Proposal to change time displayed for forum posts that are subject to vetting Thread poster: Mette Melchior
|
|---|
When I have followed or participated in threads on the site, I have often been confused and a bit annoyed by the fact that even if some posts are subject to vetting before they become visible (all posts by non-members as far as I know...), the time displayed when they become visible seems to be the time they were written and not when they were published.
In my opinion, this can lead to some confusion and a wrongful picture of the ongoing conversation since other people might have wr... See more When I have followed or participated in threads on the site, I have often been confused and a bit annoyed by the fact that even if some posts are subject to vetting before they become visible (all posts by non-members as far as I know...), the time displayed when they become visible seems to be the time they were written and not when they were published.
In my opinion, this can lead to some confusion and a wrongful picture of the ongoing conversation since other people might have written more posts in the meantime, clarified a point, etc. I would much prefer if the posts were shown in the order in which they actually appeared in the public forum, i.e. after the posts that might have been posted in the meantime, and maybe with an indication that the post has been published later due to vetting.
Do you agree with this or are there any good arguments for keeping the original time of writing when a post is subject to vetting before its publication?
I submitted a support ticket about this about a month ago but just received the standard reply stating that it had been added to the backlog of ideas. I hope the staff will consider changing this, though, since I believe it would be easy to implement and make the forums better. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Mette Melchior 
Sweden
Local time: 08:35
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER |
It makes sense. You have a point. I agree.
I allready casted my vote over there. I don`t know if that "ideas" systems really works or it is active at all.
Since I had run out of votes, I had to swing my vote from another old idea to this new one, yours.
Good luck and thanks for coming upt with this suggestion.
| | | | Mette Melchior
Sweden
Local time: 08:35
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | About the Ideas section | Aug 30, 2010 |
Thanks for your comment, Walter. I suppose the Ideas section should be working and active. I am just not sure that many people are aware of it yet or would regularly visit it to check up on the new suggestions or share their thoughts.
I actually just wanted to post the suggestion in the forums to see if I was the only one who feels the current approach is not very logical but was then met by a message referring to the Ideas section. So therefore I decided to try adding it there as w... See more Thanks for your comment, Walter. I suppose the Ideas section should be working and active. I am just not sure that many people are aware of it yet or would regularly visit it to check up on the new suggestions or share their thoughts.
I actually just wanted to post the suggestion in the forums to see if I was the only one who feels the current approach is not very logical but was then met by a message referring to the Ideas section. So therefore I decided to try adding it there as well...
I think the voting system is a good idea and have also voted for some suggestions myself but it is probably easier to gather opinions from users here than in that designated part of the site since it is isolated from the rest of the forums. So if possible, I think the staff should try to integrate it with this forum somehow to make it more visible.
[Edited at 2010-08-30 16:24 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| I vote in favour | Aug 31, 2010 |
I know it is a bit of a lottery as to when a contribution gets vetted, having been one of those responsible for vetting.
Of course I did try to do it as soon as possible, but when I had a deadline and someone had already made three contributions, each edited at least twice (and then they have to be re-vetted) ... it was not always my top priority, I am afraid!
The other thing is that Mods and staff allowed to vet are not always notified immediately, unless they actively... See more I know it is a bit of a lottery as to when a contribution gets vetted, having been one of those responsible for vetting.
Of course I did try to do it as soon as possible, but when I had a deadline and someone had already made three contributions, each edited at least twice (and then they have to be re-vetted) ... it was not always my top priority, I am afraid!
The other thing is that Mods and staff allowed to vet are not always notified immediately, unless they actively track a particular forum or KudoZ pair.
Apart from that, there may be some reason for asking the contributor to edit the post before it can go public. Typically it will be something like removing their e-mail address (for security reasons) or occasionally a personal comment on another participant...
This too may take time.
So several hours may elapse between the time the post was written and its appearance in the forum.
And as Mette says, the discussion may have taken several turns in the meantime.
However, anyone may be VID´ed. This is sometimes done at powwows. It means you prove your identity and can then post in the forums without your posts being vetted. Most members are identified through their bank or PayPal accounts when they pay their subscriptions, but that is not the only way.
Official details here:
http://www.proz.com/faq/profiles/verified_identity_program.html#what_is_the_verified_identity_program_vid_
I'll vote in the ideas section too. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I am not sure | Aug 31, 2010 |
After all time when the post was written explains a lot - for example why such a vetted reply does not consider information provided in the same thread after it was written. Should such a post be timed and positioned on the basis of time of vetting people reading it later may be surprised why such a post does not consider information provided earlier.
So it seems that the question is whether we look from the point of view of the author of a vetted post or authors of other posts in t... See more After all time when the post was written explains a lot - for example why such a vetted reply does not consider information provided in the same thread after it was written. Should such a post be timed and positioned on the basis of time of vetting people reading it later may be surprised why such a post does not consider information provided earlier.
So it seems that the question is whether we look from the point of view of the author of a vetted post or authors of other posts in the same thread?
Maybe it would make sense to distinguish somehow vetted posts?
Best Regards
Stanislaw
[Edited at 2010-08-31 23:16 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I also vote in favor of this initiative. I hope it will prevent the hidden agenda of postings.
Soonthon Lupkitaro
| | | | | Two sides etc. | Sep 1, 2010 |
Mette Melchior wrote:
Do you agree with this or are there any good arguments for keeping the original time of writing when a post is subject to vetting before its publication?
If the delay is too long, on a busy thread, one might wonder why a (vetted) post has suddenly reverted to discussing issues clarified several posts/hours earlier. Which can derail a discussion.
I don't think there is an ideal, universal, automatic solution - both methods have drawbacks.... but to an extent, these do depend on the particular thread. A non-automatic solution might be for the mod to be able to decide whether the post fits best at the time of writing or the time of approval, but that would obviously require development work & extra work for the moderators (although my sympathy for the second aspect is limited by the fact that they are all volunteers and a more relaxed attitude in general would result in less moderation overall).
Pending which, perhaps marking a thread as vetted/delayed might help those wondering why certain posts have been made with apparent disregard for those apparently (but not actually) made subsequently.
| | |
|
|
|
Mette Melchior
Sweden
Local time: 08:35
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Some kind of identification would also help | Sep 2, 2010 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Pending which, perhaps marking a thread as vetted/delayed might help those wondering why certain posts have been made with apparent disregard for those apparently (but not actually) made subsequently.
In my opinion, it would indeed help if vetted posts were marked in some way. That was exactly my point.
Stanislaw Czech wrote:
After all time when the post was written explains a lot - for example why such a vetted reply does not consider information provided in the same thread after it was written. Should such a post be timed and positioned on the basis of time of vetting people reading it later may be surprised why such a post does not consider information provided earlier.
I agree but I think I see it more from the point of view of the visitors to that thread. Especially were the vetted posts appearing later are from the topic poster or any person contributing with information that would usually have an impact on the following postings - such as clarification of a point, the solution to a problem, a strong opinion, etc. - it can be quite difficult to keep track of how a discussion has evolved or understand why people answer as they do since you can't see that a post appearing above was not made public until several hours later, but still physically is placed earlier in the thread.
That is why I think it would make more sense that it was placed according to the order in which it actually becomes visible to other people in the forum - and then maybe both indicating the time of writing and the time of publication.
If that complicates things too much, I would also be happy with just an indication that the post was subject to vetting.
| | | | | Good suggestion | Sep 2, 2010 |
Mette Melchior wrote:
That is why I think it would make more sense that it was placed according to the order in which it actually becomes visible to other people in the forum - and then maybe both indicating the time of writing and the time of publication.
If that complicates things too much, I would also be happy with just an indication that the post was subject to vetting.
That indication could also be considered as an alternative solution if the main suggestion is not implemented.
| | | | Yaotl Altan
Mexico
Local time: 00:35
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
Yes, I support your proposal, Mette.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Proposal to change time displayed for forum posts that are subject to vetting | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
