On Recent Concerns regarding the direction of Stack Exchange

2018-05-15 by . 0 comments

We’re sorry if our recent blog post felt belittling given your efforts; it wasn’t intended to come off that way.

If you’ve been struggling to keep your site civil and welcoming despite shortcomings in our software and stalled development on most tools, our recent blog post might have hurt your feelings a bit because it didn’t do a good enough job of highlighting the truly human and compassionate touch that you provide every day.

We’ve got no excuses there, just like we didn’t have any excuses in the post. It was a difficult piece to write, and could have been a 10-or-more part series that dove more comprehensively into every point that we brought up in a single post. We felt that we needed to write something that was as all-encompassing and admissive as possible concerning problems that have been festering for a while now; leaving out mention of the work you do every day that glues this place together was not an intentional omission, and we’re sorry that we didn’t shine a bigger light on what you do. That goes for all users that go out of their way to be amazing and helpful people on our sites every day, it just happens that group includes all of you.

More frequent updates

We know that we’ve got a lot of things going, and while we’re making an effort to be more present for live 1:1 needs, we see the need to consolidate updates that are easy to find and refer to as we do a whole lot of things around updating terms, working on welcoming initiatives (which means shiny new tools coming down the road), and other stuff. We’re going to need your help more than ever as we look at what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to giving new users the most possible welcoming experience.

We feel like we lost some of you along the way in the last few years as we kept encouraging and acknowledging time you were spending suggesting things that could have helped us avoid things coming to a head as far as how new users have been experiencing the sites. We want to get back to working more together and actually putting some metal behind the words to make things better for everyone.

We originally built this network around the concept of incorporating a lot of feedback from as many perspectives as we could get, including those that tend to see the worst experiences that folks have, and the reasons behind those. Somehow we stopped listening to that signal as we worked to reach a lot of goals, we consider that to be a pretty big mistake.

Part of that means letting all of you know about important stuff that gets discussed, so you don’t miss an opportunity to weigh in on it. To that, we’re going to try to commit to getting this newsletter out twice monthly, even if some issues just contain links to meta posts and feature ideas in an effort to be sure everyone sees them.

Some high level thoughts on chat moderation

You’ve probably seen the meta post Tim wrote about more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat, and what that might mean for you. Essentially, there’s no new policy being put into play, we’re just going to be enforcing our existing code of conduct more consistently.

We want chat to be an enjoyable place where people don’t feel like they need to walk on eggshells, but at the same time, rooms need to do an automatic course correction if it’s pointed out that the culture has become unwelcoming in some way, which often calls into question what isn’t being flagged.

It’s hard to define what looks bad in a list of bullet points that translate into specific things people can or can’t say. So we’re not going to. We have a “Be Nice” policy, and it’s even shown to new chat users when they join. It’s something that has to be enforced, and in all directions. Users should be welcomed as they attempt to participate, and treated with respect and dignity. Users should be able to respectfully bring up when a conversation topic leaks into problematic territory or language, and the room should be able to listen to this and acknowledge it accordingly.

This respect should extend to everyone, whether new to chat or a regular. Whether the exchange is from a regular to another regular, a regular to a new user, or a new user to a regular, each participant should be expected to behave appropriately and should expect to see their concerns given due consideration. So long as this is upheld, then there’ll probably never be a problem with the room being on our network, and we’ll remain proud to host it. If folks stay in-line with the code of conduct, then everything works keen. If folks stray from it, then actions such as flagging must be taken to rein them in, without breaking out of the code of conduct when doing so. This applies whether those folks are new or old.

We know that chat moderation tools need a lot of work, and we’re going to work on them. We hope the above description and info helps guide you until we get better tools to help room owners better set the tone with a system that does a better job of gently nudging folks to stay on the right track.

Thank you for your input regarding the new arbitration clause, though there’s still some confusion.

Everyone that offered concerns about the new arbitration clause to Jay, Tim, Abby & Shog9 did so with an extremely level head, and important points to be heard. We feel like we did a pretty good job of listening to everyone’s concerns and taking them back to our legal team, who delivered what we feel was the best compromise that they could, but concerns like these:

  • What does it actually mean to opt out, for me as a user? What changes?,
  • How (or even if) this new clause is applicable to users outside of the USA?
  • Are we planning to change our business model to something that we anticipate will make people want to sue?
  • Why have it, if everyone can just opt-out anyway? Why not just make it opt-in?

… are still coming up pretty frequently.

The meta post is long, and it contains a considerable amount of information that one might use to formulate their own answer to those questions. But, folks really want us to answer these questions more directly, so we will.

After we’re done announcing changes to the privacy policy and cookie policy to be in compliance with GDPR (more on that shortly), we’ll write some meta FAQ entries to specifically address individual questions in a manner that doesn’t require folks to draw conclusions based on an (over-?) abundance of information.

GDPR is nearly here, there will be more updates coming around that.

It’s hard to explain what the GDPR is going to mean for how we treat and handle user’s data in a paragraph or two, but here are the big things you should know about in a nutshell:

  • We’re following the EU regulations blanketly; we’re treating them as law for users in the EU and as hard guidelines for everywhere else. We believe in the spirit of what the law is doing, first and foremost, and being compliant everywhere means less chance of us breaking compliance by maintaining separate standards.
  • There will be a condensed ‘legal center’ on sites with links to the privacy policy, terms, acceptable use policy, cookie policy, etc, as well as links to GDPR-specific request forms that will be available to everyone, not just in the EU.
  • Nothing changes about moderation. While the minimum age to participate will remain 13 in the US, it will be 16 in other parts of the EU. There’s nothing in any law that says we need to actively look for under age users, which is a huge relief. If you notice someone revealing their age and you wonder if they’re too young to have an account, just use the ‘contact CM’ feature from the user’s profile and feel free to forget about it. An absence of action on our part can be taken as an indication that we looked, but didn’t find grounds to remove the account.
  • More will come in a meta post set to go out on MSE within the week.

We’ve got swag!

We’ve got items from most sites that have received custom designs, and we’ve got a lot of Stack Exchange branded stuff that tends to gather dust in our warehouse. We don’t want to encourage folks to find a way to give it out willy-nilly, but we do want to remind you that it’s a tool at your disposal if you think it could help reinforce your core communities.

We’ve had, well, let’s call it mixed luck when it came to offering prizes for content generation. While there have been some pleasant exceptions, sites have typically ended up with, well, posts that look like they were written to win a contest for generating content. We’ve found it’s better to find ways to use the freebies to reward your core users for doing what they do every day.

That doesn’t mean you can’t make it fun; you’ve probably seen some contests on Meta Stack Exchange that just asked folks to make silly hats, or draw silly pictures. We’re not suggesting you do that, but a site about workplaces could conceivably have a contest for the best fictional dossier ever created on an employee that HR keeps under lock and key. Hopefully, you get the gist.

If you need help planning a contest in advance, or just figuring out what’s available, you can simply post on your meta site. If you’d like to come up with a contest by conspiring with your fellow moderators and then surprising your users, work out the details then get in touch with us via email or in the Teacher’s Lounge to coordinate.

Note, in the interest of scheduling, we may ask you to schedule this a bit in advance, just so we know we’ve got coverage on our end to fulfill it, and enough inventory on-hand.

Filed under announcement

May 2016 Newsletter

2016-04-27 by . 0 comments

New Accessible List of Recent Chat Flags

Moderators now have access to a list of all recent flags in chat rooms where they’re able to moderate. This list can be found in chat.stackexchange.com/admin/recent-flags (chat.stackoverflow.com/admin/recent-flags for Stack Overflow chat) and offers a list the 100 most-recently flagged messages, along with the number of spam/offensive flags, counter-flags, unsure “flags” and moderator-only flags for each.

Chat flagging has been controversial for years, but it’s hard to prove where it’s failing. We hope this overview will not only be a helpful tool for moderators to manage chat, but also help provide insight that may help identify issues with the flagging system. Moderators are free to peruse this list and observe the sorts of messages attracting flags. They may also take additional action if needed, including imposing longer suspensions on persistently abusive authors or lifting automatically-imposed suspensions where unwarranted. We also encourage moderators to keep the guidelines for moderating chat in mind when reviewing past flags.

Moderator Vacation Notice System Added

It’s now possible for moderators to signal their intention to go on vacation via the moderator history page. There will be a simple text field with a button labelled “Record myself as absent / inactive”. The text field is optional but it is recommended to use it to explain the estimated duration of your absence, and if desired, the reason for absence. You can read more information about it in the moderator help center.

Moderation is, and always will be, a volunteer activity. Whether you’re an elected moderator of a graduated site, or a pro tem moderator appointed by hand, it’s always your time to invest into the site at your own discretion. Always feel welcome, whether you’re feeling generally overwhelmed, or maybe you just need a break, to take time off for yourself. We hope that this tool will help you feel more comfortable in taking such absences to recharge, rest, or simply deal with the many other facets in your daily lives.

Filed under newsletter

February 2016 Newsletter

2016-02-24 by . 0 comments

(The “We’re not dead anymore” edition)

New Moderator Ability to Redact Revisions

We’ve reworked the entire revision redaction system, into something not only less destructive than the old system of revision destruction, but also into something which moderators can perform. Now, rather than simply destroying revisions which contain the old data, the existing revision is directly modified. This is, as always, to be used when there is sensitive information to be removed, for example when an author inadvertently posts passwords or license keys.

To redact a revision, first head to the revision history of the post in question, and locate the latest revision that contains the sensitive information. (For posts that haven’t yet been edited, the revision history may be obtained by navigating to the URL /posts/[id]/revisions, where [id] is the ID of the post being redacted). In the far right of revision actions is redact, select that to bring up an edit window. Remove or replace the content as necessary for the situation, and provide an appropriate edit summary explaining the redaction. A moderator who submits a redaction must then have their redaction approved by another moderator or an employee. Redactions are reviewed via the moderator flag queue, and use a flag labelled “revision redaction approval” which can be filtered like any other flag type. Once the redaction is approved, the revision is modified and a “redacted by” annotation will appear on it to moderators on both the revision history and in the timeline view. When filling in the “Redaction Summary” field, describe the reason for the redaction; this will be visible to other moderators and eventually to trusted users.

In the event that multiple revisions contain the sensitive data, each revision containing this data must be individually redacted, from most recent to earliest. However, the system will attempt to aid you in this: performing a redaction on an earlier revision will attempt to smart-apply the changes made to the later revision, offering the options to accept the automatic changes, perform additional redactions, or discard and perform manual redactions. Please review the the provided diffs on the page in order to confirm that the redaction is sane; in most cases you can rapidly redact all remaining revisions with this automatic assistance (each submitted redaction will still require approval from another moderator before being applied to the revision).

New Moderator Ability to Modify Edit Summaries

Moderators can now modify the revision comments of individual revisions, in order to address abusive or offensive content which people stash in there. When viewing a post’s revision history, there’s a new option edit comment, which will bring an inline editor for the current edit summary. The edits from this action are applied instantly, and are treated as if the original revision used this edit summary.

Filed under draft, newsletter

June 2015 Newsletter

2015-05-29 by . 0 comments

New Option “contact community team” Added to Mod Menu on Users

For convenience, we’ve now added a direct channel for contacting the community team when you encounter a problem your moderator team is ill-equipped to handle. There’s a new option on the mod menu for the user page, called “contact community team”. Fill this out and it’ll generate a ticket in our support system, automatically including your profile as a moderator and the profile of the user you’re contacting us about, along with the custom message you provide containing the details of the problem. Once received, our Community Ops team will handle it, or will contact you (the moderator) via the email in your profile if any follow-up is necessary. This will allow you to deal with situations like user merges, underage users, and network spammers without needing to leave the page you are performing your investigations from.

  Read more → Can we have a moderator only “flag for community team/developer attention” link on posts?

Revision Redaction Implemented to Replace Revision Destruction

We introduced a new tool for the Community Team which allows us to directly modify a specific revision in a post history in order to remove elements such as private credentials. This replaces the previous system where we simply destroyed the revisions that contained such information. Redacted revisions will be marked in red text (visible to moderators only) as “redacted by [Team member]” in the revision history of the post. We will be using this tool going forward whenever you contact us to remove sensitive information from a post’s history – something you can now do using the “contact” option described above!

Closing Statistics Now Available for Moderators and 10k Users

Statistics on closing on your site can now be found as part of the 10k tools. You can find these either by heading to /tools/question-close-stats. Alternatively, you can find them from “question close stats” found in the links section at the bottom of the Close view in the 10k tools.

It’s important to keep an eye on how off-topic is being used on a site. If good questions are being closed incorrectly, the predefined reasons may be too vague; if too many bad questions are being left open or closed with “other” (custom comments left by the close-voter), then you may have picked the wrong reasons. If you see something amiss, don’t hesitate to bring it up for discussion on your meta.

More information on the specific statistics can be found at New 10K tool: question close statistics.

Filed under draft, newsletter

March 2015 Newsletter

2015-03-05 by . 0 comments

Close Vote Aging Process Now Fixed Length, regardless of Views

Close votes, reopen votes, and close flags now begin aging away a maximum of 14 days after the last vote cast, regardless of the view count on the post in question. Previously, posts with a lack of views would not trigger close votes aging away until at least some minimum number of views. In practice, this only partially addressed the problems it was meant to. Stuff that really needed review would sit stagnant, and the longevity it offered to an individual’s vote did not make much of an impact when the post remained unseen by the right folks. On the flip side, things that probably didn’t need to get closed would simply slowly but steadily gain unnecessary close votes.

To help accommodate the situations where a post doesn’t get enough attention during the first round of closing, users who vote to close or reopen will be able to recast their votes if their vote merely ages away. This way, rather than a post simply sitting in the respective queue forever, voters can essentially “re-queue” the post for a fresher look. Note that voters must wait 14 days after the vote ages away before re-raising it, and each time revoting will still consume one of a normal user’s votes per day.

  Read more → Age close votes after 14 days, regardless of views, allowing recasting

  Related FAQ → When are moderator flags automatically dismissed as “aged away” by the system?

Filed under newsletter

February 2015 Newsletter

2015-02-13 by . 0 comments

Duplicate Targets Now Blocked from Deletion

Users, including moderators, are now prohibited from deleting a question which is currently the target of one or more duplicate closures. This will help prevent unusual dead ends where a user comes across a duplicate question, only to be confronted with a non-existent page being pointed to. This prevention is absolute and can only be resolved by removing the duplicates that are pointing to the question – whether this would entail reopening the questions or deleting them will be based on the particular situation.

Upon attempting to delete a question that is shielded in this fashion, the user will be presented with a pop up informing them of the inability to delete the post and the means to which it can be alleviated. The pop up also includes the option to view all posts that currently contain a link that points to the post they attempted to delete. This does include posts which are not actually pointing to the question as a duplicate – the ones that do, however, are easily identified by their status as being closed with [duplicate] in their titles.

  Read more → Auto-flag duplicates of deleted questions for reopening / deletion

Very Low Quality and Not An Answer Flags Temporarily Suppressed In Moderator Queue

Very Low Quality and Not An Answer flags do not enter the moderator queue for 15 minutes after they’re raised. This applies network-wide, except on Stack Overflow, Mathematics, TeX, Salesforce and Stack Overflow em Português (where the delay is a full hour) and meta sites (where they enter the queue immediately).

This delay gives the community a chance to handle these flags first. If that doesn’t happen, or if it can’t happen, then it is made available to moderators for resolution. Keep in mind, not all posts can be processed via review, and when a post is processed through review but continues to garner flags the system reserves these for moderators. Therefore, when you do see these flags in the mod queue, you should handle them – it’s unlikely anyone else will.

How to Find a Chat User from their Site User Profile

You can now reach a user’s chat profile by heading to http://chat.stackexchange.com/accounts/[networkid], where [networkid] corresponds to the user’s Stack Exchange Network ID. You can determine that value from a user when visiting their profile page on any site by clicking “network profile” in the top right (or if your browser supports it, hovering over the link to view the URL), and copying the number from the resulting address. If the user does not actually have a chat profile linked to their account, you will instead be directed to a 404 page when you input that network ID.

This route is available for anyone to use, it is not moderator-only. It is, however, most likely to be of use to moderators when trying to determine a user’s chat identity for the purposes of superpings. We’re considering how to integrate this directly into the profiles, rather than requiring a manually input URL.

Filed under newsletter

September 2014 Newsletter

2014-09-18 by . 0 comments

Migrate Comments to Chat Feature Implemented

Moderators can now manually move an exchange of comments to a chat room once it reaches the autoflag threshold of 20+ recent comments. This option will appear as part of the flag handling UI, both at the bottom of the page and when viewing these flags within the moderator dashboard’s queue. Note that performing this action does not in itself dismiss the associated flag. In addition to creating a new room and creating a comment that links to said room, this process will also automatically assign write permissions to all users whose comments were moved. In general, you should only move comments to chat when there appears to be an ongoing constructive discussion involving two or more individuals that has lost its direct relevance to the post.

  Read more → Provide a tool for moderators to migrate comments to chat

Chat Kick Upgraded to Kick-Mute to Prevent Re-entry

We’ve transformed our original “kick” action to a new “kick-mute” action, a new tool for moderation designed for those situations where a user in chat is misbehaving in ways such as being completely off-topic or being disrespectful to other users but not in enough of a degree to warrant a chat ban. This action, accessible as “kick-mute this user” on the user’s chat pop-up, will remove the user from the room, send them to a page warning them about behavior in chat rooms, and prevents them from re-entering the room for a period of time. This duration starts off as a single minute for the first kick in a 24 hour period, but increases to 5 minutes and then 30 minutes after subsequent kicks.

This functionality is not solely available to moderators – it has also been given to room owners to use within their rooms. This will help relieve the need of moderators to observe and solve problems in all of their site chat rooms, as it will allow the trusted users of their chat rooms to manage the load when someone’s lightly misbehaving. However, in case the situation starts to repeat, there are some cases that will raise a chat flag for moderators to investigate. These flags will be cast if, within 24 hours, a single user was kicked at least 3 times out of a room, or if a single room owner has kicked at least 3 users out of a room, or if there are at least 5 kicks happening within a single room. Keep an eye out for these not only to be aware of the events in your chat, but also if there may be situations that a moderator may need to take more severe measures.

  Read more → Impose a re-entry delay on users kicked out of a chat room

Incremental Question Rate Limiting Implemented for Problem Askers

The former question block system, which simply outright blocked users indefinitely after hitting certain thresholds of poor question asking behavior, has been replaced with a more robust system that uses an incremental set of temporary bans. It is designed to slow down question asking in accordance to the user’s performance – if they continue to post poor questions then the length and frequency of the blocks will increase accordingly. These measures are based on a lot more factors than previously examined, including average question score, time between questions asked, participation elsewhere on the site, and most importantly whether or not the user revisits their content and fixes it up.

As with the original system, this is intended to guide users towards learning that they’re doing something wrong, and empowering them to save themselves. By shifting to an incremental system, it should help users properly acclimate to the style of the network over time, rather than shutting them out completely due to a few early missteps. We’re setting this up on Stack Overflow to begin with, but hope to be able to spread it to the rest of the network soon, so keep aware of it. Status of these blocks will be visible to moderators in the same fashion as the old question blocks were.

  Read more → Why won’t the system allow me to ask questions for several days?

  Check out the Help Center Article → Why is the system asking me to wait a day or more before asking another question?

Chat Text Window Highlighted for Mod-only Rooms

We’ve added a simple red border to the text input for a chatroom if the room you are in is a Private room. This red color will be present regardless of the site’s normal design theme. This will help you identify at a quick glance whether the room you’re speaking in is visible to the general public, or only to those with explicit reading permissions.

Filed under newsletter

July 2014 Newsletter

2014-07-03 by . 0 comments

Asking Days Badges Implemented

We’ve added new badges (Curious, Inquisitive, Socratic) to all sites on the network in order to help promote healthy question asking behavior. These badges are awarded to users who have a history of asking well-received questions, and who ask such questions on a number of days based on the tier of badge in question. The design of the badge requirements are meant to avoid abusive attempts to gain the badge. Nevertheless, it would be a good idea to keep an eye out for poor question asking behavior and provide guidance to users as appropriate, especially in the first few weeks of the badge’s release. If you have feedback to provide or bugs to report about the new badges, your local Meta is always open.

Read more → Asking Days Badges 

New Moderator-Only Help Center Articles for Moderator Tools

A new section has been added to the Help Center, designed for moderators to find in-depth information about the tools that they wield and guidelines of enforcement without needing to leave the comfort of their home site. These can be found by checking the Help Center under the bottommost heading, “Moderator Abilities”. These pages are only visible to moderators, and currently are not indexed by search, requiring the aforementioned navigation. As they are intended for moderator eyes only, please do not share the contents of these pages in public.

At current, there are only two articles present, but future articles will populate this section soon enough, detailing each of the various tools at your disposal, the purposes of each of the tools, and how best to use them to keep order on your sites. Articles which detail new content or tools that are too sensitive may be announced in the moderator inbox directly, as opposed to the public moderator newsletter. We hope that going forward, this will be a great reference for moderators about the tools they use every day. If you see an article that seems to be missing specific content, let us know via the Contact Us form found at the bottom of every page.

Check out the directory → [your-site-address]/help/mods 

Chat Annotation and Suspension History Implemented

It is now possible to annotate users in chat directly, as well as view a history of moderator incidents with a chat user. Similar to annotations on the main site, this will allow you to keep a track record of a particular chat user, both for your own benefit and for that of other moderators. As all network moderators operate simultaneously across the entirety of chat.stackexchange.com, this should help in finding context regarding a user when an incident arises in chat. Additionally, we have implemented a full viewable history for moderators with regards to chat suspensions for a user, including information on how the suspension was issued.

New annotations can be made via the “moderator tools” button on the chat profile. The history of a user’s suspensions and annotations can be viewed from the user info popup, displayed as a number of annotations/suspensions, or from the chat profile, displayed as a large number in the top corner.

Read more → Moderator annotations for chat users 

Improved Excerpts for Initiating Moderator Messages to Display Template

Since the initial contact for a moderator message is identical for all forms of moderator messages, we have changed the excerpt shown in the moderator diamond inbox to instead specify the template that was used. This will help provide context so that you can determine the nature of the message before clicking on the link. If the template was edited before sending, this will also be indicated. Replies to moderator messages, both to and from the user, will continue to show a short excerpt from the text featured in the reply. 

Newsletter URL Updated to stackmod.blog

We’re moving the newsletter from its current home at http://moderator.stackexchange.com over to http://stackmod.blog, in order to free up the former URL. All existing links on the network have been converted to point at the new address, and all future links will likewise use the new URL. Please be sure to update any bookmarks you may have that point to the original address.

Filed under newsletter

May 2014 Newsletter

2014-05-13 by . 0 comments

Enhanced Duplicate Closure for Tag Top Users

We have increased the ability for the top users in tags to be able to curate duplicate questions on their site. A user who has the gold tag badge for a tag, which requires at least 1000 score across 200 answers, can mark questions within their tag as duplicates using a single vote, bypassing the normal 5 vote requirement similar to a moderator. The question must have had the tag in its original revision, and the target duplicate must have an answer. These users may also reopen questions within their tag that are marked duplicate, be it that the question shouldn’t have been closed, or that there is a more appropriate or complete question that should be pointed to instead. When such a top user closes a question, a gold badge icon will be displayed after their name in the close reason message.

This change is mostly designed for the larger sites who have tangled trains of duplicates, allowing the main participants in the heftier tags to better manage where all the duplicates are pointing. The votes are still part of the normal closure process, abiding by the same rules of only one vote per person per direction, and allowing the votes to be contested by the rest of the community. Should a question undergo at least two cycles of closure and reopening while a top user is involved, a moderator attention flag will be generated called “Contested duplicate question”, signalling that a moderator should step in and investigate the question.

  Read more → Increase close vote weight for gold tag badge holders

Anti-Recidivism System Added

We’ve added some new systems that deal with users who request deletion in order to evade restrictions that are placed on their accounts at the time of deletion. We log data on such accounts at time of deletion, which is then referenced should a new account from the same individual be created. If the user was suspended at the time of deletion, then the new account will inherit the remainder of the original suspension. If the user was blocked from posting questions at the time of deletion, then the recreated account will be restricted to posting only one question per week until the quality of their contributions is demonstrated. Both cases of these can be found in the moderator-accessible user history of the new account, and you can see whether a user is restricted in question frequency by looking near the question and answer block status on the user’s profile page.

Filed under newsletter

April 2014 Newsletter

2014-04-08 by . 0 comments

No More Community Wiki Auto-Conversion

We have removed all of the formerly existing triggers that automatically converted a post to Community Wiki. In their place, there are now flags for moderator attention that are raised automatically by the system. These flags will be raised when an author makes over 10 edits to their post, when 10 users edit a single post, when a question received 10 answers within a week, and when a question receives 30 answers. Note that these last two are site-specific and some sites that have higher answer count expectations will have these thresholds increased.

The removal of the automatic community wiki was not meant as a means to shift this from being automatic to “review for community wiki”. Rather, our goal is to end the idea of community wiki as a punitive tool. These flags, like the rest of the automatic flags, are warning signs meant to incite investigation. A question that attracts many answers may need some cleanup in the answers, be it the incoming or the existing. An editor may need to be contacted, via comment or mod message, depending on how abusive their edits are. You may most often not have to do anything when the flags come up.

Putting the Community back in Wiki discusses our plans and idealogy in greater detail, but community wiki is something that really should be born from community decision – as the name implies. It exists not as a tool to police the potential traffic a post may get compared to its alleged value, or to prevent abuse. It is a tool meant for collaboration between users in a comfortable ease of access beyond what suggested edits can already enable. Users who see a post that is more geared for people working together, be it short term or long term, they should start a discussion on the merits of conversion – ideally including the individual who owns the post in question. While the new flags are geared towards identifying system abuse scenarios, they will occasionally point out a question that may warrant such a discussion. What they will never point at, is a post that you will need to directly and immediately apply community wiki on. 

What Meta Stack Exchange Means for You

As, fittingly, announced at Announcing The Launch Of Meta Stack Exchange, we have now split off the “Network-wide” meta from Meta Stack Overflow, to the new Meta Stack Exchange. With the establishment of a more proper home for network-wide issues, how does it affect you as a moderator? Very little. Feel free to drop by the site as you feel comfortable, but we do not intend Meta Stack Exchange as a place that you should be constantly monitoring.

Your own sites will remain your main home and place of operations. Important discussions on Meta Stack Exchange will be broadcast to the Community Bulletin of all sites, allowing you to keep up to date similar to this newsletter. On the flip side of the equation, the guidelines regarding migrating posts from a child meta to Meta Stack Exchange remain the same as with Meta Stack Overflow – if you think that the post is ready and will benefit from the scrutiny of the network-wide community, it should be moved. Otherwise, no matter the scope of the subject being discussed, it should stick around on the child meta – there it will not only allow site specific concerns and applications be addressed, but it remains in the comfort zone of the people discussing it. We will continue to patrol child metas for bugs, support, and feature-request as before, so they will not receive different levels of attention than if asked on Meta Stack Exchange. 

10k Flag Queue has been Removed

We have removed the 10k flag queue. Now, Not an Answer flags will generate review tasks in the Low Quality review queue, same as Very Low Quality flags do. These flags will appear simultaneously in the moderator flag queue – if either flag is cleared in one queue, it will be immediately removed from the other. To aid in the review efforts, we’ve now added indicators to the top bar for review tasks on the site, allowing users with the access to moderator tools privilege to quickly observe the state of the review queue. Should the flags persist in either queue for over a day, step in to handle them.

If enough users review a post but do not come to a consensus on the appropriate (in)action, the original flag will be dismissed and a new flag, “disputed low quality review (auto)”, will be generated instead. This is a moderator-only flag, signalling that a moderator should look at the situation and decide the final course of action.

  Read more → Let’s get rid of the 10K flag queue 

Giving Guidance with Review Bans

We’ve added better feedback to the review queue ban system. Users who trigger an automatic ban from failing audits will be pointed to the audits that they failed. For cases outside of audits (approval of egregious spam, “robo-reviewing”, etc.), moderators now have the ability to provide an optional comment when applying a manual ban, including a link to any particular reviews relevant to the ban. When leaving a comment, please remember to be as thorough and helpful as possible. The reviewer will be able to see these messages when they visit the review queue, in lieu of the former message that merely explained that they were barred. A moderator can find past review-ban messages for a given user in their user history.

  Read more → Could we make the review-banned-by-a-mod notice say something more descriptive? 

Auto-Protection and Protection Privilege Changes

We’ve made a couple changes to the protection system. A question that receives over a certain threshold of answers by users under 10 reputation, within 24 hours, will become automatically protected. The default threshold is 5, though some sites have increased or decreased limits in accordance to the nature of the site. This trigger will run alongside the existing trigger that happens when at least 3 answers from users under 10 reputation have been deleted. You can read up more on the site-specific adjustments at Auto-protect questions that get more than N answers from new users in a 24-hour period.

To accommodate the increased frequency of automatic protection, we have removed the original restriction that only allowed community members to remove protection that was set by that individual. Now, anyone who has the protection privilege (15,000 reputation on graduated sites, 3,500 reputation on beta sites) can act to remove protection on any protected question, manual or automatic. This should allow the community to act on these situations, rather than leaving it solely on the moderator’s shoulders to fix. 

Improved Annotation and Moderator Message Tracking

We’ve addressed a number of inconsistencies with how annotations and moderator messages are reported on user profiles. When viewing the user history page, via the mod menu or by the numeric indicator labelled “total annotations”, the top section will now display all moderator records relating to the user – all annotations as well as all moderator messages. Each entry will additionally note whether it was an annotation, a normal moderator message, or a moderator message with an associated suspension. We’ve also fixed the aforementioned numeric display; this number will now accurately reflect the number of moderator records stored in this top section.

  Read more → Moderator messages without suspension don’t appear under “Annotations” in the user history

Filed under newsletter