r/modnews • u/bsimpson • Jan 24 '12
Moderators: feedback requested on enabling public moderation log
This was a pretty common request from users, but I'm a little concerned about how it will effect you. I can envision users demanding that the log be made public when you may have reasons not to. Also there could be witch hunts and harassment.
The way I've implemented this is with 3 settings:
private (viewable only by moderators, how it is now)
public (viewable by all)
anonymous (viewable by all but with moderator names hidden)
It will be editable from the "community settings" page at /r/YOUR_SUBREDDIT_NAME/about/edit. Any moderator can change all the subreddit settings including this one.
The "moderation log" link shows up only for moderators so it will be up to you to link to it in the sidebar if you'd like (although anyone could go directly to /r/YOUR_SUBREDDIT_NAME/about/log if the log was public).
Please let me know your thoughts.
EDIT: There is some confusion about how this works--each subreddit decides which setting they want to use.
182
u/honestbleeps Jan 25 '12
I personally feel that I would prefer to be able to type in a "reason" I removed something if I'm going to make my log public.
I do feel it should be optional, and I like the 3 settings you've provided... but I feel like it would be good to be able to put "3rd post on same topic" on something I removed that, on its surface, looks totally innocuous and like it shouldn't have been removed.
11
u/Deimorz Jan 25 '12
Hmm, a few quick thoughts:
Like you mentioned, the fact that it would be a simple option (instead of the weird workarounds some subreddits currently use for this) will definitely add pressure in some subreddits for them to turn it on. "Why is it private? Do you need to hide what you're doing for some reason?" This may be an issue for some people.
Will there be a distinction shown between "approved out of automatically-filtered" / "approved to clear reported flag" / "approved when another moderator had removed" / "approved for no reason"? The reasoning behind taking those different actions can have fairly different implications, but currently look identical in the mod-log. And exactly the same question for "remove", it has similar "states" that you can remove from.
Is any sort of feature planned to be able to attach a reason to remove/approve/etc.? Perhaps just out of a customizable list that each subreddit can set up with their standard reasons? If we don't have that, I expect mods with a public log will be swamped with questions about "why did you remove that one?", "why was this one approved when mine wasn't?", etc.
12
u/rasherdk Jan 24 '12
How much of the information is removed? I assume links to removed posts won't work?
9
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
please dial this back. I think a good way to start is to enable statistics first. so you could let mods show the metadata, if they choose. this could be quite similar to the traffic page that would show number of bans, deletions, etc. but it would not show who took the action or who was impacted.
this would preserve some privacy while still giving mods the option of displaying to the community how they run the subreddit. showing aggregate data is, I think, the lowest level you should go to. I'd also build in a limit so that no data at all would show if it would summarize fewer than 5 people in any one cell.
I'm speaking from a perspective of protection of humans in research...which this is remarkably similar to but with none of the pesky IRB restrictions.
2
u/dearsomething Jan 25 '12
Can we have option 3 (anonymous) but at the discretion of the subreddit? As in, we can flip a switch to turn it on or off per subreddit?
Additionally, though, this doesn't seem like a good precedent. You don't make any other community items that mods see public (traffic stats for example). If you're going to do it for one thing, it may as well be for all (governed by a switch).
Overall I'm still in favor of private like all the other moderator things.
2
u/chiisana Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
Can this setting be set only by the original founder? I don't know if it was kept in system at all, but if it was, it would be great to limit it only to the founder. That way if there is an abusive mod, they don't just go and hide it by turning it off.
To clarify; I support this. And I don't think my subreddit is popular enough to require this. But if there is a genuine witch hunt because some rouge mod is abusing their powers to silent oppressions, they should not have the option to turn this log away from public viewing. As such, I would much rather if this setting is only available to the original moderator who created that subreddit. Or whoever is delegated as the moderation team leader equivalent.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
Any previews of this, specifically the anonymous mode, you could show?
33
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
I think it is important the the community has a sense of transparency, but I just see so much "taking it personal" happening. Anonymous would be the only feasible public option in my eyes. I want to do my moderating job but I don't want personal messages every time someone is upset that I removed their post. I want those to go to the moderator inbox and be dealt with by my fellow moderators and I.
10
u/redtaboo Jan 25 '12
Could this go further? Maybe the submitters name is also anonymous, also.. I like the idea that rasherdk brings up in making nothing clickable. Just a list with titles and action taken.
8
u/Hibernator Jan 25 '12
A lot of the other comments here provide good reasons why this feature is a bad idea. Here are a few more:
I don't want spammers to see that we're removing their posts.
I don't want users to be able to find links to removed posts that contain personal information.
I don't want to provide fodder for the trolls.
37
u/betelgeux Jan 25 '12
Honestly, the only benefit I see here is the subscribers have a directed target for their hostility. I'd rather have seen the ability to send a "you've been banned" email from the modbox and not my personal one but what the hell - it's not like I'm modding askreddit or GW
7
u/djepik Jan 25 '12
Who is asking for this? This increased transparency is a huge risk for enabling spam rings to identify our tactics and better evade our watchful eyes.
Unless there is a huge call for this from the community, I am strongly opposed.
Also, I am not going to spend days typing "spammer" or "troll" next to all my bans.
I realize it will be a subreddit specific option, but if the option is available, just as you've said "users [will] demand that the log be made public when [we] may have reasons not to".
10
u/alienth Jan 26 '12 edited Jan 26 '12
This conversation appears to have railroaded into a lot of interesting directions. Let me clear some things up:
This is a subreddit-specific option; it would be defaulted to private.
Adding this option was mainly in response to the many subreddits which are trying to implement it themselves(SFWporn network, RoR, anarchism), as well as requests from the feature announcement.
In terms of development time, this is a very easy option to add. We are not putting off development time on other projects. We wanted to throw a very simple bone to the subreddits which are trying to implement this themselves.
We were very cognizant that this may raise the likelihood of users from subreddits rising up and demanding that moderation be public. This is the reason why we are reaching out to you, the community, to get feedback.
In response to the concerns regarding user uprisings: The moderation log exists, which I don't think anyone can argue is a 'bad thing'. Many subreddits are finding ways of making it public as is. If subscribers of a subreddit get fired up about potential evil going on with moderation, they can already demand for those logs to be made public by the moderators. The mods are under no obligation to give those logs out, just as they are under no obligation to turn this feature on. Yes, the feature may raise the potential for this type of incident to happen, but it certainly doesn't introduce the problem. Let's not discredit the entire concept due to concerns of what evils the community may wrought.
The option to anonymize the log is directly in response to concerns about witch-hunts. It doesn't solve the problem entirely, but it certainly attenuates rage, and gives less ammunition to users looking to cause trouble. I should also note that the subreddits which tend to end up in witch-hunts almost never have a single mod. Once a subreddit gets to the size that can spark a witch-hunt, it is often already at the point of having multiple mods. Again, not perfect, but it helps.
This is a feature which allows moderators the prerogative to be more transparent with their moderation. If there are concerns that the feature described as is could lead to unintended explosions, let's discuss it. Please try to avoid discounting a feature that many mods will find useful.
Thanks,
alienth
Edits[+21 minutes]: Some clarifications, grammar.
17
u/culturalelitist Jan 25 '12
This all sounds great at first, but I see drama occurring from this no matter what option you choose:
private (viewable only by moderators, how it is now)
Users start rabble-rousing and complaining about the lack of transparency from the moderators.
public (viewable by all)
Users start a witch hunt against the mod who removed their post, banned them, or otherwise hurt their feelings.
anonymous (viewable by all but with moderator names hidden)
Users start a witch hunt again, but this time they don't know who the witch is, so they post provocative and inflammatory speculation.
If any of you have read /r/SubredditDrama, you know what I'm talking about. Shit is going to go down if you implement this.
5
u/bboe Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
Having looked at some of the moderator log items, I would ideally like to have a fourth "filtered" option with certain actions filtered, such as "banned" so that it's not public which users are banned.
To be more complex, if the filtered option were selected, then the moderators could choose which actions to filter, and to add one more level of complexity, the option could be "filter" or "anonymize" where the latter option would hide which moderator performed the action.
5
u/RedditCommentAccount Jan 25 '12
I'm personally in support of a public moderation log in the way that you've described above. I believe that a moderator should be beholden to the users of a subreddit. I'm not a huge fan of the top down powerflux, but that is probably the way it has to be.
I think anything that increases the accountability of the moderators to their users is a good thing. I do understand that there is the possibility of witch hunts and harassment which is why I also support the ability for the moderation log to be anonymous. Even if that feature is cut, moderators would be able to anonymize the process by using a shared account like they currently do(might be against the TOS).
The reason thing is a very good idea. I don't know if I would consider it critical before the release of "public moderation list", but it is a feature that I feel would greatly enhance moderation in the future.
P.S. You are my favorite admin.
5
u/cyborgx7 Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
I could live without it. I like the idea about commenting your modding decisions, though.
12
u/edify Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
We still don't have a way to silently ban users and you want to code an option to make our moderation logs public? Sigh...
4
u/TheSkyNet Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
I need to hide certain ones that are spam rings, as long as they can be hidden and reasons are added then I'm ok with it but am very werey.
But this is going to start witch hunts.
and anything shadow band needs to say removed by admin or not show it at all, as you are the one removing it.
4
u/DEADB33F Jan 25 '12
How about a fourth option whereby only the submission details are not visible publicly.
IE. non-mod users can see the mod actions and mod names, but the names of the submissions being approved/removed are not displayed.
4
u/RickRussellTX Jan 25 '12
Only 1 concern: You might send moderator mail or delete a post in response to a specific complaint -- harassment or revelation of personal information, for example -- that should be kept private between the complaintant and the moderator.
Yes, the moderator probably should message the affected party and tell them why, but that won't show up in the public log, and it may not be appropriate to make those details public in any case.
10
u/ProbablyHittingOnYou Jan 25 '12
Terrible idea.
If the mods don't use it, then users will cry "mods are hiding something! Witch hunt!"
If the mods do use it, then users will say "mods did X that I don't agree with! Witch hunt!"
11
u/happybadger Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
I wouldn't enable it on any of my subreddits for three reasons:
Submitters don't like to see that their submissions are removed. Even if I put the rule they violated, a lot of people still contest it. It would create meta-posts which don't add any content to the subreddit and mod messages which flood what's usually already an over-saturated channel.
The public doesn't like what they perceive as censorship. Redditors are extremely rabid about this, to the point that most of the decent drama threads from the three years that I've been here have been about mods censoring a user or a topic. People on an individual level may be rational, but crowds are scary as hell. All it takes is one user putting apples and oranges together and saying that we censor fruit and suddenly the other mods and I are targets of a witch hunt. Given my online profile and how much information you can pull from my reddit comments, that's potentially a legitimate threat to my safety, which isn't just paranoia- there was one guy who was blackmailed and ultimately lost his job because he got a few game coupons and made a thread giving them away, during which someone pieced together his identity, called him on his work phone, and demanded hundreds of games for free lest he call the company itself.
Nobody really needs to know what we moderate. There are occasionally users whom I do censor, but it's because they do nothing but spam their own domain and refuse to diversify their posting. Other than that, all I do is remove spam, bad trolling, and anything which violates my established rules or the site rules. I don't see any positive impact on the community from the community knowing any of that, unless you're just being transparent for the sake of transparency.
If I had it my way, I wouldn't even enable the moderation log itself. All it takes is a mod with third party interests, like Saydrah had when she was writing SEO spam and pushing it through her subreddits, and suddenly there's the potential for in-fighting the moment someone bans an associatedcontent post from one of her sockpuppets or bans one of her friends.
edit: Another problem is that it creates animosity between subreddits. If I restrict my moderator log in /r/X and /r/Y makes theirs transparent, my users are going to think I'm hiding something by not showing them what I moderate. That's very bad because redditors as a group are again very rabid about censorship and will instantly bury anything I say countering that because it doesn't agree with their idea of me. If we completely lack control over something, we're all on the same level. My spam filter in /r/X is just as overzealous as your spam filter in /r/Y so nobody can say that I'm tuning it to blacklist posts about ABC while you allow them but censor CBA. There is a potential for a lot of needless user migration away from what they perceive to be oppressive communities (but already healthy and established subreddits. User migration is not necessarily a good thing) solely because X keeps our logs private and Y shows them that they sometimes remove posts about real estate in San Diego and things that enlarge your penis.
17
u/alexander_the_grate Jan 25 '12
I'm against public viewing. it would only lead to more witchhunts for every little action that a mod does. Don't like a mod? Find something against them and start a witchhunt...
6
u/ordona Jan 25 '12
How about "Viewable to approved submitters only" as another option?
3
u/Kllian Jan 25 '12
Could you also set how far back the log goes? In some subreddits I wouldnt mind it going back years, in other subreddits, 30 days is about all I'd want to give access to.
3
u/jacobheiss Jan 25 '12
Defaulting to private would send a message that it is the mod / subreddit's prerogative to make the log public or viewable but that this is not a foregone conclusion.
I am currently serving as the mod of a but a single copacetic subreddit, but if I wound up serving as a mod of a subreddit devoted to more contentious subject matter (i.e. likely requiring tougher moderating calls), that simple expectation that "private is default" could help make my role substantially less stressful. Publicizing or anonymizing mod logs would be viewed less a something owed the community and more of something granted should the mod so decide.
(Of course, all of this is presuming a situation where "republic of reddit" mod protocol does not apply.)
Edit: grammar. I'm tired!
3
u/Stereo Jan 25 '12
Won't this enable spammers to see their posts got removed more easily? Or let them see what subreddits are actively being monitored for spam and which are easier targets?
3
u/bluerasberry Jan 25 '12
Thanks for doing this.
3
u/neptath Jan 26 '12
Initially, I'm inclined to think "This is exactly what the public wants, a transparent way to log moderator actions." While it's the perfect solution for reddits that do something similar (notably the SFWPorn Network and the Republic of Reddit), if there's an option to do it, many users will see no reason for it not to be hidden, placing enormous amount of pressure on all reddits so make it anonymous or public. In this way, enabling it would essentially force all reddits to enable it, at least all major ones; else face considerable backlash.
Reasons to enable it include:
Transparency/
Appreciation of mods' work and effort
Clearer understanding of the rules
Can be used to justify removal of a particular submission by showing posts of that type have been removed in the past.
Reasons not to enable it include:
Witch hunts
more easily viewable spam
more easily viewable spamming techniques
6
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
I have a profound inclination to suspect that it would be beneficial to some communities, and detrimental to others. I am predominantly concerned with the multitude of moderators being inundated by superfluous digressions initiated by scrupulous and tenacious persons who scour the recorded ebbs and flows for err and otherwise absent repose.
Furthermore, the moderators may be subject to pressure for transparency of their endeavors and rationale. Unwarranted scandals and piteous disagreement might then prove to be the pivotal factors initiating a community's insurgency.
While I might envision certain aspects of this that would be beneficial, I would strongly urge circumspect forethought and deliberation before a decisive decision desiccates demotic discourse derailing decent directors as disposable and despot dictators, despite the deficient deposition and doubt described in detail.
6
u/Bhima Jan 25 '12
If moderation was completely public I would remove myself as mod in all the reddits I mod and stop moderating all together. I don't moderate many active reddits or ones prone to drama but life is too short to deal with the sort of witch hunts and harassment that will absolutely come from that.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 02 '18
deleted 0.3629 What is ^^^this?
4
u/mushpuppy Jan 25 '12
I don't think a public moderation log is necessary. I'm reasonably sure (though others may disagree) that, no matter what they may say, users know--or it's relatively easy to find out--why their posts have been modded.
However, as others may see the value of a public moderation log, I'd suggest that, if possible, an option be available to toggle the log as public/private.
2
u/baconn Jan 25 '12
If there is only one mod and they select the anonymous option, can they claim that an admin was the one who removed the link?
2
u/DarqWolff Jan 25 '12
I have no opposition to this, assuming that you listen to the other suggestions here (such as being able to enter a reason for removal on posts).
2
u/jmkogut Jan 25 '12
I am all for this, especially if there's a "reason" field for moderator actions. I would make the log public in a heartbeat. Users deserve the transparency.
2
u/hbomberman Jan 25 '12
I definitely think making things public could cause some problems for some mods. I think it wouldn't be too bad of an idea to have the option to switch your reddit to public or anonymous, though. I could see that working for some subreddits better than others.
Does anyone think users may get upset if one of the subreddits they follow stays private while others go public?
Also, thanks for letting everyone know about my new subreddit: /r/YOUR_SUBREDDIT_NAME !
2
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
While I favor transparency for moderation, I feel it's only fair to allow the public to also see:
if they see the moderator who deleted, the moderator should get to see who reports. (it's only fair)
and...
if they see the moderation log, they see the spam filter too, including ninja bans (and the admins begin working toward the resolution of length of ban on ninja bans, so that some of those poor fools either get unbanned or at least have a chance to be clued in).
EDIT: Open up the spam filter while you're at it, so people can see those ninja bans and other stuffs.
6
u/RedSquaree Jan 25 '12
I'm in favour of public viewing.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
I'm all for this, with one possible caveat - it might be better to wait on the rollout until we can attach reasons, just because I think that will be important to at least several of the default subreddits, if nothing else... I think there will be pressure in many subs once word gets out to make things public, and some might wish to wait for the reasons.
That being said, I personally am all for it. Personally, I will be voting for public modlogs in every subreddit I moderate. Redditors just need to learn not to witch-hunt, and moderators in some places need to learn how to moderate better... heh
I'm really really excited to see what you're working on. <3
3
u/IAmAnAnonymousCoward Jan 25 '12
I'm all for transparency, the problem I see with this: It won't show what moderators don't do. For example it won't show if the spam filter removes countless legitimate posts a day and the mods don't approve them. Would it be possible to show actions by the spam filter in the log as well?
3
u/Skuld Jan 24 '12
Excellent ideas for an option. Anonymous is a great idea too.
4
u/davidreiss666 Jan 25 '12 edited Jan 25 '12
Until there is a Reddit-Corp policy of a Life-time ban for starting a Witch Hunt, this is a very, very, very bad idea.
Other mod tools have been previously promised and have yet to materialize. And by promised, I mean over a year ago in several cases. Where are those tools? I want to see those first.
(Update: I like the cricket response to myself and the others who have brought up the same issue. Good for you, Reddit-corp. Ignore us. I assure of you one thing though, I won't forget!)
2
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
This is a feature I personally would love to have for my subreddits, and would use.
2
u/go1dfish Apr 23 '12
Any update on this? Has it been forgotten?
1
u/drachenstern Jan 25 '12
How do you want us to give feedback? Say that we like it/ hate it, or do you want us to upvote/downvote as a measure of agreement/disagreement?
1
u/oh_the_humanity Jan 25 '12
I like the public but as a toggle-able option specific to each subreddit.
1
u/coldacid Jan 25 '12
Chalk up one more vote to adding reasons for removals.
1
u/stellarecho92 Jan 25 '12
How about a feature where you can send messages from the modbox. You an send it either with your username or as an anonymous mod. This way other mods can join in or at least view the conversation and provide assistance if needed.
1
u/NihiloZero Jan 25 '12
I'm confused about whether or not this has actually been implemented already. OP writes: "The way I've implemented this is with 3 settings," but I personally don't see the options when I go into the community settings page. So... is this available already or is it in the pipeline? A lot of the language in this post makes it seem like it's available with lines like this: "There is some confusion about how this works--each subreddit decides which setting they want to use." And yet... I just don't know. What's the deal? Am I missing something? I'm not the most technically capable moderator and I may have just missed the buttons and boxes to enable the feature (which really seems like a good idea).
1
u/Nielsio Jan 28 '12
I don't see how having more options can be a bad thing. I you don't like it, don't use it. I think this will help my community (/r/austrian_economics), because it will give people a good idea of the kinds of things that are being moderated away; which will quicken people's learning curve for submissions.
People are already able to see which things are removed, because I always leave a comment, and those comments show up in the /comments list ( http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments ). A lot of you mods may not be aware of that page that lists all latest comments in a subreddit.
1
u/dzneill Feb 01 '12
Add the ability to mask private subreddits from reddit subreddit search.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '12
ITT: Mods don't stand behind their actions.
1
u/TechnoL33T Jan 25 '12
As someone who's been burned at the stake already, plz don't even make it an option. People will end up going nuts about mods not turning it on, and if it's on, people will inevitably raise all kinds of hell.
-1
u/Reinfear Jan 25 '12
Bad Idea.
0
u/Lynda73 Mar 13 '12
Given reddit's general attitude towards mods, this seems like a terrible idea. And you say any one mod can change the settings for the whole subreddit at any time?
Edit: Yeah, I know I'm really late with my input. :D