...Pending Moderation....

[shyster 0]

It''s nigh on bloody impossible to interact on this message board when one has to wait what seems like an eternity for ones posts to be "approved"  

[Alex Harvey-Jones 0]

It seems very inconsistent how long posts take to actually appear! I wrote one this morning which was up in just over 15mins while others can take hours!

[Dame to Blame 108]

Agreed takes far to long at times thats why we get replys that look odd at times.

[shyster 0]

[quote]It seems very inconsistent how long posts take to actually appear! I wrote one this morning which was up in just over 15mins while others can take hours![/quote]

I''d hazard a guess that this message board needs to have posts checked because of defamatory remarks and swearing that some of them could contain -- I fully understand that, but surely it would be better not restrict the flow of conversation by allowing posts to go through straight away and to simply ban users who might be persistant offenders?

Let''s have the right to free speech in this country while we''ve still got it  

[ZLF 335]

It is frustrating at times but it is just one of the decisions archant has taken on how to run their message boards I guess.   I am assuming its the same for the other boards...

Is it possible for a partial moderation type set up?   I guess the web team know who is likely to cause problems and who is not. I think I have had 1 post rejected (started posting two replies, got them muddled up and made no sense in one of them at all) since joining - I guess most people have had no rejections at all.  What is the rejection rate given this forum has had nearly 75k responses since being built?

Why not allow known posters more freedom the more they post?  Monior the first 25-100 posts and beyond that a spot check takes place and then rely on the board to alert moderators when problems arise.   Any abuse means that poster must re-earn trust all over again over a larger number of posts?   Software must be able t spot ''problem'' words or phrases to ease the overall problems.

The advantages are though that the discussions on here tend to be fewer in number but generally discussed in greater depth possibly due to the knowledge that it may be a while before it appears.  

OTBC

[Disco Dales Tash 0]

Most message boards have swearword filters, either preventing the post or replacing the words.

The other way is to appoint a few regulars the honoury title of "Moderator", they roam the site and if any defamatory remarks are made, they can delete and ban users.

By agreeing to the terms of this forum, any users should be over a certain age so sign away any rights to being offended anyway, Moderators - it''s the future, I''ve tasted it.

[gazzathegreat 0]

it would be great if we could have an immediate reply, but i guess there are reason why we have to be moderated.  There are of course alternative sites which you can use which allow responses instantly, but then they don''t have the in depth discussions this board has

so it''s a matter of choosing which board you use for which issues i guess

the idea that allows regular users more leeway is a good one and perhaps the powers that be can look into that one

[Meeky 0]

[quote]Most message boards have swearword filters, either preventing the post or replacing the words. The other way is to appoint a few regulars the honoury title of "Moderator", they roam the site and if ...[/quote]

It has moderators already THE WEB TEAM!!

The reason that some posts take longer than others to appear would rely on how much other work Pete, Vice, Celia et al have to do. They have a full time job working on ARCHANT websites not exclusively the Pink Un. I know that Vince and Pete have moderated on this board late at night at home in there own time and are not paid to do it.

Sometimes it can be frustrating but just have a little patience. If outside moderators were appointed there would be all manner of accusations of favouritism etc if some people were banned/warned, so it''s probably best to leave it as it is imo.

Web team you do a good job keep it up.

PS. As I was on holiday when the final applications for the scum game had to be in, any chance of a couple from your good selves?

   

[Disco Dales Tash 0]

Having some of us lot do it would save them time and get more posts on here. By allowing more posts, more traffic, more traffic = more advertising revenue.

I doubt they have time to properly read EVERY post and probably skim to ensure no swearing or making sure the Ipswich abuse to to a high enough standard.

Come on web team, appoint some regulars the responsibilty and just check now and again - I''m sure if anyone actually made any racist, zenphobic or swearing comments most of the regulars would report them. BBC gets hunderds a second on 606, they don''t vet every post.

Mind you theres nothing wrong with calling an Ipswich fan a F*&%$* C%$* now and again

[ronbol ronbol 0]

don''t see how having regular posters can possibly work. There are so many posters against each other that allowing one of these to moderate what stifle free speech.

Any moderator would have to be totally independant with no posting record what so ever.

[Pete Raven 276]

Good call! With my posting record surely I should be exempt from moderating!

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

I think that when you click the post reply button, your message should appear immediately on the board. If we find an inappropriate post then simply have a complain button on every post so the moderators are alerted to it. If they find that it is indeed not appropriate for the board then they can delete it. I believe that is more or less what happens on the BBC message boards. I don''t use them very often but when I do they seem to run very smoothly and people can have good discussions on there as you can respond immediately.

[Brum Uni Canary 0]

Rasputin is right....perhaps modifying the messageboard template to add a "Complain about this post" would be a good idea, and a few choice language filters. Then all it needs is us, the posters to police the messages by clicking the complain button to alert the webteam.

I''ve had a couple of messages overruled in the last few days, both about the CanariesWorld link issue I think, but generally they are pretty on the ball with approving messages up until about 8pm.

[MadDan 0]

I think it worked pretty well at the moment.

One of the problems of instant posting is that some topics can get shoved down the board very quickly.
More so when it gets cluttered up with repeated comic book transfer guff.

Despite our various spats and tiffs I think that almost all on here would be quite competent and conscientious enough to do the job of a board moderator.

What they wouldn''t be able, or I doubt willing to do, would be to take on board the financial risk that goes with the job once it was out of the hands of Archant (I''m not even sure if Archant could avoid their liability by stating that non employes had allowed the posts to go up)

[ronbol ronbol 0]

[quote]Good call! With my posting record surely I should be exempt from moderating![/quote]

does this mean you''ll resign from your mod position.................

conflict of interests ......... oh yesssssss

[BIC 0]

I agree with Raspy too.

It''d be good for those of us who live in other timezones. I''m sure some of you others stay up past 8pm right?

[Ian 1,211]

I guess the problem is that legally Archant may be on shaky ground. However, I suppose the usual disclaimer "we''re not repsonsible for the views or opinions of people using services provided by us", might go someway towards helping the matter.

How about a) a swear-word filter, and b) a 2 week trial with instant posts?

[Ken Aries 0]

I hardly ever post on this board now, because of the sometimes lengthy delays in waiting for moderation. You find some fairly boring topics hang around for days on the front page. I usually go to the BBC 606 board where one''s posts appear immediately. The drawback is, people do get away with swearing to a certain extent, until someone complains, then the moderators get busy retrospectively. Also there is quite a bit of "spam" to be found there. At least you can interact on the Beeb board, and I seldom experience zero response when I post a new topic, something that has happened quite frequently here.

[No Mad 0]

As someone relatively new here I wonder what message you get when a post is not approved?

[Web Team - Vince 0]

[quote]As someone relatively new here I wonder what message you get when a post is not approved?[/quote]

You don''t get anything these days - the last message board software (asp.Net forums v1) sent a message and we could supply a reason (which I liked). Occasionally I''ll email people to explain, but most of the time no - the process isn''t quick enough. Maybe in whatever we move to next.