Do The Moderators Get Monitored

[Gromit]

It is always a pity to return to AB to find a question has been deleted or a post has been removed. It is especially annoying if you have read the deleted item and found nothing wrong with it.

I assume it is the work of an over zealous moderator rather than the Ed.

Have any moderators ever been sacked?
Do they get told off if they delete perfectly good posts and threads?
Do you keep a record of moderators actions?

On the whole, this site works well, but over censorship is spoiling it slightly in my opinion.

[jno]

I know what you mean, LazyGun, but I'm not sure how it would look in practice. You might click on a section and be given the 20 most recent posts but three of them would be labelled "deleted" so you'd only see 17.

I don't think they're doing this to make you doubt your sanity like Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight.

[naomi24]

I've seen no suggestion from LazyGun that it's done to make him doubt his sanity - and he did suggest leaving the title in place rather than simply a note saying 'deleted'. It's a good idea.

[jno]

my point was that it means a dead link taking the place of a live story, whether it actually says 'deleted' or not.

[bednobs]

"It worries me that my inability to find a post means I am suffering early-onset dementia"
he did there

[DTCwordfan]

which of mine was removed, gromit?

[baza]

overall I think the mods do a pretty good job, there are times when a thread has been zapped when I was not looking but hey ho such is life.
Would I want a mods job? No thanks, not enough tea in China.

[LazyGun]

@bedknobs - When i typed this ""It worries me that my inability to find a post means I am suffering early-onset dementia"

It was meant half- jokingly, and I was not suggesting that it was a deliberate tactic by the editor or the moderators to make me doubt my sanity- sheesh.

@jno - Again, not sure i am explaining myself sufficiently. Where a whole thread has been deleted (not just a response within a thread, where we already get "answer removed") - We as readers and posters have no notification of that fact - only our recollection. What I am asking for in these cicumstances is for the title of the thread to be left - along with a brief message saying thread deleted, so i am not chasing through responses and pages trying to find a half-remembered thread. Were the title left, it would also serve to act as a prompt to plea for the reinstation of the thread,minus the offending individual posts, assuming of course that the whole thread was removed because of some of the individual responses, rather than the tone or content of the OP itself........

[bednobs]

i know it was a joke. I was just responding to naomi when she said she hadn't seen it :)

[naomi24]

If the title were left in place, along with the words 'thread deleted' - at least we would know what had been deleted, hence saving fruitless searches for threads we had contributed to.

[snags]

''We as readers and posters have no notification of that fact - only our recollection''

And looking at your 'answers' in your profile: if the thread isn't there it has been removed and your sanity remains in tact.

[Fibonacci]

Great mods have little mods upon their backs to check 'em,
And little mods have lesser mods, and so ad infinitum.

[naomi24]

Bednobs, I presume you're talking about another thread where I said I hadn't seen a Churchill speech.

[LazyGun]

Maybe Snags - but it is a kind of negative confirmation - I would appreciate a positive one. And as Naomi rightly pointed out earlier in some cases a plea has been made for a thread to be reinstated,minus the offending post or poster because it is of interest, and leaving the title of the post together with a brief "thread deleted" would act as an aide memoire to plea for the reinstatement of a thread.

In some of these threads that have been deleted, there has been an interesting debate going on, with thoughtful and considered posts by many of the contributors - lost because a thread has been pulled in its entirety - i think that is a shame....

[DTCwordfan]

Personally, I think there ought to be more answers removed than take down the thread.....assuming that the thread is credible. Only if the thread becomes incoherent because of the number of answers removed then it should be taken down - what percentage that is, I don't know....20 percent, 30 percent....I am sure the Ed has some ideas on this though. I agree with those expressing that it is a shame when genuine contributions (and time invested by ABers) are devalued by a thread's removal - and good advice/experience risks being lost too.

[jno]

LazyGun, I must humbly apologise for comparing you to Ingrid Bergman. I shall apologise to her next time I see her as well. I hadn't realised anyone would take my suggestion seriously, but there it is.

I do get what you're suggesting. I'm just putting a counter-suggestion: that leaving "BBC - thread deleted when user was banned", or anything of that sort, would only clog up the pages on which the ex-thread appears. This may be what the Ed meant when he said doing it wouldn't add value, I don't know.

[boxtops]

Has the Churchill speech gone? I thought that was interesting.... but I do note that the person with Lamb in his name has vanished from a thread I was subscribed to, presumably he too was a banned user? He seemed to know a lot about some of us.

[jno]

Chruchill's still there, in History.

I saw that Lamb, he looked suspicious, but hadn't posted anything actually objectionable or given any reasonable grounds for my suspicion, so didn't report him. Presumably some Mod or Ed knew better.

[excelsior-1]

hmmm

[Connemmara]

Just looking through this post before I finally retire for the night - I pretty much know that moderators have to be confidential - but

no.1 who are they.
no. 2 who picks them if they are part of answerbank/confidential scenario.

no 3 are they screened. I am really curious re my questions

no 4 - what right do they have to remove posts - when "they haven't walked in people's mocassins" - good night