Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums

[Carrotcruncher]

I'll give an example: There are many many cases where doctors have wrongly diagnosed a medical problem resulting in either the person dying or having long term health complications. All those doctors explained their findings and expected the patient(s) to accept it and move on but they didn't, they questioned the doctors findings and got second opinions and found the initial doctors findings were wrong.

The above is a very good example of why people should not just 'accept things' if they think they have been wronged just as with cases of moderation. Respectively, your point of view is wrong, people should not just accept it and move on if they feel they have been wronged.

If you want to go through life never questioning things then that is your prerogative but please do not go telling others how to go about living theirs.

This isnt about accepting things, its about accepting things on a website YOU DONT OWN !

 

[laptech]

This isnt about accepting things, its about accepting things on a website YOU DONT OWN !

And that is how dictatorships work, you don't own it therefore you cannot question it therefore you have to accept whatever they say. Sorry but that is not acceptable.

 

[Eric5h5]

False. You're free to go somewhere else or start your own website. In a dictatorship, you would not be able to do that, you would just be silenced completely. I doubt you would be very amenable to me dictating how you should run your own website. I think you should take your own advice about not telling people how to live their lives. You can voice your opinion, but if the owners don't want to listen to you, they don't have to, and are 100% within their rights to moderate you for any reason and not explain it. I note that basically every site that implements policies as a reaction to perceived "over-moderation" and declares that they are "100% free speech" or similar, pretty much lasts about 5 minutes before they start banning posts and people they don't like.

In general, if a site is too arbitrary about moderating people, they lose users who get fed up with that, but if they're too lenient about not moderating trolls and whackjobs, they also lose users who get fed up with that, so having a high user retention rate is a balancing act. But not all sites are motivated by trying to maximize users, and would rather have higher quality even if it means less user interaction. They have every right to do that and you can't make them do otherwise.

 

[laptech]

False. You're free to go somewhere else or start your own website. In a dictatorship, you would not be able to do that, you would just be silenced completely. I doubt you would be very amenable to me dictating how you should run your own website. I think you should take your own advice about not telling people how to live their lives. You can voice your opinion, but if the owners don't want to listen to you, they don't have to, and are 100% within their rights to moderate you for any reason and not explain it. I note that basically every site that implements policies as a reaction to perceived "over-moderation" and declares that they are "100% free speech" or similar, pretty much lasts about 5 minutes before they start banning posts and people they don't like.

In general, if a site is too arbitrary about moderating people, they lose users who get fed up with that, but if they're too lenient about not moderating trolls and whackjobs, they also lose users who get fed up with that, so having a high user retention rate is a balancing act. But not all sites are motivated by trying to maximize users, and would rather have higher quality even if it means less user interaction. They have every right to do that and you can't make them do otherwise.

It is a sad reflection on today's society where rather than have an opinion/view about something and debate that opinion/view in an open discussion forum, you are told to leave, told to go elsewhere because people do not like what others say. Issues/problems do not go away by people leaving, they just manifest and get worse.

 

[I7guy]

It is a sad reflection on today's society where rather than have an opinion/view about something and debate that opinion/view in an open discussion forum, you are told to leave, told to go elsewhere because people do not like what others say. Issues/problems do not go away by people leaving,

There's entitlement that the concept of "free speech" is twisted into something it's not. You took an issue (or issues) you were having with a private website and turned it into some societal-wide issue. Nobody is telling anyone to leave, but if one don't like the food in the restaurant, the service in the store, the products that are offered or the price, why shop in the store?

they just manifest and get worse.

This is objectively incorrect. The site has overtime taken constructive feedback and made various adjustments.

It's just my opinion, but if one wants some positive changes to be made in policy, instead of generalized, hyperbolic criticism, try posting some actionable constructive feedback.

 

[icanhazmac]

It's against forum rules to make posts with negative comments about other forum members. This applies even when the target is a former forum member. As a result, we've removed comments and posts above that aren't in keeping with that rule.

Since posts containing negative comments about former forum members are not permitted and were deleted, can I assume that negative reactions left by possibly former forum members will be deleted too? Just asking for a friend who was recently spammed with negative emoji by a now suspended and possibly former member.

 

[Doctor Q]

Since posts containing negative comments about former forum members are not permitted and were deleted, can I assume that negative reactions left by possibly former forum members will be deleted too? Just asking for a friend who was recently spammed with negative emoji by a now suspended and possibly former member.

I'm unclear what you mean by "possibly former."

A current forum member can post reactions. A former member cannot.

For the record, spamming with negative reactions can fall under the harassment rule.

 

[icanhazmac]

I'm unclear what you mean by "possibly former."

A current forum member can post reactions. A former member cannot.

For the record, spamming with negative reactions can fall under the harassment rule.

Sending you a message.

 

[Doctor Q]

I had not understood the question above, but icanhazmac clarified it for me. If someone is using reactions to harass another forum member, it should be reported. Reactions are not automatically removed if someone is banned, but we can remove them on request if we confirm they were being used to target someone for harassment.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I had not understood the question above, but icanhazmac clarified it for me. If someone is using reactions to harass another forum member, it should be reported. Reactions are not automatically removed if someone is banned, but we can remove them on request if we confirm they were being used to target someone for harassment.

Or just ignore reactions. I mean positive or negative I pay them no notice. A forum option to not see them would gain a positive reaction from me!

But yes people shouldn’t harass other members in any way.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Or just ignore reactions. I mean positive or negative I pay them no notice. A forum option to not see them would gain a positive reaction from me!

But yes people shouldn’t harass other members in any way.

I use Tapatalk to view this forum and one bonus of it is all reactions show up as ‘likes’ and there is nothing to get offended about lol. It’s only when you go onto the web view and see that 17 likes is actually a mixture of angry faces and actual likes on the post. I’m in agreement, it makes no difference to me.

In all seriousness people, if someone gets under your skin, just ignore and block them. I get notifications informing me a person I have blocked keeps quoting me but I usually have the self discipline not to read the censored content. It makes discussions a lot more pleasant.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I use Tapatalk to view this forum and one bonus of it is all reactions show up as ‘likes’ and there is nothing to get offended about lol. It’s only when you go onto the web view and see that 17 likes is actually a mixture of angry faces and actual likes on the post. I’m in agreement, it makes no difference to me.

In all seriousness people, if someone gets under your skin, just ignore and block them. I get notifications informing me a person I have blocked keeps quoting me but I usually have the self discipline not to read the censored content. It makes discussions a lot more pleasant.

I turned off getting notifications (or maybe it’s because I’m on the web version) when ignored people quote me.
Eventually people must work out they are on ignore I guess anyhow
But agree using the ignore feature not only makes MR a more pleasant place to visit, it also stops you getting modified half as often!

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I turned off getting notifications (or maybe it’s because I’m on the web version) when ignored people quote me.
Eventually people must work out they are on ignore I guess anyhow
But agree using the ignore feature not only makes MR a more pleasant place to visit, it also stops you getting modified half as often!

I would think most posters would get the message if you haven't responded to them for a while but definitely not all. I have someone (who will remain nameless) I blocked well over a year ago who quotes and replies to my posts almost on a daily basis, to which I get a notification informing me of this. I haven't responded or engaged in any discussion with them since midway through 2022, yet they are still very keen to talk to me. I don't generally read their responses and have noticed they also leave 'laughing' emojis on my posts.

It is a shame that once someone is blocked, it doesn't hide you from them too, but I understand this would make threads unreadable though and in essence isn't a good idea for the general flow of conversation.

 

[laptech]

I would think most posters would get the message if you haven't responded to them for a while but definitely not all. I have someone (who will remain nameless) I blocked well over a year ago who quotes and replies to my posts almost on a daily basis, to which I get a notification informing me of this. I haven't responded or engaged in any discussion with them since midway through 2022, yet they are still very keen to talk to me. I don't generally read their responses and have noticed they also leave 'laughing' emojis on my posts.

It is a shame that once someone is blocked, it doesn't hide you from them too, but I understand this would make threads unreadable though and in essence isn't a good idea for the general flow of conversation.

Didn't Facebook or was it Twitter that had/has the same problem? I remember reading something about it being on one of the platforms, users complaining that when they block a person they still get notifications if the blocked person 'liked' a comment or linked to a comment, rendering the block function pointless if a blocked user can still get notifications through to their intended target.

Would appear this feature is a common problem across multiple platforms.

 

[I7guy]

I would think most posters would get the message if you haven't responded to them for a while but definitely not all. I have someone (who will remain nameless) I blocked well over a year ago who quotes and replies to my posts almost on a daily basis, to which I get a notification informing me of this. I haven't responded or engaged in any discussion with them since midway through 2022, yet they are still very keen to talk to me. I don't generally read their responses and have noticed they also leave 'laughing' emojis on my posts.

It is a shame that once someone is blocked, it doesn't hide you from them too, but I understand this would make threads unreadable though and in essence isn't a good idea for the general flow of conversation.

Here's my view. I don't block anybody as I like to read all responses; the good, the bad and the ugly.

I don't care if I never get a response...if a post imo, is response worthy, I'll respond with no expectation of discussion. The response is not only for the OP, but also for the internet. Future thread readers will read through and make up their own mind about the content in these threads.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Here's my view. I don't block anybody as I like to read all responses; the good, the bad and the ugly.

I don't care if I never get a response...if a post imo, is response worthy, I'll respond with no expectation of discussion. The response is not only for the OP, but also for the internet. Future thread readers will read through and make up their own mind about the content in these threads.

That used to be my policy as well. Staying out of certain areas of the site helped as well.
But I’m afraid the calibre or blatant trolling of some members just is not worth my time to read.
Life’s too short to waste time with people who like to argue all the time.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Here's my view. I don't block anybody as I like to read all responses; the good, the bad and the ugly.

I don't care if I never get a response...if a post imo, is response worthy, I'll respond with no expectation of discussion. The response is not only for the OP, but also for the internet. Future thread readers will read through and make up their own mind about the content in these threads.

I like to read differing opinions and engage in civil and constructive debate, but the beauty of the block feature is those who are only interested in getting a reaction have their posts minimised/hidden and I don't have to waste any of my time. It is of course totally fine if others want to read it, but its nice to have the individual option to make the forums more pleasant for yourself. From past experience I find that reported posts often recieve no action as the mods reviewing it are unaware of the context or the subtle insults/underhand digs within a specific post. It has to be black and white and I understand that it would be far too time consuming for them to investigate extensively.

 

[chown33]

I would think most posters would get the message if you haven't responded to them for a while but definitely not all. I have someone (who will remain nameless) I blocked well over a year ago who quotes and replies to my posts almost on a daily basis, to which I get a notification informing me of this. I haven't responded or engaged in any discussion with them since midway through 2022, yet they are still very keen to talk to me. I don't generally read their responses and have noticed they also leave 'laughing' emojis on my posts.

It is a shame that once someone is blocked, it doesn't hide you from them too, but I understand this would make threads unreadable though and in essence isn't a good idea for the general flow of conversation.

Another moderator and I have checked into this, and we don't see it happening when using the website directly. We suspect it may be a side-effect of your apparent use of Tapatalk.

Here's how I tested this.

Under my account's Preferences, I changed the following:

Receive a Notification when someone...​

Quotes your message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

Mentions you in a message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

Reacts to your message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

I confirmed that each of these actions delivered a Notification from the unignored member.

I then Ignored the member. When the actions were done again with the member ignored, there were no Notifications. This is the expected result.

While the member was ignored, I also confirmed the following:
- the reaction left by the ignored member DOES appear on the post when I visit the reacted-to post (this is the expected result for the current forum software, despite being unwanted)
- the reply quoting my post DOES NOT appear when I visit the thread, unless I click "Show ignored content".
- the post containing a mention DOES NOT appear when I visit the thread, unless I click "Show ignored content".

I then Showed ignored content and confirmed that all the previous actions taken by the ignored member were visible. This is the expected result.

I then Unignored the member and repeated all the actions, again confirming that a Notification appeared for each one.

Finally, I disabled the "Receive a Notification" options I wanted disabled.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Another moderator and I have checked into this, and we don't see it happening when using the website directly. We suspect it may be a side-effect of your apparent use of Tapatalk.

Here's how I tested this.

Under my account's Preferences, I changed the following:

Receive a Notification when someone...​

Quotes your message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

Mentions you in a message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

Reacts to your message: Alert enabled, Push disabled​

I confirmed that each of these actions delivered a Notification from the unignored member.

I then Ignored the member. When the actions were done again with the member ignored, there were no Notifications. This is the expected result.

While the member was ignored, I also confirmed the following:
- the reaction left by the ignored member DOES appear on the post when I visit the reacted-to post (this is the expected result for the current forum software, despite being unwanted)
- the reply quoting my post DOES NOT appear when I visit the thread, unless I click "Show ignored content".
- the post containing a mention DOES NOT appear when I visit the thread, unless I click "Show ignored content".

I then Showed ignored content and confirmed that all the previous actions taken by the ignored member were visible. This is the expected result.

I then Unignored the member and repeated all the actions, again confirming that a Notification appeared for each one.

Finally, I disabled the "Receive a Notification" options I wanted disabled.

Thank you for looking into this, much appreciated.

 

[halledise]

we need to go easy on the mods.
sade wrote a song about them …
smooth moderator

 

[johnmacward]

Funny thing is, who defines "error of their ways"?

Me? Nope
You? Nope
MR ownership/management? Yup

I have said this before, their site, their rules.

What's worrying is that you seem to justify authoritarianism by ownership, forgetting that MR fundamentally needs and wants people to post and interact on these forums (it's their bread and butter and fundamentally a forum is setup for their users to interact in highly varied ways) so it's truly in their interest to have a more transparent system of decent moderation that is consistent and not just the whim of someone's bad humour one day, or a mods political beliefs or unconscious bias. So, who should define error of their ways? Well the community that actively uses the site could do it. There are 100,000's of us if not more (not sure of the actual numbers) and plenty with time - they could offer themselves and be voted AND be recalled etc. None of this is impossible.

 

[icanhazmac]

What's worrying is that you seem to justify authoritarianism

LOL, another -ism label thrown around haphazardly. MR has rules, that you agreed to, but you can choose to obey them or not. It is not "authoritarian" of MR to enforce their rules. You are free to make suggestions here but ultimately MR will make choices they feel are in their best interests, not choices that you feel are in their best interests. If they choose poorly, their business will suffer. If they choose wisely, they will flourish. Ultimately, the choices are theirs.

so it's truly in their interest to have a more transparent system of decent moderation that is consistent and not just the whim of someone's bad humour one day, or a mods political beliefs or unconscious bias.

It has been stated many times that, any instance of moderation can be challenged and that challenges go before the team. This eliminates the ability for a single mod to do anything permanent based on their "bad day".

 

[bousozoku]

It's worse than that. I reported several of the comments and in each case the "moderator team reviewed the post and concluded that no moderation action was warranted."

I've noticed this a few times since I returned to the forums. Apparently, if something wasn't offensive to the moderators, it wasn't offensive to anyone.

Prior to the iPhone, we didn't have a lot of offensive posts. Most people went along with the rules. We had one or two who frequently posted rants and that was it. When the iPhone arrived, all hell broke loose, and moderators scrambled to handle the chaos.

Now, the number of members is up and the number of troublemakers is up. That's just real life, isn't it?

You can't have an IQ test to determine eligibility, can you?

 

[bousozoku]

What's worrying is that you seem to justify authoritarianism by ownership, forgetting that MR fundamentally needs and wants people to post and interact on these forums (it's their bread and butter and fundamentally a forum is setup for their users to interact in highly varied ways) so it's truly in their interest to have a more transparent system of decent moderation that is consistent and not just the whim of someone's bad humour one day, or a mods political beliefs or unconscious bias. So, who should define error of their ways? Well the community that actively uses the site could do it. There are 100,000's of us if not more (not sure of the actual numbers) and plenty with time - they could offer themselves and be voted AND be recalled etc. None of this is impossible.

It isn't a government. It's a private business.

Arn and his staff decide how things will run and will decide if things need to change due to user concerns. There is no voting necessary, outside of staff.

I've seen a variety of people on forums, here and elsewhere, who believe that they don't have to follow the rules. When you join, you agree to the rules. Some people can't follow the rules, so they are repeatedly punished for their negative actions.

If you want a free-for-all, try wccftech. Moderators seldom stop the madness.

 

[MBAir2010]

we need to go easy on the mods.
sade wrote a song about them …
smooth moderator

it's never....never as good as the first post....