|
how much should we monitor the columns?
Greetings, it's me, the advicenator_admin. Lately I've been receiving more requests to have people monitor the site for unsuitable content. Some people would rather give bad advice. I haven't cared much before, I mean, annoying questions are a problem because everyone reads those, but not everyone reads every advice column so who cares how bad it is? I look at advice columns like your own websites... unless it's really hateful, I see no need to try to ban people. Plus, so far when a columnist joins and decides it's funny to slam everyone and be mean, they've gotten sick of it after ten questions or so. No need to pick a fight when they're dropping out anyway.
What do you all think? Should we ban people with really awful columns? Not display columnists with really low ratings? Ignore everything, and just let the site run free? I want to know what everybody thinks.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Technology category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Advicenators?
Well, let's put it this way. I asked a simple question a couple days ago, and one of the answers was "Ur a loozer. go die smewhere."
Ouch. I needed help, and that makes me worthy of dying? (Their atrocious spelling further irked me, but we won't get into that.) I say you should monitor the site, and ban the people who get kicks out of being cruel to other people. Of course, in the end it is totally up to you. :)
]
Well... yes and no. I think that there are a "couple" advicenators that are WAY out of hand and they haven't quit.
I think that it shouldn't be REAL strict but maybe if you get more than lets say 4 complaints then give that advice columnist a warning or something. because this is a great site and all but the more advicenators you get the more you have to do. i know you understand this but its just i was going to complain about this issue but i saw this question. so yes you should be a little more strict.
sincerely
advice~gurl
kat
]
Well...
I joined awhile ago because advice is what I do. I wanted a chance to help people other than my friends. When I saw some answers like "No ur stupid," it just PAINED me. Not only is that...well, frankly, stupid advice, it's hurtful. (Not to mention that the grammar is just...ouch.) I mean, even if people do it for their own amusement, and though it's not directed at me, I take offense to it. I'm not the kind of person that's usually bothered by these things, but some people are, and I'd hate to see people get hurt by idiotic messages like that. I mean, sometimes the littlest thing can bother someone a lot. Plus, some people here actually want to give advice to people who actually need it. When some people just give out random idiocy like that it gives the rest of us a bit of a bad name. So, essentially, the moral of this rant is: I say ban people with really awful columns. *Shrug* Just thought I'd give my opinion.
-Siren
]
I don't mind spammers at all. If someone answers one of my questions with an answer like "go fuck yourself" I just ignore it anyways. It's their own way to vent, and some are even ammusing. Don't shut down their columns unless it becomes a web-space issue. Otherwise, I have no problem with these kinds of people.
]
I have given bad advice only once but, I think we should'nt give bad advice intentionally because, I really want to help people . I don't think people should be banned because, we all make mistakes in our life and we learn from them . What we learn from in this situation is well I don't know . But I do know that the advice columnist who gave bad advice will have a bad reputation .So in a way, that is a lesson they will learn .
]
I am rather old,80 years to be precise also from a different country and find all the correspondents very interesting and although some may sound petty all deserve an answer which does not ridicule the sender because one does not know what is behind the question which maybe a cry for some sympathetic and friendly help and advice.
]
early on, there was absolutely no moderation on the site... dumb questions were just out there for all to see... so some of us took to replying to them in a particular fashion... ask something dumb, get something dumb in return.
However, what I've been seeing lately are people who go to good questions, legit issues and the like, and just flame away, acting like total assholes.
Currently, the person who asked whatever question is not only going to see people who actually tried to help them out, but also the replies from the assholes who think it is fun to act like immature little fucks. Some of these comments have stepped waay over the line, to outright attacking people and showing gross disrespect for the indivual.
When I've mentioned a few columnists who have acted this way, it is not because I watch people's columns - it is because I read a question, and then saw one of their hideous replies - THEN I read that person's column and see that every single one of their posts here has been a giant flaming piece of shit.
You've got to draw a line somewhere.
]
I agree with banning those very few columnists that give nothing but rude and obseen comments. It's not advice of any kind, and no one wants to see it.
I wouldn't worry about banning the colmnist with low ratings though. The ratings don't always seem fair, some columnists are just speaking their minds, but people give bad ratings anyway because they didn't like what they heard.
]
i dont really mind if you monitor columns just dont get into someone elses buisness, im not trying to be rude or nothin but just dont.
]
Actually I agree with getting rid of the bad advice columns. Like don't get me wrong sometimes you just have to tell the truth or the way of it. But if you are just blasting someone then I suggest they be removed. Only ones that are just completely rude. People come here for help and suggestions/truth, not to have someone tell them off because of an "annoying question" that they may really want to know the answer too.
Cspinoza1
]
The advice columns are not exactly like your own website, because when you click on a question, you see everyone's answers, and it reflects on the whole website. I don't think many columnists here have a following - so people don't exactly go only to their column. They go to "Advicenators" and expect 6 or 10 answers.
I've seen several unnecessarily rude columnists (at least in my opinion.) If I were someone asking a question, I would think less of a website that lets the columnists get away with it, with no guidelines or repercussions.
If you are rating a question negatively by using the standards of chatspeak and bad grammar, that should also apply to columnists.
You said yourself that ratings don't matter - in a question to admin about the fact that ratings can be manipulated. So banning columnists with low ratings doesn't make sense.
If a higher quality website is not that important to you because it involves an overwhelming work load, then let the site run free.
Maybe there can be a comprimise. If you can get Level 2 and 3 moderators to send warnings and corrections, that might help - but the website really has no PM system. Everything is visible.
I guess that might be punishment enough, to have a visible "notice" from a moderator on the column about guidelines infraction. Clear guidelines would have to be created. After a certain number of "notices" if there is no effort to change, then they can be banned.
]
More Questions: |