How do you manage multiple moderators checking the same forum?

[Spinball]

Since moderators can't moderate 24 hours per day, it's sensible to have at least 2 moderators per forum. (In anything but a very quiet forum).
So how do your moderators avoid checking the same threads/posts? It's a waste of time for the same posts to be checked by different moderators. How do you avoid wasted effort?

I'm specifying a system now which will deal with this issue, which I will pay to be created.
I was wondering whether any other administrators deal with this issue.

[Lynne]

I wrote a mod for my forum for just this. I run a torrent site and people submit torrents into two different forums. In those forums, I have something at the top of the threads that says "Verify", "Questionable", or "Unverified". If a Mod has checked the thread and it is fine, they click on "Verify" and then it will say "This thread is marked as Verified" at the top. That thread then has a star in front of it on the forumdisplay page also (and on the index page where we list the recent torrents - oh, and on the torrents page where all the torrents are listed). If it's marked as Questionable, it has a questionmark in front of the thread on forumdisplay (and the other places I listed). They also have the option to add notes. I just implemented this at the beginning of the year and the mods love it!

[Spinball]

Yeah I can imagine the mods love it. Anything that makes their lives easier.

I'm working on the idea that for moderators only, in showthread.php, checked posts have a light green background. When all the posts in a thread are checked, in forumdisplay.php, the thread has a light green background.
So moderators strive to mark all the posts as checked.

Moderators can toggle the 'working mode' where they are actively moderating or not.
When actively moderating, and they open a thread in a forum they moderate, all the unchecked posts on the page are instantly marked as checked so that other moderators later viewing those posts will see that they are being or have been checked. That way there is no duplication of effort.

So that moderators can see what threads need the most attention, there is a new column for moderators only to the left of the main post column which displays the number of unchecked posts for each thread. Plus there is an option to sort threads by the number of unchecked posts inside.

In addition, there are options to mark posts as checked and unchecked via the in-line moderation system.

Does this sound like a good idea to you?

[Alfa1]

It would be good to be able to see which mod verified the thread. So that if threads are marked as verified and things have been missed, it is known which mod is not performing.

I like lynne's mod better, where mods need to click on 'verify' for each post, but not in bulk. It would be too easy for mods to bulk mark treads as verified through inline moderation, when not in the mood.

Lynne, would you mind sharing this?

[Spinball]

Alfa1, you are comparing the checking system I am suggesting with Lynne's verification system, which I think are somewhat different. Lynne's system passes posts as acceptable. My proposed system just indicates that posts have been checked whether they have required further action or not.

It wouldn't be difficult to append a 'checked by' user id to each post in a new field.

They key to my system is that the moment a moderator (in moderating mode) opens any thread, the displayed posts have to be instantly marked as checked so that other moderators who open the same posts can instantly see that they are being checked.
It uses the same principle as record locking. The posts are opened and locked for update. although they aren't locked as such, the effect is the same.
If the moderator wants to bug out half way through checking the displayed posts, he can simply use the in-line moderation tool to select all the posts and then deselect the ones he has checked and click 'Mark As Unchecked' and then 'Go'.

[Lynne]

The mod I wrote is to verify a single thread. Or, actually, the first post in the thread which is the post that is supposed to contain all the correct information for the torrent. It is just a way for the Mods to say the torrent has all the required information (Verified) or that there is more information that they have asked for (Questionable) - the other action is to Pull the thread/torrent, but that doesn't need any mark since to pull it you just move it to another forum. It would be pretty easy to add something to the Mod logs to grab the ID of the moderator who verified the thread, but I didn't feel it was necessary for our needs.

Spinball, one thing to watch for in yours is when a Mod opens several threads in tabs. It sounds like all the posts in the opened threads would then be instantly marked as checked (or rather, that whole thread is then 'locked') and that might not be what you want. I'm not sure what a good solution would be to that (except to tell the mods to stop using tabs and I know I couldn't live without my tabs!). Maybe they click on something once they are in the thread and ready to check the posts and they are only allowed to 'lock' one thread at a time? I think for your needs, the inline moderation for checking off posts is a necessity. You would want the mods to be able to put a check next to all the posts they checked and then OK them all with one action. I don't understand your last statement about if a Mod stops halfway through a thread. Wouldn't it be OK for the Mod to approve a bunch of posts, then have to leave the site for some reason and only OK the ones he looked over? Or does the Mod have to check all of the posts at one time?

[Alfa1]

I would very much like a verification system, not a checking system. For exactly the reason Lynne gives; I would lead to 'checked' posts or threads that may not be checked at all. Plus I want all threads verified. It will give a good overview of the performance of moderators.

Allowing inline moderation tool to mark threads as checked or even verified is highly prone to abuse. i.e. covering up that threads have not been reviewed.

[Spinball]

Originally Posted by Lynne

I don't understand your last statement about if a Mod stops halfway through a thread. Wouldn't it be OK for the Mod to approve a bunch of posts, then have to leave the site for some reason and only OK the ones he looked over? Or does the Mod have to check all of the posts at one time?

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.
Although it's probably easier to just go ahead and read the rest of the posts.

Originally Posted by Alfa1

Allowing inline moderation tool to mark threads as checked or even verified is highly prone to abuse. i.e. covering up that threads have not been reviewed.

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.

[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.

[mystic10]

wow that's awesome lynne...is there any hack like that here in v.org....i am just wondering where would learn how to write their own code...so we can share with others our ideas too....