Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
In response to Kharn-Hierarchy/Users/After Hours
Options
-
17-05-2009 11:45pm#1I had this written out, and someone moved the thread (which was initially a complaint against an AH mod).
So feel free to merge etc., but anyway the post I'm responding to is here now.Well I'm not drunk, nor am I Terry, but I'm always happy to explain the process behind the awards if people ask...
Well, they didn't, but now that you offer...
Btw, I preface that Terry may often seem obtuse, and acerbic, but his judgement and his actions are invariably A1 imho, by virtue of the fact that he never acts without due thought, and as such can never be accused of hair trigger or emotive modding. In fact, he probably puts too much thought if anything into his boards activities.There are 225,000+ members of boards.ie (of which 70,000 are active [we define this as "log in at least once a week"]).
Thanks, because that's the first time we've received such a definition, despite numerous requests (not explicity toward yourself of course
). Interesting.Were I to poll them for nominations on the various awards, I simply could not possibly tabulate the results.
Indeed not. However could not a bloomin' script or something be put together, or is my ignorance of such matters letting me down?So instead I take it to the 500+ moderators as I can get a handle on it more easily.
Which raises a similiar issue to that of the userbase, spammers trolls bots et al.
How many of the oft quoted 500+ mods are active? How many of those are active on the mod forum (or mod lounge as some misguided fool called it recently)?Some people seem to think this is very unfair, I really don't know why.
I am one of those people. Such an approach is elitist and exclusive to say the least.It's a pretty efficient solution,
"It's easy to implement."it takes into account the opinions of those who have a definite vested interest in the site (the mods - which isn't to say that all members of the site don't) and presents a "qualified" and reliable set of candidates.
A shaky premise. For one thing, you assume that all mods have a vested interest, and as you say yourself, that users do not. I have found that many users care deeply about this place, and that many mods (*by no means all*) are more concerned with either their own standing, posting responses to score points, backing each other up, or posting ubiquitously in order to garner some form of imaginary influence. I have also found these days that users are more often that not excluded from the machinations of the site. As just a few examples; the smods are admins now, and were referred to as such before the fact? Have they shares in the company now? I know your good self as a familiar face-and to my mind a trustworthy one, (and I'm sure your colleague is equally so), but no one has bothered their arse to tell us what the hell it is you guys are doing here, or what your aspired role is to be?In the past, we (Rope-Drink and I) invited the public to mail us nominations etc and it simply didn't work (one year we had about 30 submissions which hardly counts as a fair representation of the site's opinions).
Indeed not. Kudos is due for trying though, even though the implementation may have been as disappointing as the user apathy (not for a moment due to yourself and the other guy-all of your efforts as with other moderators for many years were purely voluntary).The current system makes it easy for the members to make their vote and so we get a much higher percentage of the active member-base contributing to the overall result.
I must strongly disagree with this. The ethos behind it, namely that the moderator group represents some form of higher authority/sounding board to the exclusion of others is what I have the most trouble with.As for AH - I don't read it. It's the dregs of boards.ie as far as I'm concerned and if it were up to me, that board would've been deleted 5 years ago
However, it's because of the mods that it's still there.
Dude, you could learn a helluva lot from the AH moderators and the way they conduct matters on their little bit of daft.ie/boards.ie real estate. Realistic decisions, mindful of user feedback and feeling (as instigated by Eamo et al. and carried on with gusto by Con and the lads).
Dregs? Dregs? What bollocks. Nostalgic gamers with dubious facial hair (and that's just the chicks) is not what this place is about any more. Thanks to the giants that have gone before us, we can all look back at the sh1te that people were wittering about here years ago. You know as well as I that AH these days makes that embryonic community of the first few years look like a Michelangelo vs. the cave of Lascaux in most cases.
This "AH is bad" mantra is simply elitist claptrap. It represents a cross section of the site as a whole and the Irish internet community as a whole. Leave it out.We cut that board a lot of slack and we cut it's mods an equal measure of lee-way.
We as in who, exactly?Post edited by Shield on0
Comments
-
It's past my bed time Roundy, but I do want to answer some of your questions when I have my "Dav" hat on tomorrow, so I hope you won't mind that I'll get back to you on this at some stage tomorrow (Monday's are quite busy for me).
Most importantly: That post was from Kharn and he is not the same person as Dav - I hope you can accept that and not think that I'm gone stark raving mad That post was also about the personal time I have given in running the awards and has nothing to do with official site and/or company business.
Couple of quick points: I don't think it's incorrect to assume that someone who has agreed to volunteer their time in the interest of helping a corner of boards that they're interested in has a vested interest in the way things are run.
I don't know why you're mentioning daft.ie - they have nothing to do with the running of this site (infact, we banned them not too long ago for mistakenly posting in the accomodation & property forum).
I also said that it *isn't* to say that members don't have a vested interest in the place - I am hugely grateful that there are members of this site like you who take a big interest and ask questions. We would not be where we are without members like this.
My personal thoughts on AH: there are specific forums for the discussion of most of what comes up on AH and people don't use them. This has given rise to an acceptance of the less than sensible approach to posting that people often (but not always) take there. AH was originally to be the place where we talked about going for a pint after work etc. Again, this is my personal opinion and I'm just as entitled to it as you are to disagree with it - doesn't mean either of us are wrong But speaking with my "Dav" hat on for a moment: I don't think we'd ever get rid of AH or try to force a change in the way it works.
One more thing - I'm going to check and may have to revise the figures I've mentioned - I hope you'll not be annoyed if I've made a mistake on that, but as far as I know, they're the correct figures.0 -
-
-
-
It's past my bed time Roundy, but I do want to answer some of your questions when I have my "Dav" hat on tomorrow, so I hope you won't mind that I'll get back to you on this at some stage tomorrow (Monday's are quite busy for me).
Cool It was past mine as well. One point I raise is that we (the userbase) are well over due some kind of a state of the site address, and I appreciate that it's been laid at your door now as a result of this thread. 
Most importantly: That post was from Kharn and he is not the same person as Dav - I hope you can accept that and not think that I'm gone stark raving mad That post was also about the personal time I have given in running the awards and has nothing to do with official site and/or company business.
Of course. It's the AH thing I picked up on in that regard more than anything-as I'm aware of all the work Kharn the user/mod put into the awards and events over the years. I was and am disappointed to imagine AH and its mods as being under some kind of complement, as like it or not, the post referenced "we" rather than "the site". Maybe I'm wrong.Couple of quick points: I don't think it's incorrect to assume that someone who has agreed to volunteer their time in the interest of helping a corner of boards that they're interested in has a vested interest in the way things are run.
Mostly a correct assumption, in my view. There are some mods who couldn't be arsed. Not all mods actually do anything btw. Conversely, there are some mods who are flippin' everywhere, projecting influence and opinion everywhere you look. As Tom Petty said "I can't decide which is worse". Suffice to say, I stand over the 500 mod thing. There are nowhere near 500 active mods on the mod forum, at least not the last time I was there. Not even a fifth of that. Active mod posters probably bring it down to a couple of dozen. What all this means Dav, is that you end up with a handful of people expressing opinion and guiding everything through sheer volume of contribution. One person with time to scratch their nethers can push many day to day happenings one way or another.I don't know why you're mentioning daft.ie - they have nothing to do with the running of this site (infact, we banned them not too long ago for mistakenly posting in the accomodation & property forum).
I know that chief. Please don't read anything into it. It was a turn of phrase, nothing more.I also said that it *isn't* to say that members don't have a vested interest in the place - I am hugely grateful that there are members of this site like you who take a big interest and ask questions. We would not be where we are without members like this.
I know I know. I re read that there just before I got to your post this morning and said to myself "that's not right". I got your meaning last night, but my answer doesn't read right. I should have said that I realise you don't exclude users from your statement about buy in from people.My personal thoughts on AH: there are specific forums for the discussion of most of what comes up on AH and people don't use them. This has given rise to an acceptance of the less than sensible approach to posting that people often (but not always) take there. AH was originally to be the place where we talked about going for a pint after work etc. Again, this is my personal opinion and I'm just as entitled to it as you are to disagree with it - doesn't mean either of us are wrong But speaking with my "Dav" hat on for a moment: I don't think we'd ever get rid of AH or try to force a change in the way it works.
Its evolved from that though. Whether you're posting with the glowing eyes and booming voice or not though, it's still disappointing to see the place referred to as the dregs of the site. I know you're not alone in such a view, but you're a CommMan. A role I've relished someone taking on for ages. I would have hoped that you would look to AH and its relatively free nature and see something that may translate to other parts of the site. Not every topic specific forum needs to be locked down rigidly in order to gain acceptance.One more thing - I'm going to check and may have to revise the figures I've mentioned - I hope you'll not be annoyed if I've made a mistake on that, but as far as I know, they're the correct figures.
ObligadoActually it's pretty standard. Think of other polls elsewhere - I'll use the example of the Spider awards - do the public vote on who the nominations should be or do they vote on the nominations? If it's put to the general boards populace to nominate a mod/post/most lickable to decide the final 5 nominations it ain't gonna happen - as Kharn has demonstrated. But if you put up 5 nominations for the award people will vote on one of the five. If there's too many choices most people will choose not to choose. It's not elitism or "easy to implement" - it's the only way I can see to actually get people to vote.
Possibly. However I'm sure the BBC didn't shortlist "A Nation Once Again" for best song or whatever. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility for someone to put together a script that puts a link under each username for a fortnight or so prior to the awards.
Best occurrence of muppetry etc., is different in that a shortlist is needed. This doesn't need to or shouldn't be restricted to the mod forum either.randylonghorn wrote: »Is it really this, Roundy, or is it that they're easier to catch / will probably respond?
And anyway, they only nominate ... everyone gets to vote, as Mac said.
Also ... in my mind the Awards aren't meant to be particularly serious, they're just meant to be a bit of fun. I'd hate to see them being taken too seriously tbh ... that way leads to people ending up feeling hurt and irritable (whether because they were or they weren't nominated for certain categories).
The awards are a great bit of craic, and the only people that care unduly about them are the ones who win. It's the mindset that the moderators represent a sounding board for the site to the exclusion of everyone else I have a problem with. And I'm a (now resigned) mod myself
Read my remarks regarding undue influence on/in the mod forum/community above, to see why.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Roundy - the day's run away with me as Darragh hasn't been in the office and I've been up the walls as a result. I'll try and get online tonight and address some of these issues (and thankfully Seamus has I think cleared some of it up). I just wanted to let you know I hadn't forgotten about you and I'm not trying to avoid the issue 0
-
-
Not being told what now? The change from Smod to Admin? Well, I imagine this is probably on DeV's to-do list. Might just be a bit unfortunate on the timing. In any case, the perceived role hasn't changed all that much, we now just have the capacity to do things which we would previously have just instructed an admin to do.
Not just that, not at all. For one thing, the CommMans were never formally welcomed into their roles by the populace (which might have given rise to some discussion and feedback on that and other related stuff). We have two developers now?But for all intents and purposes, the Smod group is gone and there are now only Admins. We're still toying with the format, but DeV will probably clarify more.
Well, it's more than we knew up to now Admins was a term used here in lieu of site owner, so this is kinda big tbh.I know some people like to know what's going on, but at some point you have to do it on a need-to-know basis. The change doesn't really affect the users.
Not this change, as far as we know. Issues surrounding the CommMan role etc., and many other issues, do affect the users, that's the whole point. It's not as if we want the keys to Dev's drawer, or his passwords.Or they can not post at all and still do plenty of modding. Tbh, if you could come up with a way of finding these people out, we're all ears. At the moment, we're simply relying on the forum regulars to call out, "Our mod has forsaken us!".
Well, the only way is by snitching (not a great term, but illustrates why folk are reluctant to do so). If there is adequate coverage, people might say it's not an issue, but when you've a mod posting in a thread they should be modding, and not modding, well that leaves their fellow mods down, and makes light of the moderator role itself. Course, it's still a voluntary role, but that doesn't mean standards cannot be enforced as a result. There are many people happy to do the job.Things have changed. From recent conversations and polls in the mod forum, I'd be quite confident that there are at least 50-80 regular posters there and at least as many as 200 regular readers. That's out of 400 moderators.
400 or 500; I wonder what the exact figure is, as some people suggest as little as 200. Anyway, I'm basing my estimates on a year or more ago now. What you say is encouraging in terms of an increase, but even so. Give it 60 posting, and another hundred plus reading. With any group you will have both passive and assertive people. In a community of equals, like the mod forum, and in a discussion board environment, where your post stands while you sleep, one or two busy bees can dictate the whole flow of the site. This is not a good basis for taking stock of the feeling of the site as a whole, and is something that has been policy here (albeit unwritten) for years.Someone with direct DB access could no doubt pull out a list of all unique moderators who've posted on the board in the last 4 weeks.
But that's a digression from the point you were making...
A little, but not far off all the sameWell, we know it's not a "dozen or less" (anymore), but you can apply the same criteria to Feedback. How many non-moderators would routinely access and get involved in feedback?
Quite a few, tbh.Would it actually make a difference - i.e. I would put any money on the fact that regular and interested non-moderators will likely nominate the exact same people/places/threads as a group of moderators. In addition, if you're going to make the request in feedback, the same moderators are going to cast their vote anyway.
Sure let them. They're as entitled as anyone else. At least the process would be open, in relation to Awards at least (which really isn't the thrust of my argument-that said, it would mean that the likes of Kharn are not left open to criticism or accusations like the one levelled at him last night).I see what you're saying, but as Kharn mentions, tabulating nominations is difficult enough as it is. I'd be concerned that doing them this year is going to present something of a challenge, even if they only use the mod group.
Possibly. Gets away from the fun element, doesn't it? Another reason for automating the thing somehow.Yes, a script could be written. And quite easily - even for thread nominations. But who has the time? Yes, boards has staff now, but they've a list of tasks the length of their collective arms, and a script for tabulating and creating awards is quite low on the list when you sort in terms of the value it adds to the site.
Perhaps. It's a matter of priority. When ones looks at adverts etc., there are bigger fish to fry.
As always Seamus, thanks.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
LuckyLloyd wrote: »We'd have to give a **** first! I actually didn't know we won an award. Awesome...I guess.
Kind of my point. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement