Herb687

Moderators frequently change the text of FT posts without properly attributing their edits. There should be a rule that moderators should never be allowed to change the words typed by another poster without clearly denoting via use of square brackets what content was added/removed.

This is basic style guide convention. Allowing moderators are allowed to ignore such a basic style guide convention is effectively giving moderators the power to put words in other peoples mouths.

See, just as one example on proper use of square brackets and direct quotations:
https://writingcommons.org/article/i...ect-quotation/

Please implement a rule requiring proper use of square brackets whenever another poster's content is changed.

NWIFlyer

Thank you for this input.

Allow me me start by saying we don't generally edit the text of posts to explain meaning, which is what your linked Commons article deals with. We wouldn't necessarily make an assumption as to what a member might mean or intend. We will change titles if they're not descriptive enough per rule 4.

We have in the region of 80 moderators, all of them volunteers. We are always striving for consistency of approach. Generally speaking I think in terms of this specific issue, and covering it more broadly, we get it right by one of two means.

The first is that a mod may edit a post to remove language that breaches our rules. An example would be:

Now clearly this is a personal attack and so a breach of Rule 12. Editing a post takes time (even more so if subsequent quotes need to be changed as well). Time is something we're all short of, so I wouldn't expect a mod to put a bracketed note in the post. Here we put an explanation in the reason for edit box which I think provides a much better reason as to what has happened, e.g. "To comply with Rule 12".

The second is that there may be a single word that needs to be removed. There are two ways we can do this - either in a bracket "[mod: expletive redacted]" or by removing the word completely and adding the edit note. This often depends on how best to retain the context of the whole post, and is a judgment call. I'm comfortable with either option, so long as the message is understood.

There will be other less frequent examples where an edit is necessary - perhaps on a copyright breach where too much of the original article has been copied. Here, I'd expect removal and an edit note in the reason box.

Do we get this right every time, across all 80 mods? No, of course not. But, just as we treat all of you as individuals, so do I with all of my team. I don't think it's appropriate to impose a rule on my volunteers which could be used as a stick to beat them with - their role is difficult enough as it is. What we strive to do is develop mods, training and standard processes to improve the site.

I will ask those of my mods who've acted as trainers as to how they think we can achieve consistent messaging. Thank you again for giving us the prompt to think about this.

NWIFlyer
Community Director

ou81two

[Removed online discussion of moderation per FT Rules]

Can you please tell me how I can bring forward of the idea of allowing people to delete their own posts for a period of time after they're made so tthat users don't find themselves banned for months at a time for a situation hat they can't fix. I'm happy to post in any forums or place or send an email. I"m not trying to cause problems. I'm just trying to help both users and mods avoid issues.

I very much appreciate your help.

NWIFlyer

You previously raised this in this forum on 9th January 2024. You received what I believe was a comprehensive answer. The position has not changed.

There is a very simple way for the handful of members that sadly we have to take action against to avoid those sanctions, and that is for them to pause and think before posting. As I have explained to you before, we give you the ability to edit your own posts forever. That would seem to somewhat disprove your argument that members lack the ability to fix something themselves.

WineCountryUA

Anothe way moderators annotate changes is the "Reason for Edit" while making the edit. The edit history for each post is available to the OP.

Personally, I find this approach less obtrusive to the flow of the discussion. And other don't need spending time trying to guess the reason for the edit. Should just a matter between the OP and the Moderator.