Could we have an update please?

[AndBreathe]

@Osidge, @Robinredbreast, @anna29, @daisy1, @IanD, @janewatt, @Giverny , @Administrator


Guys - We're a few days since the following thread came to an end. Within the thread, on posts #268 and#269, @sanguine and myself summarised what we felt were the issues raised in the thread, and wondered if Admin and/or the Mods had any updates for us?

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/are-we-losing-the-plot.65398/page-14#post-649060

The material items, which I have copied purely from #268 and #269, I believe to be:

Blog section - I think this is a great idea, not that I'm a fan of blogs myself. Some threads are effectively 'blogs' but it doesn't really work in this format.

Reporting - feedback to the reporter would be helpful unless it's just in respect of an admin issue such as duplicate threads/posts or spammer.

Locking of threads - a simple open explanation by the mods when this is done would be helpful.

Suspension and banning - this happens occasionally on any forum, but it seems that clear and consistent explanations are not always provided despite repeated requests from those concerned. Again, a simple protocol could be looked into and published in the admin section in here, maybe with a refresh of house rules and guidelines.

Multiple accounts - there seemed to be surprise that this was allowed and consequent objection to it. Personally I think it's unhealthy for simultaneous multiple accounts to be running for a single member, there's no good reason for it and the potential for abuse is obvious.

- Sensible feedback from the use of the Report button
- Request for a Reactive Hypoglycaemia section on the forum - although this now has a thread of its own.


The purpose of this thread is purely to create a medium via which we can track the progress both parties seemed keen to achieve.

Thanks in anticipation.

 

[Loobles]

Actually, I like the blog idea

 

[Bluetit1802]

Well said AndBreathe.

 

[ally1]

thank you andbreathe

 

[Giverny]

Blog section - I think this is a great idea, not that I'm a fan of blogs myself. Some threads are effectively 'blogs' but it doesn't really work in this format.

This is being worked on, as I have stated previously. It's a big project and something that we want to integrate properly in to the forum, so it's taking some time to program, develop and test this.

Reporting - feedback to the reporter would be helpful unless it's just in respect of an admin issue such as duplicate threads/posts or spammer.

For the most part, we do give feedback to the reporter. This is done by way of an alert (similar to new post alerts) so it can easily be noticed. Sometimes it's not really necessary to give feedback on what action was taken, especially in terms of spam posts.

Locking of threads - a simple open explanation by the mods when this is done would be helpful.

This has been implemented somewhat. The date/time function isn't working correctly right now as you can see, but it's almost there.

Suspension and banning - this happens occasionally on any forum, but it seems that clear and consistent explanations are not always provided despite repeated requests from those concerned. Again, a simple protocol could be looked into and published in the admin section in here, maybe with a refresh of house rules and guidelines.

We're fully up to date with our protocol and the process we use works fine. People who have been banned usually know why.

Multiple accounts - there seemed to be surprise that this was allowed and consequent objection to it. Personally I think it's unhealthy for simultaneous multiple accounts to be running for a single member, there's no good reason for it and the potential for abuse is obvious.

On every forum I've ever run, multiple accounts have been allowed. There's no reason for this to change, since we have clauses in the rules that can put a stop to any potential abuse. (See IP & banned accounts clause)

 

[AndBreathe]

This is being worked on, as I have stated previously. It's a big project and something that we want to integrate properly in to the forum, so it's taking some time to program, develop and test this.


For the most part, we do give feedback to the reporter. This is done by way of an alert (similar to new post alerts) so it can easily be noticed. Sometimes it's not really necessary to give feedback on what action was taken, especially in terms of spam posts.


This has been implemented somewhat. The date/time function isn't working correctly right now as you can see, but it's almost there.

We're fully up to date with our protocol and the process we use works fine. People who have been banned usually know why.


On every forum I've ever run, multiple accounts have been allowed. There's no reason for this to change, since we have clauses in the rules that can put a stop to any potential abuse. (See IP & banned accounts clause)

Thanks for the update Giverny.

I understand about the need to test, well, prior to release. There's nothjing quite so useful for turning what should be an improvement into a new reason for complaints and dissent that "improvements" and "upgrades" that fail to live up to their promises. Do you have a rough target date for this implementation?

How do you display this?:

I have tried a variety of keystrokes to no avail. Do your permissions perhaps display differently, or am I just being a techno-numpty? Or, as my people would have put it, "the error is between the chair and keyboard".

Whilst I hear what you say, the very underlying thread was, in my view, silently locked, with the final post by Admin not signposting that at all. I happened to be out when all of this actually happened, so came back and tried to post on the thread, only to find it locked.

I know there was some dialogue further up the thread warning of locking, but, purely in my own opinion, it would have been useful if Administrator had rounded his/her post with the impending action. I think that's when people round up and sling "sneaky" at those with enhanced permissions.

Those final comments are meant as constructive feedback, from me, as an individual, in the spirit of the thread's original purpose, not as any slight on anyone.

 

[sanguine]

On every forum I've ever run, multiple accounts have been allowed. There's no reason for this to change, since we have clauses in the rules that can put a stop to any potential abuse. (See IP & banned accounts clause)

I'm still a bit mystified by the reasoning for this. Why should multiple accounts (i.e. multiple usernames) be acceptable, let alone permissible? Can you give a list of reasons why it's allowed and what purpose it serves?

 

[zand]

For the most part, we do give feedback to the reporter. This is done by way of an alert (similar to new post alerts) so it can easily be noticed. Sometimes it's not really necessary to give feedback on what action was taken, especially in terms of spam posts.

I have only had feedback once and that was in respect of spam. I reported something recently which was not spam and have had no feedback. So if what you are saying is correct, that for the most part you do give feedback then I am wondering why you didn't in this case. It is beginning to sound like some people are treated differently to others. I would like feedback to know if I was right or wrong in reporting it. I have deleted 80% of this post because it may be seen as antagonistic and that is not my intention, so in the spirit of 'least said, soonest mended', I would simply be grateful for a reply to my reporting of the incident in question please.

 

[Giverny]

Thanks for the update Giverny.

I understand about the need to test, well, prior to release. There's nothjing quite so useful for turning what should be an improvement into a new reason for complaints and dissent that "improvements" and "upgrades" that fail to live up to their promises. Do you have a rough target date for this implementation?

How do you display this?:

View attachment 7575

I have tried a variety of keystrokes to no avail. Do your permissions perhaps display differently, or am I just being a techno-numpty? Or, as my people would have put it, "the error is between the chair and keyboard".

Whilst I hear what you say, the very underlying thread was, in my view, silently locked, with the final post by Admin not signposting that at all. I happened to be out when all of this actually happened, so came back and tried to post on the thread, only to find it locked.

I know there was some dialogue further up the thread warning of locking, but, purely in my own opinion, it would have been useful if Administrator had rounded his/her post with the impending action. I think that's when people round up and sling "sneaky" at those with enhanced permissions.

Those final comments are meant as constructive feedback, from me, as an individual, in the spirit of the thread's original purpose, not as any slight on anyone.

The lock reason feature is currently only accessible on our development server and hasn't yet been made public due to the date issues.

I currently don't have an estimated date for the blog release since it's still in early stages of development. The very basic functionality is working to an acceptable level, but there's a few basic interface and user experience touches that are going to need to be tweaked before I can even think about setting a release date.

I'm still a bit mystified by the reasoning for this. Why should multiple accounts (i.e. multiple usernames) be acceptable, let alone permissible? Can you give a list of reasons why it's allowed and what purpose it serves?

Because it doesn't really cause any problems. The admin team have access to enough information about our users to figure out which ones have multiple accounts, so it's not like they're really hiding. I don't see why it's a problem, and it's never been a problem for me in the past.

I have only had feedback once and that was in respect of spam. I reported something recently which was not spam and have had no feedback. So if what you are saying is correct, that for the most part you do give feedback then I am wondering why you didn't in this case. It is beginning to sound like some people are treated differently to others. I would like feedback to know if I was right or wrong in reporting it. I have deleted 80% of this post because it may be seen as antagonistic and that is not my intention, so in the spirit of 'least said, soonest mended', I would simply be grateful for a reply to my reporting of the incident in question please.

That report is still pending and being discussed by the moderator team.

 

[zand]

@Giverny thank you for your prompt reply.

 

[Giverny]

@Giverny thank you for your prompt reply.

No problem. Hopefully we can get the matter resolved soon.

 

[AndBreathe]

Thanks, @Giverny.

@sanguine - Personally, I'm supremely ambivalent about multiple accounts. One forum I used to use had a few sock puppets that would come out at specific times and were extremely funny. "Everybody" loved them. Some, of course, are less helpful.

 

[Bluetit1802]

On every forum I've ever run, multiple accounts have been allowed. There's no reason for this to change, since we have clauses in the rules that can put a stop to any potential abuse. (See IP & banned accounts clause)

I am a member of 2 other charity based forums (not diabetes related) and neither allows multiple accounts. They are jumped on straight away. Why would anyone want to have multiple accounts unless they were out to cause mischief? There is no point. Maybe you should ask the regular members what their opinions are? They are the folk that get caught up in the mischief.

 

[Giverny]

I am a member of 2 other charity based forums (not diabetes related) and neither allows multiple accounts. They are jumped on straight away. Why would anyone want to have multiple accounts unless they were out to cause mischief? There is no point. Maybe you should ask the regular members what their opinions are? They are the folk that get caught up in the mischief.

As I said previously, I've always allowed this on forums that I've run in the past and it's never caused any problems.

 

[zand]

Yes I agree with Bluetit1802 and sanguine on the subject of multiple accounts. Or would the number of members drop dramatically if you banned then? Whilst on the subject of numbers, can I ask if 'dormant' accounts where members haven't even logged on for say 3 years or more are ever closed?

Oh I've got another question, which I should probably ask in a PM rather than publicly.......PM on its way

 

[Giverny]

Yes I agree with Bluetit1802 and sanguine on the subject of multiple accounts. Or would the number of members drop dramatically if you banned then? Whilst on the subject of numbers, can I ask if 'dormant' accounts where members haven't even logged on for say 3 years or more are ever closed?

Oh I've got another question, which I should probably ask in a PM rather than publicly.......PM on its way

It wouldn't make much of a difference to our numbers, no. We actually purged (or in some cases consolidated, based on activity) many duplicate accounts last year, as it was causing issues with our database.

 

[Scardoc]

Giverny - the forum works very well and has done for a long time. Like anything on Gods Green Earth, what comes out is only as good as what goes in!

Keep on doing what you do as without you and your fellow admin bods there would be no forum. I don't know how much supportive feedback you got but the negative tends to outweigh it. I for one, thank you.

 

[Dillinger]

Because it doesn't really cause any problems. The admin team have access to enough information about our users to figure out which ones have multiple accounts, so it's not like they're really hiding. I don't see why it's a problem, and it's never been a problem for me in the past.

But that doesn't really address the issue; you may know who all these people are; but we don't and we are the ones who are interacting with them. I think it is deeply unnerving that individuals on here, anonymous as they are, are actually being so duplicitous about themselves.

Why on earth would you need to have more than one account if not for some dodgy reason? I'm assuming people just use them to back themselves up when they are making a point? How underhand is that?

On the banning issue; again you don't seem to understand what the problem is; it's all very well saying that people being banned 'usually know why' but the rest of us don't and that is why people want an explanation. So and so was banned because of the following breaches of the rules. The banning of Paul for being 'poisonous' or whatever was said about him was just very badly handled.

Thanks

Dillinger

 

[izzzi]

@AndBreathe You seem to have a good experience with regard to how forums operate and you have highlighted and suggested some change.
The internal team have taken on board all the points your post has shown, and are taking necessary measures to ensure what can be done within their guidelines and management approval to improve the site.They also responded instantly to your original Post.
Why do you need dates and answers so quickly knowing how in-house systems operate. It is a bit like the team having to answer a audit report that was not required in the first place.

 

[zand]

I tend to agree with the others about multiple accounts. If anyone can come up with a good reason why someone would want more than one user name I would genuinely like to hear it. I can only think of bad reasons for them to want multiple identities. This isn't a negative remark towards admin, it's a genuine question. What am I missing? I only want the one identity. If I chose to start afresh with another one, for whatever reason, I would ask admin to delete this one.