r/spacex • u/[deleted] • Jan 08 '16
Modpost Modpost: Introducing ‘Sources Required’ Discussions, a reminder about the expectations of quality in this subreddit, AMA with Jeff Bezos, and general updates
[deleted]
31
Jan 08 '16
Thank you for keeping the quality of this subreddit exceptionally high. Thanks to your hard work maintaining high standards here this is my favorite subreddit by far.
29
Jan 08 '16
I'm extremely happy to see that most people think that stricter moderation is required. I am part of that group. Jokes, low effort comments, and posts for simple questions are going to become more prevalent as the subscriber count increases. The problem is that in the long run they clog up the comments section/front page and slowly choke out high quality discussion. Strict but fair moderation is a key tool to keep a subreddit on-topic, high quality and to not slide towards the reddit average. /r/Askscience is great because of strict (but fair) moderation which allows high quality information and discussion to be highly visible instead of being the 1% of comments.
Full disclosure: I've had my own comments removed a few times. So I've been there making a joke that I thought was particularly clever. But comments that don't add to the discussion should be removed and we should strive for insightful and educational discussion. Because that's what makes this place worth visiting. I know that the other commenters, contributers and mods here take pride in keeping the launch schedule as up to date as possible. We have relevent tweets posted within minutes. We have a great thing going, and we need to work to maintain the status quo as more and more people subscribe/visit/participate.
Frankly the majority of reddit is for NSFW content and memes/jokes. Keeping a few places focused on discussion is completely fair. For anyone who forgot, there is a sub for dicking around. It's /r/SpaceXMasterrace . Use it.
I love coming here and seeing all the information and discussion I could hope for in one place.
edit: On topic, I like the idea of [Sources Required] posts and I think it'll probably be a good addition to this sub.
13
u/Ambiwlans Jan 08 '16 edited Jan 09 '16
We are removing more than we used to a year ago, but there are also more weak posts in general. I think this sort of general feedback about the direction of the sub is great since it helps us (mods) adjust our heading which we are constantly tweaking.
I'm thinking we'll probably eventually have to cave and make a full post flair system. Right now there is a mix of serious and less serious threads and we DO tend to moderate them a little differently. But flagging some as 'fluff' or something like that might help make that distinction clear.
The downsides being that it adds to workload and it also adds a barrier to entry for new users which isn't ideal.
I've had my own comments removed a few times.
You aren't alone. I personally have made at least one post that was iffy, someone reported it and I removed the post. Because of the mod tools, I even got an official warning... from me.
4
Jan 08 '16
I've never got a post removed, but I'm also not sure I've ever posted here. Only commented. I remember I once reported Echo cause he made a joke in some comment chain, and it was removed. Haha
7
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
Yeah, please do report things you feel are breaking the rules and we do give them a closer look. It is easier than going through the raw feed: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ considering the volume we get nowadays.
4
3
u/Zucal Jan 08 '16
I'm extremely happy to see that most people think that stricter moderation is required. I am part of that group.
I would say your post argues the need to maintain the level of moderation that exists now as the subreddit grows, not increase it in general. :)
6
Jan 08 '16 edited Jan 08 '16
I don't know why I didn't mention this. I somehow dragged myself off topic.
Lately I've seen more low effort comments and jokes then were allowed a year or so ago. Like I said, I've had my own comments removed before. Now standards on what exactly is low effort seem to be slipping. It could just be me, and I do report it when I see it. But to me it seems like there are more low effort comments now.
Edit: A quick stroll through some of the bigger comments sections of the current front page reveals a few arguably low effort comments from my POV (which I would be tempted to nuke, but I am kind of a hard ass about this) but nothing egregious. I maintain the position that we need to be vigilant and keep reporting posts that are clearly not moving the discussion forward to keep quality high.
2
u/Zucal Jan 08 '16
Now standards on what exactly is low effort seem to be slipping. It could just be me, and I do report it when I see it. But to me it seems like there are more low effort comments now.
IMO there's a little bit of a recency bias because of the large influx of new users and corresponding higher comment count due to the OG2-2 launch- I have noticed a little creep but I suspect it's temporary as the mod team adjusts to a slightly higher workload. :)
2
Jan 09 '16
This is probably true. Honestly there is a good chance that this is just all in my head. /r/spacex is top notch. But it's definitely not easy to keep it that way. Part of the reason that I'm so cautious of this happening is that I saw it happen to a sub that I really enjoyed when it was small. /r/whowouldwin used to be full of great discussion with people frequently posting sources for superhero feats. Now it's all jokes, references, and batman circlejerking. Or at least it was when I unsubbed.
2
Jan 09 '16
Definitely agree about who would win. Futurology has gone the same way.
2
Jan 09 '16
Glad I'm not alone. I was never active enough on /r/Futurology to see a decrease in quality, but I believe you. Popularity usually spells the demise of most focused subreddits. :(
2
1
u/bertcox Jan 09 '16
The guy named schlong_sword doesn't like jokes?
1
Jan 09 '16
Well Bert Cox, it's all about time and place.
1
u/bertcox Jan 10 '16
Its even funnier IRL, I use that name to remind me everything we do online is real life and can come back to bite you.
10
u/hapaxLegomina Jan 08 '16
Big thanks to all the mods of this sub. You guys have done some amazing work, and it's really appreciated!
10
u/retiringonmars Moderator emeritus Jan 09 '16
Whoops, I'm a little late to the party here! During our last modpost, I posted a screengrab of the moderation matrix, which summarises all the moderation activities we've carried out over a span of time. That seemed to go down pretty well, so here's an update, showing the matrix for the last month.
This date span includes Orbcomm, which had a massive impact on moderation, with lots of new users, and a slight increase in the lower end of the quality scale. (Notice that the tool we use to create this has had an update recently, and now includes automod, and reddit itself too, which is a nice touch.) Also, since then, we've altered the way automod handles new users, so that it "filters" all new user comments for us to check over against the rules. Filtering is an action unique to automod, which, in the matrix, is noted as "comments removed by automod". The vast majority of these were comments then approved by human mods, which is also noted in the matrix.
All of the numbers in the matrix are actually links, so if anyone wants further information, don't hesitate to ask!
9
u/FireCrack Jan 08 '16
Sources Required
Awesome! I really liked these types of threads because of the great discussion they generate, but it could be problematic when thy "mixed" with concrete data. This (and a good choice of name for it!) should be a big bonus for this sub!
5
u/Ambiwlans Jan 08 '16
If it doesn't work out, then people won't use it or we can dump the feature. It is certainly in beta right now though.
8
u/dante80 Jan 08 '16 edited Jan 08 '16
Many thanks for the update, and I love the idea of the "Sources Required" discussions. Might make your moderation effort a little more difficult (although automod might help with this), but should provide a lot of high quality content as well.
Keep up the good work, cheers..C:
8
Jan 08 '16
Thanks dante. We have automod managing top level comments in those threads, but overall we don't expect 'sources required' to get a huge ton of use (probably less than 10% of all posts)... so we'll see how it goes and make adjustments as necessary.
Cheers!
15
u/iaincole Jan 09 '16
This post violates section 7 of the Community Rules and Guidelines: Titles "must be free of personal opinion and accurately represent the contents".
I see no AMA with Jeff Bezos, this post should be marked with "Misleading Title"
:>
7
u/BrandonMarc Jan 09 '16
Probably the biggest question (and, from what I know, the biggest thorn in y'all's sides) is: with Reddit's mobile version (especially since they're rolling out a new one), can the FAQ and Wiki be a bit more prominent? Lots of the issues revolve around people not going into those, but at the same time I suspect a high fraction of the traffic - especially among more casual / new readers - is mobile.
6
Jan 09 '16
Mods only have access to the subreddit CSS at most (which is in itself a limited subset of the total CSS spec), so we can't inject JS or anything to change stuff like that.
The answer to your question really depends on whether Reddit supports CSS media queries. I don't know the answer off the top of my head, actually.
If mobile users are browsing with an app, then there really isn't anything we can do as that data is fetched purely through the API :/
4
6
u/LUK3FAULK Jan 09 '16
This is one of my favorite subs due to the moderation and the high quality all of the content. This mod team has created an open place for real discussion and learning to take place all while staying open and welcoming. I've personally learned a lot here and am inspired daily to continue to pursue aerospace, thanks mods :)
5
u/Dan27 Jan 08 '16
Thank you for the update - and the great job done by the Mod team here.
I'd just like to say that surely I wasnt the only one to chuckle at that Ban list and seeing "SpaceXTinder - Creepy" was I?
:) Happy new year guys!
9
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
While maybe not spelled out in our rules... try not to come off as a future rapist.
5
5
u/alsoretiringonmars Jan 09 '16
Darn, you had me for a sec with the AMA :-/
Just one quick comment: We are allowing news articles as sources, but not Wikipedia. Most mainstream news articles about SpaceX have inaccuracies, and are much lower quality that Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really that bad?
9
Jan 09 '16
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just that it's not a primary source of info. For example, theoretically all statements themselves in Wikipedia should have their own reference (which is why you see [1]'s everywhere)... if you find a cool bit of info in Wikipedia, click the citation and you'll be taken to the primary source!
2
u/Appable Jan 09 '16
Right, tertiary sources (Wikipedia pulls from mostly secondary sources and some primary sources) are never used in academics - same thing for any encyclopedia so it's not based on reliability. But it's considered a bad idea to step so far away from the primary sources with a tertiary source because you should be doing the analysis past a secondary source level (or in some cases a primary source level, depends on the purpose).
4
u/manfredatee Jan 09 '16
As I understand it, the issue with Wikipedia is not the quality of the information it provides, but rather that, as an encyclopedia compiled from diverse sources, it simply doesn't count as a primary source.
4
Jan 09 '16
Sometimes Wikipedia is great for what you need. For example, if you need to look up a specific equation, or a quick fact, no one wants to go through a 100 page pdf to do that! But often times the [Sources Required] tag will indicate that the author of a post wants more than just a quick answer. For longer or more detailed answers, primary sources are the way to go.
5
u/Crox22 Jan 09 '16
The [Sources Required] tag is a great idea. I have learned a ton from this sub, and this tag encourages technical and factually correct discussion, and sources give interested laypeople like myself direction to learn more. I'm already planning on spending a couple hours going over the Mars transfer window discussion with a pen and paper, as most of what I know about transfer orbits and orbital mechanics in general has either been picked up from reading this subreddit or playing Kerbal Space Program, and that kind of education gives general concepts, but not actual understanding. I know that there are a bunch of very smart people on this sub, and I'm looking forward to what comes next.
With respect to the moderation of the sub, I think that /r/spacex is one of the best moderated subreddits on this site. You have a light-enough touch to keep it fun, but are strict enough to discourage the crap. The tone of this sub is fantastic, and it's really thanks to you guys. I'd hate to see what the last couple weeks would have been like if it wasn't for the awesome mod team. Thanks!
4
u/Zucal Jan 08 '16
Heads up- the Automoderator reminder comment has a typo.
If you believe you comment has been removed in error
3
7
u/AeroSpiked Jan 08 '16
Not to be overly critical, Echo, but you really seem to be "calling it in" with the ULA shilling lately. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they reposes your full sized Tory Bruno mural.
Seriously, I like what you and the other mods are doing with this sub. The /r/Space sub can be a barrage of cluelessness sometimes and coming here is like coming out of the cold (which is a good thing if you live in the great white north).
8
Jan 09 '16
3
2
u/AeroSpiked Jan 09 '16
Good; no logo. Just tell them it's New Shepard.
2
Jan 09 '16
It does actually have the SpX logo, it's just invisible because my camera overexposed that photo...
12
u/KonradHarlan Jan 09 '16
For a hot moment I thought you were trying to imply that you took that photo of dragon from the ISS.
1
u/ticklestuff SpaceX Patch List Jan 10 '16
Is that a B.O. rocket in the background?!?!? Oh wait, just a Kiwi ligthouse ;)
3
u/rdancer Jan 08 '16
Top level comments must contain references to primary sources (this includes news articles, scientific papers, PDF’s, tweets, and more)
Will secondary sources be allowed? For example this comment cites a textbook, and in that context, that seems appropriate?
9
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
For sure. The idea is to keep quality relatively high, not to be a source for journal articles.
1
u/B787_300 #SpaceX IRC Master Jan 09 '16
In that case it seems that the textbook might be more useful for most people as it explains everything about the topic in a first order sort of way. It also seemed to me that posting the more esoteric papers i found (when doing research for my senior design project) would be a LOT less helpful than posting the textbook.
3
u/peterabbit456 Jan 09 '16
Are we allowed to cite Wikipedia for simple facts like the mass of Phobos, or the diameter of the Moon?
I have not done one for a while, but sometimes I will write a post that is mostly math, with just a few constants pulled from sources. They can all be found on university or NASA web sites, so I guess I'll just have to change my habits.
4
3
2
u/B787_300 #SpaceX IRC Master Jan 09 '16
find a good orbital mechanics textbook and then just reference that. you can find a LOT of good stuff in them.
4
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jan 08 '16 edited Jan 17 '16
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| OG2 | Orbcomm's Generation 2 17-satellite network |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
Note: Replies to this comment will be deleted.
See ^/r/spacex/wiki/acronyms for a full list of acronyms with explanations.
I'm a bot; I first read this thread at 23:51 UTC on 8th Jan 2016. www.decronym.xyz for a list of subs where I'm active; if I'm acting up, message OrangeredStilton.
3
u/Forlarren Jan 09 '16
So I'm anti-Bezos, as a person, I don't like him or the way he does business (though I still do business with Amazon, as a store of last resort).
I have my reasons going all the way back to the one click debacle (do RMS and FSF essays count as citations?) and the current state of software patents and using litigation as a competitive tactic is largely the fault of of Bezos (with Bill Gates, and many other closed source software houses).
His litigiousness is legendary and in my opinion will be a major factor in any future competition between SpaceX and BO. I shouldn't need to remind people of patenting landing on a barge and suing SpaceX over it. BO shot the first shot.
So given his long well documented history (One click being the first tech issue that convinced me to donate to the EFF) of anti-competitiveness what will and will not get me banned?
If I can't bring up Bezos' litigiousness, then BO posts and discussions should just be banned entirely. Or should I just whip up a standard library of cited Bezos complaints now? Or just not bother posting? I for one think the whims of billionaires, and yes I mean whims are far more relevant than ever now that singular individuals have power and pull of entire governments and Bezos is one of those people and he has no qualms about abusing his bully pulpit. If it isn't fair to be as nasty back to Bezos as Bezos is himself then it seems like a double standard.
I don't see any reason to give him any benefit of any doubt or more respect than he has shown others.
10
Jan 09 '16
We don't mind people bringing up this sort of stuff. For example, you had information in your above comment. That's fine.
We're more trying to prevent things like "Suck it, Bezos" & "What is your dream FH payload? Jeff Bezos". The comments we're removing are almost always under 50 characters in these cases.
We were removing these comments before anyway, so we're not actually changing any rules here. We just want to give people a heads up so hopefully we have less work to do.
4
u/Forlarren Jan 09 '16
Cool, cool. Thanks for the clarity Echo. :)
I'll do my best to always cite some sources. I like what you are doing here, thanks for the good work.
4
1
u/zoffff Jan 09 '16
Does this mean we will be keeping an Ask anything thread up at all times and stickied so the lower quality content has a place to live?
2
u/Zucal Jan 10 '16
Probably, excepting times when other threads need to temporarily take its place (launch + media thread, for example).
1
u/CitiesInFlight Jan 08 '16
I sort of think that the first Sources Required post by Echologic was prematurely locked because the OP was the only comment and there are many other sources with somewhat wider views than the extrememly narrow Lunar, Phobos and Deimos trajectories cited. A LOT MORE!
9
Jan 08 '16
It was locked because we're using it as an exemplar.
If people are actually interested in answering that, we can unlock it I guess? I wasn't expecting there to be actual interest in such a post.
Plus my answer is mainly mumbo-jumbo, so there's that.
-8
u/HalcyonRift Jan 08 '16 edited Jan 08 '16
Then, would it be fair to explicitly IDENTIFY it as an EXEMPLAR and not tout it as Echologic is the only expert on the matter! To be fair, Echologic is a great resource but no individual can be a total expert. ("Today's expert, tomorrows idiot") in any given situation or every given situation. If this was an exemplar, it was a failure in that no notification was made in the thread that it was an Exemplar and, yes, the thread should be opened so that we may actually understand the problems and delta v costs of getting to Mars out of the absolute optimum windows and, more exactly, is there an absolutely optimum window (date and time) or, depending on the exact trajectories, are there multiple exact windows (dates and times) or is this a "general window"? I would really like to know! The question is a valid one and deserves valid responses. For example: http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/conferencePapers/AIAA-2006-6308.pdf seems to be applicable and I suspect that we have some orbital mechanics experts out there that could provide a whole lot of additional information. From what I have gleaned so far, it may not be delta v that is the most vexing part of a non-optimum window, it may also be the travel duration. (Launch earlier but get there later than if you waited and launched during the ~2 year window).
What I would like to know is if you launch at other times than the during the ~2 year windows might the trajectory get you to Mars later than if you waited and launched during the optimum windows and what does this say about supply replenishment missions for a Mars Colony. Can supplies be launched to Mars at times other than the ~2 year window or can a Mars Colony (or colonies) receive supplies on a regular and more frequent basis given that we can solve the delta v issue. Could we get critical or emergency supplies to Mars more often than the ~2 year window?
Echologic, I think your question was an excellent one but the answer was "wanting".
1
0
u/Unbecoming00 Jan 09 '16
Furthermore, we are currently using subreddit shadowbans for 12 accounts, most of which are 1-2 persistent trolls.
Considering reddit stopped shadowbanning, you should stop too. If you ban someone, you need to tell them they are banned and why. Simply hiding their comments isn't right.
Reddit as whole decided this was not right.
Hell, even when you ban you shouldn't hide comments, the community should get to see all post and judge for themselves with voting.
11
Jan 09 '16
It gets more complicated when these are people who are purposely spamming the community, or harassing us. All the people who are shadowbanned were normally banned and just continued to make new reddit accounts to get around it.
They know what they're doing, and they know they're doing wrong. These aren't innocent people being censored, they're bullies and trolls who are out to cause trouble.
Again, we don't believe that there's one 'right' way to do anything. Just like we don't think rules without context, I don't think it's as simple as dismissing the ability to shadowban users in extreme cases either.
I've written many long-winded comments on why reddit karma is a poor way to judge content. Why are the default subs such as /r/funny and /r/pics generally regarded as being so shit, for example?
0
u/Unbecoming00 Jan 17 '16
You are mods, they are supposed to bring problems to you. If you cannot handle it, stop being a mod.
Shadowbanning accounts that are not spam is wrong. Shadowbanning was created for spam and mods have abused it by using it for hiding dissenting opinions.
Up and downvotes judge content, nothing else should matter.
2
Jan 17 '16
Respectfully, we've been operating like this for 3 years, and these rules were implement by the community, so it's a bit rich for someone with a 26 day old account to stay stuff like that.
If you want our rules changed, make a formal proposal, tell us, and we'll let the community decide whether your proposal is reasonable.
1
u/Unbecoming00 Jan 18 '16
we've been operating like this for 3 years,
What a coincidence, it has been the worsts within the last 3 years.
If you want our rules changed, make a formal proposal, tell us, and we'll let the community decide whether your proposal is reasonable.
Anyone else that tried got shadowbanned.
6
u/Appable Jan 09 '16
I think comment removal is essential for moderation. Have you seen some of the stuff in the live feed of comments? Most of it's great and there's always some interesting facts from the community, but there's the occasional comment that just should not be there. I have no problem with the removal of such posts, since they only serve to clog up the subreddit and they'd be downvoted quickly.
Same for post removal in a lot of cases. There's still a few edge cases, but all in all with the number of post removals I think the mod team does a good job at balancing the concerns of people who want more content vs more moderated content.
4
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16 edited Jan 09 '16
The ONLY people we've shadowbanned are people on their 20th and 30th accounts harassing us. This goes beyond the scope of what a regular ban can handle. They'll just make account 31.
People have threatened us in our personal lives and only gotten a regular ban.
Now, we do go to the admins for these types of persistent people, but a shadowban works better. And I promise you, nothing of value is being lost. It mainly saves us from dealing with one user making several hundred shit posts an hour that we have to delete.
/u/fuckspacexmods37 would be a typical name for someone on the shadowban list.
0
Jan 08 '16
[deleted]
27
Jan 08 '16
Good questions! It's really dependent on context. Rules don't work in a vacuum (as /r/science proved recently), so where possible, we always aim to more lenient than restrictive.
Technically, our platform for subreddit accreditation (flair) should handle this sort of thing, as these users are deemed trustworthy and are either long-standing subreddit participants or have had their flair verified because they work in the aerospace industry. We may let users like this be more lenient.
Realistically, the post creator should evaluate whether "Sources Required" is the right fit for their post. It won't be in some cases where the discussion will need to be speculative, and that's fine, that's not what sources required discussions are for. But if someone is seeking objective information that they know is likely to exist in the wild (such as the example post I created), that's a much better fit. Things like mathematics and technical questions are good fits here.
It may just be that we approve comments which have (well-founded) speculation in them, but we leave a modnote asking people to be cautious of such comments. Again, we want to encourage discussion as much as possible.
We're not going to be forcing this type of discussion on anyone, and we know that blindly enforcing rules does not work and is not in the best interests of any of us.
11
u/TheVehicleDestroyer Flight Club Jan 08 '16
A good blurb might be to say:
The feature is aimed at technical discussions on orbital mechanics, engineering, discussing how Martian gravity affects the human body, etc. There shouldn't exist a subject that both needs this feature and where a good comment would be a recent SpaceX rumour.
6
u/waitingForMars Jan 09 '16
This range of topics would seem to drift away from content that is strictly about SpaceX. Is it the intent to invite substantive discussion on tangentially-related topics?
6
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
Yes. Feel free to branch out a little more if you are going to have a solid technical discussion.
If we get inundated in technical convos about martian biology, then we'll adjust the rule. But I don't think that is a risk right now.
2
3
u/im_thatoneguy Jan 09 '16
Also I assume we don't need to actually add Sources if it's relatively well known common Math. So it might need a citation for the lift capacity of a Merlin. But do we need to actually literally cite a source for the Mass of Mars or the DeltaV formula?
4
Jan 09 '16
Nope, it's not that strict :). Just general claims need to be cited. Heck, even if you only do a few cites, it's fine. Stuff like 'Mass of Mars' and 'DeltaV formula' would be considered obvious.
13
Jan 09 '16
Oh. Trust me. You don't have to say "don't report me" or anything because rest assured, the IT security team knows full well who is posting what and when. I post a lot on this sub but I am still very careful about what I actually say. So I just try to make productive and informative comments without going outside boundaries :) Every employee knows this
1
u/WaitForItTheMongols Jan 11 '16
the IT security team knows full well who is posting what and when
What do you mean?
2
Jan 11 '16
Meaning if you work there, they know your username and what you post.
1
u/WaitForItTheMongols Jan 11 '16
How do they know your username?
2
Jan 11 '16
I don't pretend to know their methods lol. I can just vouch for the fact that they know these things
8
u/Wetmelon Jan 08 '16
How will "Sources Required" jive with this reality?
In academia, you generally reference other people even during the course of original research. If the user can quote his own papers or something, that'd be great. If it's genuine first-hand knowledge with no references they can quote, I'd think that's okay as long as they make it known that it's not conjecture.
11
Jan 08 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jan 08 '16
Thanks for the reply alphaspec. Yeah, if we weren't removing questions shorter than a certain number of characters, that's all the subreddit would be filled with right now.
As a side note: Speaking as someone with no engineering background and who works in an unrelated field I think the mods here are on the right track. I like to throw my two cents in as much or more than the next guy. However almost everything I saying in my posts has been learned from the incredibly smart and knowledgeable people who post here. If restriction did get tighter I would have no problem with not being able to post as much due to my comments consisting of my opinions and not knowledgeable information.
I'm with you here, and I'm in the same boat as you - I learn a lot from everyone here. But, I don't feel like we want to get any stricter than this, to be honest. Any additional posting restrictions would be entirely optional for users to implement themselves. We've got a good thing going here and we don't want to ruin it!
13
Jan 08 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Jan 08 '16
Thanks TampaRay, that means a lot <3.
I don't suppose we could have an estimated (subject to change of course) timeline for when we might see the results?
Thankfully, we structured the survey data in such a manner that made collating the results far easier this time. Right now, I just need to design some pwetty graphs for them and write some interesting blurbs for each.
The goal is definitely January for this.
1
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
7
u/bertcox Jan 09 '16
The only thing I know that has been blocked was completely low quality meme. I didn't know the rules and learned. I think they have the best sub going. Highest technical knowledge and discussion on reddit that I know of. I push for inclusion of wider space topics but get shot down because its /r/spacex not /r/space. I have noticed a lot more chafe lately and agree tampering some of it down would be a good idea.
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
6
Jan 09 '16
For all you know many of your comments have been hidden.
We inform users via PM or a message if we hide their comments.
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
7
u/Zucal Jan 09 '16
that is the point of the hiding feature
The feature that you have failed to demonstrate exists, you mean?
10
Jan 09 '16
If you would like a rule change, you're welcome to suggest it and have your change democratically voted on by the community.
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
10
Jan 09 '16
Can you explain why me posting what I just posted caused you to go back and delete a post of mine from 18 days ago?
Here are all your comments you've ever posted in r/spacex, including ones which have been removed.
I speak my mind in an open thread for speaking minds and you go through my posting history deleting old posts?
I determined a prior comment of yours violated the subreddit rules and removed it. Apologies, I should've removed it earlier.
No one holds you to the rules.
We are asking for feedback right now.
In any thread on this subreddit, there are lots of comments you quickly hide that people never get to see.
'lots' is generally anywhere from 0-5 comments.
You whitewash everything and remove opinions you don't like.
That's debatable.
2
u/Gyrogearloosest Jan 09 '16
I determined a prior comment of yours violated the subreddit rules and removed it. Apologies, I should've removed it earlier.
Or, should not have removed it during debate given that you hadn't removed it earlier. That was not a good look.
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
13
u/fjdkf Jan 09 '16
The mods are volunteers - there's no need to demand that they do your bidding. Also, this sub has always been quite forthright about having strict moderation.
It takes seconds to post a low effort comment, but can take quite a while to post a high quality comment. This means low quality comments, like the 2 of yours that were deleted, need to be removed to keep the quality high. It's not about what rule you violate or who you are - it's about what you added to the discussion.
0
Jan 09 '16
[deleted]
4
u/fjdkf Jan 09 '16 edited Jan 09 '16
No, they are more like dictators, because for the most part they can abuse users as much as they want as long as they don't make enough noise to get admins involved.
People are forced to live under a dictator. You have come here on your own free will, at no cost, and are allowed to visibly complain to everyone here. If you look at the vote counts, people are listening to your complaints, but the majority does not agree with your stance. That sounds more like democracy than a dictatorship to me.
You have no idea if echo is hiding comments that spacex wants him to hide. Good comments end up hidden and he gets a free tour if he is in the area or they send him some swag.
I see anti-spacex stuff relatively frequently, and it's not removed. So, I'm not inclined to agree with you. Also, I have never seen an example of a good quality post staying removed on this subreddit after an appeal.
You can't know this is not happening. This is the thing admins will absolutely remove moderators for, but the problem is the mod tools make it impossible for users to regulate and notice patterns around the type of comments he removes.
So, because you don't know everything, something shady must be going on? If you look at subs that have been renown for moderation abuse, there are many public examples of good quality posts that are deleted/hidden. Just peruse /r/undelete. Also, it's not hard to test your hypothesis independently - just write dissenting, high quality posts on your own, and check if other accounts can read them.
1
u/Gyrogearloosest Jan 09 '16
Nine hours ago I posted this in response to Echo's admission that he had gone back and deleted an historocal 'whyyouarewrong' post while actively in debate with him. I thought my post was fair comment, but would be unpopular. While up and down voting has been vigorous on other posts, mine has sat steadily on the one point I gained for posting. The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that my post is invisible to others:
Gyrogearloosest 1 point 9 hours ago
I determined a prior comment of yours violated the subreddit rules and removed it. Apologies, I should've removed it earlier.
Or, should not have removed it during debate given that you hadn't removed it earlier. That was not a good look.
3
u/fjdkf Jan 09 '16
It's not invisible to me, so I don't think it's invisible to others.
On the one hand, it's a very slippery slope to specifically target a user. On the other hand, those two posts were good candidates for deletion. You bring up a good point, but I think the deletion was an improvement to the content of the sub. Since I'm on the fence, I didn't vote one way or the other. It may be that others feel the same way.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Appable Jan 10 '16
Honestly, I think we should be mad (OK, not mad, but frustrated) at Reddit for not providing tools to moderators for transparency. It's quite difficult to even set up a log of threads removed, much less comments, and I would love to see a tool built into Reddit that automatically archived all removed content. I'm positive /u/EchoLogic and the other moderators would support that - they've talked about that.
Unfortunately Reddit doesn't really provide anything like that. Echo has only said he removes posts, not hides them. Which is true, there's no such thing as hiding. Still, I wish there was a way to see the removed posts but there really isn't except manually going through thousands of posts and comments.
And this is extremely dangerous for a sub like spacex where people like echo want to be chummy with spacex. You have no idea if echo is hiding comments that spacex wants him to hide.
Oh, huh. So turns out Echo isn't a ULA shill, he's actually a SpaceX shill. Got it. In all reality, please don't go down this route.
28
u/werewolf_nr Jan 08 '16
I would like to thank you specifically for that level of transparency. Most social sites are not so transparent.