• Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 84 subscribers
  • Views 588 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Update about sensitive spam filter

Rosie Mod
Dear Online Community users,  
 
Our It team have been working hard to resolve the issue with our oversensitive spam filter, whilst they are still working with our technical partners to resolve the problem. We have identified triggers that are sending your posts into moderation queue. The triggers that have been identified are if you post includes:  
  • more than 10 repeated phrases - a "phrase" can be any sequence of characters, including common text patterns. For example, repeatedly using the same greeting, sign-off, or tagline throughout a post can trigger the filter. Varying your language slightly can help prevent this.
  • Untrusted URL (this does not include links to the Online Community or the NAS website). 
  • Over 10 URLs.  
 
Please do continue to report any technical issues to the CommunityManager@nas.org.uk and the Moderation Team will get back to you.  
 
We hope that this is helpful whilst posting in the future. 
 
Kind regards, 
The Moderation Team
Parents

  • Dear "Moderation Team"

    I think it would be helpful for us all, if you could clarify - aka de-obfuscate - this message.

    As others have said below, the parameters that you mention in your OP are not things that EVER occur here.......and certainly not in any frequency that would account for the endless "moderation prisons" that YOUR dwindling membership seems to endure?

    It is kind of you to attempt to communicate with your members in this way - it is applauded in principle........but can you do it with some "meaning" without compromising the wider security of the site, perhaps, please. maybe?

    Yours,

    Number.

  • in reply to Number

    PS...It is interesting that we are now "users" rather than "members" ...... I wonder if there was an online meeting, or just a memo?

    Ding, ding.....all change here please....for better or worse.

  • in reply to Bunny
    Bunny said:
    Members do not have to choose between using this community or using the FB group.

    This is getting muddled again.

    I'm not going down another rabbit hole. 

    The problem here is there is a charge to use the private Facebook group because you need to be a NAS member to access it. 

    I accept, you don't have to pay.  You can choose to stay exclusively here, for free, but to use the 'other' peer-to-peer support function, you pay (and lose your anonymity). 

    This is why I said bisect.  Two support groups in two places.  I accept you can choose to take part in both, but to me that represents a dilution of content & membership. 

    That is unless the FB group doesn't work like that in practice, and doesn't act like a frontline support group.  

     

  • in reply to Sharon Mod
    Sharon Mod said:
    There is no reason moderators refer to “users” or “members” apart from personal practice.

       That's your question answered 

  • in reply to overwhelmed & underwhelmed

    Hello

    There is no reason moderators refer to “users” or “members” apart from personal practice. I have tended to write "Online Community users" but would be happy to use "Online Community members" if that was the preference of most people here. 

    There is no plan to create a separate paid-for forum which replicates or replaces this Online Community. 

    Thanks

    Sharon Mod

  • in reply to overwhelmed & underwhelmed
    overwhelmed & underwhelmed said:
    If we bisect the users by having those who want to pay in one place, and those that don't or can't in another, it'll surely dilute both.  Won't it?   In terms of quality, and numbers taking part in both places.  

    Members do not have to choose between using this community or using the FB group.

    I'm in both, and I have shared many things here that I will never be willing to disclose in the FB group, where my identity is visible to everyone else.

Reply
  • in reply to overwhelmed & underwhelmed
    overwhelmed & underwhelmed said:
    If we bisect the users by having those who want to pay in one place, and those that don't or can't in another, it'll surely dilute both.  Won't it?   In terms of quality, and numbers taking part in both places.  

    Members do not have to choose between using this community or using the FB group.

    I'm in both, and I have shared many things here that I will never be willing to disclose in the FB group, where my identity is visible to everyone else.

Children
  • in reply to Bunny
    Bunny said:
    Members do not have to choose between using this community or using the FB group.

    This is getting muddled again.

    I'm not going down another rabbit hole. 

    The problem here is there is a charge to use the private Facebook group because you need to be a NAS member to access it. 

    I accept, you don't have to pay.  You can choose to stay exclusively here, for free, but to use the 'other' peer-to-peer support function, you pay (and lose your anonymity). 

    This is why I said bisect.  Two support groups in two places.  I accept you can choose to take part in both, but to me that represents a dilution of content & membership. 

    That is unless the FB group doesn't work like that in practice, and doesn't act like a frontline support group.