Comment by spez on 17/02/2022 at 18:47 UTC*

71 upvotes, 7 direct replies (showing 7)

View submission: Reddit Community Values

View parent comment

Thanks for the questions. I agree this is a problem, and I will address live in the Talk.

Summarizing my answer from the talk[1]: We agree. We've had more mistakes than is acceptable. In the short term, you should see improvement here with more training and other immediate process changes. In the longer term, we will evolve the reporting flows and build an appeals feature right into the product because it's way too hard to do both things today.

1: https://www.reddit.com/talk/9acbd3a2-99ef-4820-893f-fcf23ff8a541

Replies

Comment by zuzg at 17/02/2022 at 19:10 UTC

48 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Speaking of which what's your stance on power mods, shouldn't be there a limit on how many subs one person can moderate?

Comment by GrumpyOldDan at 17/02/2022 at 20:31 UTC*

17 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Thanks for answering at least some of it.

I'm glad to hear the one-click re-escalation button is coming, that will be a huge help, especially when on mobile where the process is ridiculously difficult.

But we definitely still need to see progress in getting a higher percentage right first time, the re-escalation should be a rare event for when a mistake happens, not anything between 25-50% of our reports. So I will hope to see more of this soon. I know others will be as well.

But also I get that without context and sometimes knowledge of issues within a marginalised community it can be hard to understand why something is hate. Help us to help you - one thing I'm very keen to see is a 'give context on this report' option when submitting a report. We know that not every report reviewer will know why certain comments are hate, but we can provide context when we know it's a bit less clear.

I'd also be curious what kind of training your report reviewers receive, do you seek input on training material from members of commonly targeted communities?

Comment by STEMpsych at 18/02/2022 at 03:52 UTC

8 upvotes, 0 direct replies

u/spez I have a specific technical suggestion for addressing a specific problem raised in the r/ModSupport thread cited above, reviewing a specific incident in r/science: examples were given of report handlers failing to correctly handle offending one-word comments because they didn't parse the context.

Split reports into two queues, "default" and "context". Mod reports go into the default queue by default and are handled by the present system. But there is a ticky box on the report interface so mods can flag a report "check context". These reports go into a different queue for report handling, where the report handlers know to look for the larger context of why the comment was a violation; in the "context" queue, if the report handler can't see why something might have struck a mod as offensive, the workflow is that they contact the mod for more info, not just rule it not a violation.

If there are productivity standards for report handlers, they need to be different for the two queues, since the "context" queue will be much more time consuming to process than the default queue.

By separating the queues, there's a way for mods to let report handlers know that the violater is being sneaky about it, and they'll have to invest a bit more time in parsing the situation, but allowing the default to be read at face value.

There's a temptation to just have a flag for default vs context, and not have two separate work queues. If you don't separate these into two different queues, the report handlers will be constantly having to monitor for whether a report is a context report or not, which is extra cognitive load and slows them down, and their managers will have more trouble load balancing their work. Obviously there will probably be some report handlers who are better at parsing context violations than others, and it would be beneficial to be able to route those reports to them.

I would recommend that when a report that went in the default queue and was found not a violation, a mod should be able to forward it to the context queue if they think it appropriate, for re-evaluation.

Comment by BuddhasNostril at 17/02/2022 at 20:03 UTC

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

When will you be mandating your employees be referred to as Redditits in honor of an obscure nautical slogan?

Comment by heythisisbrandon at 17/02/2022 at 19:22 UTC

8 upvotes, 0 direct replies

How about you just address it here right now?

Comment by Jboy2000000 at 17/02/2022 at 18:50 UTC*

12 upvotes, 1 direct replies

We hear you

Summerizing my answer from the talk: We promise we REALLY hear you this time, and we really promise we'll be better this time. And also we're going to build a system for people you remove for abuse to '''appeal''' more easily.

Comment by LoanSurviver101 at 17/02/2022 at 20:15 UTC

0 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I don’t think 90% of the community believes any of your words. All admins and mods on this site blow