Ad Hominem and Multiple Posts

[WildCowboy]

Yes, we are aware that our response time has been less than optimal. And yes, we are working (sooner rather than later) on resolving that issue. The wheels do turn slowly, which is a byproduct of the fact that there is a significant amount of discussion and coordination that has to take place among people who have real-life commitments limiting their time to work on these issues. Could and should they turn faster? In some cases, yes, but in the long run, this is still the best Apple-focused community on the Internet, one that has evolved significantly over time as this site and Apple's popularity has grown and new products from Apple have shifted the demographics of our membership.

Stepping back a bit, the moderators generally perform their jobs by responding to post reports. And while they may take a bit longer to be handled these days, they are being handled. While things could be helped in some cases by us putting out the fires more quickly, the fact that there seems to be a strong sentiment that rules aren't being enforced when we are in fact doing so when alerted suggests to me that problem posts are not being reported.

Please, please, please...report problem posts. We may not be able to take care of it right away, but we will get to it. We can't read every post, and so we rely on the assistance of our members to draw our attention to problem spots. If it's not reported, there's a good chance it won't be seen by us. Responding to the problem posts doesn't help us...reporting them does.

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon.

 

[robbieduncan]

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon.

Will the announcement be on a Tuesday? Will the forums be taken down and replaced with a post-it-note saying "we'll be back soon"?

 

[Peace]

Will the announcement be on a Tuesday? Will the forums be taken down and replaced with a post-it-note saying "we'll be back soon"?

Complete with elevator pic of new Mod avatar. Photoshopped of course!

 

[xUKHCx]

Because as far as I remember 4 were added in December 2007 as there was a need for them, but before that 2 had been added every 6 months, so I would expect 2 more to have been added around Christmas 2008 as that would be keeping with the pattern.

<shrug> maybe I'm reading more into it than I should.

Perhaps, there might be an equation in there somewhere to suggest the ideal number of mods/forum members however the human side of it such as the level of commitment people can give take over. There are periods of time when some mods can be on quite a lot and some other periods when they can't. During then and now we have waxed and wained. With some mods dropping off over this time the waining stage becomes a bigger problem.

Perhaps you can answer this for me, xUKHCx. Do the mods commit to serve a certain length of time?

Mods are free to come and go as they please just like every other forum member. There is some expectation however in reality everyone knows that real world can and will take presidence

I stay away from the crazy sections

The key to forum happiness, although sometimes it is hard to know which is the crazy and which is the sane.

Complete with elevator pic of new Mod avatar. Photoshopped of course!

I can tell by the pixels.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Mods are free to come and go as they please just like every other forum member. There is some expectation however in reality everyone knows that real world can and will take presidence.

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.

 

[edesignuk]

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.

Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

 

[Schtumple]

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon.

You've all collaborated together in creating a fully working Powerbook G5?

You heard it here first

 

[IJ Reilly]

I find myself agreeing with IJ's observations about MR. Although it's difficult to know for certain as most of us are simply not privy to every factor involved.

Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

What I can say is that there is a marked decline in the quality of MR posts over the last year or so, directly related to what I perceive as a lack of proper moderation, having spent less time on myself for a period of time and recently finding myself lurking more often again.

I don't know how the MR bureaucracy works, but if selecting moderators is as difficult as you seem to be hinting at, is it possible that there are serious inefficiencies in the decision-making process?

I would like to hear more about the process by which decisions are made. Perhaps if you all would be more open about it, some of us could provide suggestions. Honestly, and with all due respect to all of you who invest much time in what is a thankless job, MR needs help and I would be willing to bet that several people in this thread alone would be willing to help if you would just ask.

Some of us already have, on multiple occasions. The response is generally something along the lines of, "your suggestion is appreciated," and that's the last you ever hear of it.

Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this, especially when new moderators are held on probation for a time anyway? I can easily count ten contributors to this thread alone who'd qualify by these criteria.

 

[jav6454]

Because the "good mods" aren't always online and if you had lots of mods you could give them positions in a hierarchy, and not allow the "junior" mods to permanently ban people or time them out for more than 24 hours or something.

Btw, the mods on this forum do do an excellent job.

I agree we should have something like you said "Junior or Janitors". Some people who deal to a lesser extent, but still help out the community.

True also not all moderators are online. I myself have seen MacRumors be moderatorless for 3 hours straight. No one, not even the gods were online. Luckily things were calm that day. But it wouldn't surprise me if things got out of hand one day if this keeps up.

 

[Schtumple]

Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

Some of us already have, on multiple occasions. The response is generally something along the lines of, "your suggestion is appreciated," and that's the last you ever hear of it.

Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this, especially when new moderators are held on probation for a time anyway? I can easily count ten contributors to this thread alone who'd qualify by these criteria.

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

 

[xUKHCx]

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.

I personally could not give a commitment time scale (especially one longer than UK employment law). And I feel that it would make it more confining as you then feel like you have to stay, add to that we are free to leave as we wish in reality and life changes I don't see this having a benefit. Unles of course I have missed the point of this, if so feel free to explain (in laymans terms )

Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this

Because sometimes two forum members will fit the criteria as outlined above but one happens to live in a timezone with lots of mods and good coverage and the other lives in one with poor coverage. One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage. One person might fit the criteria but they may not make for a good member of the team as is and it would perhaps be detremental to bring on someone who is likely to annoy the others.

As you have said 10 people from this thread (but out there in the forums in general that number is a lot higher) fit that criteria but if we are only looking to add say 5 then you have to add in extra criteria to determine overall which will likely be the best addition.

In terms of the process it has been explained before and I gave a decent description of it in this thread.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

I understand what you're saying, but I think I disagree with you here, edesignuk. Volunteering always requires some amount of commitment, regardless of whether it is expressly stated or not. It also requires some level of expectations.

I'm not sure that defining explicitly those expectations and commitment in terms of a 3, 4, or 6 month commitment wouldn't help. It's obvious that MR isn't going to get all volunteers to fulfill whatever commitments are agreed to, but if they have some idea of when X number of moderators would be up for renewal/replacement, the process could start sooner rather than later.

*shrugs* If the idea doesn't work, it doesn't work. It's just that- an idea.

 

[xUKHCx]

It's obvious that MR isn't going to get all volunteers to fulfill whatever commitments are agreed to, but if they have some idea of when X number of moderators would be up for renewal/replacement, the process could start sooner rather than later.

*shrugs* If the idea doesn't work, it doesn't work. It's just that- an idea.

OK I get it, we do communicate with each other when we are expecting life issues to come up and as such know what might happen in the future so there is a sort of commitment therein.

My commitment now: Walk the dog, pick up girlfriend from work, eat, and watch football.

 

[jav6454]

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

It along the lines of showing maturity and having shown that you can keep your cool in heated situations. At least that's what I understand.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

 

[jav6454]

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

We might not know. We can guess what they have as criterion but we might as well be wrong. Or we can have an idea what they look at, something which xUKHCx has mentioned before in this thread.

 

[Eraserhead]

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

Quite. Liking the iPhone forums for one would be nice. But to be honest it does seem like there is a lot of getting hung up on details like this - ultimately its not a big deal.

For why this is really an issue maybe taking a look at the posting pattern of the top 100 posters and noting the lack of posts in news threads, the iPhone forums and frankly everything that isn't "community".

 

[Peace]

Boy howdy. This discussion has become a self fulfilling prophesy.

I think we should just let TPTB do their thing and help out when we can by reporting spam etc..

We as members have no right to quasi-dictate how mods are chosen. It'll happen and when it has this discussion will have proven to be exactly what the heading says.

/end opinion

 

[IJ Reilly]

Because sometimes two forum members will fit the criteria as outlined above but one happens to live in a timezone with lots of mods and good coverage and the other lives in one with poor coverage. One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage. One person might fit the criteria but they may not make for a good member of the team as is and it would perhaps be detremental to bring on someone who is likely to annoy the others.

As you have said 10 people from this thread (but out there in the forums in general that number is a lot higher) fit that criteria but if we are only looking to add say 5 then you have to add in extra criteria to determine overall which will likely be the best addition.

It still sounds to me like this process is being sliced too fine. It should be apparent that long-time members in particular have been noticing a steady decline in the level of moderation in the forum and the need for more moderators to be appointed. Yet it's been more than a year since anyone has been, and in that time several veteran moderators have become inactive.

I suppose I am still not understanding the hesitancy to add a substantial number of new moderators right now from the cadre of members who to me at least seem perfectly able to handle it. Get more of them on the task and you won't have to be so concerned about finding the perfect person to suit all time zones and interests.

A portion of your explanation sounds a lot like politics. Making decisions based on personal politics is another way for organizations to self-limit their effectiveness.

In terms of the process it has been explained before and I gave a decent description of it in this thread.

That's appreciated, but it's the only explanation of this process I have seen in nearly seven years.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

I just wanted to note that I reported a post in this thread and it was dealt with immediately. I therefore conclude that the moderators are acting faster than ever and that we no longer need more of them.

 

[miles01110]

Yes, we are aware that our response time has been less than optimal. And yes, we are working (sooner rather than later) on resolving that issue. ...

Please, please, please...report problem posts. We may not be able to take care of it right away, but we will get to it.

I ran into this problem in an online game I played that had a moderation problem. The illusion was that the mods weren't doing anything, because reported accounts (analagous to reported posts) were either taken care of or left alone without any way of confirming that your report reached an actual person. It would probably be difficult to implement even a token "ticket" system in which a user that reports a post is notified with "A moderator has viewed your request"- not even confirming/denying action was taken, BUT I think a large part of the problem is that reported posts disappear into the ether.

Without an efficient way of checking that something happened when we report something, it makes it seem like reporting either doesn't work or is pointless. People then stop reporting, which leads to a decrease in moderation, which leads to more dissatisfaction.

 

[WildCowboy]

Without an efficient way of checking that something happened when we report something, it makes it seem like reporting either doesn't work or is pointless. People then stop reporting, which leads to a decrease in moderation, which leads to more dissatisfaction.

How about you trust us? Report it, and we'll promise that we'll look at it.

Seriously, at least one moderator (usually more) looks at every single post report, and all the mods know whether a given report was handled or not. Most of the time we take action, but occasionally we don't because the reported post was judged not to be in violation of the forum rules. If we find that a user is consistently reporting posts that don't require action, we contact them to clarify what should and shouldn't be reported.

 

[miles01110]

I personally don't have a problem with the system, but I'm willing to bet this is an issue for others.

 

[xUKHCx]

I suppose I am still not understanding the hesitancy to add a substantial number of new moderators right now from the cadre of members who to me at least seem perfectly able to handle it.

How many to add? We wouldn't want to add a huge amount because it would then create other problems. Also who is to say there is hesitancy we have said we are working on the matter, everything else so far is conjecture by people who do not know the background information.

As said before it is something that has been worked on for quite some time now and this whole discussion seems a little premature from my view point.

Get more of them on the task and you won't have to be so concerned about finding the perfect person to suit all time zones and interests.

We are not trying to find the perfect people it is just you gave an idealistic view of how things should be done and gave the opposite side in terms of the real life situation faced on here.

Like with any job there are a large number of potential candiates some better than other, some equal. Just because they are equal doesn't mean there are positions for them.

As you said there are perhaps 10 people in this thread alone, spread that out and you could easily find 100 if not 10x that number of people who fit the criteria. What makes one stand out above the other? You have to have some criteria to further reduce these numbers.

A portion of your explanation sounds a lot like politics. .

Everything in life is politics why should it be different here, especially with a large group of people from different countries and cultures.

That's appreciated, but it's the only explanation of this process I have seen in nearly seven years.

Doesn't mean it is the only one that has been said. For example.

There may well have been others in the past, I don't know and there is always the contact us form and site and forum feedback where you could've posted the question.

Most of the time we take action, but occasionally we don't because the reported post was judged not to be in violation of the forum rules.

Also another point worth adding on is that sometimes we have a discussion about a post/thread and so action can be delayed as well, so it might appear that nothing was done if someone checks pretty quickly.

 

[Eraserhead]

As you said there are perhaps 10 people in this thread alone, spread that out and you could easily find 100 if not 10x that number of people who fit the criteria.

Not really, because IJ is limiting it to the top 100 posters as they are the main ones who fit the commitment criteria. That limits you to a maximum of 100 candidates.