The forums. Its not about quality, its about quantity.
That's sad but mostly true.
I have said for years that the weak link in the site is the forums. And they continue to ignore how bad it is. But...money is green.
Like bashing someone by giving them downvotes?
Thats just a minor and inevitable byproduct. First seriously consider the nature of forums- actually the nature of any discourse. Nothing could be less supportive of discourse than the potential capability of stifling an opinion because individuals or possible a given group don't agree with the opinion or simply don't like another individual. For a forum to have any value whatsoever, it can't even entertain that possibility.
Up/down voting isn't something good; it's completely contrary to the nature of discourse but it makes chess.com spin the illusion that it's doing something -- just as with half their implementations --- when, in fact, the forums (to chess.com) are little more than a marketing tool.
This upvote/downvote system could be used as an indicator for community managers to be aware of forum threads which have an unusual amount of up- or downvotes. Of course it adds exactly nothing to the quality of the threads or posts being hosted. But still, it could be used as a kind of warning system.
I don't like such kind of approach via quantity instead of quality, but I can see how it could be a helpful tool on the other hand.
The thing is, it could be useful if used properly. I remember times where some sub forums had as their most recent posts three threads about the bong cloud or why/why not en passant is cheating. These troll topics, alongside the oldies like “why Fischer is great” and “are women really people” dominate the forums. It, among other reasons, is why I don’t see this site lasting.
If the mods used the downvote to ban or silence such trolls and troll threads, the forums would improve. But we both know an upvote/downvote is just going to be used as a passive aggressive means of saying “this guy is a jerk.”
"These troll topics, alongside the oldies like “why Fischer is great” and “are women really people” dominate the forums. It, among other reasons, is why I don’t see this site lasting."
As long as their are unsupervised kids, the site will last.
Good news about this concern:
Someone opened an outright racist thread which I reported straight away. Within an hour they've reacted and removed it from the forums.
Thumbs up for this quick response of the staff!
Well, quick response is good and all. But why are some threads outright removed from forums without first locking, removing post and putting an explanation or at least have a trash subforum for removed threads?
Feels kinda empty to not get any closure and makes one think "heh, so maybe that guy who was going to quit was correct after all" and "heh, so even talking about banned words are verboten and a thoughtcrime".
the lack of explanation is lame. i say it is because cc does things on the cheap. mods are volunteers.
i had one lock one of my topics and then threaten to ban me if i continued to question why he locked it. weeks later he was no longer a mod, but the topic was still locked.
@AlCzervik: as I'm not a or never have been a mod but still visited many forums in my life, how can the excuse "mods are volunteers, there are thousands (sic!?) post a day" even work for cc.com? Most other forums are not paying their admins or mods and still have better functionality and moderation while cc.com is a company which make money but can't spend a little on one of their most vissible communication lines?
Well, quick response is good and all. But why are some threads outright removed from forums without first locking, removing post and putting an explanation or at least have a trash subforum for removed threads?
Feels kinda empty to not get any closure and makes one think "heh, so maybe that guy who was going to quit was correct after all" and "heh, so even talking about banned words are verboten and a thoughtcrime".
I can assure you that the thread I've been talking about has not been removed because of some "banned words". It was even in the title outspoken racist.
What purpose would it serve to have a "trash forum" for that? Racism is not allowed here, and if you'd create a subforum you'd still have this garbage on the forum.
@Speilkalb: trash forum is great to have a history of what posters actually said, otherwise it can easy become "well you trolled about same topic one month ago in the thread... oh, sorry that's gone now". On most forums the trash is locked for new post, have some kind of account limit (older than 1 year or something) and hidden from public view.
The thread I am talking about was about the list of banned words, since most of us need to save every longer post and guess what will make the bot go beep-boop. Would have been better to go directly to edit your post view with red markings on which words should be avoided. But since I can search for topics I posted in (very advance function, never seen before in forums from early 00s) I can only guess that that topic was removed completly or merged with some other thread.
The other thread you know as well, not a big loss but it leaves a bad taste when a thread criticizing the site just disappears. At least a "We already work on the issue so don't whine about it on forums" would be good.
And any truly horrible post should be left with edited content: <mods edit> The poster used racist comment, which is against rule 69 in section 420</mods edit>. We remove the harm but not the stupid things someone did. But I know that it is a sensitive topic, being able to quickly glance over someones post history to see if they are troll or just simpleton.
@Dmfed: I'm still not sure about your suggestion about having a "trash forum", but now I see where you coming from and agree in all of your points.
»The other thread you know as well, not a big loss but it leaves a bad taste when a thread criticizing the site just disappears. At least a "We already work on the issue so don't whine about it on forums" would be good.«
Yes indeed. I just realised this thread has been removed because you pointed it out to me. For what reason that thread has been removed? The OP was kind of stupid IMHO, but that's not a reason for deleting his thread.
Instead of replying honestly to his issue it was simply removed.
There currently IS a "trash forum." It's called Off-Topic. Moderators (whether directed or acting, O dear, independently) seem reluctant to delete useless, spammy or hateful threads but have no problem misusing the Off Topic forum as a dumping ground, even after locking said threads (locking is designed to prevent further misuse but is often used to punish prior misuse in lieu of deletion -- go figure).
The forums are being mishandled on many fronts. It seems to be mostly a current regime policy issue.
....
»The other thread you know as well, not a big loss but it leaves a bad taste when a thread criticizing the site just disappears. At least a "We already work on the issue so don't whine about it on forums" would be good.«
Yes indeed. I just realised this thread has been removed because you pointed it out to me. For what reason that thread has been removed? The OP was kind of stupid IMHO, but that's not a reason for deleting his thread.
Instead of replying honestly to his issue it was simply removed.
The OP of the topic is likely muted or closed for abuse, which automatically mutes.
The OP of the topic is likely muted or closed for abuse, which automatically mutes.
So if you're account would be closed all of your forum posts will be deleted automatically? And if you're temporally muted as well?
Seemingly the current regime policy is to simply ignore the forums and just let the volunteer moderators take care of it.
Seemingly the current regime policy is to simply ignore the forums and just let the volunteer moderators take care of it.
No. That's not true at all because that isn't how moderation is done here. Moderators get their cues from above and act accordingly. It's those on top who set the tone and policy.
Seemingly the current regime policy is to simply ignore the forums and just let the volunteer moderators take care of it.
No. That's not true at all because that isn't how moderation is done here. Moderators get their cues from above and act accordingly. It's those on top who set the tone and policy.
I don't think the volunteer moderators get cues from above, only guidelines.
Seemingly the current regime policy is to simply ignore the forums and just let the volunteer moderators take care of it.
No. That's not true at all because that isn't how moderation is done here. Moderators get their cues from above and act accordingly. It's those on top who set the tone and policy.
I don't think the volunteer moderators get cues from above, only guidelines.
I know for a fact what I'm saying is accurate.
Seemingly the current regime policy is to simply ignore the forums and just let the volunteer moderators take care of it.
No. That's not true at all because that isn't how moderation is done here. Moderators get their cues from above and act accordingly. It's those on top who set the tone and policy.
I don't think the volunteer moderators get cues from above, only guidelines.
I know for a fact what I'm saying is accurate.
As a former moderator i will confirm what batgirl posted. New moderators are given a moderator handbook detailing what your job is, how to do the job, etc. The problem is that when the handbook is followed you get a message asking to be more "tolerant" and to give members more chances. So what is the point of having a moderator handbook? Good question.
The forums. Its not about quality, its about quantity.
That's sad but mostly true.