I think one of the issues this study fails to take I to consideration is why moderators choose to not use removal reasons. The hate and vitriol that some people have for having their post removed...
I think one of the issues this study fails to take I to consideration is why moderators choose to not use removal reasons. The hate and vitriol that some people have for having their post removed is absurd. Some subs have directions in the removal reasons for how to resubmit but the moderators still get insults and sometimes even users following them around reddit to downvote and sling insults in other subs.
Very true. It's better to address that the source though—the community ethos should discourage those sorts of posters in the first place, and not provide the charade of appearing to be a first...
Very true. It's better to address that the source though—the community ethos should discourage those sorts of posters in the first place, and not provide the charade of appearing to be a first amendment-carrying internet property; which is sadly what has happened to Reddit.
I can't remember the last time I seriously browsed Reddit for anything interesting; if anything, Twitter, Tildes, & HN are my Reddit ingestion sources these days.
Well, that's all the more justification for permanently banning someone like that. Don't moderate for the community you don't want, moderate for the one you want. Cite offenses so you can...
Well, that's all the more justification for permanently banning someone like that. Don't moderate for the community you don't want, moderate for the one you want. Cite offenses so you can justifiably ban repeat offenders. Treat em like you would distant friends.
On a more general note, I don't know how good of a study subject really makes with its completely dysfunctional moderation practices. 1 Layer of abstraction (subreddits) for the entire website, unpaid volunteers, high expectations of those mods, I don't know how they could make it worse for mods if they wanted to... Therefore, this study informs more how not to do it than how to do it. I'd be interested in how such a study would turn out in a higher-standards community and how it affects people psychologically.
Aside: I wasn't sure exactly where to post this. Feel free to move. Excerpt from the abstract:
Aside: I wasn't sure exactly where to post this. Feel free to move.
Excerpt from the abstract:
Using a sample of 32 million Reddit posts, we characterize the removal explanations that are provided to Redditors, and link them to measures of subsequent user behaviors—including future post submissions and future post removals. [...] Most importantly, we show that offering explanations for content moderation reduces the odds of future post removals. [...] Overall, our findings suggest that removal explanations may be under-utilized in moderation practices, and it is potentially worthwhile for community managers to invest time and resources into providing them.
Is anyone a member of lobste.rs ? I find their idea of a public moderation timeline very intriguing. [edit] For people not familiar with the site, this is what I mean.
Is anyone a member of lobste.rs ? I find their idea of a public moderation timeline very intriguing.
[edit] For people not familiar with the site, this is what I mean.
I think one of the issues this study fails to take I to consideration is why moderators choose to not use removal reasons. The hate and vitriol that some people have for having their post removed is absurd. Some subs have directions in the removal reasons for how to resubmit but the moderators still get insults and sometimes even users following them around reddit to downvote and sling insults in other subs.
Very true. It's better to address that the source though—the community ethos should discourage those sorts of posters in the first place, and not provide the charade of appearing to be a first amendment-carrying internet property; which is sadly what has happened to Reddit.
I can't remember the last time I seriously browsed Reddit for anything interesting; if anything, Twitter, Tildes, & HN are my Reddit ingestion sources these days.
Well, that's all the more justification for permanently banning someone like that. Don't moderate for the community you don't want, moderate for the one you want. Cite offenses so you can justifiably ban repeat offenders. Treat em like you would distant friends.
On a more general note, I don't know how good of a study subject really makes with its completely dysfunctional moderation practices. 1 Layer of abstraction (subreddits) for the entire website, unpaid volunteers, high expectations of those mods, I don't know how they could make it worse for mods if they wanted to... Therefore, this study informs more how not to do it than how to do it. I'd be interested in how such a study would turn out in a higher-standards community and how it affects people psychologically.
Aside: I wasn't sure exactly where to post this. Feel free to move.
Excerpt from the abstract:
Is anyone a member of lobste.rs ? I find their idea of a public moderation timeline very intriguing.
[edit] For people not familiar with the site, this is what I mean.