In reading Dex’s response to nonpolar, I started thinking about the mechanics of modding. I’d always just sort of figured ya’ll lurked like anyone else and caught stuff when you saw it or it was reported. But the way I read Dex, it sounded like he went and actively went out reading threads he otherwise wouldn’t, reading through every single post made in the last X hours looking for problems. That sounds unutterably tedious.
Without jeopardizing sources and methods, how exactly does one police this place?
Each Mod has their own particular style, I’m sure. Lynn’s, for instance, involves chocolates.
Most of us rely heavily on y’all reporting bad posts. There’s no way that we could read through everything. However, when someone reports a bad post, we then have to read through that whole thread to see what was going on (which is what I meant about reading stuff that I wouldn’t normally read.)
Well, the mods do pay special attention to threads which, from the title, or from what they saw last time through the thread, or from the person starting it, look like they might be a problem. This isn’t particularly TMI threads (most of which seem to actually stay on topic pretty well), though. It’s been what, three years since I was a mod? And I’m only just now breaking myself of the habit of forcing myself to read potentially-troublesome threads.
Basically, from the title or the poster you can make out if the thread has the potential to cause trouble. e.g. if I see a thread with RealDollTM in the title, I have to click it. Then I have to click every link in the thread. Then I forget what I was doing before I got there, and I leave the modding to the other guys.
So, yes, mods do open threads they wouldn’t otherwise be reading. Then, as Dex pointed out, if a post has been reported we have to read the thread regardless of whether the topic interests us. Sometimes it’s easy to make a call just by reading the problem post, other times we have to read the entire thread in the interest of fairness to all parties involved in the dispute. Yet other times, we either don’t have enough information or enough knowledge about the topic at hand, so we send out modmail and try to reach a consensus on a course of action.
There is an insane amount of backstage activity that I had no clue about before I became mod.
Effectively, you have less time to do regular surfing and posting. Like earlier I used to answer every computer question in GQ, now I just chime in once in a while if there isn’t already a satisfactory answer in the thread.
Ofcourse, it’s all voluntary, and we do it because we love this place and its sheeple.
And before this I wondered if reporting a post or thread was just like barking up a tree.
I’d like to add my thanks to the Mods, Administrators and everyone else that make the SDMB work. To do your jobs requires attributes, talents and time, etc. that I personally don’t have or want to spend. My hat is off to y’all.
[sup]Is it really true that you can identify different posters by their style?[/sup]
As the new kid on the block, I can say that most of the “bad post” are found by ordinary(or should I say ‘extraordinary’) posters. They click on the “bad post button” and we respond. If you guys ever stop doing that, we’d be in trouble.
We may not agree with your thinking. We may choose to allow the post to stand. But don’t take that as a negative. It’s all a judgement call.
As to the IDing posters by their style, well, I DID have to sign an agreement not to disclose the existance of the…arrgghhhh! …help…choke…gasp!..
I used to mod a couple different internet chatrooms and samll message boards. People could basically any name they wanted and change it whenever the mood struck them. But after a while, I got to the point I could almost always spot a regular by their typing style alone, no matter what name they chose that day. So yeah, style plays a big part.
[sup]Is it really true that you can identify different posters by their style?[/sup]