[Alfa1]

Originally Posted by Spinball

We assume that if a moderator opens a thread, he is there to read (and therefore check) all the posts in it. Or at least the page of posts displayed. To make a mod's life easier, we make that assumption and instantly mark all the visible posts as having been checked automatically. So by just opening the thread, all the visible posts are marked as checked.
If the modertor decides he doesn't want to read the read any more of the thread he has to reverse that marking. The inline system will allow him to highlight the posts he hasn't read and mark them as unchecked.

But what if tabs are accidentally closed? A checking system will cause the threads not to be reviewed.

Originally Posted by Spinball

We have to assume that moderators are here to help us, and if they repeatedly ignore posts which obviously need attention, and mark them as checked without doing so, then they will soon be caught and fired.
But this is very unlikely to happen. We don't accept applications from people to moderate, we appoint them by invitation only. We find that moderators are loyal and hard working. If we can trust moderators to (soft) delete threads, then we can sure trust them to check posts/threads properly.

I do not take applications either. I have a 13 moderators and will likely add 5 more soon, as we are understaffed. Most moderators that I have had are excellent and hard working people with a good heart and eye for detail. So, yes; people I can trust.

However, I have fired several moderators in the past because they where not performing. A verification system is not only handy for moderation, but also for performance overview.

Either way; a checking system is mighty handy, but a verification system is more secure. To me that is preferable.