How did you respond? If you used the contact us system, there would be a record of that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums
- Thread starter SchilPhiller
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I appreciate the answer on that. It doesn't answer to 100% of my complaints, but gives more clarity on your internal process. Thanks!
I appreciate that information and it makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Interesting thread.
I think the other thing that gets forgotten is that the mods are volunteers. They are not paid for their time (unless I’m wrong).
Therefore there maybe time limitations on responding to messages etc.
Personally I think moderation is a pretty thankless task. Everyone has an opinion on how it should be done, but as others have said no one is forcing anyone to participate on MR if they don’t agree with the rules.
I think the other thing that gets forgotten is that the mods are volunteers. They are not paid for their time (unless I’m wrong).
Therefore there maybe time limitations on responding to messages etc.
Personally I think moderation is a pretty thankless task. Everyone has an opinion on how it should be done, but as others have said no one is forcing anyone to participate on MR if they don’t agree with the rules.
Well if you pm me your address I’ll send you some biscuits!
Thanks for the work you and the other mods (and rockers?) do.
Much appreciated.
As far as I’m concerned whoever pays the bills makes the decisions
Don’t like it , put your hand in your pocket and set up your own website / forum ?
Don’t like it , put your hand in your pocket and set up your own website / forum ?
Absolutely. That’s how I see it too.
"I don't like how the new action button works on the iPhone 15."
"Yeah? Make your own phone then!".
Every thread on this forum will consist of an OP and just one reply
If one is going to post a thread such as the above that doesn’t further any real conversation, seems the only valid reply is as you stated…that is on the OP. At least put some meat in the first post so a discussion can be had."I don't like how the new action button works on the iPhone 15."
"Yeah? Make your own phone then!".
Every thread on this forum will consist of an OP and just one reply
'If you don't like it, build your own' is the most pathetic and lamest reasoning for responding to someone who has a complaint about something. People who use is are lame and pathetic in me opinion. How would people like it is companies/businesses started to using it to customers don't like the restaurant meal, go build your own restaurant then, don't like the airline flight, go build your own air line then, don't like the state of the road, go build your own road then, don't like the takeaway food, go build your own takeaway then. Maybe companies and businesses should start behaving towards people who like to complain, give them a taste of their own medicine.
It is about time MR added 'if you don't like it, build your own' to the forum rules because it's usage is very condescending. If your not allowed to say 'Go search yourself' then you should not be allowed to say 'if you don't like it, build your own'.
It is about time MR added 'if you don't like it, build your own' to the forum rules because it's usage is very condescending. If your not allowed to say 'Go search yourself' then you should not be allowed to say 'if you don't like it, build your own'.
I like participating in this site. I’m happy there is an SF&F forum to foster communications, but from what I’ve seen many of the posts here have been less than caring to improve the site and community and more “you’re moderating it wrong”. To be sure with some reasonable feedback changes have been made over the course of time - and with everything there is always room for improvement.
I enjoy my participation here but I am not emotionally attached to this site to the extent I will cancel due to policy decisions.
It used to be the customer is always right. Not any more, business can and will get rid of their worst customers and I think people need to keep that balance in mine between trying to improve the community and being a PITA.
I enjoy my participation here but I am not emotionally attached to this site to the extent I will cancel due to policy decisions.
It used to be the customer is always right. Not any more, business can and will get rid of their worst customers and I think people need to keep that balance in mine between trying to improve the community and being a PITA.
I have rarely heard anyone say go build your own website (I think that would probably be moderated if said on MR). But what I have heard said in these threads is that Macrumors is moderated in a specific way and maybe the way it’s moderated doesn’t suit a particular posters style.
But I’m not clear on why if people don’t like a restaurant, airline, or website to the point of non-constructive criticism online, they just wouldn’t exercise their individual freedoms?
The correct way (IMO) to effect change is to "vote with your wallet" (or your feet). If a restaurant, airline or website is not doing things the way one wants them to, there's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion and possibly effecting change. But when that fails to move the needle, why beat the dead horse... a mature individual will move on to a place that's more to their way of thinking or more to their tastes.
But then, some people are just trolls. I've experienced it across the interwebs over the years... they want it "their way" and when that can't/doesn't happen, they're satisfied just spreading their own personal brand of mayhem. And while there is some of that here from time to time, the mods (and general posting community) are good at shutting that down... those people will continue beating their drum as long as they get a reaction... the expression "don't feed the trolls" works because without a reaction to their posts, they simply go elsewhere.
To a large degree, forum moderation is not just managed by the mods and admins... it's the responsibility of all of us as users of the community...
Last edited:
That is how it usually works in the outside world but it does not work inside MR because if someone expresses a negative opinion about their iphone, what is the usual response? 'well if you don't like, build your own phone' OR 'if you don't like it, buy an android phone'. To do so is very condescending but no action is ever taken because members are allowed to say such things.
Depending on the context of such a post, saying such is generally not against the rules.
Is this forum partially moderated by bots/algorithms or something? That's the only explanation I can think of, that's it's mistook something I posted (still can't think what though) as 'offensive' because it's out of context or something? No idea. How do you respond to a moderating decision?
Last edited by a moderator:
Context does not apply in this case because it's context is ALWAYS the same, someone makes a negative opinion, negative view, negative comment about their iphone and the response is always the same from numerous members 'if you don't like build your own' or 'if you don't like it, buy an android'. To use such a response is very condescending and should not be allowed. If members are not allowed to say 'go search for it yourself' then members should not be allowed to say 'if you don't like build your own' or 'if you don't like it, buy an android'
Done and done.
Given the main focus of the thread, I believe context, along with member post history always matters.
While there may be a nicer way to say it, sometimes the ONLY response is "go elsewhere" (Android, build it yourself, etc). If one doesn't like the way something works (iPhone button, software options, etc), no amount of discussion internal to any forum is going to change the facts. Sometimes, "go to Android" may be the correct response. Just don't be hostile about it.
I have disagreed, in fact, disagreed profoundly with how the site handled two major matters in recent years, challenged them publicly (and privately), and communicated with the staff, (who were kind enough to take the time and trouble to reply to me at length).
As it happens, since then, PRSI has been abolished, and therefore, it is no longer possible to discuss these topics.
To my own surprise, - and I deeply regretted it at the time - I have come to the reluctant conclusion that it was probably for the best.
In any case, that experience persuaded me to accept that the site owner sets the rules, and the staff enforce them; if one disagrees with the rules, one can set out arguments, or reasons, why one thinks they ought to change, or, one can disagree with the interpretation of the rules - argue for a more flexible interpretation - but, once one has signed up to the site, this also involves signing up to the rules, and accepting them.
Moreover, as members, we have no right to demand that rules be changed; yes, we can ask, but, the site is not obliged to heed any such requests that rules be changed.
However, not only is there no accountability, - by which I mean that the site is not answerable for its actions to its members - the nature of the online world (and it took me a very long time to be able to see this, and understand this, let alone accept this) means that there is no need for - necessity for - accountability in the sense that the site is not answerable to its members for how it chooses to conduct itself and its affairs.
This is not a democracy (where governments are accountable to electorates), and nor is it a registered company where the members are shareholders (where, yes, again, the board of directors is accountable to shareholders).
We're not shareholders, and neither are we an electorate, to hold companies or governments to account; in the online world, there is no vehicle, or platform, that allows for accountability (except, perhaps, for advertisers, and, with that, we are back to the money argument; however, in that particular case, the exchange takes the form of exposure in return for cash; that does not include any accountability, outside of the precise and particular details of that actual business arrangement, or transaction - either).
Now, as to whether I approve of such arrangements, - I don't, not always, for the record - but, and this is key, my disagreement or disapproval or dislike are all moot; as things stand, it - my disagreement or disapproval in some situations - doesn't matter.
So, I shall simply shrug it off, and have done so. Remaining a member of the site means accepting the rules, and accepting that the site gets to decide and determine what the rules are. So be it.
Now, my own personal view - and I'm European, with a dramatically different perspective on such matters - is that regulation of the online world is long overdue and will be welcomed (by me) when it (belatedly) occurs. But, that is also moot.
But where to draw the line? A line, that, by its very definition, and, given the evolving nature of the online world, is constantly changing?
Some of the online space is vicious and virulent, and incredibly toxic, and becoming even more so, as volume, vitriol and vehemence are rewarded with attention and 'clicks', thus driving traffic and generating even more traffic.
Personally, I have no wish to be a part of a community where every possible insult, not to mention side dishes of gratuitous offence and verbal assault and online threat is, or are, allowed under the excuse, or justification, of encouraging "freedom of speech".
And thus, in some ways, to a certain extent, I welcome the close monitoring of posts that takes place here; at least, some remnant of civility is retained on the site, something I am grateful for, and welcome.
As it happens, since then, PRSI has been abolished, and therefore, it is no longer possible to discuss these topics.
To my own surprise, - and I deeply regretted it at the time - I have come to the reluctant conclusion that it was probably for the best.
In any case, that experience persuaded me to accept that the site owner sets the rules, and the staff enforce them; if one disagrees with the rules, one can set out arguments, or reasons, why one thinks they ought to change, or, one can disagree with the interpretation of the rules - argue for a more flexible interpretation - but, once one has signed up to the site, this also involves signing up to the rules, and accepting them.
Moreover, as members, we have no right to demand that rules be changed; yes, we can ask, but, the site is not obliged to heed any such requests that rules be changed.
However, not only is there no accountability, - by which I mean that the site is not answerable for its actions to its members - the nature of the online world (and it took me a very long time to be able to see this, and understand this, let alone accept this) means that there is no need for - necessity for - accountability in the sense that the site is not answerable to its members for how it chooses to conduct itself and its affairs.
This is not a democracy (where governments are accountable to electorates), and nor is it a registered company where the members are shareholders (where, yes, again, the board of directors is accountable to shareholders).
We're not shareholders, and neither are we an electorate, to hold companies or governments to account; in the online world, there is no vehicle, or platform, that allows for accountability (except, perhaps, for advertisers, and, with that, we are back to the money argument; however, in that particular case, the exchange takes the form of exposure in return for cash; that does not include any accountability, outside of the precise and particular details of that actual business arrangement, or transaction - either).
Now, as to whether I approve of such arrangements, - I don't, not always, for the record - but, and this is key, my disagreement or disapproval or dislike are all moot; as things stand, it - my disagreement or disapproval in some situations - doesn't matter.
So, I shall simply shrug it off, and have done so. Remaining a member of the site means accepting the rules, and accepting that the site gets to decide and determine what the rules are. So be it.
Now, my own personal view - and I'm European, with a dramatically different perspective on such matters - is that regulation of the online world is long overdue and will be welcomed (by me) when it (belatedly) occurs. But, that is also moot.
But where to draw the line? A line, that, by its very definition, and, given the evolving nature of the online world, is constantly changing?
Some of the online space is vicious and virulent, and incredibly toxic, and becoming even more so, as volume, vitriol and vehemence are rewarded with attention and 'clicks', thus driving traffic and generating even more traffic.
Personally, I have no wish to be a part of a community where every possible insult, not to mention side dishes of gratuitous offence and verbal assault and online threat is, or are, allowed under the excuse, or justification, of encouraging "freedom of speech".
And thus, in some ways, to a certain extent, I welcome the close monitoring of posts that takes place here; at least, some remnant of civility is retained on the site, something I am grateful for, and welcome.
Last edited:
IMHO, as others have stated, context is everything. I have used "go do X yourself" or "go buy android" but I believe I have used those in appropriate ways.
Examples:
Member A: I want alt-stores.
Me: Buy an Android
Why: Because Apple offers a unique "one stop shop" ecosystem. I have no other options if Apple is forced to allow iOS apps to be purchased like PC/Mac apps. While those that want more freedom with their devices have other options, but they want their cake and to eat it as well.
Member A: MR is not moderated in accordance with my specific biases and I want change! (after multiple soapbox rants)
Me: If you are not happy here the internet is a vast sea of choices.
Why: If you make REPEATED suggestions that fall on deaf ears, perhaps you are the problem and you should find a place that better suits your sensibilities.
I don't mean to say people cannot or should not make suggestions but if you aren't getting anywhere by the 5th attempt then just accept that the powers that be aren't interested in your changes and if that upsets you so then just move on because the rest of us are sick of listening to you.
I actually love this when vegans rip on burger joints and the burger joint tells them to f-off. There is nothing wrong with vegans or being vegan but please, stop demanding that every restaurant have options for you. Just as I don't frequent vegan restaurants and demand my dead cow.
Point taken, but again, in the context of people who cannot or will not play within the rules they agreed to when registering, I don't know what else to tell them.
Another example, I live in an area with many farms and a few gun clubs. This area has always suffered from people moving here from larger cities because they want to "live in the country", WFH has exacerbated this issue. The problem comes every time a farmer fertilizes his fields, the city folk lose their minds because it smells like 💩, well is this the fault of the farmer or the city slicker that moved "to the country"? Same with gun clubs, don't move near one if you don't like to hear lead being slung. Issue is the city folk scream every friggin year and the rest of us are sick of it. It is a big country, don't like where you moved to? Move somewhere else.
MR, or any other company, are free to operate however they choose, within the law. They do not need to cater to individuals, regardless of how loud they are. That being said, if you constantly alienate your members/audience your business will suffer, however alienating the "few loud ones" can and usually does makes the community better.
My .02, YMMV.