Dropping science on your moderator bias..... um...w0rd!

DeVore

So, a while back Conor and I were talking about measuring various health indicators of the site and moderator actions was one of them. just recently, he came back to me with a bunch of stats and two of them I would like to share with you in graph form.

One in the form of the absolute number of moderator actions (Infractions, Warnings, Bans)




But if you think of it, the rate of posting now is considerably higher then even a year ago, so we should graph them, not by number of actions but by actions-as-a-percentage-of-posts. So here that is:




I think you can see where this is going. So, I hate to rain on all you mod-haters out there but the numbers simply dont lie.

DeV.

seamus

Just to pre-empt the obvious question - there's no ban information before July 2008 because that information wasn't recorded until then.

AckwelFoley

How long is it been since Karoma has been a mod?


:pac:

A-Trak

How're warnings recorded and how do they differentiate from infractions?
(Sorry if there's an obvious answer to this I'm missing...)

DeVore

They are similar to infractions, effectively they are more red cards then the yellow cards of infractions. Its quite subtle though.

DeV.

pickarooney

DeVore wrote: »

They are similar to infractions, effectively they are more red cards then the yellow cards of infractions. Its quite subtle though.

DeV.

Huh? I thought the yellow card was the warning and the red was the 'infraction'?

Gordon

I think for the purposes of the graphs: "Infraction" means Red Infraction and "Warning" means Yellow infraction, and Dev is saying that there are more "Infractions" than "Warnings". I think Dev is drunk on stats..

I could be wrong though, I don't have the raw data.

DeVore

Could be, sorry, I never really give them out, stuff that lands on my pile tends to have gone through that process

DeV.

AckwelFoley

There should be no warns and infractions, just one or the other.

I feel that receiving either will do the same thing.. to me it was a wrap on the knuckles and didnt matter either way which it was as i go the message.

2cents ^^^

Wibbs

Interesting stuff It looks like infractions were dead fashionable for a while. How many of the bannings were shills and spammers? I'd say that would change the ban stats a fair whack? In a few forums anyway. I'd reckon personally I've banned waaay more spammers than other users.

The other bit I take from those stats are the users. All of us in each community are for the most part chilling, chewing the fat, having a laugh and informing others, making the day go easy. Rarely causing any guff on thread. When it does happen, then other users report it and again most of the time its resolved no bother.

Terry

snyper wrote: »

There should be no warns and infractions, just one or the other.

I feel that receiving either will do the same thing.. to me it was a wrap on the knuckles and didnt matter either way which it was as i go the message.

2cents ^^^

As a mod, I find the different ones come in handy when trying to determine previous bollix acting. It's faster than going through previous posts because it's very easy to find why someone has been given a red or yellow card.

I look at the yellow cards as minor infringements, which act as a warning, and the red for use when someone has really been screwing around.

Wibbs

snyper wrote: »

There should be no warns and infractions, just one or the other.

I feel that receiving either will do the same thing.. to me it was a wrap on the knuckles and didnt matter either way which it was as i go the message.

2cents ^^^

I dunno, I think a yellow card is more "official". Just speaking personally I'm not that sold on them and prefer either on thread chillax or a quick PM explaining why. Rather than "ohhh you've been a bold boy/girl". Most of the time the vast majority of people just slip up/have a bad day/post in wrong forum. Actual stirrers dont last long.

trout

It's hard to measure the impact of on-thread interventions, or friendly words in the ear via PM

Stats are always good to look at though ... makes me feel warm & fuzzy

xw2lj9uspm1eyh

seamus wrote: »

Just to pre-empt the obvious question - there's no ban information before July 2008 because that information wasn't recorded until then.

Thanks for stating that I was gonna ask did Gordon get his banhammer then I guess he has gotta wait till he bans 5,000 people before he get his progress plotted on a graph.

Tallon

Mmmn, nice to see stats

Bit strange that only mods thanked the OP

Gordon

mendusa wrote: »

Thanks for stating that I was gonna ask did Gordon get his banhammer then I guess he has gotta wait till he bans 5,000 people before he get his progress plotted on a graph.

Graph meeeeee!!!!

AckwelFoley

Terry wrote: »

As a mod, I find the different ones come in handy when trying to determine previous bollix acting. It's faster than going through previous posts because it's very easy to find why someone has been given a red or yellow card.

I look at the yellow cards as minor infringements, which act as a warning, and the red for use when someone has really been screwing around.

In my experience that doesnt pan out though, one mod could give you a red and another a yellow for essentially the same thing.

I preferred either your "shut the fcuk up" method or then a infraction and then wave "day day" for persistant acting the dick.

Most/many users would respond in positively to a quick pm - but thats time consuming. I do rather regularly pm posters, generally infrequent members that were baited by trolls and give them a "heads up" to delete a message they will receive a ban for, and always get a positive response.

AckwelFoley

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting stuff It looks like infractions were dead fashionable for a whileHow many of the bannings were shills and spammers? I'd say that would change the ban stats a fair whack? In a few forums anyway. I'd reckon personally I've banned waaay more spammers than other users.

.

Very good point, but easily calculated id say.

I would assume spammers is a constant, if you could calculate from 1 week twice in either end of a year how many were spammers, and subtract the average of the weekly results from the rest of the figures it would give you a better "number" but the flow of the graph would remain the same

trout

snyper wrote: »

I would assume spammers is a constant

I wonder how true that is ... I've seen waves of spam, and then nothing for days / weeks ... I'd say over time it's increasing too ... but there are probably spam filter stats too.

I'm a junkie for stats ...

Mr Magnolia

Could rule changes in adverts also have affected the stats?







Also, anyone else feel violated?

:pac:

Économiste Monétaire

Be super nice, DeV, and attach the data, too .

OldGoat

Mods, bah, damned shirkers. Never earn the coke and hookers. Back in the day you'd be banned for breathing heavy and now it's all nice whispers in yer ear an Politeness. The numbers don't lie!

DeVore

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Be super nice, DeV, and attach the data, too .

Can do, what do you want it for though? (I mean that both in a defensive way, and in the "maybe I help you if I know what you are looking for" way).

DeV.

Économiste Monétaire

DeVore wrote: »

Can do, what do you want it for though? (I mean that both in a defensive way, and in the "maybe I help you if I know what you are looking for" way).

DeV.

Nerdy things, like looking at/correcting seasonality, projecting the future path of bans, the correlation between infractions and unemployment, et cetera.

trout

*nerdgasm in 5,4,3,2 ...*

DeVore

I dunno if its in enough detail to do that kind of analysis, its pretty much just what is in those graphs but knock yourself out

DeV.

pickarooney

snyper wrote: »

There should be no warns and infractions, just one or the other.

Yep, and just call them warnings. No more of this 'infraction' rubbish. A red card doesn't actually do anything so it's symbolically redundant. Warn and ban - simple and to the point.

Sparks

Interesting that the drop in bans, warnings and infractions happened at the same time as a large sustained spike in traffic.

Gordon

Sparks wrote: »

Interesting that the drop in bans, warnings and infractions happened at the same time as a large sustained spike in traffic.

The eyes of Sauron were on the hacker of 01/10.

FarmerGreen

DeVore wrote: »

I think you can see where this is going. So, I hate to rain on all you mod-haters out there but the numbers simply dont lie.
DeV.

Yes, users are beginning to understand the rules.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Gordon wrote: »

Graph meeeeee!!!!