BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Reasons for mod requests

 
 
Olulabelle
19:22 / 13.10.06
I'd like to ask people to be truthful in their moderation requests when they make them.

Please don't just write 'typo' when you are removing whole lines or moving stuff around because all that happens is the moderator has to go back and forth between the two posts seeing what's actually been changed.

Some people write 'tweaking' which is better than 'typo' because at least the mod has some idea of what changes to expect. I would prefer 'moving paragraphs around' or if you delete a line - just write that, it's no biggie. 'Typo' however, is not correct for that moderation.

You see the thing is generally it's not important but sometimes it really might be, for example if a poster is going back through old posts deleting things that matter. We recently had an example of this when whole sections were being deleted under the guise of something less drastic. So we have to check especially if it's clear that people aren't being honest about their moderations.

If I sound officious and pompous, I'm sorry. I mean it in a 'please can you', not a 'do this' kind of way.

And if I sound like I ought to be doing something better with my life on a Friday night then it's probably true I should, but I'm not, I'm here, I'm modding and so I am bringing this up. It's been bugging me for a while, I think it's important and I don't want to put this in Policy because I want people to see it.

For neatness I suppose we could shift this thread over to Policy when it sinks.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
19:26 / 13.10.06
I know I have been guilty of vague mod requests.

I generally am fixing spelling, and will include phrases like "I am a moron" because I type quickly and dont proofread before posting.

Today I posted something in the complete wrong thread, that was awesome.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:40 / 13.10.06
I often say "typo", but only when it IS a typo.

I usually, in other cases, try to write something fun for a mod to read, because I know how much it makes my day as a mod when people do that.

But yeah, what Lula said- explanation is good. And I myself will try not to just write "typo" either.
 
 
Spaniel
19:40 / 13.10.06
As will I
 
 
Triplets
19:41 / 13.10.06
Typo
 
 
Olulabelle
20:03 / 13.10.06
Typo is good if it is a typo. It's only when there are 40 deleted lines and a whole new paragraph but the reason still reads 'typo' that it irritates me.

I like the funny ones. It's one of the best things about being a mod.
 
 
grant
20:41 / 13.10.06
Oh, yeah. Those are great.

It's strange, but mod requests are one of the main things that bring me into interesting threads.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:00 / 13.10.06
Yes, don't they! Sometimes I'll click the reference link and get totally sidetracked reading the thead, then I go back to actually undertake the request and it's long gone. I don't know if that's good or bad.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:17 / 14.10.06
Even if it is a typo, could you please give some idea of where the typo is, although it doesn't really matter I will turn down moderation requests if, as far as I can see, no spelling mistakes have actually been corrected.

Otherwise, I love you all, Bu-bye!
 
 
Olulabelle
23:33 / 14.10.06
Comedy 'it really is a typo' type requests are coming through now, which is amusing me greatly and also makes things easier and far more interesting. Thank you.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
00:03 / 15.10.06
I will turn down moderation requests if, as far as I can see, no spelling mistakes have actually been corrected.

Well, that's kind of ridiculous. Why on earth wouldn't you just agree it? If you can't see anything that's changed, then you can at least be sure that the person requesting the edit isn't trying to push a more significant edit through, disguised as something else.
 
 
Olulabelle
00:17 / 15.10.06
Indeed. My issue is that I prefer descriptions which vaguely match what you have actually changed. I think if you can't see the difference between the posts you can be fairly sure nothing untoward is going on and unless the logic train is not stopping for you, the fact that nothing has obviously changed would suggest that the moderation request can be passed.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
02:11 / 15.10.06
MOD ABUSE!

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:39 / 15.10.06
Is that Donald Sutherland doing an impression of Kenneth Williams?

Sheik Zed Well, that's kind of ridiculous. Why on earth wouldn't you just agree it?

I turn them down because I personally don't think there's much point in okaying a change if no change has been made. Perhaps you feel that there's no harm in okaying a change request if no change has been made. I'm not suggesting some kind of Cylon Inquisition over it.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
08:43 / 15.10.06
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:04 / 15.10.06
Wouldn't you have to be pretty damn sure that you hadn't just missed the typo if you were refusing it, though?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:58 / 15.10.06
Pretty much my point.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:03 / 15.10.06
Hmmm, do you think I should start reading the posts and their proposed changes rather than tossing a coin to decide whether I pass it or not?
 
 
Smoothly
14:29 / 15.10.06
I turn them down because I personally don't think there's much point in okaying a change if no change has been made.

What's the point of disagreeing a change if no change has been made?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:42 / 15.10.06
What would be the point of agreeing?

Look, it's not like this happens that often. Just thought it was worth mentioning.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 15.10.06
How about skipping it, Lady? That way somebody else, who might be able to see the correction, can vote on whether to accept it? Or, if a vote is necessary, contacting the person making the request?
 
 
Smoothly
16:04 / 15.10.06
What would be the point of agreeing?

Because you might have missed something tiny and utterly innocuous. There have been a few times that I've looked in vain for the change, only to spot a 'there' for a 'their' or something.

I'm arguing that the default response should be to agree because you might have missed something that seems inconsequential (ie. there appears to be no change) but matters enough to the person proposing the change to make the request. Agreement gives other mods a chance to weigh in - and they might see what's different. Disagreement kills the job and I think to do that you've got to believe that it's a *bad* request, not an empty one.

I think of it like a matrix of action against harm. If there genuinely is no change, agreeing it does no more harm than disagreeing it. If there is a change (that's insignificant enough for the mod to miss it), then disagreeing does do more harm than agreeing.
If you can't see what's *wrong* with the amended post, why not agree it?

I know this doesn't happen very often, but I think there is a policy issue here. Let's take it over to P&H.
 
  
Add Your Reply