Moderation Question: "gravedigging"

[trix]

This looks like a job for... WIZARDSTAN!!!

But then I won't be able to claim on the bet. It's a conflict of interest. In the interest of science, I must remain an observer only

but but, if you don't conclude the bet now, then in six months when somebody revives the thread, the discussion wont have been long concluded, thus the bet becomes null and void.

Although, if the bet is null and void because it didn't get concluded, that would conclude it, making it valid again!

Is this a paradox!?

 

[SomeGuy99]

But in six months time, people will think we're talking about one years time.

We should send messages to our future selves!

 

[trix]

But in six months time, people will think we're talking about one years time.

We should send messages to our future selves!

But we already ARE sending messages to our future selves, simply by posting here! In the past, present AND future we are doing this.

Assuming we are still here in the future, and that the oil spill doesn't release the methane bubble and exterminate 95% of life like happened 55 million years ago.

Wait I think that's off topic. What was the topic again? (Sorry mali!)

damn, we derailed a moderators topic! there's a special level of hell for that! (like, exclusion from these forums!)

- trix

 

[Prometheus]

Hi future Prometheus. I hope you didn't forget to feed the robot-monster in the basement. If you're not reading this, then I guess you did forget.














(Ok, sorry for the off-topicness. I couldn't resist.)

 

[SomeGuy99]

damn, we derailed a moderators topic! there's a special level of hell for that! (like, exclusion from these forums!)

If you look closely, you'll see I derail every thread I post into.

I kind of don't mean to though. Always going off on tangents me.

 

[trix]

damn, we derailed a moderators topic! there's a special level of hell for that! (like, exclusion from these forums!)

If you look closely, you'll see I derail every thread I post into.

I kind of don't mean to though. Always going off on tangents me.

well, I am of the opinion that if a topic gets derailed, and stays derailed, the original topic can be considered finished and done, and we can all proceed to chat about random interesting stuff like acne and time travel paradoxes. (paradoxii sounds cooler, btw)

 

[Prometheus]

Guys, c'mon. We should stop it in this one. I really don't mind it so much in my "Royal Fail" thread because that's now been resolved, but this is mali's thread about an issue which has long been a bugbear around here, which needs further discussion.

And for the want of avoiding further off-topicism, don't reply to this entry, just let it lie.

 

[trix]

pfft you just want the last word!

Besides, I don't see how further discussion on the original topic could bear any fruit? The poll and discussion so far have made everyone's opinion pretty clear, and the majority are so far ahead that I don't think the general consensus is going to change. We have spoken!

Also, some of our off topic discussion WAS on topic... gravedigging the gravedigging thread to win a bet!

 

[SomeGuy99]

I'm good at being on-off topic, kind of an art-form really.

 

[Esn]

[...] I usually do it stealthy, to avoid embarrassing the OP with the "post edited for readability" comment that implies they suck at English.

what do you think?

I strongly believe in transparency: any time a mod or admin edits a post (or closes a thread), they must leave a signature (can be their username or even just "-mod"). This builds accountability in two ways:
1) it makes the mod/admin accountable, and also more appreciated if they're doing a good job
2) it makes the user accountable. Mistakes should be made public, and if this is a bit embarrassing for the user, so much the better because maybe they will be more careful later and the mod/admin will have less work to do.

As for your concrete situation... well, I don't know more than what you've said here but generally, I think it's a bit creepy to have someone silently changing your words, even if they have your best intentions in mind... you start questioning your sanity... did I really write that?... etc. One more reason to acknowledge that "the post was edited for readability"...

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I don't really care either way, people that get wound up by little things on a forum need to get out more, or get a Pandora, or something!



Steve

 

[SomeGuy99]

[...] I usually do it stealthy, to avoid embarrassing the OP with the "post edited for readability" comment that implies they suck at English.

what do you think?

I strongly believe in transparency: any time a mod or admin edits a post (or closes a thread), they must leave a signature (can be their username or even just "-mod"). This builds accountability in two ways:
1) it makes the mod/admin accountable, and also more appreciated if they're doing a good job
2) it makes the user accountable. Mistakes should be made public, and if this is a bit embarrassing for the user, so much the better because maybe they will be more careful later and the mod/admin will have less work to do.

As for your concrete situation... well, I don't know more than what you've said here but generally, I think it's a bit creepy to have someone silently changing your words, even if they have your best intentions in mind... you start questioning your sanity... did I really write that?... etc. One more reason to acknowledge that "the post was edited for readability"...

If a mod edited my post I would be absolutely delighted. I think that kind of thing is, quite frankly perfectly fine.

I agree with you about the kittens are very cute problem. Hopefully the moderators here can resist that kind of sexy body.

 

[mali]

^ Always happy to help

 

[SomeGuy99]

^ I've always been deeply attracted to you

Uh, thanks?

 

[mali]

^ Ok, pretty lame joke. I would get absolutely out of control if someone changed my post even if "only" correcting mistakes. We had a slight disturbance on the German boards back then, when the 1337 mod deleted some of my "spam" posts. I hate this attitude.

 

[SomeGuy99]

^ Ok, pretty lame joke.

I'm sorry Mali... I didn't mean to make fun of you. I'm really quite flattered.

Please don't feel ashamed about it, that's not what I wanted at all.

 

[mali]

^Argh! I just realized you changed that quote
Silly me, I'll have a beer now.

edit: Now when we start explaining failed jokes it gets really downhill

Hmm ok, yeah right, GRAVEDIGGAZ.

 

[SomeGuy99]

^Argh! I just realized to changed that quote
Silly me, I'll have a beer now.

That's a good idea. I look even more attractive after a beer!

 

[mali]

^

 

[Aninhumer]

I appear to be somewhat late to the discussion, but here goes.

The main issue about gravedigging is that even if an important question/issue is raised, several pages of posts comes before that. For someone who has never seen the topic before, even if they're aware of the issue, it can take a few minutes before you notice the ancient timestamps, and even then it can be a hassle to find where the new, relevant discussion begins. Grench was complaining about fragmentation by allowing multiple topics about one subject, but personally I think it's a lot easier to look through multiple threads than to go through one massive 50 page thread just to find the one post where someone said "SDXC works". If there are 5 topics, 4 called "Does SDXC work" and one called "SDXC works", I can immediately check the latter and get relevant info without slogging through 100 "I'd also like to know this" posts. Also, as WizardStan says, some people will only go through the first page of a "Wifi Issue" thread, and then go for the reply button, without seeing the post 3 pages later that says it's been fixed.

Another point, is that as even this thread has demonstrated, threads in this forum tend to derail at their end of life, as well as being strewn with offtopic posts, making reading through them even harder.

I think the correct response should be to solve the actual problem, people thinking the information is new. You could edit the original post to indicate that the topic is old, and perhaps link to the start of the new discussion. Alternatively, you could split the topic, with a link to the old one (I think you've done this before?).
Another idea would be to lock (not delete) topics older than a year, or whatever, automatically. This means old threads cannot be gravedug, and also adds a warning of sorts to users that the post is old.