Build a better forum

There’s been a lot of chat recently about what’s wrong with this forum. So let’s see if we can turn that into a positive and come up with how we would like a new forum to work. I’m not suggesting at this stage that I or anyone else will actually build such a forum. That might happen. But a lot of things would need to be agreed upon first before building a new forum would be worthwhile.

In my experience as a software and hardware engineer of many years, such a thing would not be trivial. It will take a lot of planning, discussion and thrashing out of ideas before we even put finger to keyboard. Figuring out what to build is often harder than building and testing it.

Let’s have positive ideas noted down here. Negatives are not welcome. Talk about what you want, not what you don’t want. Think about how your idea would actually work before you post so that we don’t have to wade through too many infeasible ideas.

I will start by saying that I think this current forum starts from a good place, with great volunteers and some good rules. Execution isn’t great, but that’s not the fault of the people running it. More, I suspect, the technology and those providing it. So I think the current principles and rules are sound and therefore let me start with some basic suggestions based on those. These are for discussion. They’re not absolutes.

1. Privacy first

Users may not disclose any personally identifying information. Accounts will be linked to an email address for practical reasons but this will not be displayed. A nickname will be shown instead. An avatar can be used but it cannot contain identifying imagery. Messages cannot contain phone numbers. Other media cannot be uploaded. No urls or other external  info. The forum is for discussion only. That might need some work, especially around urls. 

2. Moderation 

Full moderation destroys the immediacy of chat and isn’t welcome. The downside to that is that bad content will appear at some point. We probably need to use an automatic scoring system that flags accounts with markers which causes a human moderator to notified if a threshold is breached. The odd misdemeanour can pass without comment but regularly repeated triggers of the automated scanning requires the attention of a human. Accounts can be marked for pre-moderation if deemed necessary for a while, or even blocked as a severe penalty. 

3. Reputation

Lots of problem free posts together with likes can drive up a reputation score for each account. Perhaps a high reputation feeds into the moderation threshold. Perhaps it allows the use or urls etc. 

4. Right to be forgotten

Don’t keep discussions forever. Most stuff is just chat that can be destroyed after a few months and probably should be. Mods can be requested to lock an important discussion or make it sticky for a while or keep it indefinitely  

5. Keep it simple

Initially go for just a basic text chat. Markdown but no major formatting. Chat group categories for organisation. Other features can be added later. 

Let the specification begin!

Parents
  • Thanks for this AriseBlush

    I'd like discussions to be kept as much as possible but I suspect I'm rather alone in this desire and it maybe relates to my age.

    I'm not at all keen on ephemera.

    I don't see them as fleeting things and actually created a 'library of threads'.

    People do sometimes search the threads here for information.

    There are threads that are old and are still being uploaded to: '3 things' and 'Creative space' in particular but, as you say, they can be pinned.

    Just one that works as it should and doesn't randomly send people to Spam Prison would suit me!

    Personally, I'd be happy for this to be done outside of NAS as it's NAS that appears to be the problem here.

    If it's run by autistics for autistics I think that could work well.

    Although if it's not linked to NAS how easily could it be found on a search engine?

    Thinking

  • Although if it's not linked to NAS how easily could it be found on a search engine?

    It would realistically cost to have it shown high up on the search results (this is a part of how search engimes make money) and would require someone with Search Engine Optimisation skills to keep it  up there.

    If the website were to host adverts then this could offset some of the costs, but I'm not sure how people here would raact to that.

  • It would realistically cost to have it shown high up on the search results (this is a part of how search engimes make money) and would require someone with Search Engine Optimisation skills to keep it  up there.

    If the website were to host adverts then this could offset some of the costs, but I'm not sure how people here would raact to that.

    Thanks Iain.

    Yes, adverts wouldn't go down well with me - I tend to leave sites that have them and use an Ad Blocker.

    It's all rather complex isn't it.

  • I realised I had not mentioned that each of the things above earns "points" that effectively rate how likely a post is to be spam - once you get above a certain threshold (3 I think) then it is automatically flagged.

    There appears to be another mechanism where if you are flagged twice in a certain period of time them you get put on the naughty step where all your posts are held for moderation.

    Most companies will not punlish these details as it just makes it easier for spammers to work within those guidelines.

  • If it's the spam filter, I don't understand why that can't be moderated

    It normally can be modified but it will depend on the options that were setup on the service contract under the new suppliers.

    I suspect that the cheapest option was used (since most cash will have gone on the upgrade to the site) which means there is a generic spam filter used that cannot be modified.

    It is more or less fit for purpose as it catches most spam (do you recall seeing much here recently?) but is overzealous in order to do this.

    A more agreeable option would be to pay for the upgrade to a customisable spam filter and pay to train staff on modifying it.

    Perhaps creating a list of actions that trigger the spam filter would be a good interim measure seeing as systemic change is not on the cards.

    From what I can see it looks like the following are triggers:

    1- posting links to known suspect sites

    2 - posting more than 3 links of any kind

    3 - editing a post within a certain time of its creation

    4 - including more than 3 images in a post

    5 - posting the same thing more than once in a certain time period

    6 - using multiple key words (typically ones that are auto censored)

    There will be other criteria but it would be good to confirm these and maybe get someone to post this as a new topic so it is easy to refer to.

    It may be fatalistic to look at accepting the current status quo but experience indicates things are unlikely to change here and alternatives are probably not viable long term.

  • Once we understand what triggers the auto-quaranteen mechanism then it should be a lot easier to avoid it, but I do hope NAS get around to eventually paying their IT company to do more work on it, but I kind of suspect they were dumped after the debacle of the upgrade recently, so there is nobody to do any work on the site.

    If it's the spam filter, I don't understand why that can't be modified - do you know about spam filters and the companies that provide them?

    This is a copy that Pixiefox posted of a reply from the Community Manager on this subject:

    I think that they are using a different spam filter than before the upgrade, but although I don't want to have the forum filled with spam I don't want established members to be constantly moderated either, and there doesn't seem to be any answer to how that can be resolved. Here's a copy of their email to me:
    "We would like to apologise that your posts went into the moderation queue. We had less moderation over the festive period which meant it may have taken a little longer for your posts to be approved by the moderation team. Thank you for your patience whislt the moderation team approved your post.  
    We are unsure why your posts were flagged by the spam filter. The spam filter is an external feature. We do not have control over the spam filter and what posts are picked up. One option would be to remove the spam filter, but this would mean a huge increase in spam on the community which would not be pleasant for users. .."
Reply
  • Once we understand what triggers the auto-quaranteen mechanism then it should be a lot easier to avoid it, but I do hope NAS get around to eventually paying their IT company to do more work on it, but I kind of suspect they were dumped after the debacle of the upgrade recently, so there is nobody to do any work on the site.

    If it's the spam filter, I don't understand why that can't be modified - do you know about spam filters and the companies that provide them?

    This is a copy that Pixiefox posted of a reply from the Community Manager on this subject:

    I think that they are using a different spam filter than before the upgrade, but although I don't want to have the forum filled with spam I don't want established members to be constantly moderated either, and there doesn't seem to be any answer to how that can be resolved. Here's a copy of their email to me:
    "We would like to apologise that your posts went into the moderation queue. We had less moderation over the festive period which meant it may have taken a little longer for your posts to be approved by the moderation team. Thank you for your patience whislt the moderation team approved your post.  
    We are unsure why your posts were flagged by the spam filter. The spam filter is an external feature. We do not have control over the spam filter and what posts are picked up. One option would be to remove the spam filter, but this would mean a huge increase in spam on the community which would not be pleasant for users. .."
Children
  • I realised I had not mentioned that each of the things above earns "points" that effectively rate how likely a post is to be spam - once you get above a certain threshold (3 I think) then it is automatically flagged.

    There appears to be another mechanism where if you are flagged twice in a certain period of time them you get put on the naughty step where all your posts are held for moderation.

    Most companies will not punlish these details as it just makes it easier for spammers to work within those guidelines.

  • If it's the spam filter, I don't understand why that can't be moderated

    It normally can be modified but it will depend on the options that were setup on the service contract under the new suppliers.

    I suspect that the cheapest option was used (since most cash will have gone on the upgrade to the site) which means there is a generic spam filter used that cannot be modified.

    It is more or less fit for purpose as it catches most spam (do you recall seeing much here recently?) but is overzealous in order to do this.

    A more agreeable option would be to pay for the upgrade to a customisable spam filter and pay to train staff on modifying it.

    Perhaps creating a list of actions that trigger the spam filter would be a good interim measure seeing as systemic change is not on the cards.

    From what I can see it looks like the following are triggers:

    1- posting links to known suspect sites

    2 - posting more than 3 links of any kind

    3 - editing a post within a certain time of its creation

    4 - including more than 3 images in a post

    5 - posting the same thing more than once in a certain time period

    6 - using multiple key words (typically ones that are auto censored)

    There will be other criteria but it would be good to confirm these and maybe get someone to post this as a new topic so it is easy to refer to.

    It may be fatalistic to look at accepting the current status quo but experience indicates things are unlikely to change here and alternatives are probably not viable long term.