Apps.openpandora.org?

[thatgui]

Even in the View New Content page you should be able to quite easily see whom the thread is targeted at. Example below.

I know. But read: How Little Do Users Read? (Also: How Users Read on the Web)


...

Don't see the point in it. The links you gave are an interesting read but should not be an excuse for beeing lazy. I'm sure we can assume that it is common knowlegde these days that every form of social interaction on the internet follows a set of rules. So the first thing should be to get a quick glance of the guidlines forum moderators usually pin on a public place. If your to lazy to do that thats fine too, as you're usually not punished severly if you violate these the first time. But don't complain about that your not knowing the rules provokes some kind of action afterwards.


All in all, I don't understand all the fuzz about it, it's a specific subforum - ment to ask question that are directly answered by ed/craig. If you feel the need the express your opinion about the answer - feel free to create a new thread in the General Talk - section.

 

[quartercast]

I like SONY's idea of moderating directly within the threads. What I don't like silent hiding of posts, and silent hiding of entire threads. If you are going to hide anything (which should be highly discouraged), then you should inform that user directly or within the thread. I think covert moderation is unacceptable, even in a section like this.


If the user wants to post a follow-up question or a modification to the original question, that should be allowed - even before ED/craig have replied.


If craig/ED have not replied in 1 week, users should be allowed to follow up the question with a bump or re-enquiry.


That's my 2c.


Edit: Another 1c. I disagree with the notion "Oh, we're not deleting your posts, we're just hiding them". Those posts will never see the light of day, they are for all intents and purposes deleted.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Don't see the point in it. The links you gave are an interesting read but should not be an excuse for beeing lazy.

Well, it wasn't meant as an excuse. I didn't even write it for my own good. I'm not 'lazy', I don't have below-average short-term memory, and I absolutely practice the forgotten craft of reading manuals. I'm just trying to stop the moderation team from hanging itself during the process of realizing good intents.


It was just a follow-up explanation that I wrote because it appeared that my post before it might not have been taken very seriously and/or understood the way it was meant, for lack of 'proof'.


People should, and typically do, know about the rules, but that's not likely to stop all future problems from happening in "Ask [...] Questions". It is /because/ most people care about the rules that it should be assumed that most of the problems regarding these subforums are of a different nature, with which the information I've posted can probably help. In other words, yes, people need to know how to operate a car when they want to use it, and they need to know the rules and mustn't be lazy, but still I'm promoting safety belts.

 

[spiralofhope]

Those dissidents weren't murdered, they were "disappeared". =)