Topic: Requires admin re-approval if post modified by poster upon approval

[boboger]

Hi there,

I am on SMF 2.0.2. I really appreciate if you can help with post moderation. I want that the post goes back to queue for re-approval in Moderation Center if the post modified/edited(spammers trick...) by poster upon admin approval.

[Robert.]

That's possible with a few small code edits, but I think it would be better for a mod request. What do you think?

[Elmacik]

I guess it would be better as a feature because its more likely a core matter rather than being an additional option. If you think of the logic of "approving posts"; its more appropriate to be a core feature since the approved post consists of the intact message only; not the poster itself. Currently, it means actually you approve the poster; not the message. So he/she can change whole message to whatever she/he wants and you accept that you already approved what he/she will say in the future. (Of course I don't mean her/his later messages to the topics; I mean the editions to the existing message)

On the other hand; it might be said that if you approve someone's message, it means that you put trust in that person; so it might be a bit harsh to ask approving again for even the little typo corrections..

Well, there are opinions for both sides. There might be lots of administrators that would misuse this "feature" but I still think it might be more appropriate if it was a core feature (which might be disabled defaultly).

[Robert.]

I think that if it's going to be default, that there should be an option for it. Namely because of this:

On the other hand; it might be said that if you approve someone's message, it means that you put trust in that person; so it might be a bit harsh to ask approving again for even the little typo corrections..

Let's look at the showcase board on this forum for example. A user made a mistake. He wanted to type "forum" rather than "frum". His topic was approved and after it was approved, he realized that he made a mistake. He wants to fix it, what causes the topic to go back on approval. That's why I would prefer not to have it in core. But that's just me, though.

[Elmacik]

I think that if it's going to be default, that there should be an option for it.

Yes, that's why I said "it shall be disabled defaultly". And that's also why I said "there might be lots of administrators that would misuse this feature". I guess if it was a feature that's disabled first; most of the people won't bother to enable it and everything will still be nice

Anyways, if it goes a core feature; I think it must be optional for each board individually.

[emanuele]

I'm for an "unapprove" button (was thinking to stick it into 2.1, but I still have to think about it ), but automatically unapprove a post because of an edit...I don't know...

The post is approved the moment it has been posted, that's true, but once the post is approved moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post.

[Robert.]

I'm for an "unapprove" button (was thinking to stick it into 2.1, but I still have to think about it ),

I agree, it's also very useful when someone accidentally approves a post. So I'd say it's a good addition

[Elmacik]

The post is approved the moment it has been posted, that's true, but once the post is approved moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post.

Without post moderation, the moderator already had the power to edit or delete the post after it was posted. If we think this way; then post moderation won't be needed either. I agree on unapprove button, its better I think.

[boboger]

Thanks for your ideas.

I'm for an "unapprove" button (was thinking to stick it into 2.1, but I still have to think about it ), but automatically unapprove a post because of an edit...I don't know...

The post is approved the moment it has been posted, that's true, but once the post is approved moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post.

I think rather than an unapprove button , at least an alert should be sent to moderator,preferably with the addition/change shown highlighted so that moderator can easily figure out the reason of modification,even it is a grammatical correction.

I agree, it's also very useful when someone accidentally approves a post. So I'd say it's a good addition

UnApprove button would be a good addition but not in my case ...

I guess it would be better as a feature because its more likely a core matter rather than being an additional option. If you think of the logic of "approving posts"; its more appropriate to be a core feature since the approved post consists of the intact message only; not the poster itself. Currently, it means actually you approve the poster; not the message. So he/she can change whole message to whatever she/he wants and you accept that you already approved what he/she will say in the future. (Of course I don't mean her/his later messages to the topics; I mean the editions to the existing message)

On the other hand; it might be said that if you approve someone's message, it means that you put trust in that person; so it might be a bit harsh to ask approving again for even the little typo corrections..

It would be good idea to add this feature into core ,but as mentioned as "disabled" by default.On the other hand,i don't think approving a post/content does necessarily mean you approve every post of the poster indefinitely,especially in content-sensitive forums.My specific case requires a tight content screening that's why i'm in need of knowing every single modification either it is a grammatical correction or a taunting/spam.

[Kindred]

Unapprove is a good idea and is available as a mod already.

the other...  I can not see it being a core feature.... I honestly can not see any admin on a forum with more than a few member sever using it.  I have 40,000 members... Making edits frequently... 

[boboger]

Unapprove is a good idea and is available as a mod already.

the other...  I can not see it being a core feature.... I honestly can not see any admin on a forum with more than a few member sever using it.  I have 40,000 members... Making edits frequently... 

So basically what i need is to be able to see posts edited/modified by poster(or even by moderator) in one place most likely in Moderation Center to be able to screen the content effectively.So it is nothing got to do with admin/moderator edits...

[Arantor]

Well, there's a mod to view post editing history but I believe it may be a touch buggy.

[Elmacik]

I have 40,000 members... Making edits frequently... 

That's why we say it should be adjustable for each board. Because not all of the boards are very content-sensitive.

[emanuele]

@Elmacik If you need it "now" of course the fastest way is of course the mod. Once a mod exists it's also easier to evaluate how important and needed the feature is to the majority of the forums.
I think you have already found at least one person interested in writing such mod, isn't it Dr.Deejay?

[Elmacik]

I don't deadly need it for myself now; I just support the idea that it should be a core feature for the future versions of SMF. It could be disabled by default and adjustable for each board. It could even handle the typo corrections; so little changes won't require an auto-unapprove but more changes would.

[emanuele]

* emanuele imagines people changing their posts 1 char at the time just to pass the "fix-the-typo" permission...

This is one of those "do-or-not" things if you want to have it right, IMHO.

BTW: mod is the way at the moment, IMHO.

[Elmacik]

* Elmacik thinks that emanuele is very tired and doesn't like to read long posts

As I said before, by this way of thinking; we would have never needed post moderation system; as the moderator already had the power to edit/delete the *bad* message after it had been posted.

* Elmacik thinks for the second time; well, discussion is a discussion

[emanuele]

At the time it was half an hour I was awake, so not particularly tired.

I don't understand where you read in my post that we shouldn't have the moderation.

I said that if we have to have this feature it must work for *any* kind of change, otherwise the way to workaround it can be found rather easily unless you put *a lot* of efforts in try to identify typos and/or legitimate changes to a post.
And: at that moment a mod would "demonstrate" how important is that feature to the other users.

So, please tell me where I said we shouldn't have post moderation.

That said, what the rational behind that feature?
The rational of the post moderation is usually fight spam.
The rational of this feature is...well, all I can think of is for forums that have a board that act as a market place or advertisement (like our showcase, I'm not saying sm.org wouldn't benefit from this feature), where people are allowed to post under moderation because the moderator shall review the posts before having them visible.
Now, I don't know how wide is the use of boards as market place/showcases, that's why I suggested a mod: 12000 downloads in a month would be a clear demonstration that this feature is highly needed, a single request from a single user that needs it well...Do you see my point?

[Elmacik]

Of course you didn't say we don't need post moderation; I said "in your way of thinking, we wouldn't need".

Because you said:

once the post is approved moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post

Now I say, in this sentence, replace the word "approved" with "posted" and see what happens. Lets look at it together

once the post is posted moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post

OK, as you see, if you object the idea just because moderators already have the power to delete the *bad* post; just as well they have the power to delete *bad* posts after they are posted without post moderation. So, someone who objects "edit moderation" should have objected "post moderation" too by the same reason because the same reason applies.

[emanuele]

You already made this point few posts ago:

Without post moderation, the moderator already had the power to edit or delete the post after it was posted. If we think this way; then post moderation won't be needed either. I agree on unapprove button, its better I think.

that's why I was surprised you pick it up again after my previous post...