Spoiler Box Redux

[Munch]

Okay, I understand we're not going to get a rule on the proper use of spoiler boxes. Or any indication from TPTB that they'll even guide membership on how to use spoiler boxes.

But could we at least have the moderation here exhibit the correct behavior?

Here's what I'm talking about: In the Game of Thrones thread for this week's episode, Kobol2 apparently spoiled something. Ellen Cherry went in and boxed it up into a spoiler box. Can anyone point out what's incorrect about this?

Originally Posted by Kobal2

SPOILER:

As reprisals for the capture of Tyrion, Tywin unleashed the Mountain on the Riverlands. Gregor did what Gregor does: burned peasants, looted women, raped castles. Ned Stark, then hand of the king, ordered one of the knights at court (ser Beric Dondarrion) to take a hundred men with him and capture Gregor Clegane. That was back in season 1.

The brotherhood (their full name is "the brotherhood without banners") are the remains of those hundred. They're now outlaws for following their original orders, but engage in guerilla warfare behind the Lannister lines. Since the Mountain is such a personable fellow, the common folk of his lands give their support to the brotherhood against him - hence the constant torturefest in Harrenhal (at least, up until Jaqen killed the torturer at Arya's behest)

Ellen - c'mon. Granted, everyone's paranoid as shit in a GoT thread, but a post that's nothing but a spoiler box is useless. You have to give some sort of indication of what's inside the box. Try this:

Originally Posted by Kobal2

[moderator edit: Information about the brotherhood]

SPOILER:

As reprisals for the capture of Tyrion, Tywin unleashed the Mountain on the Riverlands. Gregor did what Gregor does: burned peasants, looted women, raped castles. Ned Stark, then hand of the king, ordered one of the knights at court (ser Beric Dondarrion) to take a hundred men with him and capture Gregor Clegane. That was back in season 1.

The brotherhood (their full name is "the brotherhood without banners") are the remains of those hundred. They're now outlaws for following their original orders, but engage in guerilla warfare behind the Lannister lines. Since the Mountain is such a personable fellow, the common folk of his lands give their support to the brotherhood against him - hence the constant torturefest in Harrenhal (at least, up until Jaqen killed the torturer at Arya's behest)

That's all you need. A quick note. You took the time to indicate in the edit box what you did - so take an additional second to describe what's being spoiled. Please.

[Ellen Cherry]

The preceding post had a question; the post I spoiler'd answered it. I assumed from the conversation people would get it. I mentioned I didn't watch the show so I have no idea what brotherhood is being referenced or even if saying "brotherhood" is verboten.

[Munch]

I assumed from the conversation people would get it.

Not if they can't tell what's in the spoiler box without clicking on the spoiler box and reading it! Do you know what your birthday presents are before you open them, just because you're at a birthday party? What about the mail - can you tell what's in your mail before you open it? No - there might be some contextual clues, but there could be anything in the spoiler box. That's why people need to label their spoiler boxes with some sort of clue as to what is inside it.

I swear, this thread is created every other month, and using spoiler boxes correctly couldn't be easier than falling out of a boat.

[Marley23]

The post that was spoilered was direct response to the post right before it. I agree we need to leave some indication of what is being spoilered so people can decide whether to click or not. I did that at 9:50 - which was 21 minutes after you reported the post and 20 minutes after you started this thread. So I think you're exhibiting a little overkill in your response here, Munch. The issue's been addressed and we'll be mindful of it going forward. Do you have another question or comment?

[Ellen Cherry]

Munch, I just looked at my mail and see that you reported this issue. I would be happy to make a clarification, provided by someone who watches the program and can provide me enough information to do a non-spoiling spoiler box. Happy to! I was trying to avoid problems, not create them.

I would suggest that there are many threads about this issue because there are about as many opinions about the right way it should be done as we have posters! Try as I might, I cannot please all the people all the time.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

Munch, I just looked at my mail and see that you reported this issue. I would be happy to make a clarification, provided by someone who watches the program and can provide me enough information to do a non-spoiling spoiler box. Happy to! I was trying to avoid problems, not create them.

No, I understand. I see that you added a description in the "reason for edit" box, which is fine. That post needed to be in a spoiler box - it needs, just like every spoiler box on the SDMB, a brief sentence preceding the box explaining what is inside the spoiler box. You're not creating any problems, but an unlabelled spoiler box isn't going to be clicked on, especially in a GoT thread. My example in the OP is sufficient information for any would-be spoilees.

I would suggest that there are many threads about this issue because there are about as many opinions about the right way it should be done as we have posters! Try as I might, I cannot please all the people all the time.

I have yet to see a thread on spoiler boxes that didn't ask that the bare minimum for spoiler boxes be that there be a description of what is being spoiled. Can we at least start with that? Thanks.

[Bob Ducca]

SPOILER:

Made you look.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Marley23

So I think you're exhibiting a little overkill in your response here, Munch.

You know what? I don't think I am. It's not that the issue wasn't addressed in the two minutes after I reported the issue, it's that the issue exists five years after spoiler boxes were implemented, even after 6-7 ATMB threads/year complaining about the same. exact. thing, only to have a moderator exhibit the same. exact. behavior. It's clear that the request for people to label their spoiler boxes simply hasn't sunk in. Maybe it's not nearly the issue I perceive it as, that's always a possibility.

[mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The post that was spoilered was direct response to the post right before it.

The given example might have answered the question that immediately preceded it, but there's nothing to say it might have answered the question 15 posts above it either, until you open it. The context was only clear to you and Ellen because you happened to read it and see that it followed.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

The given example might have answered the question that immediately preceded it, but there's nothing to say it might have answered the question 15 posts above it either, until you open it. The context was only clear to you and Ellen because you happened to read it and see that it followed.

I recognize that and already commented on it.

[mnemosyne]

Sorry

[Nunzio Tavulari]

Alright, happy we got that settled. It was needed. Now can we address the issue of blind links? I hate responses that are nothing more than a link with no explanation of where I'll be going and what I will see.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Very well, here is a link to a video of Rick Astley.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Nunzio Tavulari

Alright, happy we got that settled. It was needed. Now can we address the issue of blind links? I hate responses that are nothing more than a link with no explanation of where I'll be going and what I will see.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Very well, here is a link to a video of Rick Astley.

You're not going to believe this -- I read this post and thought, "You know, I haven't seen that Rick Astley video in a while. Why don't I watch a few seconds of it?" And then I clicked on it. ... Aaaaand. Hm. Nothing.

[C K Dexter Haven]

It's been policy for a lonnng time that spoiler boxes, like thread titles and links, should provide some clue to what's in them. However, it's considered polite manners and etiquette, rather than a hard-and-fast rule. Three points:

(1) - If there's a spoiler box with no guidance in a thread about a TV show/movie, then someone who doesn't want to see spoilers SHOULDN'T OPEN THE BOX. And probably shouldn't be reading the thread. Spoilering is a two-way street. We'd like posters to be sensitive to the desires of some readers not to have stuff spoiled, and we'd like readers who don't want to see spoilers to take some responsibity for avoiding likely spoiler scenarios.

(2) - Moderators are not permitted to significantly alter posts without direct consent/direction from the author of the post. A moderator cannot (under mod rules), add a sentence to explain what's in the spoiler box. A moderator can use spoiler box to cover some (or all) text, but we can't re-write the post -- not in any way, shape, or form. So, in the example of the OP, a moderator should NOT be adding explanatory material to a post. She could have started the spoiler after the phrase "As reprisals for the capture of Tyrion..." but I don't know if that would have helped.

(3) - Moderators receive reports of info that should be hidden in a spoiler box, and they move to take action. We often are unaware of exactly why something is a spoiler, or what the plot is, or even what the movie/show is. We need to make the best judgement call that we can. I grant you, that the use of a spoiler box without some indication of what's in it is... well, less that perfect. But that's preferred to having the spoilers remain open for a day or two until some moderator can contact the OP, determine what needs to be hidden, etc. It's not a perfect whirled, and frankly boxing the whole thing seems better to me than declining to act because of not understanding the precise issue. I've made such judgement calls myself, not having a clue what the spoiler is about, and not being able to rewrite the post, and just adding spoiler boxes at some point in the middle. I can easily understand a mod being worried about revealing too much, and so hidding the whole thing.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

SPOILER:

Made you look.

CMC fnord!

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Nunzio Tavulari

Alright, happy we got that settled. It was needed. Now can we address the issue of blind links? I hate responses that are nothing more than a link with no explanation of where I'll be going and what I will see.

I also dislike that, but I dislike something even more. So, allow me to hijack this hijack for you, thanks.

I hate the "tinyurl" type of blind links where you can't really tell where the link is going to take you, but at least with those you're usually aware that you're about to be taken to some unknown site. But I noticed a new, even more insidious variation of this, and that's with Google's own version of "tinyurl" type redirects. Ambivalid tends to use 'em a lot, and I wish he wouldn't, but I haven't wanted to disrupt a thread (other than this one) by mentioning it.

You click on it thinking, oh it's just a Google search result or some other Google related page, and BAM you end up at some random, unknown site. What's even more puzzling to me is that, unlike tinyurl, the URL isn't even all that short. So I'm not exactly sure what the benefit of obscuring the direct URL actually is.

[/hijack]

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I agree.



You're not going to believe this -- I read this post and thought, "You know, I haven't seen that Rick Astley video in a while. Why don't I watch a few seconds of it?" And then I clicked on it. ... Aaaaand. Hm. Nothing.

An Anti-Rick-Roll! About damn time.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

The preceding post had a question; the post I spoiler'd answered it. I assumed from the conversation people would get it. I mentioned I didn't watch the show so I have no idea what brotherhood is being referenced or even if saying "brotherhood" is verboten.

Maybe you could've done it this way

Originally Posted by whoever
[moderator edit: spoilers in direct response to previous post by whatsisname]

SPOILER:

the sky is blue!

That way you wouldn't need to know anything about the subject at hand other than someone else had reported it for spoilers, and you've told them that they can look at whasisname's post for context.

Just because a post that is entirely a spoiler box comes immediately after another post, I wouldn't assume it's definitely a response to that exact post, particularly if I noted the post being moderated to add the spoiler box. Before clicking the spoiler, for all I know someone else could've posted between when whoever started writing his post and when he actually submitted his reply.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

It's been policy for a lonnng time that spoiler boxes, like thread titles and links, should provide some clue to what's in them. However, it's considered polite manners and etiquette, rather than a hard-and-fast rule. Three points:

(1) - If there's a spoiler box with no guidance in a thread about a TV show/movie, then someone who doesn't want to see spoilers SHOULDN'T OPEN THE BOX. And probably shouldn't be reading the thread. Spoilering is a two-way street. We'd like posters to be sensitive to the desires of some readers not to have stuff spoiled, and we'd like readers who don't want to see spoilers to take some responsibity for avoiding likely spoiler scenarios.

(2) - Moderators are not permitted to significantly alter posts without direct consent/direction from the author of the post. A moderator cannot (under mod rules), add a sentence to explain what's in the spoiler box. A moderator can use spoiler box to cover some (or all) text, but we can't re-write the post -- not in any way, shape, or form. So, in the example of the OP, a moderator should NOT be adding explanatory material to a post. She could have started the spoiler after the phrase "As reprisals for the capture of Tyrion..." but I don't know if that would have helped.

(3) - Moderators receive reports of info that should be hidden in a spoiler box, and they move to take action. We often are unaware of exactly why something is a spoiler, or what the plot is, or even what the movie/show is. We need to make the best judgement call that we can. I grant you, that the use of a spoiler box without some indication of what's in it is... well, less that perfect. But that's preferred to having the spoilers remain open for a day or two until some moderator can contact the OP, determine what needs to be hidden, etc. It's not a perfect whirled, and frankly boxing the whole thing seems better to me than declining to act because of not understanding the precise issue. I've made such judgement calls myself, not having a clue what the spoiler is about, and not being able to rewrite the post, and just adding spoiler boxes at some point in the middle. I can easily understand a mod being worried about revealing too much, and so hidding the whole thing.

You guys do it all the time. It just requires brackets. If you're only allowed to do it in titles, then you can add a title. The word "substantial" does not mean what you apparently think it means. As long as the meaning isn't changed, you have not violated the copyright as long as your changes are clearly marked.

At least, I can only think this reticence is due to the unusual copyright policy, as that's so different from every other board I've seen, and I've never seen another board so concerned about this. For smooth operation, you guys really need to look into other solutions. Heck, even adding a clause about modifications needed for administrative purposes would probably ease the tension.

And one last thing, for those who actually made the comment: Use the frickin' quote button when responding directly to a single post. The quote alone would have provided context.

[Acsenray]

As long as the meaning isn't changed, you have not violated the copyright as long as your changes are clearly marked.

At least, I can only think this reticence is due to the unusual copyright policy, as that's so different from every other board I've seen, and I've never seen another board so concerned about this. For smooth operation, you guys really need to look into other solutions. Heck, even adding a clause about modifications needed for administrative purposes would probably ease the tension.

It has exactly zero to do with copyright law. The policy of not changing posts had to do with integrity, reliability, credibility, etc.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Very well, here is a link to a video of Rick Astley.

A nice trick-fuck. I liked the addy, too.

Lastly... I just got your "location".

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

It has exactly zero to do with copyright law. The policy of not changing posts had to do with integrity, reliability, credibility, etc.

I ain't no lawyer, I only know what I was told by READER legal staff when we got the Message Boards started. It does have to do with the legal issue of who bears responsibility for a post. As a hypothetical example, if someone posts something defamatory about (say) their landlord, by name, then they can be sued for libel. If board moderators commonly edit posts, then Board Management can bear legal responsibility for the content of the boards. Because we do NOT allow moderators to edit posts, Board Management would bear no liability -- it's a public bulletin board where anyone can post what they like.

Yes, I misspoke when I said we can't do substantial editing. We can't do any editing other than very, very minor corrections.

Could we edit in a reason for the addition of spoiler tags? Sure. In the "Reason for Editing" slot. Could we summarize what's been hidden in the text of the post? I don't know, but I wouldn't.

[Ellen Cherry]

Originally Posted by TBG

Maybe you could've done it this way



That way you wouldn't need to know anything about the subject at hand other than someone else had reported it for spoilers, and you've told them that they can look at whasisname's post for context.

Just because a post that is entirely a spoiler box comes immediately after another post, I wouldn't assume it's definitely a response to that exact post, particularly if I noted the post being moderated to add the spoiler box. Before clicking the spoiler, for all I know someone else could've posted between when whoever started writing his post and when he actually submitted his reply.

That would have been a good idea. I'm sorry I didn't think of it.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Rico

An Anti-Rick-Roll! About damn time.

Not to be confused with the exceedingly rare reverse Rickroll, where Rick Astley tricks you into watching a video of yourself singing.

[Beastly Rotter]

Warning: major spolier ahead.

SPOILER:

SPOLIER

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I also dislike that, but I dislike something even more. So, allow me to hijack this hijack for you, thanks.

I hate the "tinyurl" type of blind links where you can't really tell where the link is going to take you, but at least with those you're usually aware that you're about to be taken to some unknown site. But I noticed a new, even more insidious variation of this, and that's with Google's own version of "tinyurl" type redirects. Ambivalid tends to use 'em a lot, and I wish he wouldn't, but I haven't wanted to disrupt a thread (other than this one) by mentioning it.

You click on it thinking, oh it's just a Google search result or some other Google related page, and BAM you end up at some random, unknown site. What's even more puzzling to me is that, unlike tinyurl, the URL isn't even all that short. So I'm not exactly sure what the benefit of obscuring the direct URL actually is.

[/hijack]

Google started doing this, I dunno, like a year or two back? And it's really annoying.

I believe the purpose is to see how often people who did a given search clicked a given link, so they can refine their search results. (That's why they're long, not short -- the link probably references both the result URL and the search used to find it, which would naturally need a huge huge identifier because it's referring to a record in a colossal database somewhere in Googleland.)

Before, they just served up a plain link but that would give them no way to determine which links people actually clicked. But it's really frickin' annoying when you want to link to a search result -- you have to go to the extra step of opening it in a new tab, even if it's a page you've already seen and don't need to see again, and then copy-pasting the contents of your URL bar.

The guy may just not have noticed that he's copying these irritating Google links instead of real URLs.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You click on it thinking, oh it's just a Google search result or some other Google related page, and BAM you end up at some random, unknown site. What's even more puzzling to me is that, unlike tinyurl, the URL isn't even all that short. So I'm not exactly sure what the benefit of obscuring the direct URL actually is.

[/hijack]

Huh. I never noticed those - turns out that RedirectCleaner add-on has been shielding me from them.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Could we edit in a reason for the addition of spoiler tags? Sure. In the "Reason for Editing" slot. Could we summarize what's been hidden in the text of the post? I don't know, but I wouldn't.

Interesting conundrum, thanks for the explanation. This does seem a bit dubious, mods already add mod notes to posts. Things like adding a link to Cecil's column, with a Mod Note that the link was added. I don't see why adding a mod note in brackets that states "[mod note: spoiler applies to previous post]" would not fit the same level of involvement. It is not changing the intent or wording of the message, just clarifies the moderator action.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Irishman

It is not changing the intent or wording of the message, just clarifies the moderator action.

Exactly. And even if the rule was that you cannot even do this, then that's a really stupid fucking rule. Putting a note, in brackets, preceded with "Mod Note:" cannot possibly be construed by even the densest of morons to be changing the meaning (or even intent) of the post.