moderated? your post is queued for approval.
-
@baris said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
That's correct, negative reputation was causese posts to go into post-queue. I modified the threshold in the ACP.
I think when we used it, it was more like -20 or something. Found it was too easy for someone who is new or posts lightly to have one thing be unpopular and suddenly they were negative.
If someone is really trolling or spamming, the negatives come in fast and hitting a -20 only takes a few minutes as there are zero upvotes to offset it.
-
@baris may we know what was the threshold before and what is it now?
@scottalanmiller thanks, it's working now!
except i just got this, lol.
as a new user, you can only post once every 300 second(s) until you have earned 1 reputation - please wait before posting again
-
@julian on another event, back to the main topic here... i just realized i got -10 reputation now...
without any warnings.
and got moderated out again, lol!
(plus i had to wait 300 seconds to post this, for an added bummer).
more importantly, this tells me i'm really, really not welcomed.
so i'll step away, unless you can convince me otherwise... i feel that nobody else who interacted with me so far could.
cheers!
-
@cregox your reputation is low because community members are downvoting your posts in other threads.
So the post queue is being activated. And the new user limiter.
There is no notification for when people downvote your posts. If you'd like that to change you can open an issue on GitHub
-
@cregox said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
more importantly, this tells me i'm really, really not welcomed.
The function of downvoting is to mark a post as bad in some way. Whether malicious, spam, inaccurate, etc. It's a feedback mechanism both for you to understand when what you are posting is being seen as unhelpful or incorrect or that your behaviour is seen in a negative light. But more importantly, it's a mechanism to show others when they look at your posts that other community members have flagged them as unhelpful or misleading or whatever. It's a big ambiguous in specifics, but simple in practice. It's an important mechanism because, just like how upvotes help to designate which posts are specifically useful or good, it helps those quickly going over threads to see which are harmful or bad.
Upvotes offset downvotes. So for downvotes to become a problem requires there to not only be a certain threshold of negative feedback, but also a lack of positive feedback. Just being controversial itself, or inconsistent, doesn't cause an issue. Continuously posting negatively, however, will quickly get you a strong negative score.
It's not something you should be surprised about, given that you've been given a lot of feedback through multiple channels to help you course correct what you were posting and saying and people trying to show you how to post in a more positive manner. You shouldn't be surprised that even after the threshold was adjusted to make it easier for you post, that continuing to not fix your posting style, would eventually lead to the same result.
-
@scottalanmiller said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
more importantly, it's a mechanism to show others when they look at your posts that other community members have flagged them as unhelpful or misleading or whatever.
sounds like a great way to feed into an echo chamber, the way it's set.
if 2 members get triggered and enter in a loop, like it just happened with me (it was always 2 down votes), then i'm suddenly and quickly "banned".
constructive criticism isn't easy to give, and it's even harder to take. nobody have to adjust or accept it, but i did my best to be constructive in every single post. i'm not spamming or doing anything really negative at all (other than reacting boldly mostly to you). that should be worth more than being moderated away.
funny enough, i think you were the only one to even give me any positive votes, even if out of pity.
@PitaJ said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
There is no notification for when people downvote your posts. If you'd like that to change you can open an issue on GitHub
lol, nope, thanks. if i ever get to use nodebb for real, i'll see. but my experience here says it'd probably be a bad idea for me.
since my first post, 5 years ago, and the one from 10 days ago, i was trying to do basically 3 things: engage, give lots of feedback for improvement and enjoy the ride. from my perspective, i was just giving my best contribution.
perhaps i got just a bit lost in the way for this last iteration on the past week or so... i certainly got triggered. was it enough to justify my "soft ban"?
so far all i heard was "yes".
if so, why should i bother to continue here?
enjoy your toy. i lost all interest.
-
@PitaJ said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
@cregox your reputation is low because community members are downvoting your posts in other threads.
So the post queue is being activated. And the new user limiter.
There is no notification for when people downvote your posts. If you'd like that to change you can open an issue on GitHub
Not keen on this idea as it may well result in unintended consequences, e.g. "down vote wars".
Initially I wanted to know such details and wondered why such had been cloaked. I figured the devs must have had a good reason for it, as since we have upvote notifications I doubted it was an oversight. So I rolled with it. Experienced the NodeBB experience fer' a bit. Now I see the wisdom in maintaining some anonymity for down voters. It is rare I down vote but when I do I do so honestly as an effort to cue the poster that they may want to give further pause/analysis of their utterances. Alas, there are some petty people out there. Also trolls just looking to game the up/down vote system. No need to make it any more easier and/or amusing for them to escalate disagreements all out of proportion, mole hills becoming mountains, etc. Thus, I think anonymity for down votes is a good thing.
-
@gotwf said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
@PitaJ said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
@cregox your reputation is low because community members are downvoting your posts in other threads.
So the post queue is being activated. And the new user limiter.
There is no notification for when people downvote your posts. If you'd like that to change you can open an issue on GitHub
Not keen on this idea as it may well result in unintended consequences, e.g. "down vote wars".
Initially I wanted to know such details and wondered why such had been cloaked. I figured the devs must have had a good reason for it, as since we have upvote notifications I doubted it was an oversight. So I rolled with it. Experienced the NodeBB experience fer' a bit. Now I see the wisdom in maintaining some anonymity for down voters. It is rare I down vote but when I do I do so honestly as an effort to cue the poster that they may want to give further pause/analysis of their utterances. Alas, there are some petty people out there. Also trolls just looking to game the up/down vote system. No need to make it any more easier and/or amusing for them to escalate disagreements all out of proportion, mole hills becoming mountains, etc. Thus, I think anonymity for down votes is a good thing.
We had a bit of debate about that on ML and ML decided to go with non-anonymous down votes, but it was a bit of discussion and generally I'm more for anonymous votes. When you make down votes listed, it creates a massive barrier to meaningful feedback and empowers bad posting. You no longer use downvotes to "discourage" behaviour, but start to use them to "flag for moderation." Which is a very big difference.
It's important to see a general volume of voting. Is someone "generally good" but an individual post bad? Downvote wars typically require a lot of effort that is easy to catch by mods. But someone posting badly, consistently and lacking appreciated positive posts to offset them, are easily identified.
On ML, for example, with the huge traffic that we have and heated debates, the number of people who've gone negative (that aren't bots) is like three, in well over half a decade. Pretty much any valuable posting creates enough up votes that a few bad posts or threads have no real effect.
-
@cregox said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
if 2 members get triggered and enter in a loop, like it just happened with me (it was always 2 down votes), then i'm suddenly and quickly "banned".
Only if NO ONE up votes. So it's working correctly. Post only negative things and what exactly would you want the system to do? You have thousands and thousands of readers on here, none of them are upvoting your posts. None. And upvotes happen like over 100:1 compared to downvotes for normal posting. So to end up in this situation takes some effort.
You like to say "echo chamber" as a response to "I don't like that people don't appreciate what I'm saying." To you, any feedback or criticism is an echo chamber. I think you misunderstand these mechanisms.
-
@cregox said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
funny enough, i think you were the only one to even give me any positive votes, even if out of pity.
Negative feedback is only valuable when positive feedback is given, too. I'm not a supporter of "negative votes", I'm a supporter of "votes". Both are valuable, either on its own becomes only a popularity contest.
-
@cregox said in moderated? your post is queued for approval.:
perhaps i got just a bit lost in the way for this last iteration on the past week or so... i certainly got triggered. was it enough to justify my "soft ban"?
Keep in mind, it was two soft bans. The first you discussed with the mods and the limit for soft bans was raised, which I agree with it was way too long. There needs to be some leniency for someone, like yourself, who is posting infrequently and the first few posts or threads end up less than ideal. Hence the lower number now.
But you definitely had a warning, whether warranted or not. But you continued down the path, and remain arguing some very key points that keep getting negative votes (like doubling down on free meaning what you want and claiming something free isn't). That's fine, you can do that. But you risk negative votes and feedback because people don't appreciate false statements, especially when they aren't like accidentally false or like "white lies" like "you don't look fat in that dress" but rather statements to disparage the community where someone is giving something away and you want more or to lash out or whatever so keep saying that free isn't enough, you need "more free" or you want stop making false claims - it's literally a form of minor extortion (threatening to lie about a product if they don't give you more.)
So in a situation like this, where the initial feedback isn't enough and doesn't change the course, how would you propose the system work? Clearly there has to be a way to discourage that kind of posting, there needs to be a warning system, there needs to be a way to alert other readers that they need to watch out because there is a negative reputation here. Those are givens that I think you have to agree are necessary in any public setting or the forum becomes useless because you have no way to tell when someone has value (e.g. check Spiceworks where they used "activity" rather than "feedback" so someone like me gets an insanely high rating regardless of the quality of my feedback). We know that "pure up votes" encourages politicization as being inflammatory has no downsides.
So while you feel that you are being moderated quickly and automatically, there are a few key points to make. One is that you are not banned, you are "slowed down" with a human verifying what you are saying. Two is that there were warnings and changes made to accommodate you, something no one has ever needed before in six years or more of the forums. Three, even after the warnings and new limits, you kept going. Four, you didn't offset any of this with positive posting that wasn't trying to reinforce your one seemingly consistent promotion of "something else." And five, it's only temporary as long as you don't post positively which, in theory, takes extremely little time.
Given those five points, doesn't it seem that the soft ban, while it kind of sucks for you personally, is exactly how you'd want the system to behave?
