Why are posts modified by admins?

My post was not offensive, simply provided a link to a relevant newspaper article.
Don't you think the kind of "moderation" which "puts words into a posters mouth" is honest and serves any purpose?

In what way your post was modified?

A quote from an article was attributed to my post.

This is what I mean:

Image1.jpg

By admins? Or another poster whom you probably forgot to ask "WTF"?

Please explain how your post "was modified by admins"?

OK, these were two sentences quoting the article you provided link to. Quoting some text from the article helps readers determine what the link/article is about without clicking on that link. Do you think this is a wrong approach?

Admin

When z-darius posted the original he had a URL link to an article on the web. I responded to the article and by the time my response came up the original post had had the box with the first line of the article added to it. Z-darius thought I had edited the post which I obviously cannot do as I have no edit rights to other members’ posts.

Part of the problem here , I think, is that he didn’t like my flippant response which is a fair criticism that I have apologised for. I thinks he perceives that I have by default implied that he agrees with the article rather than just put it into the public domain. Again I am sorry if I have given that impression.

How could he think you edited the post when in his next post he highlighted the fact that the post was "Edited by Admin."...

Anyway, it seems the biggest problem is that some users unnecessarily become angry or confused too fast and only later realize they overlooked or misunderstood something..

Admin

szarlotka (above) explained it well in the second paragraph. So yes, I think it is a wrong approach to suggest I selected a quote thta I didn't. You could have achieved your stated purpose of the modification (Quoting some text from the article helps readers determine what the link/article is about ) by creating your own post right below mine.

Not that it's the end of the world, or even a moderate blemish on it, but that modification was something that I would call a dishonest move.

So you should have selected some other sentence/s yourself... Posting some quote from the article and a link is a much better approach than just posting a link.


If trying to provide better usability and experience is a dishonest move, then I agree. Even though it would be more dishonest if no "Edited by Admin" or "Edited by Moderator" text appeared at all.

Admin

No, I shouldn't have. I posted exactly what I wanted to post. By modifying your post you suggested my approach to it, or to the topic in question, even though that approach isn't necessarilly mine.


Usability is just fine. Clicking a link is all it takes. The users who are interested would have clicked it. IMO the correct approach would have been to make your own post drawing users' attention to whatever it was you wanted to draw their attention to. At the very least a clear note should have been made as to which part of the post was modified or introduced by the censor.

Of course, this appears to be your forum and you set the rules, but thoese rules sometimes introduce unnecessary confusion. One of those is the moving of posts without warning and without reference to the new location of the post that was moved. That would be a cool feature:

post moved to: url.

FWIW, when I saw your post, complete with quote, I assumed (because of the indentation) that you had quoted from the article you cited.

So you suggest no forum moderation or rules are necessary? Someone who posts racists or derogatory comments (or doesn't follow other forum rules) may claim the same...


Sure, it could be a good feature provided it was a paid forum and professional (paid) moderators would be doing the customer service job.

Admin

I made no such suggestions.

My post contained no racist or derogatory comments.
I post a question a few weeks ago asking why not save a buck or two by buying vBulletin or similar. They are stable and have a truckload of features. At about $80/year they beat the need for inhouse programmers.

At the time I received an answer... something about not following the crowd and I accepted that. Although... did you also write your own operating system and web server along with all the CGI engines, or did you decide to follow the crowd after all? ;)

Again, not to propose that you follow the crow but you may want to take a look at this site (URL). I like the moderation style there. Posts are not deleted, warnings are issued to unruly members, threads are locked if things get out of hand, bans do happen. Again, just a suggestion based on a forum that is interesting anyway.

(...or doesn't follow other forum rules)


Is there any software that would automatically provide custom written explanations why something was done or not? So that there's no need for moderation or customer service staff?


1. Posts are not deleted - surely they aren't deleted because the business model of the site you mention (as thousands of other similar sites) is based on their advertising model which needs content (of any type or kind) and ad clicks to make profit. The more content they have, the more money (ad clicks) they make.

2. Warnings are issued to unruly members - here warnings are issued either via PM or email. But I don't expect you (or other forum members) to know that.

3. Threads are locked if things get out of hand - locking a thread is the least consuming moderation step. It takes a second to lock a thread; it takes 10 seconds to move a thread, it may take several minutes to go over ONE thread and pick the offending posts and then move them to the Random Chat thread. It would much less to just delete the offending posts.

4. Bans do happen - here bans happen up to a few hours from making the offensive post/s.

Why do you think most of the time we follow the most consuming procedure? Because we care.

Admin