Some posts need approval by moderator?

[Waterstiller]

Not a suggestion, but a question.

Is it the length of the post? Amount of links? Is it the nature of my character? The individual forum?

I'm sure the answer is really simple and it's in the rules somewhere. It doesn't really matter, but I usually see a major problem with a post after I submit and then I need to edit it. This is usually after numerous 'previews', too. Then, when the odd post comes up that requires mod approval I get sad because now I can't look it over in the context of the thread and do a quick run-through. Which makes me sad and usually embarrassed when it finally pops up at an unpredicted time.

Knowing what causes it will only lead to better posts, I assure you.

 

[Waterstiller]

I would have edited out the embarrassment smilie and the second usage of "sad" because it's redundant. See my dilemma? See it?!

 

[Waterstiller]

Now, I'm thinking that "See it?!" was a little too much. And I would have deleted the sad smilie.


I foresee that I'd want to delete the And and tack on an as well to the previous sentence.


Perhaps (I say perhaps too much) this would be the post that I'd want to include a sad smilie.

I foresee editing this post to change smilie to emoticon for a couple reasons:

• Emoticon is the official term, despite Firefox's insistence that it's misspelled.
• The sad "smilie" is, indeed, frowning.
• It conjures images of depressed clowns.

Okay, I'll stop.

 

[Waterstiller]

In all honesty, every single post in this thread is arguably a better candidate for mod approval than the ones in question.


Now I want to edit the previous post to remove the blatant lie that I'd stop.

 

[Dissident]

Dont stop, its funny



Its just because of the links I think.

See this thread:

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=508

 

[Waterstiller]

What if you couldn't have edited that post to include the link?! Oh yes, I saw it. It's as though you stumbled in public and pretended like it didn't happen.


WHAT IF THE LINK CAUSED IT TO NEED MAUDE APPROVAL?>! I WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT AN ANSWER AND YOU WOULD HAVE FELT THE STING OF FAILURE.

If you make the text size smaller and acknowledge that the question is greater than the exclamation, is it enough to negate the use of all caps? These are the questions of the age, my friend.

 

[Dissident]

You are a fast refresher, you shouldnt have seen what you saw. Keep it to yourself. Please?

As long as you are editing the post you can put as many links as you like, the post is already posted so it wont go for approval.

 

[Waterstiller]

I know I've heard that 'stumble in public' type of analogy used somewhere else.

I hope the unoriginal analogy (those words sound great together) didn't dilute (I'm on a roll) my attempt at being original with the 'all-caps' thing. I think it was original and I'm quite proud of it.

Not that it was funny or even remotely clever, but just the fact that I feel it's something that I came up with. I have hopes of it becoming a meme. Though, if it does, I doubt I'll be credited as it's creator(...). Which is the depression of the age.


(Thank you, Dissident <3 )

 

[Ogion]

Hm, i'm not all sure i get the reason for your frustation right, but you have a problem with editing your posts? I mean, there is some sort of deadline, after which you can't edit your post anymore. But beforehand there shouldn't be a problem...

BTW it seems that the problem with links doesn't turn up when you 'hide' the links under words. You know, by using the link tags.

Ogion

EDIT: Ok, seems you got it (and seems that i am a bit slow with posting )

 

[EloquentBohemian]

So I just wrote a reply in the thread "Difficult INformation" in the Lounge with no links and one emoticon (I have a copy of the post) and I was informed that it had to be viewed by a moderator?

Why?

 

[Ogion]

Hm, strange. I don't know why this happens. Never happened to me.
Perhaps you ask lor (loveofreason) about this, she may know.

Ogion

 

[loveofreason]

Sorry folks, the spam filter does it's own thing. I'm not certain why it would have considered Bohemian's post to be suspect.

Waterstiller on the other hand is clearly shifty and I'm surprised hir posts get through at all.

 

[Jesin]

BTW it seems that the problem with links doesn't turn up when you 'hide' the links under words. You know, by using the link tags.

Oh, it does, and thank goodness for that. If something like that could be used to circumvent the spam protection system, we'd be flooded with ads.

 

[Waterstiller]

Sorry folks, the spam filter does it's own thing. I'm not certain why it would have considered Bohemian's post to be suspect.

Waterstiller on the other hand is clearly shifty and I'm surprised hir posts get through at all.

I'm too naive to be shifty.

 

[Death]

Can't mod make these spam preventing system to not filter certain users,after they proved they are not spammers though.

 

[loveofreason]

I guess a hypothetical non-lazy admin could consider looking at the possibilities...

not promising anything!

 

[eudemonia]

I noticed that in my profile there is reference to 1 referral.What does that mean? I know I have had more than one posting syphoned off by the spam filter so it can't relate to that

 

[loveofreason]

That means someone who joined stated you as their referee. I guess Philos_sophia.

 

[Ex-User (221)]

Hmmm... My posts have been getting through no problem but my thread has to be approved.

 

[Auburn]

oh, um, another thread just reminded me of something.
I just wanted to say that what I do about this is:

If I know that my post will contain a link, then I only post a blank post saying "(editing)" and then edit in my entire content and the link right afterward. After the initial post gets through, which it will with no links, editing more content won't set off the filter.

Spambots are probably not smart enough to do that, so I think this is a good tactic to distinguish an intruding link from a member's link - and also make the moderators' jobs easier(?)

$0.02

 

[Ogion]

Well, yea, posts without links (or heavy layouting) very rarely get filtered (as good as never). So it would make our jobs easier, but then, all it takes is half a minute every two hours or so.
It's good advice though for people not wishing to take the risk of maybe waiting two hours for their post
(Remember, you cna't post completely empty posts, just put "bla" in and then edit the link in)

Ogion

 

[Ulysses]

It should stop sending posts off for approval once a user has reached a certain number of posts without receiving too many infractions. That would make things easier for both the users and the moderators.

 

[Thaklaar]

Yeah, the way this is set up is a bit ludicrous. I feel like I'm being encouraged to not support my arguments. And dang it, I never remember to leave links out when posting and edit them in after. Second Ulysses's suggestion. Spam-bots won't wait around to hit the hundred-post mark.

 

[Ogion]

Sorry, as mod i can only operate it, but not change it.
But really, you should not feel disencvouraged to post just because of it.
The thing is, one really can see wether a post is spam or not by one look. It doesn't take more than 10 seconds really. I'm not even reading posts by real users.

And i think we are usually relatively fast with approving the non-spam posts.

Ogion

 

[Thaklaar]

Never said I felt discouraged from posting, just from providing supporting links to my text. And yes, y'all are relatively quick about approving posts. I just think it's a bit of an unnecessary spot of work for you guys. Should think a system of approving accounts rather than posts would be less labor intensive. And obviously that's aimed more at the admins and owner than at the mods themselves, Ogion.