Locked posts, what's going on.

[bernardgreen]

Back on topic

I think there is a new lock manufacturing company. Ban and Winston Unlimited. The name however may change to Winston and Ban Unlimited

 

[ericmark]

Back on topic

I think there is a new lock manufacturing company. Ban and Winston Unlimited. The name however may change to Winston and Ban Unlimited

I think you may have hit nail on the head, I note some one (may not be same person) called ban-all-sheds has been completely thrown off one forum, however I got thrown off DIY Doctor forum because I tried to explain how to test wires in a ceiling rose to find switch wire without using a meter. and some one complained to forum saying the method was dangerous, then the guy who complained stopped posting.

I like I am sure everyone else make mistakes, and for some one to point out errors is good and a post quoting and saying

Typo, that would be kW or Watts

is not going to upset anyone, however had it said "Your completely wrong" it could have.

Also I know easy to get bee in bonnet, I always called what we now call a fused spur a radial, as I felt and was trained to look at it as a new circuit even if it came from a ring final, does not really matter if wrong or right, every one else calls it a fused spur so I have to also call it a fused spur, I can see the argument if we call it a ring final then by definition it had to be the final circuit so nothing coming from it can be a new circuit, even if the definition of circuit says all after the overload device.

But some people must have a head buzzing.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course time comes into the matter. 1kWh is one kW for one hour. or 60kW for one minute.

Indeed, that's exactly the point that EFLI and myself has been making.

However, it is equally true that "one kW for one hour" can be expressed as 3,600 kJ (or 3.6 MJ) - and eric's problem/concern seems to be that "kWh" contains an "h", whereas kJ does not. What he seems to be overlooking is that there is a time unit (second, rather than hour, bit that merely introduces the 3,600 constant difference) implicit in Joule (or J).

Edit: I could have included an analogy or two, since it is common for derived units to include implicit base units. For example, 1 lux and 1 lumen/m² are exactly the same thing, but I imagine that eric would not complain that the latter involves an explicit term for area (m²), whereas the other doesn't - i.e. I don't think he would complain about lumen/m² on the grounds that "a lux has nothing to do with area"

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I like I am sure everyone else make mistakes, and for some one to point out errors is good and a post quoting and saying .......... is not going to upset anyone, however had it said "Your completely wrong" it could have.

Exactly. As I recently wrote in another thread ...

There's also a question of how the 'education' (if/when one feels that it's needed) is done in a place like this - and it is, in my opinion, particularly inappropriate to do it (as many seem to do - albeit not yourself) by sarcasm (which could well be lost on the person it is directed at). If you look, I quite often do correct people 'as an aside" - e.g. "(by the way, that should be 'neutral', not 'nootril')" or "(for your information, that's what electricians call 'low voltage'/'ring final circuit'/'FCU'/'insulated and sheathed cable'/whatever)" or "I assume you are talking about something which is properly called XYZ". Informing people and 'putting them right' (aka 'education') can be done in a painless and pleasant manner which does not make people feel that they are facing the headmaster, the latter which, as has been suggested, might in some cases perhaps make people hesitant to post anything here.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Bizarrely i just had a notification from a moderator suggesting that they are in a hopeless position and that their only role is deleting stuff after it was posted!

That has just illustrated the issue very clearly, as their powers are much wider than that, and they could be engaging with the community to define what the values and ethos of the forums should be. I don't think we really feel ownership of the values of the forum, therefore we have nothing to police ourselves or each other.

Are the admins building a community, or managing a forum? Perhaps I'm expecting too much. Perhaps most people are happy with the situation. Especially if we are not paying/contributing.

 

[JohnW2]

Bizarrely i just had a notification from a moderator suggesting that they are in a hopeless position and that their only role is deleting stuff after it was posted!

I wonder if there is perhaps an issue here as regards the distinction between 'mods' and Admin/owners. Mods may well have been given fairly limited powers, but Admin/owners have power to do, or authorise, anything which is technically do-able - and, despite what was written earlier {but, perhaps, again, a reference to what mods could and couldn't do} I would be extremely surprised if the software would not allow interception, for moderation, of messages submitted by specific members - even the forum software I used 30 years ago could do that!

It therefore could be that at least some of 'the mods' are as frustrated as us, but are not being allowed to take any decisive action.

That has just illustrated the issue very clearly, as their powers are much wider than that, and they could be engaging with the community to define what the values and ethos of the forums should be. I don't think we really feel ownership of the values of the forum, therefore we have nothing to police ourselves or each other. Are the admins building a community, or managing a forum? Perhaps I'm expecting too much. Perhaps most people are happy with the situation. Especially if we are not paying/contributing.

I'm inclined to agree. As I've been saying, I have very rarely seen damaging and 'upsetting' things to be allowed to persist in a forum for so long. Even if one is cynical, more people frightened away from the forum, the less people will there be to look at adverts and so, eventually, the lower the income of the site owners.

As I wrote earlier today, I really am very seriously considering my position as regards continuing participation in this forum. I've written quite a lot in the forum in recent days, but very little of it related to 'Electrics', and very little would really qualify as 'leisure' or 'relaxation'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Good point John i hadn't clearly delimited the difference.
For me it's not so much that the forum will be unviable if it doesn't improve, i think it will always have a good position in Google.
I think it's more about how the forum sees its relationship with the members and whether the ethos of the forum is "owned"by the members in active agreement, or just by chance based on what happens.
Has anyone ever done a survey of member who have posted one thread and then left? If not why not? Are we serving their needs? Whose needs are we here to serve in the first place?

 

[JohnW2]

Good point John i hadn't clearly delimited the difference. For me it's not so much that the forum will be unviable if it doesn't improve, i think it will always have a good position in Google.

Maybe, but how useful a resource it remains depends upon how many (and which) of the 'question answerers' (as well as 'question askers') eventual tire of it if it persists in being unpleasant. There is then a risk (as with a good few other DIY-ish sites, that it could end up largely as 'the blind leading the blind'.

I think it's more about how the forum sees its relationship with the members and whether the ethos of the forum is "owned"by the members in active agreement, or just by chance based on what happens.

DIYnot is, presumably, primarily a commercial, rather than altruistic, exercise/enterprise - although, as above, the extent to which it serves the wishes and needs of members (both 'askers' and 'answerers') has the potential to ultimately impact on commercial success.

Has anyone ever done a survey of member who have posted one thread and then left? If not why not? Are we serving their needs?

I have asked the same question in the past, but I would be very surprised if any such survey has been done. I have, on a good few occasions, attempted to PM new members who appear to have been immediately frighted off by the initial 'welcome' they have received - and of those who have responded, most have said what one might expect (essentially "never again"!).

Whose needs are we here to serve in the first place?

That depends on which 'we' you are talking about. The owners of DIYnot presumably seek to maximise their profits. Those of us forum members who are 'regulars' are, I suppose, in most cases here for some 'intellectual stimulation' and hopefully to share some of our knowledge or advice with others.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

For what it is worth I posted this is in a new thread last night ( Monday 6th August ). The thread was deleted within minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few minutes later this appeared in my Alerts

Your post in the thread Doing as asked re-awokened was deleted. Reason: Noted,
9:29 PM

Admin have been informed about the thread being deleted.

=======================
He knows, the site owner deleted the thead.
Don't repost deleted material.
Matters about how the forum is operated should only be addressed to [email protected]. Otherwise it's Off Topic and therefore liable to be deleted.
FYI Nothing is hidden this side, so there's no need for "informing".
Do not reply to this.
Mod
=======================

 

[John D v2.0]

I think your idea is

This could then give some idea of which Moderators are :-
1) most active
2) most biased

I think your idea is reasonable enough for accountability, but a bit adversarial. I don't want to know which moderators are biased, whatever that means. Id rather find a way for us to work together with the site team rather than against them.

 

[bernardgreen]

but a bit adversarial.

so is biased moderation

 

[John D v2.0]

so is biased moderation

No i mean the suggested system. Having transparency is one thing, but we should try to have a system that suits everyone not just a way to check on each other.

 

[bernardgreen]

but we should try to have a system that suits everyone not just a way to check on each other.

I just wonder if Admin have easy access to data about the actions Moderators are taking.

 

[JohnW2]

I just wonder if Admin have easy access to data about the actions Moderators are taking.

Who knows - it depends upon the capabilities and configuration of the software, as well as the wishes of Admin.

When I've been in such a role in the fairly distant past (in relation to 'commercial' forums), all activities of 'mods' were logged, but goodness knows whether anyone ever looked at the logs. Similarly, when one 'removed' a post, it wasn't deleted but was moved to a private 'forum' that was visible to the entire 'mod'/Admin team - not the least so that 'offending posts' were retained in case they were needed as 'evidence' to justify other actions against repeat offenders in the future - the same might well happen here. There were also private 'sub forums' where all members of the mod/Admin team discussed many/most of the actions they were taking - so the entire team was kept fairly well informed.

The few (non-commercial) forums where I currently (in 2018) have managerial powers are a bit different, in that they don't really have a hierarchical management structure, but the software doesn't seem to include any logging of managerial actions or even retention of deleted messages. There is a list of 'banned members' (including date of banning, but no indication of who banned them), but that seems to be about all.

However, as John has been saying, what we really want is a system with which everyone is 'happy' and which works well, rather than one which 'works badly' but with provision for investigating who is responsible for the 'badness'.

As regards issues of alleged 'bias' or 'double standards' on the part of the management team, one issue might be that of the 'past history' of members involved, since 'persistently serial offenders' are likely to be regarded and treated differently from those with a lesser (or non-existent) history of 'offences'. I would imagine that it could be quite telling to see statistics relating to the number of times each member had had a post removed or edited, had been responsible for a thread being locked, had been given a 'warning', had been locked out of a thread (or temporarily from the whole forum), had had restrictions imposed on their posting (e.g. moderation of posts) etc. etc. There might well be a clear 'record holder'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

However, as John has been saying, what we really want is a system with which everyone is 'happy' and which works well, rather than one which 'works badly' but with provision for investigating who is responsible for the 'badness'.

Spot on