![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
regards, dspp
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
dspp wrote:Exactly Mel ..... that was the [idc] time unit I had in mindBut it may take some set up earlier than that if there is data to be stored for later analysis.
regards, dspp
melonfool wrote: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).
Gengulphus wrote: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.
Lootman wrote:
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.
Lootman wrote: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 wrote:Lootman wrote: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.
melonfool wrote:Lootman wrote: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.
Lootman wrote:melonfool wrote: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.
melonfool wrote:Lootman wrote:melonfool wrote: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
gryffron wrote: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.
Lootman wrote: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.
gryffron wrote: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.
gryffron wrote: 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.
Slarti wrote: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 wrote:Slarti wrote: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?
Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests