Way to see the progress/result of posts you've reported

Korbin Uneven Numerator wrote: »

it's none of your business after you report it, it's between the hierarchy and the user reported from that point on, and not even the user reported of there's no action deemed necessary by the hierarchy

ive set out the practical reasons it is probably needed.

"its none of your business" is not what id call a comprehensive reply but there you are.

if mods are making these decisions then they should be seen to be making them, it would in the medium term cut down on a lot of the noise imo.

osarusan wrote: »

It would create an endless storm of people asking why post X wasn't moderated but post Y was.

it would certainly highlight if this was happening.

is that not possibly a ....... good thing?

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

It is unfeasible to ask Mods to not only deal with these reports, decide if action is necessary, take the action, deal with the fallout of it if any (PMs from a disgruntled user, a DRP) but then to also to get back to the reporting user to tell them what action was taken or not taken and possibly have to engage with this user as well if they are unhappy with the outcome.

thanks niamh, thats comprehensive!

i figured touch site might be a limiter alright.

the only thing id say there is that there's no extra work in the list of things a mod has to do to insert a comment on the action taken once a decision has been made

i suppose what im asking is wouldnt it be very useful for all concerned if a user had access to their reports and could see the decision taken?

maybe its different for a desktop user but theres about twenty reasons that a touch user wouldnt feasibly be going back over posts theyve reported to see what (if any) action resulted

and, to bring it back to whats hopefully the constructive point: i do think this is a major gap in moderation that causes frustration for users and makes life more difficult for mods

Dravokivich wrote: »

Reporting posts allows us to see what direction the population of a forum is taking. Without going into too much details.

Your reported post creates a thread. Multiple reports get attached to the thread. It's a very effective means for us to understand what you (as a set of members) want us to address.

But please consider that these arent support tickets you are submitting. In some cases reports could just need a small discussion with someone who's lost the run of themselves.

I understand that thread/board management is a factor when making decisions on individual reported posts.

But if I'm picking you up correctly you're saying that (for instance) the amount of reported posts on a collective level are informing how you moderate in individual cases.

While it's tangential to what I'm suggesting (easy clarity on what decision is made on any given reported post) and I know the line is shifting and personal between what mods should be deciding is acceptable vs what the mods are observing that the forum entire finds acceptable, the above response is a little concerning in that it is a decent step towards "report more to win".

Now, the comments from the mods who contributed to the "can we talk about AH" are reassuring on that score, but in a culture of "report if you want it actioned" it becomes a race to be the quickest to the button.

The most common refrain in the dispute forum is "everyone/the other poster was at is as bad as me". A lot of the time this is on the face of it, pretty valid. If the standard mod response is "report it" then I think it's vital to see consideration and outcome of each report out in the open.

If mods find themselves needing to justify decisions that seem on the face of it imbalanced between individuals or arguments or sides then imo so be it?

That's somewhat of an aside tho, prompted by your post, which I may be misreading.

I still submit that knowing "no action deemed necessary" or "discussed with poster and resolved without further action" lets the reporting poster know that the report was actioned- they neither have to agree with the action nor be privy to the fine detail of what occurs, but they know that their report got consideration and they will see quickly enough whether they are or are not in alignment with the values of the moderation on that board or the site as a whole.

thanks to you both for perspective, i did feel (and probably was) a bit pushy for bumping

i know that a report isnt a ticket (tho im sure it feels it to a mod!)

but the current black hole gives the reporter (can we agree to use this term) absolutely no sense of outcome.

edit, having read mike's answer again- it provides little (not 'no') difference to the contents of the site but it would be a huge (imo) leap in quality in one of the major elements of the site.

and it's not merely about acknowledgement (in fact that's not a main strand of my argumenylt really) it's about that qualitative feedback and its very much about demonstrating action taken, because the visibility gap here is i think a major driver in user frustration and leads to behavioural issues in threads and heightened activity in disputes/appeals. essentially, i think the visibility gap gives trolls a lot of room in which to manoeuvre and erodes trust in mods.

if the way its currently set up makes it impossible for - and hey theres nothing more irritating than a user setting out an ideal user-solution so let's do that- say another link from your profile that only you could access showing the posts youve reported, i dont think that the mod need go back to the reporter.

but id have thought it would neither be sensitive nor onerous to note the action deemed suitable

and i think the argument that it would be useful for the site makes itself, along the lines stated above.

acknowledgment that the report has been considered is, i think, the request

wait

you wouldn't?

absolutely i would.

but its not a valid comparison in any case.

edit:

in fact, "users" are neither employees nor in the strictest sense customers, so it might be instructive to define what a valid comparator group would be, but tbh the idea that a closed mod group is a HR function is imo a bad one.

i dunno if the mission is set out cleanly or whatever but "to facilitate discussion in line with the rules" would seem reasonable, what part of that aligns with HR complaints? flip all id say