Posted under General
Do most flagged posts even have reasons given? I'm aware that an upload can be visually offensive enough to emit eye cancer and that the rationale for unapproval is obvious. But the lack of a listed reason for a flag could imply that it was simply based on personal distaste and nothing else.
Updated by Apollyon
Kayako said:
Um, I don't know if this is appropriate conversation for this thread, but since I don't know who to contact to discuss it...Could the staff member who took away my moderation abilities please contact me and explain why? I was taking this very seriously, and I would like to know exactly what I approved that led to this decision so that I can learn from it. I thought I was doing a pretty good job at using my best judgment, the only image I recall which may have been a bad idea would be post #573162...
Whining about having your moderation status revoked would be a sure sign that you should not, in fact, have moderation status.
Fencedude said:
Whining about having your moderation status revoked would be a sure sign that you should not, in fact, have moderation status.
Still, when 'demoting' someone, sending a PM stating the what and why of it really should be common courtesy.
Moot point soon enough I guess.
Fencedude said:
Whining about having your moderation status revoked would be a sure sign that you should not, in fact, have moderation status.
It was not my intention to whine. I would just like to prompt this person to contact me privately to discuss the situation.
Updated by Kayako
I like the new recent approvals feature. It provides us with a number of new abilities. First of all, we can hold moderators accountable (as was the stated purpose of the feature).
Secondly, new members can get a much better feel for what is acceptable content (since it automatically filters out pending posts that will die in the queue, and posts that skip moderation).
In addition, it also gives everyone an idea of who on the mod staff is actually active. There are people still actively approving things that I could have sworn disappeared long ago since they used to be more vocal in the comments, forum, etc.
Unfortunately for you, yes. As Albert posted, we've moved from the free-for-all contributor stage, to a system involving Test Janitors and approvals monitored by all. I think it's a much better system in the long run. The "unapproved" thing is the same flagging system we have been using all along.
A thought on the moderation queue, if I may;
From what I hear, it seems the most tedious part of the job is sifting through the trash. Only a couple of janitors will see a good post before it's approved, but a bad post will have to be dealt with by all of them.
At some number of janitors, 'all' good posts will get approved, and adding more would ideally not shorten the queue at all.
What if you gave janitors two hide options to capture the difference between "I don't really like this" and "If this gets approved I'll have to hurt someone"? Janitors could then have the option to hide posts that more than a couple of their fellow janitors had indicated belonged in the latter category.
I'm not sure if this would shrink the queue enough to be worthwhile, but I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow to make the mod queue system scale properly.
I had a similar feeling on the matter when I experimented with the mod queue. I don't think I even got to 15 pages before I just gave up--obviously I didn't see anything at all worth approving. If there's a counter of how many people hid the image from the queue, maybe another option would help to get through the posts, like zatchii said--if hiding posts is basically a "maybe/no", then there could be a plain "no". Not quite a voting system, but just more weight on not approving images instead of say, 12 "maybes" and one biased person to finally say "yes" on a sub-par image.
zatchii said:
What if you gave janitors two hide options to capture the difference between "I don't really like this" and "If this gets approved I'll have to hurt someone"? Janitors could then have the option to hide posts that more than a couple of their fellow janitors had indicated belonged in the latter category.
I support this. There are a fair number of things that you can just tell at a glance will never be approved. There are also posts that look decent from the thumbnail but turn out to have problems once you open the full picture. It would be great if you could mark these things so others won't have to waste their time looking at them.
That might be a good idea actually, but I would suggest seperating them into a pen* or something. It used to be that we had a moderation queue, and then at the bottom we had images flagged for deletion. This kind of construction could be used again, but with images that were flagged as "extremely rubbish" by one or more mods. That way, you can just pass over them really quickly and then hide them all, and that would certainly save some significant time I think.
(* the thing pigs hang out in, not the writing tool)
I'd like to see just a binary "comments? y/n" in the queue because in the past I have left comments to attempt to help the moderation staff on if they should approve something or not (pixiv sample uploads are the most common, I stopped leaving them because the images would get approved anyways) and barring a system to for the mods to leave notes for the rest of the mod staff this could be helpful.
e: Yes, I know there's plenty of people who just want to leave HNNNNNG and nothing else but the knowledge that someone may have left a helpful comment would be enough to offset these.
Updated by Log
I don't know if anybody (or at least those Privileged and below) had noticed this, but I have at least five still unapproved posts more than three days old and they're still not yet deleted. Is there a changing a life span of an unapproved post before finally being deleted?
Updated by MaskedAvenger
status:pending date:<2009-12-6
Huh. Right you are.
