Modlog statistics in /r/EarthPorn for the last 30 days. : TheoryOfReddit

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2012

26 points (77% like it)

37 up votes 11 down votes

shortlink:

to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

25

26

27

Modlog statistics in /r/EarthPorn for the last 30 days. (self.TheoryOfReddit)

submitted 3 months ago* by syncretic

DEADB33F was kind enough to show me this greasemonkey script which I used to compile this list of moderator actions for the last 30 days in the SFWPorn Network's flagship subreddit, /r/EarthPorn.

Moderators of /r/EarthPorn sorted by mod actions.

Jaraxo (244 removals, 506 approvals, 3 other, 753 total)
kjoneslol (200 removals, 445 approvals, 52 other, 697 total)
Reactions (72 removals, 60 approvals, 1 other, 133 total)
soupyhands (48 removals, 58 approvals, 25 other, 131 total)
rnbws (15 removals, 62 approvals, 8 other, 85 total)
paslematin (7 removals, 54 approvals, 0 other, 61 total)
syncretic (16 removals, 24 approvals, 7 other, 47 total)
Jazzbandrew (2 removals, 28 approvals, 0 other, 30 total)
canipaybycheck (14 removals, 10 approvals, 2 other, 26 total)
PornOverlord (21 removals, 0 approvals, 0 other, 21 total)
TheLegitMidgit (1 removal, 0 approval, 2 other, 3 total)
jaxspider (0 removals, 1 approval, 0 other, 1 total)
slyweazal (0 removals, 0 approvals, 0 other, 0 total)

That's 640 removals, 1248 approvals, 100 other, 1988 actions in total.

As a result of inactivity lasting more than 30 days without prior notice, slyweazal has been relieved of his duties as a network moderator. TheLegitMidgit and jaxspider mostly handle css, so it isn't surprising they are on the bottom of the list. PornOverlord is a bot that automatically removes videos, imgur collections, and submissions that are missing a resolution in the title, and canipaybycheck is a new recruit. I was a bit surprised that Jaraxo beat out kjoneslol for the most active mod in /r/EarthPorn, although kjoneslol is a mod in every single network subreddit, and his activity level is similarly high in all of them, while Jaraxo only mods a few, so that probably explains it.

Hopefully we will get the option to make our mod logs completely public in the near future, so everyone has access to this type of information. The mod team of the SFWPorn Network promotes full transparency whenever possible, so much so that we currently log all removals and bans in one of our meta subreddits, /r/ModerationPorn. A public mod log would eliminate the need for this subreddit entirely, and we are all eagerly awaiting such a feature.

all 19 comments

[–]bitoku_no_ookami 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago

permalink

[–]syncretic[S] 10 points11 points12 points 3 months ago

No one likes to have their submission removed, and it's even worse if it's removed and nobody tells you, until you find it hours later still sitting at 1 karma and 0 comments. That's why our moderators leave an official moderator comment any time they remove a submission from a network subreddit.

There is a reason we haven't had a single witch hunt since the creation of the network, and that reason is trust. We have very clear rules that are listed plainly in our sidebar. We have a polite, knowledgeable and hard-working moderation staff. All of our policy decisions are conducted in full public view, and anyone is allowed to contribute to the discussion.

A fully public moderation log would only strengthen the trust we have with our userbase. Users would be able to see exactly what submissions were removed, and if they check the comments of those submissions, they will see why they were removed, because a moderator will have left a comment. If anyone feels that the rules are being applied unfairly they can approach us directly in modmail or create a new thread about the issue in /r/MetaPorn and we will address the problem.

Not to mention, I thought the subscribers of this subreddit would find the stats pretty interesting, which is why I created this thread.

[–]aenea 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago

There is a reason we haven't had a single witch hunt since the creation of the network, and that reason is trust.

I'd disagree on that- I think that the major reason you haven't had a witch hunt yet is relatively small numbers (your 'flagship' has under 100,000), combined with luck. Witch hunts don't depend on anything rational or anything that mods do or don't do- they happen because someone makes a comment or complaint at the 'wrong' time, it hits in a large subreddit, and it takes off before anyone can get a handle on it. How many witch hunts can you think of that could have been forestalled by a public mod log? Even Saydrah wasn't really done for until /iama hung her out to dry, after supporting her moderation decisions.

A fully public moderation log would only strengthen the trust we have with our userbase. Users would be able to see exactly what submissions were removed, and if they check the comments of those submissions, they will see why they were removed, because a moderator will have left a comment.

To some extent I think that you are right, and I have always advocated for strong communication between moderators and their subreddits. Most of reddit doesn't even seem to understand what moderators actually 'do'...they seem to have an idea that mods are Zeus wildly pitching thunderbolts at anyone who disagrees with them, and masturbating with excitement when they ban a user. In my opinion that trust is better fostered through clear guidelines for that subreddit combined with semi-transparent moderation (I'm not really a fan of letting spammers know that everything they posted is banned).

But a one or two month modlog of bans and approvals often has very little to do with what a lot of moderators actually 'do'. For a long time RedGPz and I were the 'primary' mods in /suicidewatch (in terms of time spent, which was easily hours every single day). Neither of us spent much time on approving or banning submissions or comments, because we were spending a lot of time getting actual individuals help, and other mods were willing to take up that slack while we arranged actual care for the people who posted there. Other mods knew that, but if the 'modlogs' were made public then we would have seemed like dead weight. We weren't.

And at that point both q and max were 'head mods' of /suicidewatch, and rarely participated in terms of day to day subreddit maintenance, but they were there when we really needed them to step in (rogue mod, needing admin clarification or help on a legal issue when the admins wouldn't answer a 'regular' mod (at least q and max could try!), etc). I'd still want q or max as moderators on my subreddit even if they never looked at it, because sometimes there are things that matter more than who bans what.

Stats are fun, and it's interesting to see which mods are high in daily participation. For my part I think that I'm doing a good job if mods that I've added have higher 'stats' than I do, because that means that I'm doing something right for that subreddit.

It would be interesting to see if those stats line up with those mods' actual participation in the subreddit- do they also participate in discussions, submit links, interact with users, etc? Would you rather have a mod who bans people, or who looks after the queue and submits interesting things, or participates in discussions?

I've also been in subreddits where we've recruited 'mods' for specific jobs- dealing with CSS, etc. They never dealt with the modqueue, because that wasn't what they were asked to do.

Stats are fun, if they are put in context.

[–]syncretic[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

Witch hunts don't depend on anything rational or anything that mods do or don't do- they happen because someone makes a comment or complaint at the 'wrong' time, it hits in a large subreddit, and it takes off before anyone can get a handle on it.

Very true. I think we have been somewhat lucky, but I think a large part of that luck comes from the fact that we leave an official moderator comment on every removal, we have a subreddit devoted to open dialogue with our userbase (/r/MetaPorn), and our moderator discussion subreddit is open to the public as well (/r/PornOverlords). We also have a public irc channel (#reddit-sfwporn on freenode) and a link to webchat from every subreddit in the network. We have every avenue of communication open that we can between the moderators and the userbase. Most witch hunts I've seen happen because the OP felt slighted by the mods somehow, or felt that the rules were being enforced unfairly, or felt that the entire mod team were ganging up on them when in fact it was one mod unfairly representing the entire group. It really helps that we have a reputation across reddit for having strict, fairly enforced rules. I've seen a few potential witch hunts in /r/WTF or /r/AskReddit squashed because everyone downvoted it.

But a one or two month modlog of bans and approvals often has very little to do with what a lot of moderators actually 'do'.

That is also very true. However our network is an odd case, we don't fit the traditional subreddit mold. The majority of work that needs done by a moderator is clearing the modqueue, monitoring the new queue, and replying to mod mail. Two of those three criteria are logged in the modlog (and I really wish it would log replies to modmail as well). If that has all been taken care of, I encourage my moderators to submit new content to their subreddits. The success of every network subreddit depended on moderators driving activity forward while the subreddit was still in its infancy.

It would be interesting to see if those stats line up with those mods' actual participation in the subreddit- do they also participate in discussions, submit links, interact with users, etc? Would you rather have a mod who bans people, or who looks after the queue and submits interesting things, or participates in discussions?

It's easy to see who participates in the discussions because our discussion subreddit is public, but it would be nice if we could have stats on that too (perhaps a bot could monitor the subreddit and keep track of new submissions / comments from each mod? You've got me thinking). Both are very important. I don't want mods who never take their nose out of the modqueue long enough to participate in policy discussions.

I've also been in subreddits where we've recruited 'mods' for specific jobs- dealing with CSS, etc. They never dealt with the modqueue, because that wasn't what they were asked to do.

That is very true, and it's the reason jaxspider and TheLegitMidgit are at the very bottom of the list. They primarily deal with css and we haven't had many css changes this month. The changes we have had been dealt with by kjoneslol, soupyhands and rnbws.

[–]bitoku_no_ookami 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That makes a lot of sense that this is just one more step in the trust you've developed with you subscribers once that background information is provided.

I mostly am trying to consider the ramifications of such a transparent system (don't assume this means I disagree with the idea or the post, I'm mostly going to play devil's advocate here). While unlikely, it seems like it could lead to moderators feeling like they are in competition, which most likely will do no harm and improve the overall content shown, but could also lead to overzealous mods. In subs with clearly defined rules, this obviously would be less of an issue. On the other hand, I suppose such a system would also provide clearer evidence if such overzealous moderation were even to arise...

Also by no means was I trying to imply you needed to justify your post. I think this is completely applicable, and I would love to see more informative posts like this one!

[–]PotatoMusicBinge 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago

permalink

[–]Skuld 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago

[–]syncretic[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

[–]Skuld 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago

[–]syncretic[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

[–]Pi31415926 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago

[–]syncretic[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

[–]Pi31415926 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

In that thread, concerns were raised over a public log, where, for example, a post containing/linking to personal information had been removed. If a public moderation log linked to those posts, that would defeat the purpose of removing them. Similar for spam. Not sure about shadow-banned users, that might get tricky too. Not much of a shadow-ban if they can see they are instantly auto-removed every time.

Does /r/moderationporn have a policy on linking to personal information, spam and posts by shadow-banned users? Checking it now I can see some posts tagged [spam]. In principle, I'm all for transparency, but linking to spammers, and other associated pondlife? I think I might draw the line prior to that. If someone posts a link to a phishing site, will that end up live in /r/moderationporn too?

I should add, I'm just exploring the problem, not seeking to be critical.

[–]syncretic[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago

Does /r/moderationporn have a policy on linking to personal information, spam and posts by shadow-banned users?

Comments (or self posts) with personal information are removed, and once a comment (or self post) is removed, no one can see it but the moderation team. They show up as [deleted] to everyone else. So, even if the log states that a comment was removed, and links to that comment, no one but a moderator would see any of the personal information.

We do log spam removals, but logging removals from a shadowbanned user is optional (the mod can do so if they want to, but it is not required). Spammers don't follow up on their submissions. They submit the link and move on. Reddit may be one of a dozen different websites they are spamming every day. If they care to look, it's immediately obvious if their submission has been removed or not, because it's not in the new queue.

We are getting increasingly better at catching spam; our spam filter is finely tuned, and we have a moderation bot that enables us to blacklist entire domains. It doesn't matter if the spammers know we are removing their submissions or not. In fact, we want them to know, so they realize how futile it is to try and spam our subreddits.

If someone posts a link to a phishing site, will that end up live in /r/moderationporn too?

Yes it would, but only as a crosspost to an official moderator comment in the original submission page. It would be clearly labeled as a phishing scam, and a user would have to navigate to /r/ModerationPorn in the first place, click on the submission there, and then click on the original link. Something tells me no one is going to fall victim to it once it has been removed, logged and labeled.

[–]Pi31415926 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago

logging removals from a shadowbanned user is optional

I think this is the key point. If the log was public, but this option was to be preserved, it would require a checkbox next to each post, which says: [ ] reveal this post in the public log. At the moment, your mods choose not to press the "log to r/moderationporn" button and the post is binned.

Leaving aside the merits of a public log which can be filtered by the mods in any case (and possibly opening the door to a rogue mod revealing filtered actions) - I'm pretty sure the code that is ready does not include the checkbox, as the admins would probably have mentioned it in the thread if so.

That means there would be no way to prevent linking to stuff that should not be linked to. Alienth said the setting would be per-subreddit, but it seems to need to be per-post.

continue this thread