Howdy folks. We've had about a week to experiment with the new 24 Hour Reprieve flair approach to removals. In that time, we've removed a total of 35 posts and left up 143. I haven't been keeping formal track of how many were flaired and fixed, but my estimate is that about 50% of what we've flaired has been fixed and the flairs removed, and/or the submitter self-removed and reposted -- so about twice as many posts have been left up on the board.
Majority of removals are due to problematic titles
Of the 35 posts taken down in the nine days since the new flair system went live:
- 21 were Link posts that could not be edited
- 25 were Rule 3 removals because headlines did not clearly posit relevance to child sex abuse by the elite
There were several Discuss threads with vague headlines whose body text was edited to explain pizzagate relevance that we left up, and several that had inaccurate headlines that we either removed immediately or flaired and asked the submitter to self-remove. I'd like feedback about the best way to handle faulty headlines (before we get into revisiting the submission rules at some point soon).
It's not easy to repost Removed submissions with formatting and embedded links
To further complicate the issue, I did a test and confirmed that submitters cannot copypaste the source formatting of their threads to repost -- all embedded hyperlinks and text formatting must be rebuilt from scratch. :-( Headlines are difficult to write for many people and we cannot edit them. Is it worth possibly suppressing research and antagonizing researchers by removing Discuss posts solely due to problem headlines?
User @ll0O-O0ll suggested we create an "Edited Title" flair to use in combination with a better headline added by the submitter at the beginning of the post (formatted as a headline) for Discuss posts.
Please give feedback about the following questions:
1 - Should Link posts with problem headlines be given a 24 Hour Reprieve flair to gather feedback and better headline suggestions before being removed?
2 - Should Discuss threads with problem headlines that otherwise satisfy the submission rules get an "Edited Title" flair and new headline and be allowed to stay up since submitters can't copypaste formatting from Removed threads?
3 - Or, instead of option #2, should mods advise submitters of Discuss threads with problem headlines to copypaste and repost their work BEFORE the 24 Hour flair expires, while they still have access to the "source" markdown window?
4 - Is our requirement that headlines of all posts explain pizzagate relevance too onerous for users and mods? Would we be better off without it?
view the rest of the comments →
hardrock ago
Enforcing a rule that headlines in and of themselves**** comply with all of the rules of submission is circularly illogical. If such a requirement was uniformly enforced (which it is not) then there would be no reason to continue the body of a submission because everything would have already been stated and substantiated in the headline! Might make for some VERY long headlines, as well. But (as many of us have been made humiliatingly aware) such enforcement has been spotty, arbitrary, and rare. Most headlines don't even approach such compliance (thankfully) and for that we should, I suppose, be thankful in a rueful sort of way. There is simply no need to do it. So don't. I vote for choice #4 : we would be better off without it. Solid, relevant, empirically substantiated and sensible submissions should stand or fall on their merits. Stupid, evil and/or irrelevant submissions ... evaluated on the entirety of their content ... will usually fail from either from being ignored out of existence or voated into oblivion. Only rarely should a Mod have to invest their valuable and limited time to tip bad submissions into the shithole.