grace

…., 4, 3, 2, 1

Ok everyone!

Do I have the right time? I’m central tie zone and got confused.

hi grace

We’re going to start!

who’s grace?

Hi everyone!

Ground rules:

Assume we say hello. Hello!

No off-topic chatter. Thank you!

Looks like we aren’t very prompt ..we are already 6 minutes late.

Yep….right time

Yes. We’re going to start. Right now.

hi…

quieting down now…

good luck

Hallo.

Where is the free booze?

Hi everyone.

Hello

we’re not allowed to say hello… shh

Ground rules:

Assume we say hello. Hello!

No off-topic chatter. Thank you!

Sshhhh

there’s a topic ?

This feels like a concert

So….who brought the cake?

We have a lot of people here! So, let’s try and be sensitive to everyone and especially to how fast chat moves with >45 people in a room.

Stop!

A question before we start, is the idle bug fixed?

Yes

I haven’t seen it in ages

Hey domini kun! sup, my pretty boi

Yes, Tinkbaby.

It has been for quite a while Tink.

Now, where is my Cervisia?

Oh wow… I have entered a reality I previously didn’t know existed!

So. One thing that’s been bothering a lot of people has been the type of responses they’ve been getting in their questions.

the funny ones, apparently

lol

Can you explain that some more?

just funny or are there others specifically?

So, the main thing I want to talk about is exactly what’s above the chat… in terms of responses: what do you feel is helpful, what is unhelpful? What responses make you want to use the site?

funny and informative

agreed

funny is helpful

^

I actually came back to Fluther after a few months away & noticed that responses seem more snarky/witty…

I have an opinion.

what jasper said

Th range of responses is a vital part of the site in my opinion

I enjoy funny as long as there are also helpful answers (topic dependant)

One of the things that put me off, is that most people, including here, can not take hypothetical questions

I think when someone makes a comment that has nothing to do with the question but criticizes the user or the topic can be very unhelpful

I must say I appreciate a good, funny answer. But I can’t stand the answers where people chastise you for asking your question

rag: agreed

I don’t mind snarky/witty, it’s the rudeness that bothers me.

That’s difficult to answer, because of all the different types of Q’s. The few unhelpful A’s I’ve gotten, I just ignore.

I agree IBER

I think the way it’s set up now is a good way. At first, they need to be serious. Answer the question. Then when that dies down, funny ones can be made. That’s my opinion.

I feel if I’m asking a serious question I at least want a few serious answers because the question is important to me even if you think it’s dumb or stupid or immature

I agree with IBER and jonblond

rag and jane: agreed

Well, you know…..some questions make you want to be witty and snarky…..

we need a way to resolve issues, rather than having negativity build up. My proposed solution is to have a non-biased mediator (not necesarily a mod) and a chatroom for private discussion between two people.

@IBERnineD – Agreed

YES, WHAT IBER SAID

jonsblond

and when people preach to you rather than answering the question

i’m waiting for dp… he must be writing a dissertation

^

oh and a lot of people stray way off topic and it starts getting just plain mean

agree with Iber, seems like a lot of that going on

what’s rude?

dpworkin? opinion?

No, I am just waiting.

When someone posts a hypothetical question, the thing that I do not want to see is people plucking the question apart and inject things that are not within the framework

I don’t mind funny banter after some informative responses – I’d be a hypocrite if I did. And Idon’t mind aruging but when two people start a lengthy bashing of each other, ti can be painful to watch.

Ok. Let’s take things one at a time.

not all off topic answers are funny though. sometimes they’re just… barely relevant

Basic straightforward info immediately helps the asker—funny quips build community.

Like typos?

I think that any response is a fair response ragingloli. The questioner cannot hope to control the answers.

I agree with nikipedia

thanks. Andrew. this is flipping so fast, it’s hard to read.

I see patterns emerging between the same members over and over of relentless arguing and straying off topic, it can become annoying

^

How is this any different from real life? In a room full of people if a hypothetical question gets asked, the responses will be the same as here.

I don’t wnt us to be so regimented that we can’t be off-the-cuff

I agree with Nikipedia

Well, I think I for one have been doing Fluther wrong. There needs to be a different protocol for each form of question. One protocol for a discussion question (more loosely structured) and one form for the Information uestion (ON-topic and informative only, no screwing around, no jokes, no chat.)

@rag agreed

too bad to can’t mod your own questoins?

But building community has made it seem (to me) more like we are using it as a social site rather than for questions/answers.

when caught in an o9ff-topic exchasnge as I once was with talljasperman the best thing to do is to9 say let’s take it to PM

Ok, this is all good feedback. I’m going to go ahead and take back the reigns here so we can have a little more structure to the conversation

I think typos should get a chance to be edited

I know that I am often guilty of going a bit off topic with a tenuously related story or joke. If anyone is annoyed by this, please PM me.

too bad we can’t give lurve here… it would be a lot easier than “i agree with so-and-so” that so-and-so

reins [sorry andrew] you may reign but grammar is grammar

I think that some of the funny, off-topic comments can have their place, but I’d like to see better usage of the whisper function when posting those types of answers. It makes it easier for some users to skip over some remarks, and get right to the relevant info.

I think dpworkin and rangerr and niki build up to what we’ve been experiencing as well.

So, I’m going to talk about some issues, as we’ve identified.

I also think that I would prefer that answers that are a direct response to another answer should be cascaded below the referenced answer

One typo shouldn’t incur the wrath of people. Several, maybe, but one…

I thought he meant the pun . . .

reins, andrew… reins

agreed, cw

yes, I like whisper too

I have always found you helpful and amusing filmfann – FYI

i, for one, try to find a balance of witty and informational answers. i know from myself that i can overdo the funny remark thing, so i keep to myself after a while and just do serious answerrs

i’d like to see readable whisper

anartist Absolutely! Thank you!

@ragingloli I like this idea, since sometimes it’s hard to keep track of multiple threads of discussion on one question.

I’ll throw in my pennies here, whispering while you’re bickering with someone is annoying. Even if it’s whisper talk.

i try to answer serious Qs seriously “how can i get this guy to stop hitting me?” deserves a serious answer. “who would you rather…?” doesn’t

So, right now, based on our own observations, the feedback from the mods, and feedback from users that have contacted me about the site right now, one of the biggest challenges we’re experiencing lie in the responses we’re getting.

I find that sometimes people include a funny answer but then answer the question seriously. I think this is a good way to go.

right

ragingloli—so the comment specifically to another should appear under and indentedc from that person’s original comment?

This is manifested in a few different ways.

@dpworkin 515pm agreed.

yeah the whisper works perfectly when folk use it for off topic. bickering should be PM only, but where do you draw the line between bickering and discusssion?

We’ve enver used the distinction between solve a problem and discussion in any way. Think we should?

agreed katawa

@jeff agreed @rag agreed

One: A lot of off-topic responses on questions that may not ask for them.

I think lately we’ve had an influx of non-genuine answers. One of the greatest things about the site is the quality of the answers. Some are genuinely helpful, some are genuinely funny. Some are neither. I’m saddened by the action I see sometimes, when people make rude and unhelpful jokes just to score some lurve from similarly-minded people.

what responses are causing challenges?

the responses directed towards new members are often hostile or sarcastic

May Andrew have the floor?

Two: Responses that make the asker feel threatened, like “GO GOOGLE THAT”, and generally unhelpful, snide remarks.

Negative or hurtful/abusive responses in any context are wearing thin in my personal fluther experience

I keepwanting to GA people.

whoah, hey guys.

We are all different so we interpret questions in different ways as well of course. A question that may be serious to one, may not seem serious to another, if that makes sense….

@janbb agreed distinction could be more visible

(Even though sometimes questions are not the most beautifully formed, those responses are noted by a good number of peple and make them scared of asking questions)

i agree with ivan, i feel new members get scared away by hostility

@anartist

y’know… if we had a community ‘thumbs-down’ and answers with ‘x’ thumbs-down over thumbs-up could disappear automagically

Ultimately, we need Fluther to be a place for warm, open, helpful interactions.

^

preciselys

To be honest with you all, this site is not that much different than any other forum site on the internet. If something offends someone than they should be able to ask the mod to remove it. If the offender is repeated they are blocked on other sites.

bickering = personal attacks, discussion = arguing over the response (“I think you were wrong to suggest…” as opposed to “You are a misogynist jerk”) is how I define it.

agree with gris

I second Rachienz’s statement

(hold off on the suggestions just yet, folks)

@marinelife rude answers that continue in the thread. and people give lurve for the rudeness. its hurtful to people asking questions.

So, squash off-topic sooner and flag unhelpful answers.

Should there be some kind of filter in the “Ask a Question” as to what type of response you are looking for or is taht too controlling? Probably…

Before I move forward, let me take a couple of questions on what I’ve just said.

we’re frozen here

Hallo, did everyone stop talking at once —or is it a system crash…..

I think one reason why people comment with answers that are just meant to be funny instead of helpful is that they generally get more GA’s for it.

May andrew just complete the outline before we all respond?

??

I don’t understand why people have such a hard time with the “flag it and leave it” thing..

hello?

Again, hold off on the suggested fixes just yet. I want to make sure we’re all on the same page of the dialogue so far.

I don’t understand how this current process works, sorry, I came in late and can’t get the beginning to show up. Is anyone there? because right now nothing is getting added – not since “squidcake entered the room” at 5:12 pst.

it might be helpful if new users could be identified as “ESL” so that we could know to go easy on the corrections (vs. the txt spkrs who dsrv wht they gt)

Nu?

(did chat just freeze?)

no, you have to refresh – that’s what I’ve been doing as chat responses aren’t coming through

I do not like the thumbs up/down idea.
It incentivises people to just downvote an answer to hide it instead of actually constructing a counter argument. It also leads to people downvoting others because they do not like them, giving the impression to others that the downvoted party is generally a moron, even if that is not the case. I have seen that on other sites.

@anartist Yeah, it’s lagging for me.

we’re in the frizzer

is this lagging terribly for anyone else?

Hrm. Looks like there’s some lag here.

Andrew, when you have a moment, I would like to say something.

I don’t agree that “go google that” is unhelpful. How so?

Yeah. We’re having some issues. Lines aren’t showing up unless you refresh. And refreshes are taking a good 35 seconds.

Andrew -what do you want now?

My chat continues to freeze – loosing the discussion.

What’s the deal???

If you adopt new processing policies, can you put a copy of “frizzer” through the new changes and see what it looks like?

I do not like the thumbs up/down idea.
It incentivises people to just downvote an answer to hide it instead of actually constructing a counter argument. It also leads to people downvoting others because they do not like them, giving the impression to others that the downvoted party is generally a moron, even if that is not the case. I have seen that on other sites.

BTW Maybe the laughter scared janets away.

Me, too. I’m out.

agree with ragingloli, not fair to diss people without comment.

this is the way New England town hall meetings go, too

Andrew, am I allowed to ask what your goals are for Fluther?

Hi all. Hold on one sec while we fix some techincal stuff.

@gggritso agreed

I would like to hear a complete precis from Andrew on what he and the mods have been hearing and seeing before we all try to take part, please.

…

Okay – this is counter-productive – maybe after the chat stops doing lags and the discussion resumes and some of us aren’t here, there can be a summary posted of what everyone decided on doing. Thanks.

RANGERR!!!!!!!!1111

I don’t know how to refresh, could someone say how please?

The entirety of Fluther seems to have slowed to a crawl

HUGS

major lag here…are we still on #2?
1. Distinction between discussion and problems could help. Responses that are direct responses to other answers could be cascaded. Promotion of whisper function. (as others have all brilliantly recommended previously – I think these would all address this issue)

2. If someone asks a question that can easily be answered by a quick Google search, I think they deserve a “GO GOOGLE THAT” answer. Sometimes rewording the question would cause me to provide a different answer. E.g. if they asked for specific personal experiences with a recipe vs just a recipe in general.

Trying to fix the lag…

we want flawless chatboxes

Hi all. We’re getting some lag time. We’re going to fix this is a second.

Shhh, Arp. Get me on AIM.

Hi mom

I agree with Simones idea.

A lot of people can see this, I dunno if my mom is a member

susanc : F5

Actually I’d miss the spice—although I was tworked at someone asking me if my argument was just ‘cause I was “on the rag” I think I prefer it to formality — I like the color

Agree with dpworkin – would like to know what the big guys have been wondering about, how this meeting got called.

We’re working on the technical issues. We’ve bumped into a limit and we’re about to fix it / up the limit.

@susanc Hit the reload button on your browser. It usually looks like a circular arrow.

I would recommend outsourcing such townhall meetings to dedicated chat sites.

(someone please post Simone’s idea. I missed it)

_What do you feel is helpful?_what is unhelpful? What responses make you want to use the site?

Refresh if you appear to be having issues.

whoops.

I actually think a fluther thread would work well for this conversation. We can see who’s talking, GA things we agree with, etc.

Simone_De_Beauvoir
Okay – this is counter-productive – maybe after the chat stops doing lags and the discussion resumes and some of us aren’t here, there can be a summary posted of what everyone decided on doing. Thanks.
5:29 p.m.

—Simone_De_Beauvoir
Okay – this is counter-productive – maybe after the chat stops doing lags and the discussion resumes and some of us aren’t here, there can be a summary posted of what everyone decided on doing. Thanks.—

“new users = kid gloves” signal—I don’t object—I think that is why janets never posted again

There we go.

or flag it

I think the questions/discussion/meta split is helpful.

Stella

Niki- we would all get dozens of “exhibitionist awards”

Niki—this is a server issue right now. Moving to a thread would only make it worse.

I just want to say that I have the greatest respect for so many of the contributers here, and we have a great site, so let’s try to get thru this, and be open to what people here want. and ragingloli is a booger eater

I am one of the newbee’s. I had the misfortune of running head on with some repulsive, rude, snide, uncalled for remarks. Since I have never been in anything like this site, I didn’t know how to respond. Some of us got our comments removed. That is fine, but some of the worst ones were left on the board. I find that to be prejudicial. I am just an older woman looking for good Q and A

I think that a more obvious FAQ/guidelines tag/button would be helpful

it seems better now

the meta works well

Ok all.

I agree with april

Let me finish with where I was going with this.

That has been a huge problem, Rangie, that has also caused a lot of people to leave.

(We’ve just adjusted the servers to deal with the load)

@rangie moderators respond to flags, so if you feel there are inappropriate comments, flag them and we’ll take care of them.

or not

May andrew have the floor please?

Ok. So. Now that the performance issues have been smoothed out a little bit…

split the site? funny and others for informative?

Let Andrew talk please

I wouldn’t want a site just for funny comments

here’s my two cents: i had the idea that maybe when crafting you question you should at least use a certain amount of words, especially in the details section and maybe also in the tags..
to not get those ultra short questions like “is my bf cool?”
with a certain amount of words we have to think a bit more how we state our questions.

CAN ANDREW PLEASE HAVE THE FLOOR

It probably would not work anyway

Andrew?

I think for this chat we really need a parliamentarian or at least a traffic guide. This is most unproductive.

the funny side would either devolve into a cesspool or serious answers would sneak back in, and the serious side would soon enough get funny answers again

So, to recap, the things we’ve been seeing have mostly to do with ‘unhelpful’ responses—both off-topic and downright rude.

Could we please let andrew have the floor, and respond in some orderly way?

It’s a chatroom. He permanently has the floor.

^^^

yes, we really must let andrew speak.

funny ain’t funny unless it plays against the serious—use whisper

Yeah, it’s not like he has to perform a filibuster

[mod says] Let’s let Andrew have time to lay out the problems and proposed solutions. Afterward, everyone can respond.

want responses to taht statement noew, andrew?

Our past attempt at dealing with this had to do with this distinction between “question” and “discussion” something that’s much too nuacned, isnt’ used meaningfully, and downrigth confusing to new members.

cool

(I’m typing near my WPM limit, so excuse my typos)

indeed, Andrew, I find the discussion/question thing pretty useless

concur with ivan

As do I

I’ve always thought of the distinction as question = information, discussion = bouncing ideas off the wall?

agreed.

agree

Part of what makes Fluther “Fluther” is this blend of whimsy as well as helpfulness. We don’t want to lose that.

agreed

hi

agree

^

agreed.

agree again

I think letting Andrew have the floor means STOP POSTING until he finishes, and tells us he’s finished.

agreed

But where is the line between “whimsy” and unnecessary?

At the same time, the desire to ‘have fun’ on questions often time derails the whole question.

I am the very definition of whimsy.

frizzer

if Fluther weren’t funny some times anymore i wouldn’t like like i do now

shh

Andrew, doesn’t Fluther have the kind of numbers now that addressing issues like this is now more for PR than for any actual cure?

One, immediate thing we’re doing is devoting serious effort to working on this solution—in fact, as of today, we’ve hired former community manager and dev extraordinaire to act as ‘Quality Czar’ (among other things)—so I want to announce that we’ve just hired Richard Henry on the team.

Hi!

who?

I love richard henry

He may have jumped the gun and announced it on Twitter yesterday. We’re all very excited, however.

Congrats, RH!

What does that mean?

Well, congrats, you silly little Brit!

assume we say ‘hello’

What does a Quality czar do, exactly?

Is it Richard or dick?

So. Things we’re planning on doing:

(golf claps)

Madi is right, there never seems to be a clear distinction between what’s acceptable and what’s not, in regards to funny answers

1. Get rid of the question/discussion distinction. It’s confusing. It doesn’t really do anything.

and often times, some users get more leniency than others

Does it mean that he has the power to remove any answer or question that he deems ‘bad for the community’

2. Focus on being more consistent with moderation (exactly what Ivan says) THe way we’re going to do that is…

“Funny answers” is not what makes people leave.

If so, that would seem like an awful lot of power that would be excercised based on arbitrary and subjective criteria

[mod says] Please let Andrew finish before you respond. Thanks!

Sorry, I don’t find this useful. Maybe one of my friends can just tell me in a PM what was decided, and I will try to hew to the decision. Good night. I hope you find a way to communicate in here tonight.

i prefer putting 90% of monitoring on newbie Qs

… to add a “Social” area, where users can choose to put their questions if they’re looking for things that are silly. Lighthearted. Fun. Things like the one-word story. More hypothetical questions. Etc.

I did flag them and the answer was, they were within the guidelines. To that I say, the guidelines need to have a second look.

In addition, we’re really refocusing the other area of the site, and clampuing down on off-topic and joke responses.

THe guidelines are vague, which allows mods to pick and choose what stays and what goes.

Speaking of guidelins, why do honest genuine questions get moderated?

Because, you’re right, the guidelines right now are much too nuanced.

meaning no jokes at all?

guidelines*

that’s really sad—no one will go to the fluff side and everyone will be bored by the formal side

[mod says] Please let Andrew finish before you respond. Thanks!

Can we still joke if it is relevant to the question?

this could end fluther

That’s right, phillis because they’re mods and we must expect them to do so in an objective fashion. They have to use their discretion and by entering into this fluther contract, we allow them this power. All guidelines can be declared as vague, no matter how often they are re-written.

Cool job letting Andrew finish, guys.

Again, doesn’t Fluther have the kind of numbers now that addressing issues like this is now more for PR than for any actual cure? And doesn’t this just make Richard Henry a fall guy for everybody’s boo hooing?

yup

Hold up, hold up.

I DO expect it, Simone. So do others. That’s why they leave.

I didn’t know he wasn’t finished – this chat session is really confusing

I am sure when he is finished he will say so.

IIndeed.

That’s the basic Idea. Now, let me address a few of these specific things:

blondesjon:

No, it’s not about ‘PR’. It’s more about creating spaces where the askers can determine what types of responses they’d like on their questions.

That’s what this meeting is about??

And no, we don’t have those numbers where it’s a PR thing.

for my info, what is PR?

But doesn’t this just open the door too more and more folks wanting things to be “just their way”? I love you guys, I’d have just said tough tittie.

phillis, that’s one of the aims of the meetin, yes.

pubic relations

public relations

—public relations—

PR = public relations, more of a gesture than trying to seek a solution

thanks raging

you have maybe 900–1000 active and many driftaways and PNGs

Blondesjon: It’s about catering to our existing community. Namely, if we simply said “no more jokes!” that wouldn’t be fun at all.

btw that typo was intentional

anartist: More than that. Though. 1500 active weekly, 850K uniques reading and consuming content.

I’ve always said, “Your site, your rules.” If you need someone to work the door, holla.

you know, someone said early on in the discussion that the funny/occasional off-topic answers build community. I don’t want to lose the spontaneity of finding something funny where I didn’t expect it.

I think funny is great. I don’t think dirty rudeness is appropriate. perhaps an off color communication area would be a good venting “space” for some folks. Then the rest of us would not have to endure that. Honestly, I was sick at my stomach when I unknowingly clicked on a red link. I learned a fast lesson there.

Blondesjon: this is a business, obviously you alter your business practices if you feel it will improve your traffic

People just can’t stop interrupting Andrew, despite repeated requests to hold off until he finishes. This is incredibly annoying. I’m exiting now.

Now, the restricting of the guidelines also means it’s going to be easier to enforce, as well—right now there’s way too much “well, he said this thing, it’s off topic, and I got modded! That’s not fair!”

@rangie: Those are usually offset by a “NSFW” so whoever posted that link should have warned you.

richardhenry you and your new role are being discuassed

On the home page @ fluther.com where all questions are listed in chronological order, would it be useful to apply a color code to info-seeking and “fun” questions so that they are distinguishable from each other? It would help me for sure.

As well as really cracking down on the rude, unhelpufl stuff as well.

No, Simone did not warn me at all. She just said how do you like this picture?

Couldn’t we just make a point to say in our details whether or not we’d appreciate joke answers? This could be stated in the guidelines. I can’t tell when Andrew is finished. Complete thoughts followed by a period indicate to me that someone is finished speaking/typing

Ivan: It’s actually not so much about improving traffic. It’s more about the fact that there always has been a tension in the types of questions that are asked.

lilikoi: That’s the basic gist of the solution

@lilikoi: we’re still looking into different design ideas, but it will be easy to understand for sure

Hello all

it was a painting, nothing nsfw

@uber to me, when he started responding to comments, i figured he was done…

too much lag to know

[mod says] [mod says] Please let Andrew finish before you respond. Thanks!

If you encounter that, Rangie, flag the response and mention that it has inappropriate content. The moderators should deal with it.

ubersiren^^^

I think uber’s idea is good – indicate not want joke answers in details – prominently…

So important, I had to say it twice!

Recap for those just entering:

ben, andrew – cool, thanks

Andrew said:So, I’m going to talk about some issues, as we’ve identified.

So, right now, based on our own observations, the feedback from the mods, and feedback from users that have contacted me about the site right now, one of the biggest challenges we’re experiencing lie in the responses we’re getting.
This is manifested in a few different ways.

One: A lot of off-topic responses on questions that may not ask for them.

Two: Responses that make the asker feel threatened, like “GO GOOGLE THAT”, and generally unhelpful, snide remarks.
(Even though sometimes questions are not the most beautifully formed, those responses are noted by a good number of peple and make them scared of asking questions)

Ultimately, we need Fluther to be a place for warm, open, helpful interactions.

So, to recap, the things we’ve been seeing have mostly to do with ‘unhelpful’ responses—both off-topic and downright rude.

Our past attempt at dealing with this had to do with this distinction between “question” and “discussion” something that’s much too nuanced, isn’t’ used meaningfully, and downright confusing to new members.

Part of what makes Fluther “Fluther” is this blend of whimsy as well as helpfulness. We don’t want to lose that.

One, immediate thing we’re doing is devoting serious effort to working on this solution—in fact, as of today, we’ve hired former community manager and dev extraordinaire to act as ‘Quality Czar’ (among other things)—so I want to announce that we’ve just hired Richard Henry on the team.

So. Things we’re planning on doing:
1. Get rid of the question/discussion distinction. It’s confusing. It doesn’t really do anything.
2. Focus on being more consistent with moderation (exactly what Ivan says) THe way we’re going to do that is to add a “Social” area, where users can choose to put their questions if they’re looking for things that are silly. Lighthearted. Fun. Things like the one-word story. More hypothetical questions. Etc.

In addition, we’re really refocusing the other area of the site, and clampuing down on off-topic and joke responses.

Because, you’re right, the guidelines right now are much too nuanced.

( In response to question from Blondesjon: No, it’s not about ‘PR’. It’s more about creating spaces where the askers can determine what types of responses they’d like on their questions. Blondesjon: It’s about catering to our existing community. Namely, if we simply said “no more jokes!” that wouldn’t be fun at all.)

Now, the restricting of the guidelines also means it’s going to be easier to enforce, as well—right now there’s way too much “well, he said this thing, it’s off topic, and I got modded! That’s not fair!”

As well as really cracking down on the rude, unhelpful stuff as well.

Are you all speaking about “joke” style answers right at the moment?

ubersiren: Yes. Under the new guidelines, jokes are allowed, but only for questions in the ‘social’ area.

please don’t separate them too much—all sugar on one side—alo vinegar on the other

At least, in the very near future.

andrew when you are “done” you need to say “over & out” or something, no one can tell otherwise.

Andrew, I am sorry, as I don’t know the rules of this meeting. But, if I am not wanted here, just let me know and I will check out of the site. I didn’t come here to cause a problem. But, I do think it would be a great idea to have different spaces for serious/funny, and others.

Why are you choosing to redo Fluther.com? Is the site not working well enough now?

Ok. I’m finished with my spiel. We’ll take questions right now.

the lag seems to be back

Yes! That would help immensely

My question is: how many new “areas” are going to keep showing up?

roger

rangie: Of course you’re wanted.

Let’s just all be quiet until Andrew SAYS we can give our input.

so sad to take a good thing apart

how soon?

He said he finished his spiel

@rangie: please check your pm’s

judochop: It’s not a ‘redo’ as much as it a ‘refocus’. We’re doing it right now because we’ve seen that there are a lot of users—both old and new—who are frustrated with the discourse.

rangerr: Most likely just these two. It’s about intent.

Also, moderators won’t move questions between them. Users choose where thy want their question to live.

I think it’s a good idea.

I don’t think I would stay for a divided site. I might drop by to ask a tech Q

Bah, okay. Major lag for me, still.

Well, three, actually (main, social, meta)

this is one wis.dm feature I don’t want to see imposed

What exactly classifies as a “social” question?

I have always felt as if a slightly more intensive sign-up process would be incredibly beneficial. There seems to be this schism in (particularly) new users between what they expect to use the site for and what Fluther is (and its mission). I understand what you are trying to do with regards to making the application process relatively painless – it encourages new users to jump in and start asking right away. I understand you want that level of warmth and invitation; I’m going to go out on a limb, though, and say a large percentage of the spammy-answers come from new users that aren’t quite aware with the level of discourse expected from the site. I don’t want to say “force users to read the guidelines” (and I understand this is ironic coming from myself, someone who is modded quite often), but maybe a sign-up process that walks the new user through the quality that is expected of them. Sorry if that sounds self-important, but I figure those that want to ask a hot-rush question will just skip by it anyway; those that are interested in Fluther’s philosophy will stick and read it. The rest will become disinterested and just shrug it off

@andrew: is it an idea when we craft our questions we need to put at least a certain amount of words (in the detail section and tags section, to make sure we don’t get the very short questions/ the questions are a bit well-thought of?

I did not know that was that long.

Can we add a Blondesjon area?

Honestly, I don’t even know if the separation is necessary, Andrew. With Rich on board, and better community guidelines you might see a big change pretty quickly.

We should add a bob_ area, a space for witty inanity and/or inane wit

I’m curious to see how it plays out though.

I don’t have any problem with new users. I love them and I love their questions, even when they’re obvious or dumb. My problem is with people (old or new) intentionally being dicks and/or willfully ignorant.

I think 99% of the problem is welcoming newbies to the rough-and-tumble. The focus should be there.

↑

I agree with nikipedia

a class system for newbies?

Nikipedia just nailed it, by the way.

Would it be possible to “hire” more moderators? I don’t remember the exact number but it is a very small amount for a site with so many people. I wonder if this would help with the questions and quips that make it through the cracks.

anartist said it.

I agree with nikipedia

Honestly I think we do a good job as a community of welcoming newcomers and gently nudging them toward good Qs and As.

andrew, ben, tim, and now richard, are you still there

But I don’t see the crap the mods have to deal with.

I’ll volenteer to mod

^

“I love them and I love their questions, even when they’re obvious or dumb.”

@Grisaille for me, personally, I found myself adapting to the level of discourse (longer, more thought-out answers) simply for that being the environment. If new users are welcomed, given thoughtful answers, etc., I don’t see why they won’t adapt to the Fluther culture.

^ im nt so sure i like that part

the questions asked are not the issue, it is the answers on the questions that are the issues.

Grisaille: We’re thinking about that, but it’s really not about new users. Many older users ask questions that are really open ended or just want to connect or lie in the grey area of the moderation guidelines

Perhaps everyone could get over being afraid of words. They only have the power that YOU give them.

I think there are plenty of moderators, they just aren’t spread around the globe enough

so there are tons of mods on at reasonable American times, but few on in the middle of the day

agreed, judo

And it’s not just a problem of “hire more moderators”, since we still have the problem of “should this stay or go”

The guidelines are much too nuanced right now.

A lot of new users do! Look how many wis.dmers are here doing well.

Right, Ivan, but aren’t most questions asked during those times anyway?

that’s a good point

Agreed with gggritso.

All right folks, I’m out. Be back soon hopefully. Someone take notes for me.

andrew? can i put a question to you?

You’re probably right, Niki. But the noise isn’t helpful either. There is merit in every question, yes, but I personally believe the noise issue to be just as important as the quality issue, if not one in the same, and overlapping

@niki I agree. And that, to me, also falls into the “unhelpful” responses category. Something we really need to fix.

if i go there will be trouble

I think you should add a “bad answer” button that takes points away.

olderr users may vask questions as you describe, andrew, but they usually can take the ribbing that makes fluther fluther

Are there going to be any added guidelines about all of the NSFW/sexual questions that have been around recently? I think it’s a bit much..

Some wis.dm users do the same thing HERE that they complained about receiving over THERE.

@Judo: positive reinforcement only

and I agree with andrew, the guidelines need to be far less subjective

No ^^

people will just use that against those they don’t like.

Fluther is all about positive reinforcement

@judo No “bad answer” button, I think that would only lead to really negative stuff.

Judo, I think that will do quite a bit to take away from the kind whimsy of the site..

It’s more about saying “ok. this area is really tightly moderated. If you want answers that only add to the question, ask it here. If you’d rather ask a question that more fun, or meandering, and you want those types of responses, ask it here”

I understand Zen

Yup

rangerr: We’re looking into that ask well. Building more tools that let you hide content you’re really not interested in seeing.

I don’t like this direction at all.

The main issue is one of culture clash. Some newer users are familiar and comfortable with a specific site format and are put off by change… some older users here can be accused of the same. Adaptation of a site to meet the demands of a growing user base can only be seen as a form of evolution that is a basic necessity for the community to continue to function in a way that makes the majority feel at home.

What would you think about introducing a guideline similar to wikipedia’s about “good faith”?

so andrew, just to be clear, you are going to make the guidelines more specific, and then essentially have a fully moderated area, and a non-moderated area?

andrew: and what happens when your “fun” question turns into too many joke answers?

… or a conversation/jokes between 2–3 people

yes, this is all very fun, but I’m done working, it’s 8 pm and it’s my birthday XD, so, be cool y’all * waves *

andrew: You can still group the questions together just make them color coded. Like a blue text for non-modded questions and red text for modded questions.

I don’t like this direction either

People don’t leave in droves from a website that focuses on positive reinforcement.

there haven’t been droves of people leaving

People have to take responsibility for ignoring stuff they don’t like – andrew, you can’t protect us like this.

@andrew: can i ask a question?

Allie is absolutely right

happy birthday bob!

happy birthday, bob

i don’t like this—a scholarly question with no humor. How would people evolve without humor?

look at how many of us are here to try to make it work – i’d say that’s positive

hb bob

nikipedia: Tell me more.

Ivan (and others): “social” will still be moderated, just with different guidelines

Dr_C: Very good point.

BRAVO! @SUSANC

@rebbel: go ahead

andrew: here’s the thing, sometimes the discussion debates the merits of the answers and the logic behind them. that may not be directly answering the question but it may provide the OP a better base from which to select their answer. they may only want direct answers, but sometimes those only come out in debate.

@Andrew Will there be a trial period?

ben, what will the social guidelines be?

happy birthday bob

I love the jokes on here, everyone needs to smile more

thx bljn. let us be treated like adults, andrew – the way barack treats us!!!! yayayayay barack!!!!

wrong coding sorry

@anartist I think humor in a scholarly question is fine so long as it is not the first answer. When I ask a question seeking info, I’d rather my question get orphaned than turn into a long thread of humor.

anartist: It’s more like many people get turned off by the fact that they ask about a tech problem and get a bunch of jokes instead.

agreed with wonderingwhy

I don’t think he’s saying “no debate”,

@ANDREW; can i ask a question?

if not, i will go to bed.

@jeanmay: yes, in the beginning, it will be a trial

in my experience t5hey get both

ben & andrew: Will you separate the two classifications by tabs or will all the questions still show up by the time they were asked?

rebbel, just ask your question.

i agree with lilikoi

I mean, let’s call it what it is. Let’s be real here people, because no one want to say it: There has been an influx of users with opinions and ideas that run somewhat contradictory to the existing userbase’s collective ideology. I personally think it’s a maturation thing, and will even out. But I don’t know anything about dynamics like this

wonderingwhy: If it’s furthering the discussion or debate, then things would stay. There are some nuances that we’re going to need to work out, but in general if the response furthers the discussion, it stays.

agree with lilikoi

I find making different guidelines for different sections to be a bit unnecessary. It sounds like that’d be allowing people to use that section to get away with things they normally wouldn’t be able to.

But I will be quiet now, I pretty much don’t have any suggestions and am just adding to the noise

@rebbel, go ahead

rebbel, he already said yes

People, please tell andrew that i want to ask him a question :-)

@Ben Thanks

@Ivan: not finalized yet. But probably somewhat similar to how Fluther feels now

i did that two or three times

I seriously think that stronger guidelines, and tighter moderation will do everything you want.

but this has happened over & over – new influxes have muddied the water and then maturity clears it.

grisaille: i dont care if their ideas contradict mine, i dont think thats the issue

grisaille: That’s not even the whole thing. This is really not just about new users. It’s about old users being dicks, new users not looking at guidelines, medium users cracking jokes all over, etc etc etc

It’s natural for a growing site, maybe? There are always the good-ol’-days and the here-and-now. At a certain point all sites have too large an influx of new users to maintain their former culture.

Just ask it, rebbel…..

@andrew: is it an idea when we craft our questions we need to put at least a certain amount of words (in the detail section and tags section, to make sure we don’t get the very short questions/ the questions are a bit well-thought of?

thanks ben

rebbel: go ahead!

i dont like that you have to read through 10 unhelpful/argumentative/joke answers to find the good ones

The more I read this the more I agree with myself.

rebbel: That’s definitely been something we’re thinking about, yes. For responses as well.

agree with Allie

Allie: Exactly.

Yes, let’s do be honest. We’re talking about a screening process. a country club mentality. If you don’t make it during the trial period, you’re out. So let’s say it, k?

gggritso: i love every word that comes out of your fingers

word.

@rebbel I have asked questions with no words in the body and they fostered interesting, intellectual discussions (e.g. mathematics: invention or discovery?). Sometimes you can be succinct.

@andrew: great.

@Grisaille This is what needs to be brought up. It’s a Q&A site on the Internet. I love it to pieces, but at the end of the day it is a Q&A site on the Internet. The Internet is what it is. If you want to wear your heart on your sleeve go picket an abortion clinic.

The end result will be that questions in the non-social area will be ‘cleaner’.

Fluther could aways become a paid site

phillis: i dont think its about that, its that people dont follow the guidelines, and other people call them out on it, which leads to more problems

Perhaps more effort should be spent getting people not to take things so personally (jokes, jabs) because much of it is in fun to get people to lighten up. Perhaps less effort should be spent on trying to get others to act the way you want them to. Really, if someone can’t handle real world interactions (aside from hate), that doesn’t give them cue to control the personality of another. Lighten up, it’s not so personal about you that you must become a control freak controlling the kind of answers you hear.

^no

A colloquial you @zen not you in particular

that won’t improve quality of users

phillis: No, no, you misunderstand trial period. Trial period for the features, not the users

talljasperman I hope not I’m a poor college student!

@Allie The good answers are always a matter of perspective though. What you find helpful may not be helpful to someone else. What you find funny may not be funny to someone else. The issue is perspective.

@tall Google tried that didn’t they and they canned that project.

keep fluther free please

succinct?

Agree with Allie

not 100% cleaner i hope!~ I answered a Q with valid information and a joke in same sentence—do I get edited?

terse

vanessuh: good answers are ones that follow the guidelines (thats how i understand it as a user anyway)

@Captain_Fantasy: Don’t worry. Fluther will always be free

I go to bed now, i’ll check cnn tomorrow to see the results
nitenite all

Gotcha.

Agreed Allie however I see people getting “great answers” just based on friendship.

are we looking to improve the quality of users? I think that always always takes c/0 itself..

and i think you can tell between a joke answer and a good answer with humor

@Vunesshuh I think part of the issue people are having with answers to their questions, are the ones that blatantly don’t answer the question at all. It’s not really a matter of just perspective

yes, vunessuh, how do we encourage people to take ownership of their perspectives.

@judo maybe, but who cares? not me. not really.

judo: im not sure theres much you can do about that besides encouraging people to GA actual good answers, regardless of who asks it

@Vunessuh is right. The issue is perspective. Some feel if they don’t share the same perspective, that it must be a personal attack.

RERERERER: Sounds like the social area would be perfect for that. Sometimes people (like my mom) just want an answer to their problem without a lot of hubbub.

Not to point fingers or whatever, but AstroChuck is a great example. His answers are often lighthearted and funny, but that doesn’t detract from their helpfulness.

^^ exactly

I actually don’t mind this. One of my biggest problems with Fluther was the vague guidelines and inconsistent moderation

@judo: “GA’s based on friendship” = GA’s based on friendship based on watching someone give good answers over time.

I understand that and I am guilty of it and I could care less. I just think a shift allowing two sides to segregate the site will confuse new users and some old users.

AstroChuck is the AntiChrist!

Vanessuh: I agree with that—and what these areas provide are a way for the askwer to determine they types of responses they’re looking for.

gggrits: sometimes it does… sometimes they arent helpful at all

Ivan ^^

Now, there will be an are with specific guidelines and consistent moderation

in addition to a more playful area

I’m not sure GA’s are something we need to worry about really.

Yeah, I’m will Allie. I like AstroChuck but if everyone answered like that Fluther would be worthless.

with, not will

Judocho, if you don’t care, then why be here? Let us work things out.

Agreed J0E.

amen, niki

I am not worried about it and was only responding to something that is about 600606060 threads up. Please ignore, thanks

I agree. The guidelines are way, way too nuanced. There’s too much room for “oh, it’s ok when X user does it, but when Y user does it it’s not”

I agree with Allie, too

I’m with Judo on this.

would you consider leavbing a middle-of-the-road for those who want the old style Q and A? This would also be a good market research tool.

The Meta section is still confusing people.

Judo, regarding GAs based on friendship, there’s a limit to how much lurve you can get from any one user, anyway. So in the end it doesn’t really matter. Your best friend can only give you a total of 100 lurve, ever.

But not everyone does; that’s what makes this place special. He does also contribute, and he waits until real answers are given

i think astro chuck highlights a need for levity on the site. He shouldn’t be the only one.

anartist: Unfrotunately, i don’t think there’s a lot of room for that. And I think the social area will really suit what you’re talking about.

Side section called NO-BS… for those who want straight quick cold human-less, no chance for joking to lighten up, just answer the Q dullards. Give them bondage by choice.

Fuck me for naming names.

anartist, I think the social section will be similar to the current format

all hail Astrochuck

ggg: Bahahah!

Awww. I’m telling, Grits.

Bernard that can’t be true. How on earth does the cat lady have 28,000 lurve?

ivan—i hope so. i hope it will have serious Qs

RERE: It’s always going to be warm human. It can’t not be. Well, until we introduce the “robots-only” section.

I think we all adore AstroChuck in one way or another. Don’t worry about it

Oh, and the Leave Room button doesn’t work in Opera

That’s another discussion for another time Judo. Or even just in chat/1/.

Disagree with the “No BS zone” idea. That invites BS.

No need for a NO-BS section. I think a highly visible No-Bs icon in front of the question wold suffice

i love robots, really. theyre cute.

word Bernie, word.

andrew, will these sections be under separate tabs?

^

ANDREW: Call it Robot Chickens

Ivan: Yes.

NO-BS section? Don’t we want a NO-BS site? ‘Cause humour and BS aren’t the same thing…

I asked that Ivan.

bye all—will changes be posted, andrew? Or with they simply be apparent?

lol4rl

@Andrew: In response to what you said here: _ I agree with that—and what these areas provide are a way for the asker to determine they types of responses they’re looking for._

Ahhh enter button too early.

RE: Old users being jerks: Oh, I know, andrew; I’m part of that noise. For the past month or two, I (and a few other users, I’ve noticed) have just pretty much jumped into threads to make a self-important remark, or a joke answer—and have been modded heavily for it. So it’s confusing to me when I hear of these guideline issues, when I see the moderation, in place, working. Unless it’s on your side, where the mods are getting tons of requests asking why something was moderated, I don’t necessarily see how that will change the quality of answers. Maybe the modding is inconsistent, and I’m not seeing it?

i’m off, Lurve all

So humour and jokes are considered differently?

Chickens of the sea? That goes with the nautical theme.

What’s wrong with having a combination of funny/serious answers on a thread and flagging anything rude/offensive or completely irrelevant?

ANDREW: if you are going to separate the two sections then why not color code the font for eachside and just group them together so that the site still looks the same.

Well, they will be separated in a way, we’re working on an implementation. We’re making it so that it still is easy to navigate and doesn’t add to a feeling of “UG ANOTHER PLACE TO CLICK”

andrew, you never answered my Q. what happens when even your “fun” questions lead to a million joke answers, or if the whole thread unravels and its just a bunch of silly banter? or is that the point? to ask a question and just joke about things?

Andrew: Rather than “physically” separating questions (as you’re already doing) why not just have the OP request a certain level of answer (a, b, c, all of the above) establish moderator guidelines for each option and let it go? (sorry if this was already asked/answered I’ve missed a lot)

@Vuhessah: YES.

@Vun good point

@vunessuh – it’s about perspective -what you find funny, some others don’t -you said so yourself

I wonder if all this division of topics is really necessary from a common sense perspective. It would be infinitely easier to tag your own question with a specific intent.. ”“just for fun”, “Serious question”, “no BS”. If we were able to do this and if people responding were able to respect it… I think we might solve a lot of the issues mentioned here.

Then when you “ask a question” it will give you the option to be on the red side or the blue side.

It seems to me that that method is just trying to control HOW people answer questions. Not cool.

I’d like the sections to be somewhat porous…like have a page where you can see all questions, not just serious or social questions.

wonderingwhy: Sections is much easier to understand and trying to decide a bunch of options.

Andrew hit the nail on the head with the X and Y user.

It’s just weird when I see requests for “Better, more clear guidelines”. That doesn’t change the quality of answers or level of discourse. It just means you can mod more stuff and not have to necessarily explain the reason for doing so

@Simone – What’s your point?

I like Dr_C’s idea

I’m with @Vunessah. Can’t we just say in our details if we don’t want joke answers?

@wonderingwhy: why not jsut ahve the OP say “no jokes” or “no meanness” – has worked before.

how so Rangie?

ANDREW: You still have an open invitation to come on the show and answer some real life questions from real life voices. I see it as a way for you to articulate your plans in a much clearer way than through a keyboard. Tell him folks.

Grisaille: Well, we can crack down on quality as well.

^

I’m being noise again, I’m going to lurk

I like DrC’s idea too

@Simone Yes, but we will never get away from that…it will always come down to some subjectivity somewhere. With two sections, it sounds like we are creating unnecessary layers…

I actually like Dr_C’s idea a lot

Honestly, Dr C is totally on the right track. There are simple way to up the satisfaction without significantly changing anything.

Blondesjon great idea.

Call it SHALLOW WATERS

Let’s talk about that.

But can someone clarify that humour and jokes are different??

I like the idea of declaring in your OP whether or not you discourage non serious answers.

^ Word

what happens when even your “fun” questions lead to a million joke answers, or if the whole thread unravels and its just a bunch of silly banter? or is that the point? to ask a question and just joke about things?

Lol you know where to find me.

@captain- that would be great if people actually respected the asker.

I appreciate this site, after all it really did save my life so I will not be going anywhere but if it becomes a site where everyone takes themselves so seriously I will admit to not visiting as much.

We’ve played with all of those suggestions—doing it with topics, with a pull down menu, but ultimately it’s still way way too nuanced in terms of UI.

@lilikoi – right, that’s what I am saying too – subjectivity is everywhere but this whole thing is a response to having something in the past not work so well anymore – so if andrew’s suggestion isn’t good, then what do you suggest instead?

rach: theres a difference, imo, between a one liner joke, and a answer with a little humor but still answers the Q

When they say No Jokes… They NEED to hear a joke more than ever. And it makes me want to.

lets not go changing the venue

@Rachienz Jokes are a subset of humor. You can give a legitimate answer with humor.

And I give you my word to play it straight. I’m willing to donate the bandwidth.

I think Judo’s idea should be considered, perhaps all questions should be in one tab, but simply labeled

@Simone I liked DrC’s suggestion, also.

Thank you, @Captain_Fantasy! Nobody listens when I say it!

well yeah but on those questions can moderation be more aggressive towards non serious answers?

@andrew it’s NOT TOO NUANCED, people just have to learn, and we have to help them. Unless you’re tlaking about ME that needs to learn, which is possible, except I never get modded.

@allie – Oh good… ok I am understanding this better now

RealEyes: That’s not true. You can’t know what someone needs more than they know themselves

Would you ever consider giving askers some moderation power? Like if an answer is really, really not what the poster was going for, allowing them to gray it out?

I just think splitting a site like this into categories creates a “us” v “them” situation

I really feel like this is becoming over complicated.

trying to find it now, it all moves so fast

Okay, I am off for some quiet reflection. I hope this goes well.

@Nikipedia, I think that would cause a lot of extra problems.

Ooh, I like that idea a lot, nikipedia

props Niki!

simple works for this place

I love this site

Well… Mayeb

&maybe

^^Interesting Niki!

Giving askers control is a bad idea.

@DD… People NEED to lighten up. That’s the biggest lesson this site can offer them.

I mean it could just bring up a host of new problems

Yeah, I’m not sure, when I think about it more.

I think Niki had a great idea.

It is not that the newb don’t read the guidelines, we do. But when you are flagging someone, and it your opinion that it is obscene, according to the guidelines as you read them, it seems from my limited experience that some is okay for X and not for Y as Andrew said.

Probably a coding nightmare as well.

Let the asker Mod the question.

my butt hurts I’m taking a break

@judo agreed

@niki I’ve thought about this too, but I think it could be easily abused.

@Real Agree. This sounds like a way bigger issue than I ever would have guessed it would be.

@Real: Some answers should be serious. If that’s what the asker is looking for

Yes, @DD

Newsvine already allows for what niki suggested. It works there.

It gives the asker the ability to grey out any answer they disagree with, even if there was nothing wrong with the answer.

@niki: That’s a good idea, one we’ve toyed around with. We may use that in the future.

i have a serious Q for andrew: what happens when even your “fun” questions lead to a million joke answers, or if the whole thread unravels and its just a bunch of silly banter? or is that the point? to ask a question and just joke about things?

Hi lucille!

well, greying out an answer is not deleting it, just making it less prominent…it might work out okay.

The reason we haven’t committed to it is it for debates it gives a lot of power.

The biggest problem I ever run into is when I ask questions like my most recent “What is appropriate etiquette for (type of venue/situation)” and the first answer is “I’ve never heard of that. Why don’t you google it?”

:Gray it out: hows that different from just saying, No, that’s not what I’m lookng for.

Use the gray out like the NFL uses instant replay and you guys only allow 3 questions every 12 hours. Only 3 gray outs a day.

User powers would be abused.

I want to burn the keyboard of the people who answer that way.

@kyan Ooh! I misunderstood. I might support that.

Susanc, exactly.

PnL: Yeah, a lot of people want/enjoy that. Old and new users alike.

Let’s put a ban on all “G” words.

@kyanblue – Youtube kind of does that with comments at the bottom

Seek_Kolinahr: And that’s completely unacceptable.

real eyes, when someone suggests you are examining your nude granddaughter, does NOT, call for lighten up.

@seek That’s against our guidelines. If flagged, we remove those.

but I don’t feel like that would really be necessary… what would be the benefit? would it help me get a good answer? i don’t think so.

@Seek-Kolinahr: ... not just ignore them? because they’re irrelevant?

Which is exactly why having an area with very strict guidelines makes sense.

@SK flag their asses

Do any of you know what’s oj topic right now?

*on

adios amigos.

We want people to know that if they ask a question here, they’ll get helpful answers.

judochop: pulp

If a new person pulls up a Q, and the answers are all “google it”, “WTF?”, and a joke… how likely are they to ask us anything?

peace lilkoi

Q’s with “G” words can go to The G Spot.

<3 EP

Ok, any other questions (not implementation suggestions)?

What are “G” words, please?

agree with captain fantasy: keep it simple; keep in mind the site is already “split” that split has just been ignored. what we’re really talking about is the moderation of each side of the site in a noticeable way; so long as the combined “new” section is kept that can work provided there’s a way to distinguish each type of question. Otherwise, you’ll get some people on one side some on the other with possibly less crossover than is necessary to carry both sides successfully. Ugh, and time for me to wrap up.

God, Google, and Goofy answers

An African or a European swallow?

Oh. I’ve got a question Andrew. Does she really like me?

@andrew: I don’t really grasp yet what’s set this off. Tell us again someday. I missed the beginning.

phillis, I think the G word in question is “Google”

Andrew, I feel like the basic issue of “aggressive stupidity” maybe hasn’t been addressed.

actually, going off of what niki said, ive been thinking abt this for a while, i think it wouldn’t be a bad idea if the oldest users could get rid of new Qs. not a strict “censor” button. but more of a “vote for removal”. and if 3 (or wahtever #) older users “vote for removal”, it automatically gets removed and then mods get an email to see whether it was justified or not. this way, you save on volunteer mod power and its not gonna be abused, because if you see aparticular member with bad judgment, you get rid of them from that vote list.

@Andrew: Will you guys update the site when you have made the amendments so we know what the exact changes are?

I mean let us know what they are?

what if there was a user option to not see joke answers? Someone suggested self-marking answers as “not relevant” or “just a joke”...people could choose to only see answers of one kind.

RERE: Thank you

Is there a way to imply that people really need to check and see if a question has been asked before? There are so many duplicates of simple questions.

andrew, what sort of time scale are we looking at?

nikipedia: That, I think, is more in line with the ability to hide content/users you really, really don’t want to see.

PnL: ALL old users, or do you pick them?

ggg: thanks!

@kyanblue great suggestion

What Allie said

@PNL – you’ll just have people complaining about seniority

@rangerr – I agree

Ivan: Hopefully, soon. Maybe two weeks, maybe less.

Gotcha. Good cal.

PNL. It would put some weight to 10K, 20K lurve achievments. Earn your right to self moderate.

@Andrew – So does that mean you guys are working on a blocking features?

allie – bendrew picks them

Anything that pits “old users” against “new users” I wouldn’t like.

Oooh… I like that, @real

Ivan: Depends. We’re busy with lots of stuff, but hopefully a handful of weeks

@kyamblue that would require mods to ‘flag’ all joke questions, computers don’t understand humor.

I agree with auggie

Agreed, Auggie.

simone – i disagree. people are “senior” for a reason. since they would be picked by bendrew, it would mean that the owners feel that they know what the site is about.

Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me

We’ve been through this before and always come up with “slide by the stuff you don’t want” – I’m going to stop now, but I can’t understand how tis isn’t part of the natural cycle, and why this time we need to revamp. Makes me sad. love you all

Me too, Lisa.

Oh, there has to be some benefit to tenure.

@Simone. Seniority is earned. No one can complain about what others have earned for themselves.

xoxo susan

i don’t mean lurve-wise. there are MANY people with high lurve that don’t really deserve it

vunessuh: The ability to hide people you can’t stand. Yes.

It’s not about pitting anyone against anyone, it’s about giving the mods a break. If there’s a racist question on the front page, it only takes three old users to take it down.

lurve doesnt necessarily mean you gave quality answers

Well, not just people. Content, in general.

don’t know if I like the idea of putting old users in a position of power and therefore new users as second-class…everyone has an equal right to air their opinions, right?

@markyy No, the person answering could somehow mark their answer as “irrelevant” or something

Does that mean that you can’t see any content they post, as well as they can’t see yours? Wouldn’t that cause confusion in the threads?

Agreed, Allie!

Completely.

@PnL that is a VERY interesting response.

@Devi: That’s pretty subjective

I understand that Pnl and RERERE and I agree but it won’t matter, people will just say the owners are picking out their favorites

You should make a 10K only room.

PnL: You can’t really say “deserve” in any way. You get the lurve or you don’t.

Friends don’t even always get along. Shall we expect strangers to?

V: ^

agreed pnl/gritso

What is an “old user” anyway?

woah woah woah

o wait, I’m back. Like, you could Hide someone like on fbk? cool.

determining a users “worth” is a sticky situation.

@Andrew – So anyone you can’t stand or disagree with, you can hide from ever seeing any of their answers and questions? Does that mean they can’t see yours either?

susanc: Exactly.

J0E: ^

hiding people sounds like a bad idea

andrew: my point is that that wouldn’t earn you the voting power

we both know people that earned a lot of high lurve and then were banned later on

Yeah, I dont’ like the idea of blocking users.

^^Agreed.

@Joe, users determine their own worth by how much they contribute consistently and over time.

I agree with DD – is it about time or lurve? both don’t have to mean ‘worth’

Hiding people is bad shtuff.

maybe I could get behind the idea of blocking people from PM’ing you

I could be pissed off as hell with someone one day, and the next day it turns out they give the exact answer I need.

Nope, me either.

but other than that, I don’t like it

Hello.

blocking users on wis.dm worked VERY badly

And I likely woudn’t remember the fight anyway.

NO BLOCKING

With the good comes the bad, that is part of the appeal to sites like this.

Seek makes an excellent point.

Stroms, hi!

We blocked users back on Airow. It was sort of like middle school where kids stick their fingers in their ear and pretend you don’t exist.

@ivan – i just press delete, it works sometimes

What were the consequences of blocking users?

I know blocking is a contentious thing, but honestly, I think it will do a lot more to alleviate the drama on the site than a lot of things. Stuff like, you flag a response, you don’t have to see it anymore.

I’d rather no blocking (except PMs), too… but many, many people want it.

Blocking only means more duplicate accounts. it is not an effective deterrent.

I’m neither for nor against it.

No blocking, ya heard?

I enjoy the bad answers that stir debate and argument, will those be going away once we get off topic?

It’s more about hiding.

I heard yo

It does end drama, though.

Okay okay it’s not cool then.

@Simone… Yes it started round about flame wars in many other Q’s… Bad Idea here.

Not saying, “you can’t post on my stuff”

blocking gets a nay from me.

it’s a private, not public thing

hiding might as well be blocking

drama is good

judo: what do you mean by “bad answers”

Me, too!

Unless the users take it somewhere else.

no see no hear might as well never be there.

Whoa. So, what do we do with this question? Does this violate guidelines? Does it belong on the site?

And furthermore, thinking about how discussion-based the threads are, can you imagine how confusing it would be to have to figure out what’s going on in the conversation, when you have 5 of the 15 talkers blocked?

@bernard – people would say somehing nasty, then block you so you can’t responde – then unblock you sometime later and you’d want to continue a discussion with another person but couldn’t on that person’s q because you were blocked

I agree with blocking PMs. That’s all fine and dandy. But not blocking someone so you can’t see their answers/questions. Lame-o.

no blocking

Andrew- you mean just hiding that particular response or all from that user in that quesiton or all from that user always?

how about the mods have the ability to separate problem children?

No. It absoltely stays ggritso

If there is a block option, I think it should only be regarding PMs

@Andrew… Yes it’s about hiding. We should encourage opening up… and lightening up.

I’m all for blocking.

Question: good. all the answers, bad

Storms: which is what they do!

Allie: I mean when someone comes in to a pro-life thread and starts talking about firearms or something of the sort. It opens a whole new can of worms.

dog: All of those.

I would like to know from where Cashews originate. Is it India?

johnpowell luvs his luuuurve

@PnL: Re: Undeserved high lurve: That just reinforces that an individual’s “score” is wholly meaningless with regards to how meaningful their answers will be, honestly. goes both ways

Okay

Then the question goes from pro-life to firearms and everyone is discussing firearms not pro-life issues…

oh

judo: but shouldnt that go on a different Q.. ?

So, if a user continually asks questions that really annoy you, you don’t want a way to tune those out?

at what point?

Questions to answers evole.

@judochop – I think in that case, they should be directed to an appropriate question to continue the discussion.

I don’t, personally, andrew.

*evolve

judo: at the point when youre talking about different subjects

I can’t ignore people without a block button.

no, andrew

*can ignore

@Judo… so let the conversation evolve. The asker can set back on track. Sometimes issues are connected in ways not so apparent.

Problem with block is people still harass one another just on someone else’s q.

andrew: really, not electronically. do it yourself tuning out is better for us.

No, Andrew,

all I need to be able to do is block out NSFW questions. Anything else is fine.

I disagree.

Andrew Social Fluther: would it be subject to any form of guidelines?

Those are the questions I enjoy most.

No, Andrew

Scrool past the questions you don’t like No need to read the details—grown ups here.

@andrew no. i just wouldn’t click. there’s too good a chance I’d be interested in something he/she’d have to say later

I want a way to tune them out. Just make it so you can block questions, comments, or Pms.

Something so deep and emotional that it stirs up other feelings.

dog: Absolutely.

Now, I’m going to be a jerk and say it’s super immature if a user requires an option to block out other individual’s questions. It’s called “don’t click it”

I think having the ability to to block PMs might be good, but not anything else

JP, then why not ignore them?

^^

Why block NSFW Q’s? Why not just move them elsewhere? It’s like if you don’t want to read it, don’t.

Andrew. I’d love to see a “hide user” or “hide quip” feature. To simply collapse it to show their name and the amount of GAs.

Yeah.

I agree with Drastic.

yes faye

Perhaps an option when creating a question to mark it as NSFW would be helpful. Then an option in your account settings to not see NSFW questions.

I’m with Zen on this.

^ Zen

Is there any way to set a question as “NSFW”, and make it so you have to click it to see the question?

I’m with Zen, too

bernard: That’s exactly what we’re talkign nabout

Self-regulation.

Agreed with DD

This is the same response as on the board. Hardly anyone wants a blacklist feature. THought it was worth pointing out. again.

That way if I have the person “hidden”, and I see they’ve got 10 GAs on their response, I may think to myself “Oh. That’s a popular response. I’ll check it out”.

@judochop exactly – in general.

Scroll

It already feels like people are using Fluther as a social site.. by adding a “social” section, I feel like it’s encouraging that.

Seek’s description of AB’s “Block” feature seems to be something completely different, denying them from responding to you at all. THAT feature I would not like.

I mean, a question says ”<NSFW> What happens if I put a hamster in my ass” – We don’t want our 5 year olds seeing even that much.

bernard: Exactly what we’re thinking.

Why do you ban the best, smartest, best looking users and leave the cretinous uglies like jean paul and dpjerkin and shilololol and johnnnie powelll? And how about that bitch simone de bouvier…why do you allow her free reign… is it just the bull dykes and faggots you allow here?

Just saying.

have you addressed answerers who answer without knowing anyttttthingngggg about the subject? just a “well, i dunno, good question” kind of answer

I personally take little notice of users who answer questions that I don’t like or are in my opinion a negative contribution. I feel adult enough to not need a button to do it for me.

thats right

Then I’l all aboard that ship.

bernard: Not at all what we’re talking about.

^ Word, homie.

allie: Total crack down.

5 year olds want to know what happens when you put a hamster in a donkey, too.

you guys are like some stupid grammar schol clique

SMART seek

well, block is perhaps the wrong word…I mean more ‘filter out’.

_rangerr

It already feels like people are using Fluther as a social site.. by adding a “social” section, I feel like it’s encouraging that._ i think thats exactly what theyre doing… i dont agree with it, but whatever

@billyjack—aww, look how cute

whoa

whoa there, billyjack

I like the idea of being able to filter out certain words like [nsfw]

that was completely uncalled for

School, not schol

allie, you want them to PM the person instead/

i thought we were doing well ignoring him…

Jesus, Billyjack

I disagree, Allie & Rangerr.

I think billyjack sums up the issues with the site currently.

allie: True assessment, but having a main area that isn’t about social questions isn’t really encouraging them

Meaning – users like him

the boot!

damn david

^

Goddamn it, I wanted to kick him

Wow.

cash: PM them about what?

this isn’t a social site?

Fluther is not Facebook, and it should not try to be.

the trick is in not responding

@Rachienz Lol

stick to Q&A

have you addressed answerers who answer without knowing anyttttthingngggg about the subject? just a “well, i dunno, good question” kind of answer

Why did you kick BillyJackOff?

thats what you said,right

I gotta leave and I’ve never been kicked. Kick me zen. Kick me HARD. @ANDREW, I’ll PM you if you’re serious.

Why are you adding a “social” section, then?

@cash – I was just told to flag them.

Wow, Morena Baccarin is in a lot of sci-fi.

blondesjon: Absolutely

cash: uh, i dont think i said anything about PMs

rangerr: To have the ability to really restrict the guidelines in the non-social area.

I[m leaving now really. You guys are fab. Don’t mess with Fluther too much. It’s a lifesaver. xoxoxoxo

rangerr, how I understand it, they’re not adding a social section so much as they are adding a “strictly moderated” section

Okay, I get that Fluther is not Facebook. But is it Myspace, then?

casheroo: Yes. Those responses GET TEH BOOT.

But if you

@storms: We have this chat for socializing, if you’re interested.

allie: lol this is too confusing. i commented on what YOU said,

i didn’t say it, Allie did! lol

Ivan: You have it exactly!

Yeah, okay. Bye.

cash: i was talking about answers on a thread that go “well, idk the answer”. if you dont know, then dont answer it. thats what i think.

How did Fluther used to be? What were the core principles at its birth? Do they need a revisit? A reset?

@Cash, try using the @ symbol to denote who you meant

you’re not trying to make Fluther a social site, then why have a social section? Why can’t you restrict the guidelines without it?* Not trying to argue. Just curious

On Answerbag, in the heyday, they had a section called “outside the bag”, for all the bizarro questions that had no serious bearing whatsoever. The questions still showed up on the main screen, but if you didn’t want to be involved in anything heavier than “What’s your raunchiest tattoo?” you could click on the “Outside the bag” tab, and Bob’s your uncle.

yeah. okay.

Allie: Yes, exactly. Strict moderation.

so i missed the social site talk

@rangerr are you suggesting all the “I love you” and “your the best” comments on threads also be stopped?

Nobody will kick me. @Grisaille, uh, you have bad hair and the leather jacket is gay?

and with that, I have homework, goodnight

RealEyes hit it on the head

We’ll be changing the way that modrated resopnses look as well, making them less disruptive and adding reasons as well

I LOVE MY LEATHER JACKET

Oh yay! :)

That was something I wanted to suggest.

Blondesjohn: BOOT

reasons are wonderful!

Ooh, that’s good, Andrew.

interesting

Andrew- Social Fluther- will there be basic guidelines there?

”Removed for pathetic uselessness”

RERE: Well, we originally viewed the site as a helpful tool. From almost the start, it also was a way for people to connect. So we want people to be able to both, and chose what they want to do.

@Iiminal, While I’m guilty of those comments, I do agree they are a bit out of place.

”Removed for excessive offensive profanity”

zen made blondesjon pee his pants just ow

I always automatically assume ”Removed by Fluther Moderators” meant the person said something really nasty. Then it turns out they removed it for being a joke answer or something.

Andrew, one reason for the removal or will there be the option for many?

@liminal liminal

@rangerr are you suggesting all the “I love you” and “your the best” comments on threads also be stopped? ..... i hope so

Along with reasons, how about an appeal? I have reasons too ya know.

dog: Yes. Ben addressed that—similar guidelines to what fluhter is right now. No personal attacks, spelling/grammer minimums.

I’d like there to be a specific report button for quips that say “Good answer @person!”

RERERE: ^^yup.

How about instead of removing answers, just collapse them and give users the choice to see the collapsed answer?

@Allie – I think a limited number of “Thank yous” should be allowed. That way, future visitors will know what the asker found helpful

Removed for being a monkey

Thanks!

EP: One reason most likely.

Actually a lot of removals are spam too.

Is there a sort of “3 strikes and you’re out” policy that mods/bendrewtim use to weed out users? Maybe we could have one. Like, “Don’t make me count to five.”

there is a button for thanking users for answers, it should be utilized more

well, as long as unrelated compliments are in whispers, I don’t see why it’s a problem.

seek: thats what the thank soandso button is for, and the GA button

^^

If the mod was required to discuss the issue, then maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to mod… judge

But everyone gives Lurve, and the Thanks button is a private message.

RERERE: I’ll look into formalizing an appeal process, but you’re welcome to send feedback about mod decisions right now.

You can always respond to mods and we’re happy to discuss anything.

the thank button is only private if you choose it to be

RERE: We usually have 10–40 emails a day, just discussion mod decisions

discussing

Appeal! Oooo that could be benificial. Is there room that this may be abused though?

For future visitors, it should be allowed for the OP to say “Thanks, John, your suggestion was right on the ball.

I’d actually like to know which Mod is on duty. I hate blowing up Augustlans message box.

is there a way to make the thank button accessible to more than just the asker?

^^

I don’t mind :)

liminal: Interesting idea!

That would be helpful. Knowing which mods are online at the time.

We’ll think about that.

A direct link to the Mod on duty.

Maybe if we knew what mods were currently around, things might be settled faster?

V: Yup

Yeah I like that too… knowing which mod

I like the idea of a “contact a mod” button.

Or even if there were a “Get a mod” button, that would automatically batphone the mod who is logged in.

I like that too!

Accountability

with a little icon depicting a police officer

Me too, Auggie.

Then it wouldn’t matter who’s on, we’d get it

I like the “contact a mod” idea

vunessuh, RERE: Let me think about that. I think it may devolve into OH! WELL! SO AND SO JUST HAS IT OUT FOR ME! but I think we might be able to work something out

can’t the mods later be yelled at and pitted against each other – mod x was doing this well yesterday and mod b sucks today or something like that

A shark

@Seek – yep I agree

@raging Not a Nazi? ~

also, perhaps a bit more info about the mod process in that part of the guidelines

Seek, I like that. I often grab mods from the chat room when I know I’m in danger of doing something naughty.

You make a good point, Andrew.

Ah, yeah. Simone, you have a point

EP: I totally agree. I think we should make the mod guidelines public, perhaps.

I’m still thinking about that, though.

I hope our mods are grown up enough to not fight amongst themselves. THey are all on the same side, right?

That’s why the “get a mod” button would not name the mod you get

Isn’t there always a mod in the chatrrom, anyway?

Oh I like that idea a lot, andrew.

Simone, a way to avoid that: Instead of having it show “XYZ mods are on” have it show “3 mods are online”

Not always Philis. Most hours, though, yes

phillis: not always

Andrew, I think it would help if it even just said stuff like “the mods volunteer when they have time” so people aren’t trying to figure out who is on duty—since there isn’t really duty

Bernard- not sure that is a good idea

oh of course they won’t fight but users can still say it anyway and Bernard, that’s a good idea

Andrew. It’s part of the appeal process. First tier is direct to specific mod. Second appeal is to other mods. There would be much settled before it ever got out of hand. There would be much settled that other mods wouldn’t ever know about.

Seek_ Sometimes we have disagreements about decisions. Sometimes we reverse decisions. We try as hard as possiblle to act as a cohesive group.

The reason is that sometimes there is a lapse of moderation that trolls would be able to detect

Allie: k. thx

Yes, good idea Bernard. Like it a lot

Perhaps the mods could be modded by their peers. Sort of a checks and balances.

Bernard: Sometimes NO mods are on duty. Not good to announce that

the mod guidelines aren’t the same as the user guidelines?

@Dog… true I was kind of thinking that too

Bye, guys. Interesting chat, hope there will be a recap posted later on…

@andrew, that’s understandable. I was just saying it’s probably a given that you don’t backbite each other all the time.

RERE: Possibly. Let me think about it. While I think it’s really important to have channels for communication, that particular solution i think is ripe for abuse.

oh i thought someone was always there

Also we are ALL copied on all moderation actions. We have a check and balance so to speak and nothing is done secretly.

I can see that devolving into mod police trying to tell the mods how to do their jobs, and how they didn’t follow this or that guideline…

@jeanmay As users our guidelines are the same, as mods they are more specific.

@augustlan… No mods on duty? That must be when my Q’s get through.

maybe people need to know ho moderation works more in order to understand rather than pick on mods

I don’t… think singling out mods is a good idea. I think the fact that we consider you all to be one group that works in concert helps. Singling out who is “on duty” (and, let’s face it, you guys work when you can work, not when you’re asked to) is a not-very-good-thing

jeanmay: No, sorry, the guidelines we use for moderation. There’s a lot of parlaimentary procedure in terms of nominating for suspension, etc. Check and balances.

Flag a Mod Button

That’s one reason I like “Get a Mod”, as opposed to “3 Mods Online” better.

don’t single out mods
that is a terrible idea

We all see everything

As soon as “0 Mods Online” Shows up, hell will break loose.

^^

I think this all goes back to clearer user guuidelines and visible reasons on modded quips

so, it doesn’t really matter who you’re dealing with

Ah!

^^ yeah

Bahahaha!! Flag a mod. Perfect!

@Zen: Yeah, but if there was a button that popped up when a mod could be contacted right away – without naming names – you don’t think it would be a good idea?

If there’s no mod on duty, then could a question be “assigned” to the next mod to get online?

i don’t think people care if mods aren’t around – they don’t care if they get flagged

jeanmay: Exactly.

We get flagged, too

and i am really against flagging mods – you can always Pm andrew or ben

@uber That’s the way it is already, really

Yeah, but nothing happens.

I have been flagged. And I had to mod myself too. We are users really.

I don’t have any problem with mods getting flagged.

We’re people, too, and not perfect.

A mod could log in at any time. That should be enough of a deterrent, no?

Look forward to the update… better get back to work. :)

augustlan: maybe it could work like the pendigs though, cause i dont always checke mails right away

Ok. It’s been two hours. I’m exhausted. Any last things for me?

@phillis Not true. At all.

What’s wrong with flagging mods? Aren’t they under the same guidelines?

We have almost ALL been modded, even Andrew

@aug you’re real? real people?

:(

i have been modded

<3 we love ya, Andrew.

I could show you a brilliant example of mod bad behavior right now.

Thanks everyone for showing up

thanks for doing this

@Allie

but then I posted a question about how lame the moderator are.

Andrew and Ben have been modded

;)

I always check emails first thing

it was highly entertaining and informative

HA HA HA

Thanks for coming guys!

@Andrew. And I’ve been sympathy screwed.

Okay- I have to go- Thanks Andrew and Ben

I meant I don’t want mods being flagged for trying to do their job which is difficult – we have to draw a line, what’s the point of flagging their answers and giving other mods more work rather than sending the owners a PM

you guys are wonderful, thank you!

I wish now that my rig hadn’t stalled…

As I said, we are people, and have our bad days.

and congratulations to richardhenry!

ciao

HOORAY FOR RH

congrats rh

Congratulations to richardhenry!

YAY RH!

YAYAYAY :D :D

I had a bad day, too. I apologized.

Bye!

hahaha

YAY RH

@augustlan, good, but, i dont. so i think it would be good if issues that came in witht eh “get a mod” link when there wasnt a mod around, i think it would be good if we saw those ON THE SITE like pendings

Mazel tov!

G’night all.

Okay, off to get some stuff done. Congrats, Ben, Andrew, on your first Town Hall thing. Congrats, Richard.

Richard Henry! :)

@Allie, yes. Good idea.

I’ve missed enough of jeopardy…. later, everyone

I agree with Allie

DD (second)

Thanks for the Town Hall Meeting. It’s one of the best parts about the Fluther experience. Chow!

@Drastic, a million years later: sure

but last time we had like 20 people

Second? Oh

Ha! Sorry

Goodnight, Niki Velvet

:D

Ciao!

thanks andrew bye guys