Inappropriate flagging (maybe!)

Having again complained about what seemed to me (and now several others) heavy-handed and inappropriate flagging of a post, I wondered why flagging is anonymous. Aren't we all big and brave enough to put our usernames at least against our flags? The thought that flaggers were identifying themselves, even if it were only in the relatively anonymous way most of us choose in our on-line community, might just give them pause for reflection. As we Brits are discovering daily with our MPs, transparency can be uncomfortable.

ETA Topic - http://www.librarything.com/topic/65014

I think the wildly inappropriate, illiterate post was a worse crime than inappropriate flagging, for what it's worth. If the only tool people are given is a hammer, they're going to use it, even when a screwdriver would be more appropriate.

(In this case, a screwdriver would be a way to either ignore a poster completely, or a way for staff to close a thread to replies. If they could say "This doesn't belong here, take it to one of the seven thousand Twilight groups, and perhaps invest in a spell-checker while you're at it", and have it actually be more than a suggestion, people might not be so trigger-happy when idiots post crap in useful groups.)

Lorax, I actually flagged your post in that thread. I hope that child hasn't read the awful things you posted about her and if you had any decency you'd go back and delete it.

I think that flagging should continue to be anonymous, but that there should be a recourse for people flagged for something that is so clearly not a problem or violation. "Illiterate" posts are not a reason to flag, nor is a slightly misplaced topic. To contrast with Lorax's analogy, if someone is getting on your nerves and the only thing you have is a gun do you kill them or just walk away from them? Better to do nothing (as there is no actual reason to take action) than to overreact. I concur with what myshelves said in the other thread, "We need a flag to flag flagging abuse."

I think the wildly inappropriate, illiterate post was a worse crime than inappropriate flagging

Wow - a single post? That was responded to, kindly I might add, by a fellow LT-er...who was trying to serve as the example of how that thread could have lived and died in two whole posts. But no - it offended delicate sensibilities!

Seriously, that flagging was the LT passive-aggressive equivalent of territorial pissing by a self-appointed minority that thinks it's keeping the streets of LT clean. You're all deluded - and you're common bullies.

The rude things you're saying about a junior high girl? Do you really believe that you're the one that looks good right now?

>2 lorax: We don't need vigilante justice against the evils of poor writing. I think it's the people who willfully ignore the rules of the site time and time again who need some sort of action taken against them. At the very least, flagging should be disabled for people who repeatedly flag in violation of the flag's expressed purpose.

I also think it's funny, though sad, that a 13-year-old is criticized for illiteracy because of her spelling and grammar mistakes, when there are a lot of adults here who are apparently incapable of reading simple instructions--ones highlighted in bright yellow, no less. Who's illiterate now?

Lorax,
I flagged your post in the other thread as well. I find it unfortunate that you take such offense to the youngsters who are not as worldly-wise nor as articulate as you; given some friendly advice and direction, they may one day get there. Help them or ignore them, just don't shoot them down for trying.

Her first day on the site, too - of course she didn't know she was doing something wrong!

I was tempted to respond more strongly than lorax did. I didn't - I quickly hit the "x" and went away - but I agree with her that it was a piece of illiterate crap left in the wrong place.

So who's going to invent the screwdriver?

2> Your screwdriver already exists. It's that nice little x at the top of each thread. For what it's worth, I flagged your post here Lorax.

Children need education - not punishment - when they make mistakes. This one was obviously trying to expand her horizons by asking questions about books she might want to read, which is something we should all applaud.

1> I have no problem with my name being shown in case I flagged something, being it either a message or a review.

#9 My first reaction was that it was not a 13 year old at all.. but someone fooling around. A prank. The post was more appropriate to an 8 year old in my opinion.. they overdid it.

I could very well be wrong..

red x'ing was my choice.

Alternatively, those who responded kindly either spoiled it for the prankster or helped the child if it was actually an honest post ( which I really doubt)

I flag spam...get this loan or buy this etc..
I red x things that annoy me ( except now and then when my emotions get the better of me and I respond to a certain person who pushes every single one of my buttons due to arrogance :P and I always regret not just red xing .. lol )

>2 lorax:
..If they could say "This doesn't belong here, take it to one of the seven thousand Twilight groups, and perhaps invest in a spell-checker while you're at it", and have it actually be more than a suggestion....

You can say just that - well, not the second part which is just rude, arrogant and superfluous - but what right do any of us have to make anything "more than a suggestion" on LT?

>11 mckait: Sadly, I do know at least one 13-year-old who writes like that. I don't think it was a prank.

I don't think WAFFLEZ's post was illiterate. It's written in a highly informal style and uses unconventional spelling, which I think though is appropriate to that style, and it's perfectly grammatical.

What's the flagging of #5 about? Is it some sort of joke?

16: re #5: Possibly because "What is abuse? (1) personal attacks"? It would appear to qualify.

I had the same reaction as mckait. Though I know many kids that age who type like that, they surely don't join sites like this.

Either way I don't see why anyone would flag that girl's post. This is why Our Almighty Tim has gifted us with the Power of the Red X. Use it.

16> I guess our abusive flaggers might see the LT passive-aggressive equivalent of territorial pissing as being abusive towards abusive flaggers.

Personally, however, I think #5 accurately summarizes the whole issue and does not warrant any flagging.

#19

Maybe but "You're all deluded - and you're common bullies." certainly sounds like it qualifies.

21: Take a deep breath. I didn't do anything on the previous thread, and I think what you're doing on this one *is* bullying.

>22 gwernin: - I haven't flagged a single person. I'm the one you and lorax decided to flag. I guess I'm not even permitted to explain myself at this point - because you consider it bullying! (Perhaps this is why you prefer picking on the junior high set?)

When you apologize for being an adult that picked on a 14-year-old girl and said it was okay for another adult to do so...well, that might be a step in the right direction.

24: let me try this again slowly.

I did not do anything on the previous thread. As I said above, I hit the X and went away.

I did flag your first post on this thread because I consider it to be personal abuse. I think you are exhibiting the same behavior you are complaining of.

I expressed my opinion on this thread of the original post. Am I not allowed to do so?

Observing from the sidelines... IMO, the post that started it all was completely legit, just in the wrong group. drneutron replied accordingly and kindly. The writing is not illiterate. My nieces in grad school write similarly (adjusting for age) when they are among friends -- they tone down the style and attend more carefully to typos when communicating with older generations, or in more formal situations. The OP is guilty of nothing more than naivete.

My feelings exactly qebo. Well except for the part about the niece in grad school. My children, 19 and 21, and my niece, 22, write informally the same way.

5>

It's not a single post, though. Such posts have become increasingly common in the next few months -- I suspect that the flagging of the initial post was more of a "last straw" reaction than a reaction to that post considered in isolation. Not fair, but entirely human nature.

Agreed with qebo and others. Someone who is interested in reading is someone who should be encouraged to read. That person can be politely pointed to the areas of the site and groups that would interest him/her. Would some of you say to a 13-year old's face what was said here? If not, then....

24>

For what it's worth, stephmo, I didn't flag your post here. I have a thicker skin than that.

26, 27>

As I remarked in the other thread, I have no problem with "text speak" when used between friends. It's when it spills into public fora, where the posters are hoping to be read and understood by people they don't know, that it's inappropriate.

And again, this is a site about books -- if someone is reading full-length novels, surely they can read a paragraph-long description of a group, to figure out that "Site Talk" is not the appropriate place for a discussion of the Twilight novels?

I do read forums that specify that proper spelling and grammar are required to participate. This site has no such rule. While I don't like spelling and grammatical errors or text speak either, that's no reason for something to be flagged. Especially if the OP is a kid, and it's a careless but honest mistake.

if someone is reading full-length novels, surely they can read a paragraph-long description of a group, to figure out that "Site Talk" is not the appropriate place for a discussion of the Twilight novels?

Again, this is hypocrisy. People who read full-length novels should equally be capable of reading three sentences to figure out that flagging abuse is not the appropriate response to text speak or Twilight discussions.

Okay, I have a question for the defenders of the OP in the other thread.

Are there any posts that don't formally violate the stated criteria for abuse that you would consider flagging? Something like "yo wazzup" in New Features, or "asdf23141adasf" in Book Talk -- where, unlike this one, a credible "honest mistake" defense cannot be made? I agree the original post could be considered appropriate for some groups here (and for all I know, text-speak is the norm for the Twilight groups), just not where it was posted, but is there a floor? I have in the past flagged posts that were random strings of characters, and if pressed would put them under "spam" -- not commercial, but spam.

Edited for clarity.

Because the OP asked a legitimate book related question.

No, I wouldn't flag those posts, for two reasons:

1) They don't fit the definition of abuse.
2) People who write messages like that really are just seeking attention, and responding in any way, even by flagging, would just encourage them.

34 > Even though I have been tempted (many times), I have never flagged them. I have posted messages, 'x'd the message or let MerryMary boot them. However when they get to abuse (and many of the threads that are really bad DO) then I start flagging with a vengeance.

36 > It might encourage them but 4 flags close together will stop their posting for a set period of time, which will slow them down.

I've found that, if I don't do it, some kinder LTer than I will appropriately respond with patience to someone who is posting to the wrong place, asking where to download the books, or in general being an asshat.

I think we have enough access to the administrators of this site that any non-staff members using the flagging system to moderate other members is highly inappropriate; we are not the LT police. We have a thread dedicated to spam accounts somewhere; what stops us from having a thread indicating those topics that are ill-placed or without content and asking the admin to star it and make those judgment calls?

31: Thus "naive".

The description for Site Talk is "General catch-all for LibraryThing related discussions". The description for Book Talk is "Catch-all for book-related conversations." (Yes, one has a period and one doesn't. And one has a hyphen and one doesn't. So much for literacy.) New folks might be forgiven for thinking that books are "LibraryThing related". From these descriptions, would it be more reasonable to suppose that Book Talk is the more appropriate group? For those of us who have been around for awhile, sure. For an uncertain young newcomer? Maybe not so much.

>39 qebo: I don't think the same message posted in Book Talk would even have gotten a much better response, unfortunately. It may not have been flagged, but the poster would almost certainly have been told to go away because Twilight discussions aren't welcome there.

>37 readafew: Do you remember what the period of time is? I really hope the undeserved flagging hasn't seriously hindered Wafflez' use of the site.

40 > between 1-3 hours, enough to really irritate a spammer, or cool off a hot head.

Good point, qebo.

39>

I hadn't actually realized how brief and unhelpful the group description of Site Talk was; you're right that someone could actually read that and still be confused. Do you think asking Abby to add a couple sentences, including perhaps an explicit pointer to Book Talk, would help?

Hmm. I would suggest that the threshold be raised to 5 flags rather than 4, so that one "abusive" post isn't enough to prevent posting. The real spammers would post more than one spam message anyway, and I don't think others should so easily be shut out of Talk just because a few users are feeling grumpy.

43: Yes. I don't pay enough attention to Site Talk to be able to describe it succinctly, maybe someone else can give this a shot. I do think it'd be helpful to add a single sentence along the lines of "The group for general discussions or questions about books is Book Talk."

44 > I made that suggestion when it was implemented, you can see how far it went.

Here's my thing -

There's no plague, epidemic, pandemic or flood of Twilight posters. There's only people who hate the Twilight books and act with extreme prejudice when it comes to booting out anyone that dares to post such a topic.

This girl didn't even post a Twilight topic - she posted a question about The Host and used Twilight as a measuring stick to use. So now questions related to Twilight aren't allowed either? In Site Talk right now, there are topic on:

- Tattoo ideas
- Bugs
- Recommended Improvements
- Moo cards

And my personal favorite - since "kids" can't post "what's up?" comments, MerryMary's post that's this:

Looky - looky - looky! What do I see? WooooooooHooooooo!

Look at the old lady dancing!!

NONE of these are flagged for being in the wrong place or being off-topic or destroying the very fabric of LT life in Site Talk. And they don't need to be! We can live.

I'm saying, LET THE TWILIGHT HATE GO. You'll live longer. And maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to see that it's nowhere near as bad as you imagine.

47>

Given that none of the actual flaggers have chimed in, I think inferring their intent is risky at best. I roll my eyes at Twilight posts (and will admit ignorance here -- I thought "The Host" was a sequel) but just ignore them. I consider "random character" posts to be far worse, and the original post here was decipherable with a little work, and thus didn't meet the "random string of nonsense" criteria that I use for flagging as "non-commercial spam".

#26 The writing is not illiterate.

From an online dictionary

Illiterate:

1: having little or no education ; especially : unable to read or write
2 a: showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature
b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing
3: showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge

I would say that the post meets at least definition 2.b.

none of the actual flaggers have chimed in

This does make me wonder whether we should seriously consider the OP's proposal to display the user names of people who have flagged a post. Lorax has been taking all the heat here for something that she didn't even do.

My main concern would be the well-being of flaggers when it comes to users who really are extremely abusive.

>47 stephmo: The hypocrisy is what bothers me the most too. Posts like "Who thinks Edward Cullen is hot and sexy?", while admittedly unlikely to generate much deep discussion, are attacked for being "inappropriate" in Book Talk and even flagged, and then the very people who were complaining go on to say things that are much less book-related or meaningful in that very thread.

I made that suggestion when it was implemented, you can see how far it went.

Well, Tim is usually open to making changes when the situation shows that they're necessary. It might be worth re-visiting the issue.

Repost from the thread in question:

I was one of the flaggers! I thought it was another spam post in the vein of others with poor grammer posted to Site Talk lately, and thus flaggable. I didn't check out the account until afterwards, at which point I realized it was a legitimate account but couldn't (or didn't know how to) unflag it.

I'm sorry! It has nothing to do with a rabid hate of Twilight, the OP, or a desire to impose my own personal biases on the site. I thought it was spam, and it was a mistake I couldn't undo once I'd done it.

edit to add: grammer/grammar, eh.

FYI: The old lady was dancing, because Tim had posted a vague but suggestive statement in the Announcements that night that indicated big changes were being pushed which were leading to Beta testing Collections. If that doesn't have something to do with Site, I don't know what does.

Apologies for giddiness that led to incoherence.

I kept reading the title as "inappropriate flogging". Naturally, had to contribute.

There will always be one poster or the other in any given forum that annoys you like an eye sore. It just goes with the territory of co-habiting a free discussion space. As long as the poster doesn't violate forum rules, though, you simply can't let yourself get worked up over it, lorax - I'd rather have 5% more illiterate posts around than even one grammatically correct poster that bogs down the forum in much worse ways by whipping up hostility over nothing.

There's a handy little x for ignoring forum threads. Use it. Move on.

51: damsel58 - Had I seen the post earlier I would have done the same thing for the same reason... and probably would have also wished I could unflag it. It does seem legit, but I originally thought it was spam.

49:
2. b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing
I would say that the post meets at least definition 2.b.

Depends on who is doing the approving. The post was perfectly coherent, and its style is approved in some contexts. Should it be approved in this one? Well, I'd certainly prefer capitalization and punctuation, but a group described as a "catch-all" is possibly not the place to be getting picky.

> 51

I thought it was another spam post in the vein of others with poor grammer posted to Site Talk lately, and thus flaggable.

Posts with poor grammar are not per se flaggable, and poor grammar does not mean a post is spam.

Poor spelling, on the other hand . . !

> 55

2. b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing

Kind of like James Joyce, eh?

(Ha! I note that the touchstone for Joyce is in lower case. Definitely not an "approved pattern . . . of writing." Oh, the irony!)

I agree that if you flag it, your name should be there. If you can't own up to something, then don't post it.

I know there is a way to post an un-flag for a review flag, but there maybe should be away for you to rescind your flag if you think its a mistake.

I agree there are a group of people seem to flag first and think later. I think there should be some way for the community to calmly and peacefully deal with it.

I also will say about Text Speak that it is annoying but if it isn't outlawed in the TOS we have to live with it. On another international site that I am on, they do forbid it, mostly because they feel it makes it harder for non-English speakers.

> 55: There are such things as spelling and grammar rules - and they are there for good reason. Poor spelling / grammar can lead to huge misunderstandings (not saying that was the case here though).

Anyway, being a cantankerous old man I certainly disapprove of writing as in the OP of that thread. But that still doesn't mean I think the message should have been flagged.

Now flogging, as suggested in #53, might be another matter... Running for cover. Only kidding ;-)

#58 - "if you flag it, your name should be there"

I don't agree - Some of these flagable posts originate from some individuals who I personally find scary. If you have to own up , then the insane ravings could be directed your way. If we have to own up to flags, I wouldn't flag.

60: I agree with you 100%.

60>

I was originally in favor of flag-accountability, but you make a good point, and you've changed my mind. 90% of the time it would be okay. But if someone is making threats, or being truly abusive, I don't want to give them reason to turn that in my direction -- not that I think anyone could easily determine my identity from my LT identity, but it's certainly not impossible.

If there is inappropriate behavior then you report it to LT and/or their ISP if they contact you off site.

62: It would be easy to find me, because I'm linked to my author profile.

Often, though, I don't even post in contentious threads because I don't like drawing abuse. If I hadn't been tired and annoyed last night I wouldn't have stuck my neck out on this one. I certainly wouldn't flag spamming authors if my name was attached to the flag - they could cause me grief too easily.

Re 63:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Reporting that one has been targeted by a scary person is hardly preferable to not being made a target in the first place.

63>

Sure, but if the level of "inappropriate" reaches actual, physical threats I think people can be excused for wanting to protect themselves, rather than relying on the ISP to protect them. (Although I suppose that if flags had names attached, people could just contact LT rather than flagging truly scary posts -- still, it seems a trifle odd that flagging would become usable only for mid-level offense, rather than the worst of the worst.)

I don't see how having your name next to a flag is any different than posting comments that can be seen as anything from snarky to bullying or abusive, depending on how the other person takes it.

I think it would make people think before automatically flagging and might actually start useful conversations.

If names are posted, then I think you should also have a way to go back an remove your flag. Maybe a 30 minute time lag before your name appears to give sanity a chance to prevail ?

>67 FicusFan: - "I don't see how having your name next to a flag is any different than posting comments that can be seen as anything from snarky to bullying or abusive, depending on how the other person takes it."

And some people flag without leaving bullying comments. In those cases it is entirely different to have your name attached to a flag, especially if all you want to do is say 'Hey, this is a possible breach!'

>68 damsel58: having your name attached is having the courage of your convictions.

Making up some possible horrible repercussion scenario seems simply to be a way not to take responsibility for your actions.

Making up some possible horrible repercussion scenario seems simply to be a way not to take responsibility for your actions.

Do you feel that way about the witness protection program too?

70 > um, I would say that's comparing apples and oranges.

Re 69: "having your name attached is having the courage of your convictions."

Discretion is the better part of valor.

"Making up some possible horrible repercussion scenario seems simply to be a way not to take responsibility for your actions."

Some of us have experienced horrible repercussions from scary Internet persons in real life.

71>

There are cases of people who have received death threats because of blog posts. The internet is real life.

It just seems that by flagging you are saying that the person you are flagging is being held personally responsible for something by another person(s) who is/are able to be anonymous ?

Zoe, thank you for making my point.

I would never have thought to equate the danger of flagging for TOS violation with the danger of snitching on the mob. :)

If we want to restrict flagging to innocent 13-year-olds, by all means, no one has to worry about their safety.

But the whole point is to flag posts that are actually abusive. Personally, I think the people who post seriously abusive messages are exactly the ones I don't want to provoke. YMMV.

True, but as this thread demonstrates, flagging is not just about abusive posts. If something is scary, then don't flag it go right to Tim or Abby or one of the elves.

And yes when all else fails lets bring in the safety of the children. We should probably just shut the whole web thingy down.

I don't flag very much, but I would have no problem having my name attached. I like the idea of an unflagging option; heck, I screw up all the time.

I do think a worthy community value is 'kindness first.' We should make the assumption that everyone is posting in good faith, and nicely re-direct the confused. If a person doesn't respond to kindness, then we can be more strident.

I can say from personal experience, that I lurked for a very long time on the SF thread because posters there were so aggressive. If the whole site had been like that, I would have never posted anything, and just used it for cataloging. That would have been a loss for me, as this is a great community and my life has been enriched by it.

As to grammar, writing style, spelling style, etc., it's really all about communication. If the post can be understood, that's all that really matters. I have a lot of pet peeves about writing, but LT isn't the place to impose them.

We all gain from a diverse community - I don't know how many great books I've read because someone mentioned them on LT - books I would never have come across by accident. I've gotten some of those great books from teenagers who use text-speak, and some from curmudgeons who use archaic formal language, and some from speakers of other languages who are doing their best to muddle through in a language that isn't their native tongue. They all rock - that's what LT is about.

I've gotten some of those great books from teenagers who use text-speak, and some from curmudgeons who use archaic formal language, and some from speakers of other languages who are doing their best to muddle through in a language that isn't their native tongue. They all rock - that's what LT is about.

Amen to that.

>76 FicusFan: Hey, you're the one who brought in the safety of the children. I was talking about our own safety.

as this thread demonstrates, flagging is not just about abusive posts

I think the point of the thread was to rectify this problem, not accept it.

When people talk about courageously attaching their names to their flags, are they talking about their names or their "name"s?

59: I'm an old fogey too. I capitalize and punctuate. I am irritated by text-speak. This is an emotional reaction. There are in many contexts practical reasons for standardizing language to various degrees. I'm not convinced that Site Talk is one of them. And I don't care for flinging about the term "illiterate" as if it has an absolute objective meaning, free of pejorative tinges.

Re flagging, rather than attach names, I'd prefer a mechanism to counteract flags -- certainly your own if you've made an error or changed your mind, but also other people's, not necessarily in a 1:1 ratio.

> 80: That would be their "names" - the system simply showing which user flagged what. But of course some of us have their real names of their profiles.

>81 qebo: I'd also prefer a mechanism to counteract flags, accompanied by loss of flagging privileges if your flags are counteracted too often.

Re 82: "of course some of us have their real names of their profiles."

And some ostensibly courageous people don't. Why is that?

Lorax, your post #2 was inappropriate for this forum. Suggestions for improvement should go in the Recommended Site Improvements group.

:>

84>

The issue of pseudonymity online is an old one, that's been well-addressed elsewhere.

I don't have my name on my profile because:

1. It's not relevant. I joined LT long before Talk, and for me it still is primarily about the books. My books say a great deal more about me than my name.

2. When I joined LT, I was in a profession (academic astronomy) where any life outside work was perceived as being not "serious" -- I have had people tell me directly that they would never make a job offer to someone with a blog, since that showed they weren't devoting their full waking life to work. Having a search on my name show up attached to anything non-professional -- a blog, an LT profile, anything -- would have been career-limiting.

Other perfectly good reasons, that don't happen to apply to me:

3. Some people may have books in their library that they don't want to have associated with their names. Job-search or career-change books may not be something you want your boss to know about. Maybe someone isn't out to their parents, or at work, and would prefer that their LGBT-themed books not appear in a search on their name -- and yet, they want to be able to share their library, so they choose not to have a private library.

4. Some people have abusive exes, or other people they're trying to stay away from, and don't want their name anywhere it doesn't have to be.

I would rather not have my name attached to a flag, for the simple reason that if I am flagging someone, it is usually because they were making personal attacks.

Now, I have flagged others for personal attacks on other forums, and usually the people that make the personal attacks are already obnoxious, and possibly malicious, if not vindictive. The last thing that anyone wants is for the obnoxious/malicious/vindictive person that made the personal attacks going after the person(s) that flagged them.

My name was attached to one such flag on another forum, and while this person never made a *physical* threat -- I received nonstop harassment to all of my emails, my posts, other forums I went to, et cetera. This person would comment to all of their cronies about *everything* I did and/or said anywhere online. I can't even go by my old username anywhere, it's just not worth it.

I've seen people on LibraryThing with the same level of obnoxiousness/vindictiveness, so I would really hate to have the same thing that happened to me, happen here. Most of the people here are great... opinionated, sure, but not vindictive or obnoxious, mostly. MOSTLY.

The ability to remove a flag you made would be a very nice thing though.

Re 86:

I think these are all good reasons. Do those of you who feel that having the courage of your convictions means being willing to attach your names to your actions also think these are good reasons? Can I have a special flagging pseudonym like many of you have special LT pseudonyms? What exactly do you intend to do with the names of flaggers?

(Edited to correct message number.)

Am I the only ham-handed LTer? "Flag abuse" is right above the "top" button. It's only a matter of time before I flag a perfectly innocent message when I am just trying to maneuver around the thread.

>89 jennieg: Don't worry, flagging is a two-step process. Clicking on it once by mistake won't do any harm.

89: Me too. I haven't actually got as far as an actual accidental flagging, but I've opened the window more times than I can remember.

89 > it takes 2 clicks, click once brings up a box a second click to confirm

Good to know. Thanks.

92: True, but it's disconcerting when it happens. If only they weren't right under each other...

Aside from that one post, is there really a rampant flagging / accidental flagging / flagging abuse / flogging problem on LT? I just don't see it.

Definitely not enough to start talking about internet stalkers and flagger pseudonyms.

Re 95:

How big does a problem have to be to warrant discussion?

>94 gwernin:, and the back to top link is missing if there are only two posts. That's when I hit it.

--

I think it would be useful for anyone to be able to add an unflag in talk the way we can for reviews.

95: Well, there's the problem with flagging abusive spammers who are rampantly flogging their wares... ;-)

@95, I find it rather like a dripping tap, not enough of a problem to be fully recognized, but very irritating and bad for the environment all the same. If you weren't looking at Twilighty/'young' posts much you probably wouldn't notice it, but it's persistent all the same.

Aside from that one post, is there really a rampant flagging / accidental flagging / flagging abuse / flogging problem on LT?

There's definitely a persistent problem with bad treatment of new young users, enough so that I've started to worry about the future of the site--if we drive away all the teenagers today, who will be using the site ten years from now?

Once upon a time a month or two back I wrote a long rant about the treatment of young users that I never posted... A snippet about flagging that seems pertinent here:

I find the overall social atmosphere of LT to be very unfriendly. I don’t want to point out anyone because I don’t think this attitude is one or two people, but rather the majority of the LT Talk community. Or at least that’s the way it feels to me. Some nameless examples of posts that go unchallenged include such friendly ideas as “All teenage girls are insane”; “the process of creating groups {should be} a little more complicated so it's beyond the ken of simple-minded teenage girls”; “{you shouldn’t join this popular group because} we'd have to be on our guard to not make comments that would be wrong to make in front of a young teen”; “LibaryThing {sic} is for adults, and I think most members prefer it that way” and “I cannot stand whining… I deal with teenagers on a daily basis.”

The attitude infiltrates all discussions, to the point where when users complain about the proliferation of Twilight talk I can’t help but think about the increasing elitism prevalence. Who knew a Facebook application could be considered bad because it would end up “attracting large quantities of teenagers who will … kill our service in the process.” Who knew Twilight could inspire such mean-spirited comments as “TWILIGHT...for sexually frustrated teens and mentally challenged adult readers”? Who knew that while attacks such as this go unflagged for not being 'personal' simple chat-speak style messages get flagged to oblivion within minutes. One group goes so far as to claim itself exempt from flags, explicitly stating “if you don't like the post(s) you're reading…. Don't FLAG it." Clearly the flagging system, our common sense, or both, need some work.

Overall, we can discuss fancy cataloging features all we like, but no matter how many great features LT has this discourages me from recommending it to my friends.

Edited so that my bracketing wouldn't turn into touchstones.

100>

Maybe I'm not reading the right groups (or the wrong ones?) because this was the only case I've seen of someone who actually did want to participate and discuss books being flagged.

I also think there's quite a lot of selection bias -- I suspect most young users come in, enter books, and jump into discussion, and don't draw attention to the fact that they're young, so you don't notice them, or how well they're treated.

I certainly still plan to be using the site ten years from now -- my teenage years may (thankfully) be well behind me, but I'm not THAT old. :) And I expect that even some of the people who currently use LT just as a chat site, not entering any books or wanting to discuss books, might come back and decide to use it for its intended purpose.

#55: qebo
Thank you for this post. I had intended to say much the same; really, very much the same.

ETA: Thanks to you too, #57: lilithcat. It's nice that we agree sometimes.

I agree that flagging has gotten way out of hand here at LT.

But I *also* understand that sometimes people flag for reasons which, while not completely appropriate, are understandable in a site like LT. I'm specifically *not* talking about the thread linked in the OP, but off-topic nonsense posts like "whatup!" and such.

I think flagging those posts *should* be okay, because they are *not* relevent to the group/site/etc. I think the "flagging rules" in that yellow box that comes up should be changed to allow that, because those posts are, in essence, spam, just not "commercial spam".

But flagging in general has definitely gotten out of hand.

I agree that there is a big problem, but it is an attitude problem rather than a flagging problem. People are routinely hideous to new LT members, especially those that are clearly young or are asking "basic" questions. The flagging is just a symptom of the underlying attitude that only certain types of people or levels of intellect "deserve" to be on LT. Let's say that the "offensive" post really was grammatically incorrect or just plain inane - who exactly decided that a user needs to be the beneficiary of a good education or an interesting mind to be allowed to use this forum?

As for flagging, I wouldn't mind having some accountability (user names), or they could also try implementing the system that is in use with reviews (with a "hey this shouldn't be flagged" flag as an option).

>101 Kira: Excellent post. Well said.

Hold the phone!! I could make a lengthy list (including myself, if you'll forgive the vanity) of people who are absolutely NOT "routinely hideous" to newbies. We really try to be instructive,to be kind, to be encouraging to the young'ns.(Of course, I'm old enough you're all young'ns!!)

Some people over-react to adolescent nonsense. Others over-react to adult short-temperedness. EVERYBODY needs to cool off and back up a little. Some kids are careless and irritating. Some adults are mean to the kids.

This is not the evil empire. No group is actively trying to drive any other group out. Please watch your sweeping generalities.

Do minors really form a substantial part of LT's target demographic? The majority of them are excluded by statute. When I was a teenager (even though I was an avid reader) my personal library was so small that resorting to something like LT to manage it would have been kind of silly. Do kids get bigger allowances nowadays? Is the reason that the square footage of the average house has gone up even as the average family size has gone down the need to accommodate the kids' books?

I think the idea of counter-flagging (or "hey this shouldn't have been flagged" if you prefer) is excellent. Also I like the idea of being able to withdraw a flag if you gave it but regret that later on.

Maybe if we had to select which reason we are flagging for (i.e. personal attacks, commercial solicitations or spam), people would stop to consider whether or not that message should really be flagged.

-107 To be sure, I'm not saying everyone is actively part of a cabal :)

Rather that people are passively part of this negativity by only choosing to challenge obvious outsiders such as young people who use chatspeak rather than the unwarranted comments by seeming LT 'insiders' who are comfortable with their group of friends on these boards and see no need for LT to be more widely accessible. The Edward Cullen thread linked to in post 50 is an excellent example of this.

As Lorax says: "Most young users come in, enter books, and jump into discussion, and don't draw attention to the fact that they're young, so you don't notice them, or how well they're treated."

On the flip-side, this implies that if they do draw attention to their age they will less likely be well-treated, which shouldn't be the case.

-108: There is no need for young people to be the target of LT, but there is a difference between targetting and tolerating. Young people are just barely tolerated here.

-109/110: I like the idea of withdrawing flags but not counter-flagging because that could just lead to a whole lot of back-and-forth. Selecting the reason we are flagging sounds like a great idea.

>102 lorax: I think Book Talk is the worst; there have been a lot of enthusiastic (even if not insightful) Twilight threads there that were met with outright animosity. But when it comes to new users in general, rather than just young ones, I have to say that your own posts in RSI (when faced with a suggestion that's been made before) aren't always the most welcoming.

Some people over-react to adolescent nonsense. Others over-react to adult short-temperedness.

I think there's an important distinction between someone who just joined the site yesterday and someone who's a regular user. I'm not particularly concerned if someone loses their temper once, but when they hold onto their frustration and take it out on every young user who comes along, that's a problem.

Some examples of responses that I consider out of line, all from Book Talk:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/62975
http://www.librarything.com/topic/62683
http://www.librarything.com/topic/61802

>108 cpg: There was a post from Tim a while back where he expressed concern with the widespread belief that this site is only for cataloguing. Readers with small book collections are welcome too.

> 111: Ah yes, a flagging war - I hadn't thought of that.

My contention is that the "routinely hideous" people are the minority.

Maybe the routinely helpful people are too.

#77: Helcura "I do think a worthy community value is 'kindness first.' We should make the assumption that everyone is posting in good faith"
"If the post can be understood, that's all that really matters."

Right on! I think that WAFFLEZ was posting in good faith and I find it hard to believe that any of her detractors really had the slightest difficulty in understanding her post.

(This is great! There is so much I wanted to respond to in this thread, but others have already said it better than I could!)

Excessive or precipitous flagging may be due to a difference in the wiring of the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain. Just thought I would mention that in case anyone was wondering.

Love to all,

k4k

111: I like the idea of withdrawing flags but not counter-flagging because that could just lead to a whole lot of back-and-forth.

Yeah, that's an issue. I'd thought maybe the sides wouldn't have to match (one flag and one unflag puts a post back to normal), but then what should the ratio be -- one flag and two unflags? Maybe withdrawing flags is sufficient -- if lots of people chime in to object to flags, maybe the flaggers will be persuaded. (Or maybe not.)

110: Good idea.

Re 112: "There was a post from Tim a while back where he expressed concern with the widespread belief that this site is only for cataloguing."

I'd be surprised if the belief that LT is exclusively about cataloging is widespread. On the other hand, if Tim wants to correct the belief that LT is primarily about cataloging, he might want to change the first substantive sentence of his "About" page: "LibraryThing is an online service to help people catalog their books easily."

#108: cpg "When I was a teenager (even though I was an avid reader) my personal library was so small that resorting to something like LT to manage it would have been kind of silly."

When I was a teenager, I, probably like you, had read thousands of books - admittedly most of them trivial children's literature. I owned very few books, but the opportunity to participate in a site where books were discussed would have been beneficial. Not all is perfect, but much is better now than it was then.

112. I knew that the first example that you sited would come back to haunt me. I was one of the rude ones. I typically am not rude but that day was a bad day and as soon as I posted that I clicked the red x and then was unable to find the thread to edit it. Bad judgement on my part for sure.

I have already commended WAFFLEZ's post for good grammar. It has also been suggested that WAFFLEZ should have posted in a different group, such as a Twilight group. For clarity, here's her post which was objected to:

i am gonnba be in 8th grade next year and i kinnda wanna read the host but im only 13 and i doint kno if im gonna really lik it and if im gonna understand it what do u thank i should do?

I think that by not posting in a Twilight group she was saying that she needed more mature help than her fellow 13-year olds could offer, which I consider praiseworthy.

#104 I agree that flagging has gotten way out of hand here at LT.

I absolutely disagree. Apart from one thread (and the members of the SF Fans group know which one) I have seen very few posts (legitimate or not) which were not spam that have been flagged.

Personally, I think the situation might be improved if the "flag abuse" link was a little further removed from the (top) link in the blue bar of the message header. I can't tell you the times I've flagged things by accident (including postings I have made myself).

#122: andyl
I think I know which thread in the SF Fans group you mean, and I objected to the flagging there too. Maybe I look at more threads than you, but I see too many cases of inappropriate flagging.

I think some of the problems with Twilight posters back a few months ago stems from the old "water wearing on a stone" phenomenon. (It has been much better lately-I think the fad has run its course) I haven't done it, but I have a certain sympathy for those who "blow up" at the kids.

A tween posts a gushing message. She is directed elsewhere. Another tween posts another gushing message. She is directed elsewhere. Another tween..... Eventually somebody snaps. Can't anybody read ? How many times do I have to say it? BUT-each tween who posted was brand new, and did not see what went before. (Should they have looked? Of course. Did they look? Of course not.) So, the exploder is exploding at some poor clueless kid who has no idea the problem has been addressed ad nauseum. It isn't fair, and it doesn't set a very good example, and it shouldn't happen. But it isn't intended to be "routinely hideous" either.

#124

It may well be some groups are more apt to flag than others.

Re 119: "I owned very few books, but the opportunity to participate in a site where books were discussed would have been beneficial."

I would have appreciated a site where I could have had thoughtful literary discussions. Are such discussions in abundance in LT's groups? To me, it doesn't seem like it. I'd love to be swamped with counterexamples.

>100 _Zoe_:
There's definitely a persistent problem with bad treatment of new young users, enough so that I've started to worry about the future of the site--if we drive away all the teenagers today, who will be using the site ten years from now?

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking about that issue. Not only is this kid going to tell her friends not to join LT, she will be likely to tell her family, one or more of whom may already be a member, and not at all happy with Baby Sis getting smacked down. And it is all too easy for unhappy people to tell the world all about it.

Those of us who are lifetime members (likely a majority) are no longer contributing to the revenue stream for LT. If new members are routed away from using the site, where will new income come from?

#127 -- I'd direct you to book discussion threads in the Read YA Lit group -- not all of the posters there are teens, but many are, and the discussion in that group stays book-focused for the most part. A few examples:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/64598
http://www.librarything.com/topic/64130
http://www.librarything.com/topic/59143

There are also book discussions on other groups frequented by teens -- here's a thread that lists book discussions in the Hogwarts Express group, for example.

Those are the two groups that I most often post in. I'm sure others who post elsewhere can provide other examples.

I'd support, in descending order of desirability:
1. Ability to remove your own flags.
2. Ability to counter-flag, with a 2:1 ratio, that is it takes two counter-flags to remove 1 flag.
3. Identification of flagger userids.

I agree that there is some inappropriate/over-enthusiastic use of flagging (notably in this thread). I'm not too concerned because flagging doesn't actually strike me as a big deal. It hides the post, but you have the ability to still read it (does anyone else feel compelled to always open flagged posts?). Preventing someone from posting for a few hours doesn't seem like much of a big deal either. At worst, i'd class flagging as a minor irritant.

Preventing someone from posting for a few hours doesn't seem like much of a big deal either.

If those happened to be your first few hours on the site, I don't see why you'd bother returning.

At the very least, I think 5 flags should be required before posting is disabled.

ok, but not Six Flags. That would send entirely the wrong message.

When I was 13 we did an international move, and had a limited baggage allotment. I was allowed to keep 5 books. I still have at least 4 of them. That was in the bad old days before the internet, before computers were available to more than a handfull of people. But there were at least a dozen more books that I cried over leaving, and many more that I wish I had a record of today.

Perhaps it's the same number of flags to hide a message, but you have to select the reason from the TOS list - and if you're caught assigning the incorrect reason enough times (the powers that be can determine abuse), you have your flagging rights suspended.

That way, when you're staring at "teenager who's message I personally don't like," your "spam" excuse will really only get you so far.

#101 - Kira, I have to point out that your quote from the Fogies' group description was edited (I can only assume deliberately) to be misleading. You wrote 'One group goes so far as to claim itself exempt from flags, explicitly stating “if you don't like the post(s) you're reading…. Don't FLAG it."' What it actually says is "This group is now PRIVATE, so if you don't like the post(s) you're reading, then write an intelligent rebuttal. Don't FLAG it." And I should know because I wrote it. I also noticed you failed to mention the group is a private one.

How about a pop up type box that required you to type a short reason why you flagged a post. If no reason given then no flag. If the reasons were displayed (with or without the flaggers name) then the OP would understand why they were flagged.

>136 clamairy: Didn't you have the no-flag rule even before the group became private?

I like the idea of choosing the flagging reason from a list.

On further thought, I have to say that the Fogies group still bothers me too. Something doesn't seem entirely right about creating a group where you can talk about people behind their backs in a way that wouldn't be appropriate in public. If you want to complain about someone's behaviour, I always thought you should either say it to their face or not say it at all.

#138 - It's not a rule, because it's not enforced, or even enforceable. We were trying to encourage people to discuss what they didn't like about posts in lieu of flagging them. (Mainly because we did have certain non-members flagging anything and everything in there.)

I don't remember the exact sequence of these events, after all it was almost two years ago, but we weren't public for very long. I think it may have been only 48 hours. It's is possible the request for no flagging was in place for that whole whopping 48 hours, but I doubt it. It would only have been added after the all the flagging occurred.

#139 - Do you have any idea how many private groups there are here on LT? Are you volunteering to police them all for possible gossip?

maybe we could split them up.

Dibs the Twilight groups.

#142 - Bwaa haa haa.

MrA, you have to get over this Edward obsession that you have. Snap out of it!

>141 clamairy: Sorry, I should have been clearer. It's not the fact that it's possible to complain about other people behind their backs that bothers me, it's the fact that it's the intention. I would volunteer to police all the groups that specifically allow personal attacks without consequences--I'm guessing there's only the one.

Re #130: "3. Identification of flagger userids."

Pardon my repetition, but: What exactly would you do with these userids?

> 145

Actually, that's not the intention of that group.

#145 - INTENTION? That's laughable.

The group was created as the alternative to all the 'random groups for llama llama llama' that were popping up. No one disputed the right of the Twilight haters group to exist. Why would someone dispute the right of those who were annoyed by the constant creation of the 'random groups for fill-in-the-blank' to exist? Many of those random groups had been created by under-age children who got their accounts closed, BTW.

>#146: They would go down on your permanent record.

just kidding. To allow me to ask, should i choose, "why did you flag me, exactly?".

The way I remember it, there was a pretty fine line between objecting to the "llama llama llama" groups and objecting to young users in general, a line that many people felt had been crossed.

'Many people' were projecting their own personal issues, then. As the person who did the actual creation, I can assure you, it was done initially as a joke. When so many people joined we decided to keep it permanent. The name of the group is, since you seem to have not noticed it, 'The Random Group for Fogies and Curmudgeons of All Ages .' Did you get that ALL AGES part?

Well, I'd like to thank readafew for proving my point with the following post in the Fogies group (which people who were watching still see in Talk, despite the fact that it's been made private):

_Zoe_ is _Zoe_, she thinks she knows what is right and what everyone wants, or should want and nothing you or anyone says will change her opinion. She has her ideals and expectations and everyone should live to her standards. Tim and Co are supposed to write perfect code and all enhancements should conform to what SHE wants. Recently someone called her on 'expecting' her wishes to have priority and she replied "I gave up on trying to get what I want, I'm just trying to make it better for everybody". Sure thanks my knight in shining armor, who are these masses that pass their requests through her? She's just disguising "I want" with "it would be better for everyone" both are just her opinion.

And _Zoe_ if you read this, it is not an intent to go behind your back, I've been temped many times to post a similar thing to you, but you would either retaliate or try to tell me where I am 'wrong' in my assessment and why. Ultimately you'd ignore the fact that whether intentionally or not your posts in RSI, Bug Collectors and the other groups dealing with the site, come across as really bitchy, me,me,me and nothing is EVER good enough, with obviously NO UNDERSTANDING of software development. Though I expect you'd argue that as well. It irritates the hell out of most of us.

So, you're not trying to go behind my back by posting it in a private group that I'm not a member of? And the reason you didn't post it somewhere you knew I'd read it is because you were worried I'd refute your statements?

I think you've argued my point about the Fogies group better than I could have; I won't bother saying any more.

edit: I should also add that, despite the complaints about selective editing of the Fogies description quote, readafew has gone one better and put words in my mouth that I didn't say at all. My real statement was: "Oh, I've long ago given up on getting them to do what I want. My concern now is just preventing the site from getting worse. And for my purposes at least, it is getting worse." It's from this discussion.

>151 clamairy:

I was feeling tempted to point out the ALL AGES bit myself.

#152 - I'm assuming he posted it in there because he thought you might actually pay attention to what he said, for once.

That is the first post, to my knowledge, where someone was mentioned by user name. And, to readafew's credit, he actually addresses you directly in it.

Re #149: 'To allow me to ask, should i choose, "why did you flag me, exactly?"'

And those who have been flagged for being abusive can be counted on to be nonabusive when carrying out this investigation? I don't think so.

>156 _Zoe_: Personally, if I were trying to get someone to pay attention, I wouldn't post in a private group that that person isn't a member of and has never posted in.

Would someone like to explain why they think the bolded lines quoted in #152 don't violate LT's Terms of Use?

>157 cpg: They were posted in a private group where anything goes.

157 cpg -

They're referring to the person who posted them. I don't think she should be flagged for posting something about herself.

I do think reposting that was inappropriate, posting it bold was entirely unnecessary, and whoever sent it to her initially was out of line. As clam said, that is the first post that I've ever seen in that group that was directed at a specific person. It is not indicative of how the group normally behaves.

Re #158: "They were posted in a private group where anything goes."

So LT's Terms of Use don't apply to private groups? When did Tim say this?

For clarification, it's the content of the bolded lines I'm asking about, not the act of quoting the content of the bolded lines.

It is a private group. We prefer not to flag posts but to discuss them. Why shouldn't the group's own guidelines apply in this case?

Re #162: "Why shouldn't the group's own guidelines apply in this case?"

If one of the group's own guidelines is that personal attacks are permitted, then that guideline shouldn't apply because it violates the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use don't say that personal attacks are permitted as long as they take place in special private groups, just like they don't say that spamming is permitted as long as it takes place in special spam groups.

I think posting something from a private group into public group is along the same lines as posting someone else's private comment from your profile into a public group. It might not violate the TOS, but it's just not kosher. That quote might not be flattering, but it's pretty obvious the poster knew that the person he was talking about was going to be reading the comment. And again, it was in a private group, not a public one.

>164 clamairy: I think posting something from a private group into public group is along the same lines as posting someone else's private comment from your profile into a public group. It might not violate the TOS, but it's just not kosher. That quote might not be flattering, but it's pretty obvious the poster knew that the person he was talking about was going to be reading the comment. And again, it was in a private group, not a public one.

TOS are applicable to private groups as much public ones. It might be harder/impossible to enforce, but group rules can't override TOS. Furthermore, the person wronged in this situation is not a member of the group and cannot respond to the attack in that thread or flag the offending message. I think it's cowardly that the person insulted Zoe in a place where they knew she could read it, but not respond to it. I might even go so far as to applaud Zoe for calling them out on such behavior.

I generally agree that re-posting private comments isn't kosher, but that's not what happened here. That person's comments weren't private--they were posted where many people could read them. The worst thing Zoe could be accused of is widening the audience. I think Zoe has the right to publicly respond to a public personal attack. Sure, she could take her response to that person's profile, but that person didn't do her that courtesy so why should she? Since she doesn't belong to the private group where these comments were made, I think she has the right to re-post them.

> 152 Re: "irritates the hell out of most of us"

I don't know who "us" is, but I'm clearly not in "us". Neither in the group in question, nor among the people irritated.

But I am a professional software developer. _Zoe_ doesn't understand software development? Maybe she does maybe she doesn't. It's irrelevant. She is a power user here, and that's relevant.

She has been extensively expressing her perceptions and experiences of the site. I, for one, love that level of engagement from my users and only start worrying when I don't get it.

I don't always agree with her (I'm a user here too, after all), but I often do. Whichever way my opinion runs, I'll at least try to explain it if I feel the need to post.

If someone articulate and outspoken like _Zoe_ gets shut out of participating in the discussions here, I can see a chilling effect settling at least on me.

We were trying to encourage people to discuss what they didn't like about posts in lieu of flagging them.

Hmm...what an interesting concept. So, in theory, there's a corner of the LT world where one could post, and others would answer regardless of how the original content was presented?

You mean the OP wouldn't be needlessly flagged into oblivion via a knee-jerk reaction just because posters didn't like the spelling, age of the poster, the topic of the post or wanted to reclassify someone's silliness as a form of "Spam" or some such nonsense?

It's a shame that attitude seems to be reserved only for a private group...

To the accusation I deliberately edited the post, I did - to get at the true intent and keep my post relatively concise. I believe the full message "This group is now PRIVATE, so if you don't like the post(s) you're reading, then write an intelligent rebuttal. Don't FLAG it." doesn't change anything. If someone is being personally attacked then writing an intelligent rebuttal isn't a fair onus to put on them, and that's what flagging is for. Similarly, the privacy of a group shouldn't alter site rules. So the two elements I left out didn't seem crucial.

Oh, boy. Why am I getting into this?

I don't want _Zoe_ shut out either. I think she has some valuable things to say. And I have come to realize that Tim and Chris are in no danger of getting so discouraged they quit, so the complaints don't bother me as much as they used to.

_Zoe_: I honestly believe you want to improve LT. I think you are intelligent, concerned, and articulate. But, sometimes you do come across as hating everything, and nothing is ever good. I don't think you necessarily mean it that way, but that's the way it feels. I'm giving you the respect of telling you directly, and as honestly as I can.

I'm hoping for peace. I'm hoping that people will find what they seek on LibraryThing. I'm hoping people can agree civilly to disagree sometimes.

*starts humming "Give Peace a Chance" - off-key, but from the heart*

I think LT's flagging system (or TOS, if that's where it stems from) is utterly wrong-headed. What's the point of flagging insults (or "insults")? Once the insult/"insult" has been posted, the damage, as far as it goes, is already done. Did you ever see someone refrain from exercising their temper, inclination for profanity etc. because they've been flagged? I think the idea of flagging for insults suit the prissy, the petty and the mean-spirited "righteous" more than any ideal of courtesy.

I'd make it clear that flags are only for marking of spam and spammers--the only thing that's likely to elicit a close-to-consensus response.

People whose only intention is to abuse, stalkers and assorted loons, like the guy who went around insulting women a few years ago (I can't recall any such recent case), get reported anyway.

#168 - We went private in that group not because we wanted to be able to make personal attacks without garnering flags because we wanted to express personal opinions. (Some of which must have been deemed unpopular by those with 'flag fever.')

I also want to thank those of you who have dragged our group back into the spotlight, because now people are asking to join. ;o)

- 171, For the record you brought the group up yourself, I purposefully didn't name names or groups ;)

#172 - Oh, right. You just copied and pasted part of our group description... edited to suit your own purposes, I might add.

I think private groups for kvetching can be extremely useful as safety valves -- they keep the snarkiness out of public fora.

That said, those I'm familiar with (from places other than LibraryThing, I hasten to add!) all have strict rules against making anything said there public.

>174 lorax: I don't know, I think I'd rather have the snarkiness come out in public fora (and presumably be resolved there) than know that there's a secret part of the site where people are complaining about the individuals they don't like, where negative opinions don't face any resistance as they escalate into full-fledged paranoia.

Apparently the bug that lets me see the threads in talk doesn't exist. My claim about it is "bull shit"; I'm just flat-out lying. I'm covering for someone, or else have created a fake account in order to infiltrate the group. The one thing that's certain is that I have "nefarious reasons".

All this in a place where I can't respond, of course. I'm not convinced that the site is better off for having a place where ideas like this run unchecked.

#175 - Since you're obviously still obsessing over that group and that thread, please read what I wrote in post #27. You should have read the whole thing before going off on your rant.
;o)

MerryMary, thank you for your comments. I hope you've seen in the past that I'm generally willing to make peace. I know I always come across as critical, because I prefer to write posts that contribute something different or discuss an unresolved issue rather than being the hundredth person to say "Yay, this is great!" (Though if I'm quick enough to be in the first five, I will write that kind of post as well.) I'll work on making more positive comments to Tim and Chris :)

That said, I think this particular issue is too poisoned for an olive branch to work. While I try to maintain basic civility even in the course of heated arguments, my attempt to clarify an issue to prevent conflict in the Fogies group was met with an unfriendly response and escalating, unfounded accusations. So sadly, I think the best I can do here is hope to avoid certain users in the future.

175>

When I posted #174 I hadn't read your posts about being able to see the group yourself. I apologize for casting aspersions on the fine upstanding members of the group in question -- I'm sure none of them would do such a thing.

(And couldn't you join the group, if you wanted to respond?)

>178 lorax: Somehow I don't think Clamairy would look favourably on a request for an invite just so I could refute what they're saying.

>130 MrAndrew: (does anyone else feel compelled to always open flagged posts?).

yes, always

#180 - I do! I do!

> 180, 181

As do I.

>180 PortiaLong:
Yes, 'fraid so - though sometimes I'm sorry I did ...
:-p

Ditto 183. I wish there was a way to re-hide them sometimes.

> 184

That which has been seen cannot be un-seen.

I wish I'd remember that.

> 184 / 185 : Yeah, same here.

I always read posts that have been flagged into being hidden. In most cases, I disagree with the flagging.
OTOH, I do flag posts, particularly spam or blatant commercial solicitation, though usually not if the poster has taken the trouble to choose just one appropriate group to post in, and especially if they have already been on the site for a few days and have cataloged some books irrelevant to the post's content.

For the record, I have never flagged anything here on LT, (eta: Yikes, that's not true - I DID flag a couple of new spam groups some time ago!) But, I AM one of those people irritated by duplicate groups made by Twilightians (even though I have one living in my own house, whose roomful of twilight posters stares at me daily!). I was actually keeping track of how many twilight groups were in existence for a while there (til interrupted by a move). But for a purpose. Whenever I saw another new twilight group pop up, I would comment (nicely) to the group’s creator ( example - http://www.librarything.com/profile/Larockie ).

But, the symptoms, one of which is all those duplicate twilight groups, show that Groups needs “fixed”, because:
(1) Duplicate groups ARE a violation of TOS.
(2) That Newest Groups list on the Groups page is often a mess of what looks like childish and misspelled group names. That is off-putting to people looking at LT for the first time.
(3) It isn’t helpful to the twilightians, either, if they can’t connect with each other. They made the group in the first place to chatter about twilight; the more chatter they get, the happier they’ll be with their LT experience, too. They just need to be able to find each other. Just another example of why Groups needs to be reworked.

I think that the basic problem is that the young folks can’t find the right place to post in the first place. After someone signs up, I think the very next thing they see should be a group just for new users. Links pointing them to the FAQ, RSI, Site Talk groups. Explaining how the groups page works. That the groups page does not show every single group available. They may click on the complete groups link at the top right to see the whole list of options. Then how to search for a group.

Also, there needs to be improvement at the point of new group creation. This has been discussed in much depth elsewhere (though nothing was ever implemented), so I shan’t go into it here.

MerryMary is right (@125), the tweenies are not to blame. They are at an impetuous age, not given to reading the instructions. The process should make it easier for every new member, tweenie (like my own daughter) to old fogey (like me).

(And yes, I am a member of the Fogies and Curmudgeons. The talk I’ve read there is mostly of a general nature; one of the memorable threads being about groups with Enthusiastic Titles!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Regarding _Zoe_, sometimes I agree with her comments, sometimes I don’t. I could say the same about most of the members on LT. Except for MerryMary. I always agree with her!

:-)

A vast majority of the posts in Fogies have been the "Don't you just hate when (group of people) do (annoying thing)?" and a lot of "me, too!" posts. There was a long one about poor punctuation and spelling once, I believe. We're hardly sitting there gossiping over the fence about other users all day long.

To be honest, there are few people on LT that are annoying enough to bear mentioning except as a group. I don't recall ever seeing the post about Zoe or anyone specific in particular, but I could be mistaken.

What I find amusing is that the Fogies group has been dead quiet for months until this nonsense.

And for those complaining that there are "different levels" of allowance for flagging between public and private groups, you also have to take in account the culture of various religious and political groups (and the Science Fiction Fans, oddly enough) who "allow" personal attacks. In those groups, you are more likely to find attacks on a daily basis. Why not complain about them first, rather than a group that has been dead quiet for months and "gossip" about specific people is rare.

OK, this has gone way beyond any intents I had. I suspected Zoe 'could' and 'might' read the post in the private group, I was not counting on it. I was using it as a quite place to vent my spleen, like sitting around a bar, shared by a few others. The Others who had joined the group for similar reasons, a place to say something that you could not say anyplace else and not be judged for it. Others with understanding (not agreement) just understanding that sometimes it's necessary to complain. I generally don't address the person I'm frustrated with so openly and I agree I was wrong in this instance to do so. However that does not make my feelings on the situation any less valid. I felt 'IF' she actually read it, I'd be confronted in a private message, instead she upped the ante. Do I want to shut Zoe down? No. I will agree she has MANY great ideas for the site. However, I find many of her posts in the RSI and others site forums can be as I described. Why didn't I confront her directly? 2 reasons, 1 Tim doesn't like us fighting and I try to respect that, 2 (edited so I won't get flagged). So if I agree with her ideas I'll concur, if I don't, I post my own and leave it at that. As far as shutting her down I don't want that, but realize her aggressive attitude can just as easily shut others down too, especially if they don't agree with her, I know, I've left threads because I didn't want to deal with the attitude.

Overall, it was a private group with a very limited number of readers, and honestly, I wasn't as PC as I would have been in a more open setting, I have made comments alluding to these things before in public to her. The last 2 times we got going at it Tim told us to stop, so I did.

165: The_Kat_Cache > is my post a TOS violation? probably. Is it YOUR job or ZOE's to police private groups to make sure they are policing themselves properly? No. If I crossed the line it is up to the other members to stop me. Zoe re-posted this 29 minutes after I posted it. not even enough time to give the group a chance to respond. Why Zoe, do you watch a group who you've always had negative posts about? Just to try to 'catch us' being 'bad'? Playing peeping tom can be unsettling.
166: Suncat> as far as the use of 'us' it was posted in a private group and the 'us' did not include you, the only ones who can argue about that are the other group members.

I felt the need to respond here, many lines where crossed, I may have been the first, but I wasn't the last. This is my last post in this thread. If Zoe wants or needs to come to some resolution with me, we can continue with private messages.

P.S. As far as identifying flaggers, NO. Absolutely NOT.

#1 I flag for spam and nasty personal attacks (i.e. not criticism of someone's behavior but calling someone names or an idiot, for instance.) Someone who is being nasty is going to point it at me if I'm ID'ed.

#2 Don't think that someone won't come after you. Tim had to ban someone after continuous personal attacks and had to keep banning them when they tried to create additional accounts. This person had a blog and out of curiosity, I checked it out. They had been in jail for being a stalker and eventually disappeared after making online terroristic threats to a national politician.

No, no and no.

>191 readafew: Suncat> as far as the use of 'us' it was posted in a private group and the 'us' did not include you, the only ones who can argue about that are the other group members.

Fair enough. Even though we knew that the post was made in a private group, it wasn't clear to me that "us" was indeed only limited to that group. It is clear now. Thank you.

#190: Morphidae "... Science Fiction Fans ... "allow" personal attacks."

Though even there, there is sometimes excessive flagging, such as of Cyops when he started a thread about the book Fe Fi FOE Comes.

Just a couple of brief comments:

1. It's no longer possible to stop watching a group that's been made private, if you're not a member.

2. I usually quote in italics, but I don't like reading long paragraphs in italics, so I used bold here instead.

>192 Morphidae: - So that's why they no longer post? I thought they'd just gotten bored and finally left...

allrighty, then...

"We're hardly sitting there gossiping over the fence about other users all day long."

Some people have forgotten the origins of why the group was made private, because it wasn't so recent. However, for the record the reason this group was made private was because I was attacked (not by name, but it was clear to all who the 'one particular user' was) while it was still public, and the post was flagged accordingly. Is it any wonder I starred that thread, which I can still access, to make note of it? I won't repost because reposting flagged content is not allowed, but I can see that original discussion. So when a group member insults you, is flagged, and then very soon after the group is made private with a note saying the something to the tune of "no flagging" is it any wonder I would want to know what mean things are said there still?

Nonetheless, I hardly singled out that group in my earlier post. I posted many examples of people attacking teenagers/teenage girls/etc and not being flagged, which was all I was trying to get at at the time. It was the group that turned it in to the focal point of this discussion unnecessarily. I was simply making a point about the unfriendly atmosphere. I see I have not been proven wrong about that atmosphere unfortunately.

>188 countrylife: I totally agree. This is the most unweildly, difficult to (initially) navigate talk forum I've ever seen. It took me weeks to even venture near talk after making my account, and weeks thereafter to get to the point where I was perusing it daily. And only then because I was desperately looking for information on collections.

I'm not suprised there are duplicate groups and rampant mis-postings in generalized sections like site talk. Recommended Site improvements get duplicate suggestions all the time because it is hard to wade through old threads.

I think a better organizational format would benefit everyone--new users who are overwhelmed by the talk forums, and older users who then might not have to repeat the same information to a different user three times a week.

Criticizing someone's behavior, with or without naming, without name calling, is NOT a personal attack.

Is not an attack, not flaggable: Morphidae annoys me when she threatens to leave LT when there is a change she doesn't like.

Is an attack, flaggable: There Morphidae goes again. She's such a idiot and looks like a total loser when she flounces every time there is a change at LT that doesn't fit her narrow-minded viewpoint.

And on a completely different note:

I was glancing over the posts in the Curmudgeon group and found one of my rants. It was about a group of people that I found to be insulting toward those of certain beliefs. I got flagged a couple of times. THAT is when Clam added the "Do not flag" comment to the group page as she mentioned it in that thread. So it had nothing to do with any specific person.

#191

"Why Zoe, do you watch a group who you've always had negative posts about? Just to try to 'catch us' being 'bad'? Playing peeping tom can be unsettling."

AMEN

I quit a group I enjoyed due to the post of a single individual that I simply could no longer endure. I quit reading all of the posts there. Why get my back up over it if I can avoid it.

I have this to say..
There are a few people here ( very few) who think it is their job to run the site.. to police it. I even thought that one of them worked for the site, it happened so often.

I vented at someone in another group, readafew.. someone that I dislike. This person has posted lies on at least two occasions that I can prove... but I have decided not to. NOT PC!! so what.

On other sites I have participated in, the block feature would block their posts so you just never had to see them. I never used that . Here I resorted to it, to find it just doesn't work that way, alas.

It is hard to avoid individual posts by someone that gets your back up... it is very easy to avoid a whole group. I know this from experience and I recommend it to anyone who doesn't like being posted there.

done

I'm tired.. had a hard day at work and don't feel like fighting.

oh... one thing..I very much enjoy the curmudgeons group

eta

clarity and spelling

_Zoe_ says in #195 that she literally can't stop watching -- since the group is private, that option doesn't appear for her. Looks like a bug to me.

I wonder if _Zoe_ was accepted as a member and then left again, that might fix the bug in this particular case? I have no idea how such things work, it's just a thought.

Re #200: "There are a few people here ( very few) who think it is their job to run the site.. to police it."

Spending hundreds of hours contributing data inevitably gives a person a small sense of ownership. Plus, users have been invited to participate in the "policing" of the site. Hence, the "flag abuse" buttons, the picture flagging buttons, the spam group reporting threads, etc., etc. And when I've contacted the owners directly to clean things up, they've thanked me for it. I'll interpret those thanks as being sincere until they've been proven otherwise.

#201

It is possible to stop watching any group.
I did. There was no magic option. I just stopped looking at it.
I don't see the problem.

*perplexed*

> 201 / 202 : I guess she clicked "watch this group" when it was still public, and now that it's private she can no longer access the "stop watching" button. I can sort of understand how that would happen - not so much a bug as an unforeseen side effect.

ETA #204 - Yes, of course you can always choose not to look. But in this case the messages would keep coming up in her "my groups" list.

I see....but she doesn't have to read them..
I have a group that I only read when in the mood.. other times i just don't read or I red x

Matt, that makes perfect sense, but illumines a design flaw; it seems to me that a group that is private should by its nature (that is, its coding) not have any watchers. Either you're in or you're out. When the group went private, watchers should have been cut off.

206: I agree. There's always the wonderful red X that people annoyed by the twilight threads in book talk are always urged to use.

Maybe we should found another group: "The Order of the Red X" ;-)

Wow.

Hi, Pam! How was your day? Oh, nothing much. Pretty ho-hum around here.

#190, #194

I don't think that "Science Fiction Fans" allows personal attacks. There have been a few flags here and there where people have stepped over the line. It is more that we have quite a high tolerance for robust statements and don't often get offended for other people - which means few posts get flagged into hiding. I think that there are very few posts where I have seen direct personal attacks on "Science Fiction Fans" but there have been a few.

The Cyops case was interesting. They were mostly not flags for attacks (at least at first). A lot of people either flagged many of his posts because he was believed to be a shill for the book, or for excessive quoting (copyright infringement) if he wasn't.

>212 andyl: "we have quite a high tolerance for robust statements"

That's because those that don't have such a high tolerance have been "robusted" right out of the group.

Me, and several other people that I know, left because of the "robustness" that we consider abusive.

Which comes right back to my point, there are certain PUBLIC groups that allow personal attacks of various levels. They are more prevalent than a private group that was dead since December.

I understand the concerns that people have about their userids being linked to their flags. However I have yet to see an alternate solution proposed to counter the problem of inappropriate flagging as raised in post #1. Ability to remove your flags and to counter-flag is at best a partial solution.

The reason for the general availability of flagging is to allow the general population to identify, partially-hide and temporarily-ban:
(1) personal attacks,
(2) commercial solicitation,
(3) spam.

If userids were linked to flags, the number of users prepared to flag would be reduced, but not eliminated. So long as spam and personal attacks continued to be flagged, it doesn't matter who flags them. What would reduce is the "casual" flagging of inarticulate or meaningless posts. These flags would reduce because less people are flagging, and also because people could be alerted to the fact that they are misusing the flag feature.

If you are concerned about being identified for flagging, you don't have to flag. I guarantee you that spam will still be flagged, and i bet personal attacks would almost always still be flagged.

>214 MrAndrew: We're just going to have to disagree on this one, MrA, my friend. Tim & Co. have the ability to see who flags and if there is a significant problem with the issue, they can deal with it themselves on a private basis.

#197 - "Some people have forgotten the origins of why the group was made private, because it wasn't so recent. However, for the record the reason this group was made private was because I was attacked (not by name, but it was clear to all who the 'one particular user' was) while it was still public"

Umm... no. It had nothing to do with you at all. Does that disappoint you? ;o) I took the group private after Tim requested it. He was in the process of shutting down or making private all of the other 'Random' groups that had everyone (me included) bunching up their knickers in a twist. And a public 'Random' group made him uncomfortable, especially one that was created to be a tongue-in-cheek poke at the others.

Here's the link: http://www.librarything.com/topic/16075

Read #119 - #150

>215 Morphidae: I think the issue is that Tim & Co. rely heavily on the user base exercising good judgment in using the flags. If they were going back and reviewing all of the flags to ensure that they were selected properly - well, that would defeat the purpose of flagging, wouldn't it?

Personally, I'd be happy with individuals having to select why they're flagging posts - because there would be some accountability. I would hope that having to pause and asking yourself, "is trying to shove this peg into the Spam hole really appropriate?" might at least give some pause...

>217 clamairy: - Heh - from that thread (from Tim):

Also, as I've noted elsewhere, only 0.1% of posts have been flagged away--238 out of more than 177,000. Most were obvious, eggregious spamming. And, as often noted, even flagged messages can be seen, provided you're willing to click one more link

I wonder what it is now...

>218 stephmo: I don't think they need to review all flags. When flagging becomes an issue, they can review on a case-by-case basis.

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, they can look at who is flagging the most and am sure they monitor that.

#218 - Okay, this might not be feasible, but maybe the flags could be color-coded.

(1) personal attacks - red
(2) commercial solicitation - blue
(3) spam - brown (kidding... but you get my drift)

That way other viewers would at least know why others flagged the post, if not who.

spam is pink, isn't it?

>214 MrAndrew: You have summed up my feelings precisely MrA.

I share the feelings of many about openness on the internet; I think it would be reasonably difficult to identify me from my profile, but I am happy that, if I flag, everyone knows that it's the person who calls himself Abbottthomas that has done it. (I wouldn't miss you if we met in the street, MrA - as long as you were wearing the bear, that is!)

I don't think any poster - after due consideration - has agreed that flagging Wafflez was appropriate. Maybe the way forward is to build in another step or two in flagging to give pause (as #218) for thought - there have been some good suggestions already.

The rate at which this thread has grown suggests that a fair number of regular users are concerned about flagging. There may not be many flags overall but I would have thought that Tim and Co had more than enough to do without riding shotgun.

Just had a wicked thought - ...Also, if I'm remembering correctly, they can look at who is flagging the most and am sure they monitor that... What about a new Helper Badge?

#221 - Yes, when it's fresh. Brown spam has been processed. ;o)

Nice image, that, at breakfast time...8^}

Sorry, drn00t. Hope you aren't having any of those Jimmy Dean sausage patties for breakfast.

Re #214: "If you are concerned about being identified for flagging, you don't have to flag."

That seems like no better of a deal than "If you are concerned about being flagged, you don't have to post."

>#226: Not the same thing. My point being, someone else will flag a spam/personal attack post for you. That is, someone who isn't as concerned about crazy internet stalkers. Do you have to be the one to flag? So long as it's flagged, does it matter who flags it? Are you concerned that you will lose flagging privileges?

I'm not saying you are flag-happy, just trying to make my point that it doesn't matter who flags, so long as the real purpose of flagging is achieved.

Should we go around asking other bolder users to flag for us? :)

To boldly flag, where no one has flagged before!

How about we only flag users from other continents? And maybe provide it as a service for others on request? ;-)

>227 MrAndrew: - "My point being, someone else will flag a spam/personal attack post for you."

And if everyone thinks like that, then /nobody/ would ever do anything about it. It might not matter who does it, but the point is that someone does have to, and I think attaching userids will make /most/ people less likely to do it, even in legitimate cases.

I still don't think attaching userids publically is the answer, but I know I would have appreciated a way to remove my flag. And I would have had no problem with identifying the reason I was flagging, mistaken as it was!

Re #227: "My point being, someone else will flag a spam/personal attack post for you."

And if an idea is worth posting, someone else will come up with the same idea and post it for you.

Re #230: "How about we only flag users from other continents?"

In today's world, you can easily be victimized by people on other continents.

> 233: I don't think we'll be getting any 9/11 scenarios over LT flagging. Well, I hope not.

Re #234:

I'm not talking about 9/11 scenarios. The ways I've been victimized by abusive people could have been done just as easily from another continent and were over matters as simple as LT flagging.

hmmm. Nobody likes the idea of being able to identify a flagger. Perhaps we should not have our ids on our posts? What if someone takes exception to our words, instead of our flags?

Ok, let me put it another way. I will flag if i see a spam/personal attack. I expect to find at least three other people also willing to flag, from the entire population of LT. If necessary, i will issue shiny badges. Between me and my posse, we shall keep LT pure and free of spam and personal attacks. No-one else need risk flagging and consequently being stabbed to death in their beds. Sound good?

Yes, i'm back to being silly.

>#232: And if you put a million monkeys and a million laptops in a room, we could both stop posting.

Edited to correct post reference #.

> 235: I guess some of us have worse internet experiences than others. Though I don't fully understand, I didn't mean to belittle that. Just being my flippant self.

I definitely think some revision to the flagging system is needed, but I wonder whether it might be useful to add a system for positive feedback as well. If we could give a thumbs-up to posts that made a positive contribution, it would be possible to distinguish between valuable posts and less-valuable posts (like "hi") without misusing the flagging system.

Maybe we could see what Tim's current take on this subject is?

Such prolific use of the term "flagging" is giving me a much needed chuckle this morning... We should consult the guide before choosing flag colors, don't you think?
(NSFW subject matter...)

I am not a big proponent of flagging, but I have to say that after checking out Book Talk this morning, I can certainly be driven to it.

>242 Collectorator: I think Tim will weigh in eventually. I haven't seen him around Talk much in the past couple of days, but it would be pretty unusual for him to completely ignore an issue that's generated so much discussion.

And amidst the high feelings there have been some practical suggestions:

1. Require more flags before hiding the post
2. Require flagger to designate reason for flagging (color coded?)
3. Allow users to rescind their own flags
4. Allow counter flagging, i.e. other users can unflag a post (2:1 ratio?)
5. Make public flagger usernames
6. Move "flag abuse" link farther away from "top" link
7. Provide more info to new members on which groups are appropriate for what types of posts
8. General overhaul of talk to make it clearer, avoid duplicate groups, make it easier to find old threads on a topic

It's a long thread, I probably missed something, so feel free to add anything I left out.

There was also much discussion of appropriate forum behavior, but though useful, that is really our collective responsibility as users.

Thanks for summarizing, eromsted.

I would also add
9. Require more flags before disabling posting

and possibly
10. Add a mechanism for positive feedback, so that people can support the worthwhile messages rather than inappropriately flagging messages that they consider useless

Good lord.

On features:

1. Flagging will remain private. It's a valuable protection to the flagger.
2. When I have a chance I'll add un-flagging, a feature in Reviews, to Talk.

On manners:

1. Be nice, people. Nastiness between regular members is much more poisonous to what makes LibraryThing great than a message in lowercase.
2. Bad grammar, spelling are not flagable offenses. You don't have to like them, but they are not violations of the Terms of Service. Flagging someone without cause is a violation of the Terms of Service. (No, we don't go after someone easily for violations of this.)
3. LibraryThing is not and will not become a Twilight-free zone. From where I sit, 75% of the books on LibraryThing are boring crap. That's the nature of human taste. The world will keep on spinning whether or not I like knitting books, or you like Twilight.
4. LibraryThing staff don't patrol the site, and, like the Supreme Court, we don't review cases unless we're asked. So if you see a TOS-violation, let us know.

On children:

1. LibraryThing is for anyone 13 and over. That is all.
2. The minimum age is a legal requirement, not a grammatical one. It stems from the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Being under 13 is, in theory, a flaggable offense, but it's much more important to send LT staff a note so we can get the user off the site.

1. Require more flags before hiding the post

I'm against, since you can always see the text of the post, and a light-trigger means spam and etc. is hidden that much quicker. But perhaps it gets better if members can de/counter-flag something.

2. Require flagger to designate reason for flagging (color coded?)

Meh. A lot of trouble I think. The TOS prohibits a bunch of stuff.

3. Allow users to rescind their own flags

I prefer #4.

4. Allow counter flagging, i.e. other users can unflag a post (2:1 ratio?)

Yes.

5. Make public flagger usernames

No.

6. Move "flag abuse" link farther away from "top" link

It's a two-step process. I like it where it is.

7. Provide more info to new members on which groups are appropriate for what types of posts

Written guidance almost never works. Any of you read your car manual? UI tweaks can help.

8. General overhaul of talk to make it clearer, avoid duplicate groups, make it easier to find old threads on a topic

I want a pony too. ;)

9. Provide ponies for all LT users.

Cool, sounds promising. Thanks for the input :)

>248 MrAndrew:

Would that be a sparkly My Pony kind of pony?

(sorry if this if off-topic--feel free to mention if so)

>#249: can i flag you?

Pony?! Where, where??

Seriously though, I'm glad that Tim finally weighed in on this, 'cause I was sitting here on the sidelines biting my tongue and swearing I wouldn't post about this anymore because of how crazy it had gotten.

HaHa! I'll flag you all! And nobody can stop me!

And I'd also like to thank Tim for clarifying things. I like to Think of LibraryThing as being open and welcoming to anyone who wants to participate. That is what makes LT great. (That and being able to play with books.)

Tim:

7. Provide more info to new members on which groups are appropriate for what types of posts

Written guidance almost never works. Any of you read your car manual? UI tweaks can help.

Well, yes, actually, I did.

That said, I know 99% of people don't, or even read the group descriptions when they're in front of their noses, but I'm curious about what sort of "UI tweak" could help prevent, say, feature requests from going in New Features (which, given the name, is eminently understandable) or posts like the one that started all this kerfluffle from going in Site Talk.

Any of you read your car manual?

At least twice a year - I do like the time on my clock to be right!

...

252>

I like to Think of LibraryThing as being open and welcoming to anyone who wants to participate. That is what makes LT great.

I think everyone agrees with that (as long as you exempt spammers from "anyone")-- we just disagree on how to make it "open and welcoming", or on who's at risk of being made to feel unwelcome. It's clear from this thread that a lot of people think it's young people, and/or those who aren't comfortable with regular language usage, who are unwelcome; others, and I'll confess I lean more in this direction, worry that if "New Groups" is dominated by endless duplicate groups, and if the "standing groups" of Site Talk and Book Talk are dominated by random "llama llama llama" chatting, worry that potential "serious" users -- by which I mean those who would enter books and have interesting things to say about them, like all of us here -- will be turned off by what they perceive as a shallow chat site.

There must be a way to make both those who couldn't spell "dictionary" if it was sitting in front of them and those who have the Compact OED on their bedside table welcome, but it's not necessarily easy, and it's certainly not the straw-man Nice Welcoming People and Mean Exclusionary People separation that some people are suggesting.

I'm glad Tim is less controlling than some of the posters on this thread.

>#256: He told you to say that, didn't he?

"or else..."

what sort of "UI tweak" could help prevent, say, feature requests from going in New Features

In the list of Standing Groups, RSI could appear above New Features.

#255,

Personally, I'd like to be able to flag grumpy people who feel they ought to be LT-Police; as well as people who are too-darn-cheerful.

Oh yeah and the people who drive faster than I do (crazy!) and the people who drive slower (morons). Flag them. Flag them all to hell!

And people who flag people.

And the people who flag them.

I've flagged (spam), but never (to my knowledge) been flagged.
Am I missing something, MrA?

>261 MrAndrew: You FLAGGER!

People... people who flag people...are the luckiest people in the world...

MrA is infectious.

"Abuse" - you've brought Streisand to my mind ;-)

I would like to thank everyone who flagged on this thread. It's making it really easy to debug the feature I'm developing ;)

#266 - :o(
Is it too late to start flagging?
I want to be thanked for something.
:o(

>267 clamairy: Start posting ads selling your kidneys! We'll flag you for sure...although I'm not sure what the going rate for a kidney is nowadays.

Okay, I never really knew what the going rate for a kidney was, but if you offer to sell yours it is a commercial solicitation and illegal in a few countries for sure!

Ahhh, it's never too late to start flagging. Jump on the band wagon. It's nicely decorated with, er, flags.

Tim posted new tagging features: http://www.librarything.com/topic/65287

Claimary's kidney's for sale! Only $29.99 a kidney! Get in now before they're all gone!

> 271 : Aargh! Have tagging on the brain I guess.

> 273: I've heard they can fix that now, but it might require surgery.

I admit a good lobotomy might make me forget most of my worries. Most of everything else too, but I suppose one shouldn't nitpick.

>272 MrAndrew: Pfft - I know the going rate for a human kidney is more than that...I only flag legitimate commercial offers...

Only one owner!

Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

>277 clamairy: No price tag - it is not a complete commercial solicitation!

Sheesh - look, I may not know the actual going rate for kidneys and all, but I know which two LT members will not be in the pricing division of my new black market organ selling conglomerate. Whenever I figure out how to run one of those...

Positions in middle management are still very much under consideration. :)

>277 clamairy: By the way, is that colored pencil? Your work, clamairy?

Not unless her name is Ross.

>#279: I'm going for volume sales. Low margin, high turnover.

No it's not my work. All the other kidney pics online were gruesome. This one was almost cute.

>282 MrAndrew: But what happens when the Snopes people have to confirm their tales of kidney theft with the bathtub/cellphone/ice story thingy?

You know which one I'm talking about...unless you have a different plan.