Forum netiquette and moderation

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:43:42 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"] I am shocked by the bluntness of your tone [/quote]

warning - no 'softening contraction'

Perhaps 'I think your tone is shocking' would have been better?

Mrs I C Stars

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Niall Taylor — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:21:22 GMT

[quote user="jamie winstone"]I am offended[/quote]

[quote user="jamie winstone"]I am not yet in tears[/quote]

Right, that's twice you didn't use a "softening contraction" when you had the chance - I am shocked by the bluntness of your tone and I will never, ever, post again (unless I really want to).

Only joking... Arlo... Arlo?

Rev IP Freeley

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

jamie winstone — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:48:48 GMT

I appreciate your comments Arlo, but to call me a lurker is beyond the pale. I am offended and would respectfully suggest lurkers have never posted. Part time posters are just cautious!!(Although offended I am not yet in tears).

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:56:54 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Perhaps some form of 'report for moderation' button?

Not 'report abuse' as on some sites but an easy and low level way for the more personal comments to be filtered. It should reduce the need for constant 'supervision' by Arlo!!

[/quote]

There is a 'report abuse' button hidden under more options. Whatever you call it, it performs the same task.

(I tell you, this forum hides stuff!)

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Bob Russell — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:26:12 GMT

Perhaps some form of 'report for moderation' button?

Not 'report abuse' as on some sites but an easy and low level way for the more personal comments to be filtered. It should reduce the need for constant 'supervision' by Arlo!!

Everyone on this site is intelligent, well educated and I doubt if anyone is actually ever completely wrong (even the lunatic fringe)!

Vets often have strong opinions (generally a good thing IMO) and this is clear from some of the posts. It is entertaining but can reveal how thin skinned we can be under the bluster.

The fact that many thousands watch the threads suggest most of the time it 'ain't broke'.

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Colin Thomson — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:58:44 GMT

I think an important point to note is that the people who hesitate to post on these forums because of the (admittedly rare) ad hominum or other attack will NOT be responding on this thread - for fear of being flamed. So here, we're only hearing from folks who, if maybe not happy with nature of discussion on occasion, at least can tolerate it. Arlo may be getting something via PM, but those who would most vociferously support Arlo's proposed measures will be silent here, IMO.

Colin

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:42:44 GMT

[quote user="jamie winstone"]I am a full time supporter of vetsurgeon and with that a bit of an addict when it comes to reading posts. however i am only a part time poster. It is not easy to say what inhibits posting but I think it is a bit like in a lecture theatre, only a very few ask questions, but the ones who ask questions ask them all! (Even the ones you were just about to ask)

So I see myself as part of the vast majority who spend quite a lot of time on the site but don`t contribute too much(the silent majority). The site is informative in content but it is also entertaining with its vast range of opinion and subject matter. I think the banter and the "freedom of expression" is all part of the interest and although on occasions it gets a little out of hand. I would implore you not to change things.

I often think that one or two dissenting voices cause disproportionate changes but there are over 7000 people on this site who must get a lot out of the site as it is, so in my view hesitate before we start carding people for their abrupt style or you might find that the result is less posters not more.

Jamie[/quote]

Jamie, thanks for that feedback - really helpful to hear from a lurker.

[quote user="jamie winstone"]I think the banter and the "freedom of expression" is all part of the interest[/quote]

So do I, and I'm not trying to sterilise the forum.

[quote user="jamie winstone"]I often think that one or two dissenting voices cause disproportionate changes but there are over 7000 people on this site who must get a lot out of the site as it is, so in my view hesitate before we start carding people for their abrupt style or you might find that the result is less posters not more.[/quote]

Absolutely not. I mean, this is the first time I have suggested any changes in the lifetime of the site, so I don't have a track record for it.

With only one or two exceptions, I really don't moderate with individuals in mind. Instead, I try and listen to everything that is going on, add it all up, and then try and steer down the middle. You won't know that behind the scenes in the last couple of years, I have had two vets and one businesswoman ring me up in tears about the way they felt they had been treated on here. We have also lost someone whose presence I really valued (and I think a lot of you did too), because she didn't like the more extreme elements. There is a pattern emerging

I think a lot of this is really down to education. I can think of one example of someone who was blissfully unaware of how their posts used to read very badly, radically changed their style, and the forum is all the better for it.

Perhaps just having this discussion thread about the subject is enough (though I would still like to try the Q & A thing).

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:35:06 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

1. Someone posts question. Red question mark appears adjacent.

2. Someone, or a number of people post answers. ANYONE can then mark an answer as 'Suggested answer' (which you might want to do if you see the question has been answered well, and you want to broaden the discussion). Question mark now goes orange.

3. The OP gets an email telling them the answer has been suggested, and they must now verify it was the answer they were looking for, or not.

4. Once verified, the question mark goes green and it is open house to broaden the discussion.

[/quote]

Sounds like a faff, and might just serve to stifle discussion and debate.

[/quote]

I think it is difficult to describe it without it sounding like a faff! But let's try it and see. If it is a faff, we can just switch back again.

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

jamie winstone — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:09:59 GMT

I am a full time supporter of vetsurgeon and with that a bit of an addict when it comes to reading posts. however i am only a part time poster. It is not easy to say what inhibits posting but I think it is a bit like in a lecture theatre, only a very few ask questions, but the ones who ask questions ask them all! (Even the ones you were just about to ask)

Jamie

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Rob Loxley — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:10:58 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

1. Someone posts question. Red question mark appears adjacent.

3. The OP gets an email telling them the answer has been suggested, and they must now verify it was the answer they were looking for, or not.

4. Once verified, the question mark goes green and it is open house to broaden the discussion.

[/quote]

Sounds like a faff, and might just serve to stifle discussion and debate. Maybe replies that are completely OT need hiving off elsewehere, but is the range of discussion that a post provokes not interesting, or are we just an answer-bank?

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:51:54 GMT

And on the other thing I was talking about earlier: not widening questions into discussions until the question has been answered.

Watching a few more questions over the last few days, I think this could work really well, but I need to make it much clearer how to use the system:

1. Someone posts question. Red question mark appears adjacent.

3. The OP gets an email telling them the answer has been suggested, and they must now verify it was the answer they were looking for, or not.

4. Once verified, the question mark goes green and it is open house to broaden the discussion.

I need to change the message that goes in the alert emails, and also make the process clear at the point when you post a question. It'll happen over the next few days.

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:43:24 GMT

So, coming back to the OP, here are some thoughts I've put together about communicating via internet forums.

The written word is devoid of all the social niceties that accompany what we say to people's faces. It is ESSENTIAL to compensate for this by adding an extra level of 'politesse' to the written word.

A couple of examples:
- Online, never write an opinion as a statement of fact. Offline, you may get away with it. Online, it could make your post read as arrogant, boorish and disrespectful of your reader(s). For example: "You are wrong" is something that sounds like it has been written by a bit of a twit. 'I think you may be wrong' sounds altogether more congenial.
- If you are arguing the point, you should ALWAYS think about whether it would be appropriate to throw in a 'prophylactic apology'. They may often feel a bit cliched, but you cannot go wrong using one: "I don't mean to cause offence, but ... ", or "I don't mean this to sound like criticism".
It is easy enough to steer clear of obvious personal insult. But recognise that questioning someone's professional capability or knowledge can be equally insulting. And if not that, then certainly intimidating. Who wants to be made to look a fool in front of an audience of thousands? What's more, 9 times out of 10, the post which you think demonstrates that the author is an idiot was written in a hurry, and they just didn't mention that they had already thought of x, or tried y. Never lay into someone without the full facts (and even then ...)
I recommend you default to the use of informal language online. As a place from which to start, it reads as more friendly or less critical, whereas with formal English, quite the opposite is often true. If I need to soften something, I'll often wheel out the apostrophies. "I've" reads softer than "I have", same for "it is" and "it's". Colloquialisms can have a similar effect.

I'm not suggesting every post should read something like: "In my humble opinion (and I'm really sorry if this causes offence, it's not meant to), you may be ever so slightly wrong when you say that a raw meaty bones diet will cure every ailment in both the dog and its owner."

What I AM saying is that in the days of quill and ink, people would labour for hours over what they wrote, and use the most wonderfully flowery language to convey their meaning with as little risk of being misunderstood as possible.

These days, we often write too hastily, without thought for our reader(s) and how they might read what we've written rather differently than intended. At the risk of sounding a bit Mary Whitehouse, it's inconsiderate and very bad mannered.

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Rob Davis — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:54:06 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

OK, OK.......you all know what I'm getting at........I give up now!

[/quote]

I do understand what you mean, but I also understand why some people may be more comfortable posting under a pseudonym, and I have no problem with this. If it encourages more people to participate then I can't see that it's a bad thing

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:24:41 GMT

OK, OK.......you all know what I'm getting at........I give up now!

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Rob Davis — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:02:19 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I just think that using our own names will hopefully make for a friendlier and nicer forum![/quote]

I think most of the more abrasive posts come from people who use their own names....

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:21:57 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I'd happily continue this 'argument' (I like the compliments ) but, and I've said it before and I'll say it again - if someone wants to use a pseudonym, then that is fine - I just think that using our own names will hopefully make for a friendlier and nicer forum!

[/quote]

You mean like Tom Lonsdale and J G Wray? (I'm going to be shot for this one but it was too juvenile a crack to resist!)

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:01:24 GMT

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Ian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:57:05 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]see some photo ID, of course...[/quote]

Here is my photo ID - I'm in the green cap!

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:49:24 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Since a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, canst we not use the name without judging the book by its cover?[/quote]

I think Ian would divorce me if I started pretending to be him.....you may not have noticed, but we don't always agree!

[/quote]

No! Really? Joking aside, though - Arlo knows you're you, he and you might prove you're you; I can't! I have enormous respect for you, but not because your screen name is Gillian Mostyn - never having met you, you might (for all I know or care), be called something completely different!

Thought exercise: How do I know your name is really Gillian? How do you know my name is really Mark? Perhaps my name is Valentine, and you're actually named Ronald. I cheerfully admit you have been absolutely consistent in your posting, so I am confident that i've been chatting with the same person, and I even fancy that we'd get along quite nicely if we ever met up at BSAVA for coffee, but that's a far cry from ironclad proof that it's a vet named Gillian. (once I meet you and see some photo ID, of course...)

(I completely agree with you in advance that my line of thought is a bit silly, but when it's all text on a screen, the letters tell me the person who is writing, and as long as the same person is consistently that same name, should it matter what they call themselves?)

Perhaps we should ask Pope Francis.

(Although if we have Screaming Lord Sutch and Lord Toby Jug signing in, I will quite happily reconsider my stance.)

Cheers,

Screaming Lord Valentine Hedberg

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:11:51 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Since a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, canst we not use the name without judging the book by its cover?[/quote]

I think Ian would divorce me if I started pretending to be him.....you may not have noticed, but we don't always agree!

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:45:11 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That's not the point, though. The point is it matters to Wren.[/quote]

But I was at pains to point out [I thought] that

it's what you ask or say, and only that, that I respond to.

which I thought was pretty clear?

[/quote][/quote]

Yes, it is clear. My point was that I don't think that makes any difference to someone who is shy.

In other words, if I was shy, it wouldn't make me any less shy knowing that you only respond to what I ask or say. In fact, if I cast my memory back to when I was quite shy, I think it was the fear of how people would respond to what I said that I was most fearful of.

Erm, am I making any sense? Are we talking at cross-purposes?

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:37:22 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That's not the point, though. The point is it matters to Wren.[/quote]

But I was at pains to point out [I thought] that

it's what you ask or say, and only that, that I respond to.

which I thought was pretty clear?

[/quote]

To be fair, this was more clear to me than the previous way you phrased it. (I seem to have a problem with long words today. Some vet I am, eh?)

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Anthony Todd — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:29:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That's not the point, though. The point is it matters to Wren.[/quote]

But I was at pains to point out [I thought] that

it's what you ask or say, and only that, that I respond to.

which I thought was pretty clear?

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:24:31 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I don't think it matters to me whether you're shy, mad, sensitive, a newbie or a SOB it's what you ask or say, and only that, that I respond to.[/quote]

That's not the point, though. The point is it matters to Wren.

This is not directed at you Anthony, but I sometimes I think there is a bit of a lack of empathy here for anyone who isn't an assertive sort who can take flack.

Re: Forum netiquette and moderation

Anthony Todd — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:51:49 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]I'm a little shy[/quote]

I don't think it matters to me whether you're shy, mad, sensitive, a newbie or a SOB it's what you ask or say, and only that, that I respond to.

Far canal, [my new favourite] I get more stick than most but I only care about adding to the post in question, or not, as I will subsequently discover.....