Deleted posts

[dspp]

Exactly Mel ..... that was the [idc] time unit I had in mind But it may take some set up earlier than that if there is data to be stored for later analysis.
regards, dspp

[melonfool]

Exactly Mel ..... that was the [idc] time unit I had in mind But it may take some set up earlier than that if there is data to be stored for later analysis.
regards, dspp

Sorry, I don't know what 'idc' means.

Mel

[dspp]

in due course ..

[Gengulphus]

And, also, the point was seemingly being made that less is removed than was from TMF, so the stats would be useless without the comparison, which we will never get (and most of us wouldn't be interested in anyway).

Well, for a limited period, we can still get some statistics about TMF - it's a bit of work and won't produce site-wide figures, just limited samples, but they're big enough samples to not be totally meaningless.

For example, going to the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical board and working back to the first post of 2016 (*), I find it's post number 65203 (the top post listed on http://boards.fool.co.uk/high-yield-hyp-practical-51676.aspx?mid=13311090). Clicking "Next" on that page takes me to a similar page starting with post 65223, i.e. 20 higher; clicking "Next" again to one starting with post 65243, another 20 higher; again takes me to one starting with post 65263, another 20 higher. And then clicking "Next" takes me to a page starting with post 65284, which is 21 higher rather than 20. That's because one post had been removed in the page starting with post 65263 (checking that page says that it was in fact post 65276, though I'm not suggesting tracking down all the deleted posts!).

The point is that clicking "Next" moves you on by 20 non-deleted posts, but the post number goes up by 20 plus the number of deleted posts skipped over. So by clicking "Next" say fifty times (that's the bit of work!) to advance by 1000 non-deleted posts, you can get the number of deleted posts in that particular 1000 non-deleted posts. Doing that gets me to http://boards.fool.co.uk/high-yield-hyp-practical-51676.aspx?mid=13324824&sort=postdate, which starts with post 66232. So that's 29 deleted posts among 1000 non-deleted posts, or 1029 total posts, a deletion rate of about 2.8%. That's over a period of about a month, which I mention because if the period is too short, the statistic becomes unreliable because of the possibility of hitting a short-term burst of deleted posts - e.g. because of a spamming attack or a major spat between posters.

A similar exercise on the TMF Land of Serious Topics board takes one from post 592320 to post 593381, for 61 deleted posts among 1000 non-deleted posts, or 1061 total posts, a deletion rate of about 5.7%. That's only over about 2 weeks, though, which is probably a bit short - and I did notice in passing that the last of the fifty clicks advanced the post number by 41, i.e. there was a major burst of removed posts at that point.

Another similar exercise on the TMF High Yield - Share Strategies board takes one from post 74794 to post 75301 in twenty five clicks (**). That's 7 deleted posts among 500 non-deleted posts, or 507 total posts, a deletion rate of about 1.7%.

(*) Going back to several months before the decision to close the boards, as that decision may have changed TMF moderation policy - e.g. by making the moderators (very understandably) turn a blind eye to a lot of off-topic posts about the closure!

(**) I didn't do fifty because twenty five had advanced me by about 7 months and the full fifty were going to take me into the board closure period.

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

A similar exercise on the TMF Land of Serious Topics board takes one from post 592320 to post 593381, for 61 deleted posts among 1000 non-deleted posts, or 1061 total posts, a deletion rate of about 5.7%. That's only over about 2 weeks, though, which is probably a bit short - and I did notice in passing that the last of the fifty clicks advanced the post number by 41, i.e. there was a major burst of removed posts at that point.

Your method is clever. But as you say, the numbers can be skewed by a spate of spamming, which does seem to happen in bursts, or a major knockdown-dragout fight. There's also the issue that sometimes posts were removed at TMF not because there was anything wrong with them, but because they were responses to a post that was removed. In such a case, if the moderators are slow to act, or if the post wasn't reported for a long time, then the percentage number will be higher even though there was no more sinful activity.

As interesting as the stats might be, if they were available, it would still be possible for two different people to have very two different personal experiences. Depending on the boards you visit, the times when you visit them, the way you write and who the moderator was, you may perceive more moderation here whilst another person experiences less.

So anecdotally, I am experiencing fewer posts being removed here than at TMF, with the caveat that some of my posts may have vanished and I didn't notice them going. Whereas at TMF I would get an email. And that fits with some theories I had about TMF's moderation, which I won't go into here.

This is encouraging, as one of my concerns with the idea of peer moderators was that they would be over-active. Inexperienced moderators can feel awkward doing nothing, and may feel a temptation to always react to the reporting of a post, rather than just let things flow for the most part. A case of "don't just sit there; moderate something!". But in fact I'm not seeing that, so kudos to those folks, so far anyway . . .

[melonfool]

Your method is clever. But as you say, the numbers can be skewed by a spate of spamming, which does seem to happen in bursts, or a major knockdown-dragout fight. There's also the issue that sometimes posts were removed at TMF not because there was anything wrong with them, but because they were responses to a post that was removed. In such a case, if the moderators are slow to act, or if the post wasn't reported for a long time, then the percentage number will be higher even though there was no more sinful activity.

All that happens here too so the stats would be comparable.

This is encouraging, as one of my concerns with the idea of peer moderators was that they would be over-active. Inexperienced moderators can feel awkward doing nothing, and may feel a temptation to always react to the reporting of a post, rather than just let things flow for the most part. A case of "don't just sit there; moderate something!". But in fact I'm not seeing that, so kudos to those folks, so far anyway . . .

Well, what you seem to be requiring is information how many *reports* there are vs how many deletions. You have no idea if we react to every report positively or not.

Mel

[Lootman]

Your method is clever. But as you say, the numbers can be skewed by a spate of spamming, which does seem to happen in bursts, or a major knockdown-dragout fight. There's also the issue that sometimes posts were removed at TMF not because there was anything wrong with them, but because they were responses to a post that was removed. In such a case, if the moderators are slow to act, or if the post wasn't reported for a long time, then the percentage number will be higher even though there was no more sinful activity.

All that happens here too so the stats would be comparable.

Somewhat comparable. TMF did not have the same tools available, such as being able to move an off-topic post, whereas TMF would just have deleted it.

This is encouraging, as one of my concerns with the idea of peer moderators was that they would be over-active. Inexperienced moderators can feel awkward doing nothing, and may feel a temptation to always react to the reporting of a post, rather than just let things flow for the most part. A case of "don't just sit there; moderate something!". But in fact I'm not seeing that, so kudos to those folks, so far anyway . . .

Well, what you seem to be requiring is information how many *reports* there are vs how many deletions. You have no idea if we react to every report positively or not.

Yes and no. The population here is almost all from TMF. So it's reasonable to assume that they report posts in similar circumstances. If so and yet fewer posts are being removed, then that is evidence for the proposition that TLF is less strict than TMF.

And since the two sponsors of this site stated some time ago that they are more supportive of "going with the flow", rather than strictly adopting TMF's moderation policies, I'd need a reason to believe otherwise.

[melonfool]

Well, what you seem to be requiring is information how many *reports* there are vs how many deletions. You have no idea if we react to every report positively or not.

Yes and no. The population here is almost all from TMF. So it's reasonable to assume that they report posts in similar circumstances. If so and yet fewer posts are being removed, then that is evidence for the proposition that TLF is less strict than TMF.

No, because the 'rules' are different so the (valid) reasons for reporting are different.

Mel

[Lootman]

Well, what you seem to be requiring is information how many *reports* there are vs how many deletions. You have no idea if we react to every report positively or not.

Yes and no. The population here is almost all from TMF. So it's reasonable to assume that they report posts in similar circumstances. If so and yet fewer posts are being removed, then that is evidence for the proposition that TLF is less strict than TMF.

No, because the 'rules' are different so the (valid) reasons for reporting are different

Perhaps so, but then since you do not know the frequency with which posts were reported at TMF, you cannot know whether there is more or less reporting of posts here than there. And we will never know that unless Gengulphus comes out with an even cleverer methodology.

In the end, all we have are the subjective perceptions of the end users of the site. And what I can say with reasonable certainty is that it was not at all unusual for my posts to be deleted at TMF. Whilst it's happened close to zero times here after 644 posts. I haven't changed my posting style, so clearly there is a marked improvement at TLF, at least for someone with my perspective and patterns of use. Others may have a different experience, of course.

[dspp]

An alternative hypothesis might be that the new moderators are being incredibly cautious whilst they learn the ropes.

regards, dspp

[gryffron]

Speaking for myself, the only posts I have so far completely deleted are those from obvious spammers.

From regular posters I have edited a few snippets, added moderator messages, and moved a few, but I don't think I have yet deleted an entire post. Perhaps the TMF moderators did not have these more subtle tools, or the time to use them.

gryff

[Gengulphus]

From regular posters I have edited a few snippets, added moderator messages, and moved a few, but I don't think I have yet deleted an entire post. Perhaps the TMF moderators did not have these more subtle tools, or the time to use them.

They had (and used) the ability to post a reply, which is a some sort of equivalent to a moderator message, though rather more cumbersome.

They had the ability to copy off-topic posts into a post that they then posted where the posts were on-topic, followed by deleting the originals. This provided a way to move a thread or part of one, though a very clumsy one - all the posts were combined into one post, with the recorded author being the moderator, and such things as recs were lost by the original authors. I saw them use it a few times, though not at all in recent years, and I'm fairly certain I've seen a post by TMFBoing saying that he'd stopped doing it because it was too much work.

Other than that work-around, I'm pretty certain they didn't have the ability to move or edit posts. They said they didn't - and I believe them because apart from anything else, if they'd had those abilities, they could have made life so much easier for themselves by using them!

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

In the end, all we have are the subjective perceptions of the end users of the site. And what I can say with reasonable certainty is that it was not at all unusual for my posts to be deleted at TMF. Whilst it's happened close to zero times here after 644 posts. I haven't changed my posting style, so clearly there is a marked improvement at TLF, at least for someone with my perspective and patterns of use.

Speaking for myself, the only posts I have so far completely deleted are those from obvious spammers.

From regular posters I have edited a few snippets, added moderator messages, and moved a few, but I don't think I have yet deleted an entire post. Perhaps the TMF moderators did not have these more subtle tools, or the time to use them.

It's good to see the same perception from your side. I'd attribute this lower rate of moderation activity to three broad categories of reason:

1) Better tools at TLF, as noted already

2) A more liberal approach to moderation, as indicated by various statements from Stooz and Clariman (but with some exceptions such as the zero tolerance approach towards potentially slanderous statements, a marked contrast from the liberal approach that TMF had towards that). There is also the fact that TMF has a commercial imperative but TLF does not, and that may have driven some of TMF's policies.

3) Perhaps more arguably, a more well-behaved population here. Although it's the same people for the most part, TLF starts with a large reservoir of goodwill towards the sponsors. Whereas TMF seemed to lose some of the goodwill and support of its constituency as their own business troubles and general morale declined.

[Breelander]

I have edited a few snippets, added moderator messages, and moved a few, but I don't think I have yet deleted an entire post. Perhaps the TMF moderators did not have these more subtle tools, or the time to use them.

No - didn't have them. Deletion was the only tool available, apparently. Even editing your own posts was beyond the board software they used.

[Slarti]

I've just had a post not post as there was another answer at the same time and I got no warning at all.

Slarti

[PinkDalek]

I've just had a post not post as there was another answer at the same time and I got no warning at all.

Slarti

I've never had such a problem but did you save as a Draft and try again later?

[Slarti]

I've just had a post not post as there was another answer at the same time and I got no warning at all.

Slarti

I've never had such a problem but did you save as a Draft and try again later?

No, but I have realised that if I hit the back button in Firefox, my text is still there and I can click post again.

Slarti