nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why is Boards so quiet?

Jobs OXO

Hi have been on the site with previous (now closed) accounts for a good number of years. I have never seen it so quiet. Sunday morning and looking at latest posts traffic seems so slow. Is no one posting anymore? AH doesn't seem to be much craic anymore. Anyone notice the same? Any ideas how to improve the situation ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wibbs

Bloody Timelords...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

buzzwell

Boards is going quiet because users are not going to invest time in producing content if threads are going to be regularly locked for "review" at the drop of a hat.

upandcumming

I realise that I am lumping on regarding a slightly separate issue... The app. It is beyond horrific. I liked it alot at the start because it was clean, clear and I didn't have to use the browser. It seems that nothing has been done to it since it's release. It is so unreliable, and buggy it is unbelievable. To be honest, I hope whoever wrote it is not proud.

iguot

buzzwell wrote: »

Boards is going quiet because users are not going to invest time in producing content if threads are going to be regularly locked for "review" at the drop of a hat.

The science forums and some of the Tech ones had users that use to put up news/breakthroughs in those world's.

Those users all got bannedfor not writing enough in their OP. Threads locked/deleted. Look in some of those sections now and theirs tumble weeds.

All gone to Reddit.

buzzwell

iguot wrote: »

The science forums and some of the Tech ones had users that use to put up news/breakthroughs in those world's.

Those users all got bannedfor not writing enough in their OP. Threads locked/deleted. Look in some of those sections now and theirs tumble weeds.

All gone to Reddit.

Heard something on the news about facebook having 2 billion users and 4 thousand moderators!

It seems to be a leading social site and quite the brand.

How does the moderator ratio (or interference, to put a focus on it) compare to boards I wonder?
Does boards need to experiment to let itself find it's own level without so much user interference?

I know both platforms are different but user content is key to both's success.

If users don't use, the outlook is bleak.

B_Wayne

buzzwell wrote: »

Heard something on the news about facebook having 2 billion users and 4 thousand moderators!

It seems to be a leading social site and quite the brand.

How does the moderator ratio (or interference, to put a focus on it) compare to boards I wonder?
Does boards need to experiment to let itself find it's own level without so much user interference?

I know both platforms are different but user content is key to both's success.

If users don't use, the outlook is bleak.

Facebook has plenty of content that shows up that's literally illegal and can take an utter age to remove. They have an advantage of dedicated legal teams, boards does not.

Beasty

... and they also pay their moderators.

Of course having a discussion about rules and providing open feedback over there is a little more difficult than it is over here

B_Wayne

Beasty wrote: »

... and they also pay their moderators.

Of course having a discussion about rules and providing open feedback over there is a little more difficult than it is over here

I'd also find facebook statuses and the discussions that lay beneath them fall to a particularly low standard, is that a standard that anyone would want? They're also aiming to filter out fake news which would ironically drive a lot of people mad on here... :rolleyes:

Beasty

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd also find facebook statuses and the discussions that lay beneath them fall to a particularly low standard, is that a standard that anyone would want? They're also aiming to filter out fake news which would ironically drive a lot of people mad on here... :rolleyes:

It's clearly a very different format serving a very different purpose, but they are now having to massively up their game on moderation, with an announcement today that they will be almost doubling their number from 5,000 to 9,000 (heard the figures quoted on the radio but do not know if that's worldwide or just Europe (or indeed just the UK & I)). I suspect they will need to increase that further as they find more complaints flooding in. Indeed the publicity their moderation policies has attracted today will bring much more of a focus on issues and how they deal with them.

"The picture is not particularly reassuring"

Steve

Beasty wrote: »

... and they also pay their moderators.

Wait, what? :eek:

You can be paid to be a moderator?

*starts looking at CV*

Jobs OXO

Steve wrote: »

Wait, what? :eek:

You can be paid to be a moderator?

*starts looking at CV*

You might struggle in a paid position in fairness

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Expect those suggestions to be strongly resisted unfortunately, they've been disregarded numerous times in the past.

KERSPLAT!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pawwed Rig did a great job in Social and Fun, Rec and Hobbies and Home and Garden a few months ago, unfortunately the time it takes to go though each forum, PM mods, etc it was time to go through them all again when he had finished. It's a slow process but definitely something that needs to be done. It's finding time to actually do it that's the problem but I do agree with you.

Zaph

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:mad:

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Expect those suggestions to be strongly resisted unfortunately, they've been disregarded numerous times in the past.

Inactive mods isn't that straightforward, people take time away from the site for lots of reasons. But I would agree with getting rid of a lot of the inactive forums, even the Hitch Hikers one, to make things a lot cleaner and it would probably make the site a bit easier to navigate for new posters.

pjohnson

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

25 posts a month would be harsh. Obviously a yer of inactivity is an issue and clearly dead but for other boards. Example: The Walking Dead Board - that will only have traffic when the show is actually airing. From April - October it will be a ghost town.

On the same flip boards has a Glee forum that has nothing in 2 years. Thats not coming back.

Jobs OXO

Zaph wrote: »

:mad:

Inactive mods isn't that straightforward, people take time away from the site for lots of reasons. But I would agree with getting rid of a lot of the inactive forums, even the Hitch Hikers one, to make things a lot cleaner and it would probably make the site a bit easier to navigate for new posters.

I hope the My Little Pony Forum is safe....

NOT!!

LuckyLloyd

Zaph wrote: »

Inactive mods isn't that straightforward, people take time away from the site for lots of reasons. But I would agree with getting rid of a lot of the inactive forums, even the Hitch Hikers one, to make things a lot cleaner and it would probably make the site a bit easier to navigate for new posters.

I think it needs to be an automated rule, and whatever the rule is can be communicated to the moderators in advance. If someone does go AWOL beyond the rule and comes back to be remodded, let them get in touch and get added again. I don't personally agree that the moderation is site wide as bad as some of the feedback in this forum over the past two years might indicated, but at a certain point the avalanche of negative sentiment is hard to ignore. This seems like a simple enough change that could help to build confidence in the moderation team - as you can confidently say they're engaged to some minimum standard.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think it needs to be an automated rule, and whatever the rule is can be communicated to the moderators in advance. If someone does go AWOL beyond the rule and comes back to be remodded, let them get in touch and get added again. I don't personally agree that the moderation is site wide as bad as some of the feedback in this forum over the past two years might indicated, but at a certain point the avalanche of negative sentiment is hard to ignore. This seems like a simple enough change that could help to build confidence in the moderation team - as you can confidently say they're engaged to some minimum standard.

The problem with hard & fast rules on de-modding is getting someone lined up to replace them. Having said that if the existing mod is not doing anything then the forum is unlikely to miss them whilst a replacement is found.

I would say though that we have had a number of "sweeps" of inactive mods, although the last one may have been getting on for a year ago. Likewise I started a few threads to gauge interest in retaining some of the inactive sports forums. Although there was some initial response in some of those threads, none of them have been touched in perhaps 6 months or more.

One of the questions we never really answered was whether to close them to new posts but keep them visible or remove them from sight completely. Only in the latter case do you start to unclutter the site. However one other option would be to move them all to a single location which may be a few layers down the menu system (perhaps an "Archive" section within each category) so they can be viewed if anyone is looking for something from "history", and indeed it provides an option to resurrect anything that may suddenly spring to life. They would need to be closed though if simply to avoid the requirement for local mods with nothing to do

iguot

30 pages complaining about mods, last thing ya want is more of them.

I can think of 1 forum that got a new for an inactive 1, I don't use it anymore.

.......

This post has been deleted.

dudara

You did not receive a warning for asking a question. You received a warning because you suggested an illegal activity.

.......

This post has been deleted.

dudara

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You know full well that your "observation" was an illegal suggestion. So don't be surprised when a mod pulls you up on it.

If you want to discuss your warning further, please use the DRP forum, which exists for the sole purpose of reviewing warnings, infractions and bans. We won't go any further here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd

Beasty wrote: »

The problem with hard & fast rules on de-modding is getting someone lined up to replace them. Having said that if the existing mod is not doing anything then the forum is unlikely to miss them whilst a replacement is found.

Seems a pain, but a worthwhile activity - otherwise, as you say, you have the illusion of moderator cover on a forum rather than any actual modding.

Beasty wrote: »

I would say though that we have had a number of "sweeps" of inactive mods, although the last one may have been getting on for a year ago. Likewise I started a few threads to gauge interest in retaining some of the inactive sports forums. Although there was some initial response in some of those threads, none of them have been touched in perhaps 6 months or more.

Again, automation removes the need for "sweeps". You'll just have a steady trickle of work as mods are removed by rule and coverage issues pop up by extension. At least it will be a trickle of valuable work.

It will also help feed into the second aspect - that of inactive forums. If mods are getting removed by rule and you can't find any users to give the forum to and / or no - one is noticing the fact that a mod has been inactive or removed, it will probably help feed into a review of forums that could be closed or archived.

Beasty wrote: »

One of the questions we never really answered was whether to close them to new posts but keep them visible or remove them from sight completely. Only in the latter case do you start to unclutter the site. However one other option would be to move them all to a single location which may be a few layers down the menu system (perhaps an "Archive" section within each category) so they can be viewed if anyone is looking for something from "history", and indeed it provides an option to resurrect anything that may suddenly spring to life. They would need to be closed though if simply to avoid the requirement for local mods with nothing to do

Archive section the path to victory here - the historical content still has value, and should be searchable.

JCX BXC

Credit where credit is due, the AH thread regarding the incident in Manchester has been left largely untampered with. Discussion has been allowed develop by itself and I feel as if this has been a good step.

Hopefully we are being listened to :P

Insect Overlord

JCX BXC wrote: »

Credit where credit is due, the AH thread regarding the incident in Manchester has been left largely untampered with. Discussion has been allowed develop by itself and I feel as if this has been a good step.

Hopefully we are being listened to :P

That thread last night was fucking revolting. Just a load of scumbags turning up in sync to push their agendas on everybody else. I would not be using that as an example of something to aspire to. It was fucking shameful.