Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: rogerd
Is this a radical idea? Is the world of "I want my xyz NOW" going to freak out? (You bet!) I know it's a round world and the timing could be an issue across nations, but 9 to 9 allows a fairly wide slot to add input.
Benefit: Mischief comes in the night. You only need 12 hours of mod coverage. You needn't wake up to a disaster or lose sleep at night.
Is this any way to run a business? Is a forum a business? Do they close the library at night?
It's a big world. These are the rules of this playground. If you're unhappy we accept that you will go and play elsewhere.
Maybe not shut it down but all after hour posts are qued for pre-mod, with certain posters given instant access after a time period?
How about forum software that limits newbies to posting only during certain hours? Now, I like that idea. How about software that only allows 1 after hours post to kill spamming or flaming? (Is there only 1 m in flamiing but 2 m's in spamming? I want to know NOW!)
I'm not advocating this approach, but one thing you could try would be to limit after-hours posting to "senior" members or those with admin approval. That would eliminate drive-by spamming and reduce the probability of inappropriate posting while the board was unmoderated.
I may actually run a test and/or customize forum software based upon certain ideas being floated here.
My principal target would be drive-by spammers and newbies, though I might like to place restraints where needed if I see signs of the smoke before the flame wars.
From what I've read it's the unattended forum that suffers. In a forum's early stages there might be a need for safeguards since a mod may not always be on hand. Which is worse: Spending an hour deleting crapola or 'plan B'? I don't know. I'm fleshing out the hypothetical.
I'm looking at possible time/mod-absence based settings in the administrative module as I think this bad idea through. Maybe put hyperlinking on hold after hours? Clearly, I'd want to keep reigns on newbies unless I otherwise had assurances about the character of the newbie.
I DO know that I am perfectly happy to deal with moderated posting (where the mod MUST see posts before they hit the board), considering the serious problems that can be encountered without strict moderating. Given a preference, of course, I'd rather not do that, since I tend to post at odd times (for the nonce - will change once I retire in August....), not here but at other boards I frequent (and even my own).
If you have the sort of board which will act as a "dweeb/noob/l33t" magnet you almost HAVE to do something serious to prevent the sort of idiocy which will drive away the very people you REALLY want to attract.
[Object lesson: Interplay/Bioware Baldur's Gate I boards in 1999 and following.... it was a MESS, with the kidlets regularly flooding/crashing the boards just because they COULD; and the "I'm a MS programmer but I don't care anything about copyright/EULA, I've reverse-engineered this game and I'm selling MY version HERE" guy not to mention his foul-mouthed obnoxious wife with the basic porn for BG portraits; and the "ex-marine so I can ignore the TOS all I want" guy; etc etc ad infintum ad nauseam.... You DON'T want to go there. Those of us who were desperately trying to provide quasi-tech support to make up for the lack of such as well as the lack of basic QA in the game itself got so whacked by the dreck that though we hung on by tongues and toenails, we didn't honestly enjoy the game itself.... *sigh* I never knew there were so many IDIOTS out there.... how naíve of me....]
I do like usergroups as part of your hypothetical solution - your "most trusted" group would have unlimited privileges, while others might have limited posting, moderated posting, or no posting at all. The groups could be based on post quantity or on specific assignment. For example, a member that you had to caution about flaming might be busted down a level for some period of time.