that they would keep track of who was doing all this silly RR'ing ................ and the person would be warned, and then banned from the site if they did not stop.

It stopped, so presumably either the warning or the ban worked ................. but then it resumed a couple of months later.

So GR CAN do something about unwarranted RR'ing ................... the question is "do they?", or do they wait until there is an outcry by members about the number and type of posts being RR'd




sylvia