Abuse Reports rejected without any reason

[anshu_lilhori]

Dear Team,

I know this is not something new and before creating this discussion i read the thread which addresses the same issue.

Lately when i posted only the link of Blog,Document or thread to any of the discussion my post got rejected with a reason "Don't just post links or multiple links".I happily accepted it and made sure next time i give some briefing before giving the link.

Now as a good citizen and to keep the forum clean when i started seeing similar to it,i report abused and to my surprise few of them got rejected and few accepted.

Now the abuse report which got rejected has no reason in them.So my question is what are the parameters for accepting it.If required i can post those threads as well..

It will be something like this :

Hi,
Please refer the below link
Regards,
XYZ

Please help me to understand the criteria for it.

Regards,

AL

[ThomasZloch · Accepted solution]

Not much to add after Matt's extensive feedback, but here is my summary from my past moderating practice, if you're interested.

• what's so bad about posting just link(s) as replies?
  • "surprise package", relevancy can only be evaluated by clicking through and reading it, potentially wasting time
  • even if it is relevant, it cannot be distinguished from potentially many irrelevant, similar looking replies (fuelled by points/reward/badges incentive)
  • in the mid-term, people looking for answers might have to click through cascades of links to find an actual solution
  • many times, the original poster could have found the same link by doing due research before posting, and the lack thereof should not be supported
• then, why are not all replies containing just link(s) being removed?
  • as in real life, not all misconduct is being detected and punished by "officials"
  • very sadly, there is (and probably always will be) different "philosophies" across SCN spaces and their moderators about how strict or loose to enforce the rules of engagement, so even reported items might go unpunished (that's the very frustrating part)
• going forward, don't post just link(s) 100% of the time, then there will be no further problem in this area
• please keep using the "report abuse" function nevertheless

Thomas

[anshu_lilhori]

How can i reach the space moderators of BEx forums..They keep on rejecting the abuse reports without giving any reason..

And I report abuse the post which just has links that's it..

Regards,

AL

[ThomasZloch]

Hmm, the people tab of this space doesn't list any, nor the , there seem to be "just" moderators.

I know from own experience that it is very frustrating to spend time reporting obvious RoE violations only to be rejected by unknown people for unknown reasons. I have repeatedly suspected that there just isn't a consistent approach across all SCN, since some spaces are run like a "in dubio pro customer" SMP-like support channel (means that almost anything goes, posts never get rejected), others like discussion and knowledge-sharing forums among old and new IT professionals (RoE's and netiquette are being enforced here).

I like to spend my time in the latter group.

I'm actually not a fan of this, but for lack of another communication channel you could post your issue right in the topic space. It might be moved to SCN Support anyway, but you might have drawn some attention by then. Make sure you list some good examples.

Thomas

[JasonLax]

Just to be clear, you'll get a note on the notification at http://scn.sap.com/actions/notifications, not a direct message for the rejected.

You can also open a support case offline at sapnetwork@sap.com

In general, as Thomas explains, most content is rejected because an obvious abuse of the or the wrong content type was created, such as a blog post when it's not a blog: see

[anshu_lilhori]

I guess you took it another way.My content did not get rejected,rather i report abused someone's else post and  it got rejected without any reason that's what i am trying to say.

And this happens frequently in BEx forums.

Anyways i will open a support message to the id mentioned above by you.

[JasonLax]

I see. Well, I suppose the mods weren't in agreement with you or they took care of some issues (e.g. remove e-mail addresses or move the content). 

[matt]

Or possibly they've got their understanding of approve and reject the wrong way round!

[ThomasZloch]

Or they are just afraid of removing any type of user generated content for various reasons, I mentioned a few already.

[JasonLax]

Don't go there...

[anshu_lilhori]

Thanks Mathew,Thomas,Suman,Kush,Manish,Chandra for your inputs on the same.

So i will take up the Mathews and Thomas suggestions--and will keep hitting the report abuse button if i only find links and if moderators disagreed with it then i will raise a question in that forum only asking for a reason and as stated by Mathew that this way we may reach space's moderators community.

Once again thanks to all of you for your concerns,suggestions and sharing the experiences out here.

Let's stop the practice of simply posting links and start the practice of using report abuse in such cases to ensure that we keep the forum clean and healthy.

Cheers,

AL

[matt]

There are different moderators in different sections of the site. Not all appreciate that allowing the posting of just links or link farms harms the site. Not all seem to have taken on board that they're supposed to give a reason why they've accepted or rejected an abuse report.

When I've been chasing people who seem to only post links, I've found some in areas outside those I moderate. I've reported them, and been pretty irritated to find the abuse report rejected without reason. It's not supposed to happen, but it does. It's to do with education. Unfortunately, it's a lot of work to find out who actually did it, and, frankly, the team have more important things to do.

[former_member182470]

Hope everyday we get some around 40 to 50 questions in all BW spaces put together. I try to answer almost all of them. Please check your database for How many questions, I am replying with just links?

I am sure that I may reply for 2 to 4 with links and with brief about them. Rest 40+ questions will be of my own analysis and explanation. Now tell me What type of attitude is mine???

[anshu_lilhori]

Hi Mathew,

This simply means that moderators are not adhering to "The Rules of Engagement".

As it is clearly written in the rules of engagement.

Create context. A simple link is not enough to answer a forum post. Tell people why the link is helpful.

So if my post got rejected which has only links in it then if i report abused someone else's post then why the moderators disagreed.And this is not something moderators has to look for i am explicitly report abusing the post with a reason saying only links or multiple links,

Rules should be same for each and every person irrespective of their points and the company they work for.

These are the few thread which i report abuse which contains links and multiple links.

http://scn.sap.com/message/14490778#14490778

http://scn.sap.com/message/14478316#14478316

http://scn.sap.com/message/14459267#14459267

Moreover at least a reason should be there for disagreeing to it so that next time i'll think twice before tapping the report abuse button.

Its frustrating and irritating at times.Things should be in place.

Regards,

AL

[matt]

Please don't think twice. Hit the button for the good of the community. At least I appreciate it, in my area.

I agree entirely with you - it is enormously frustrating. But it is the SCN managers - SAP employees - who have to deal with it. (And yes, it has been raised in the moderator space).

Post like yours help make the problem public and therefore, hopefully, the issue will be dealt with.

Can I suggest that if an abuse report like that - that clearly breaches the rules of engagement - is not acted on, that you raise the question in the forum that it occurred in? That way you might reach that space's moderator community?

Also - you might want to check whether the report has been acted on. I've reported people posting their email address. The report was rejected, but when I looked, I saw the email address had been removed by a moderator. (Of course the moderator should have given a reason for rejecting the abuse report!)

[marilyn_pratt]

You'll forgive us for slow response to this as and I are in Amsterdam for SAP TechEd at present.  Since each area is moderated by different modera... and have created a moderators rules of engagement and hold quarterly councils with moderators to educat...

I suppose the answer lies in educating people (moderators included) and as Former Member has discovered not all moderation is equal.

That being said we should continue to drive common understand around approach.

On another note, I must agree that talking about someone's attitude can muddy the waters.  Let's not confuse facts with feelings please.  Else we will be making character judgments that only fan the flames of ill-will here and create factions and flame wars.

Thank you all for this thoughtful and respectful discussion.  I applaud both those that raise the question of why some posts are rejected as abuse and others aren't as well as the moderators who take such pains to explain their reasoning and way of moderating.

And thanks for keeping this civil.  It's so easy to let emotion rather than logic drive and that isn't so productive here.

[former_member182470]

I too observed some times. Links are just getting rejected without stating any reason. We will post links when there is ready made explanation available in the form of Blogs, Docs and Old discussions.

Some are accepted by moderators to my surprise. I am eager to know the replies to your post Anshu.

[Former Member]

yes Suman, sometimes after abusing some links, report abuse rejected and content is still there...

[matt]

Suman Chakravarthy K wrote:
We will post links when there is ready made explanation available in the form of Blogs, Docs and Old discussions.
Some are accepted by moderators to my surprise. I am eager to know the replies to your post Anshu.

I don't think I like this attitude, I'm afraid (unless I've misunderstood). You know it's wrong, but you do it anyway? Are you just a point hunter? Aren't you better than that? I always thought so.

I have rejected many of your postings on the grounds of containing just a link, or a list of links. I have always given a reason, usually along the lines of

"Just links"

"Don't post just links"

"Just links adds no value"

"Please do NOT post just links".

The question of posting a link or just links has been discussed many times over the years. It may help the individual, though spoon-feeding what they can easily find by searching means they'll never learn to search, so in that sense it harms then. What it certainly does is harm the community as a whole. I am not going to rehearse those arguments again. Just take my word for it.

Also, if you find that you're getting a whole host of posts rejected for the same reason, didn't it occur to you that perhaps a moderator objected to what you were doing, and it might be a good idea to stop?

[former_member182470]

Hi Mathew,

I have just got a rejected message. I am aware that you might have rejected it. But the problem with this post is, it's a very old thread. I replied with links in Jun 2013. Now we are in Nov 2013. Hope you remember we had a discussion and understanding about the issue. After that I have reduced a lot of posting links. Please don't threaten me that you want to deduct points or delete the account. I am really disappointed that you are rejecting very old replies without remembering the latest discussions on the same issue and giving me warning messages. You have to consider the kind of help of I am giving to all BW posters.

I am seeing many guys who just post links and you are not rejecting them. Why mine? It's a million dollar question???????

for your reference :--

Regards,

Suman

[former_member182470]

Hello Mr. Mathew,

It is pretty clear that your understanding is wrong. You are talking about my attitude. This is unfair. You can ask the people who got help from me in technical discussions, whether my attitude is good or bad. SCN database is with you. You can just fetch all my replies since last 2.5 years and you talk about my attitude. I am highly disappointed with your treatment.

Regards,

Suman

[matt]

For your questions - another member reported the post. I moderate many posts every day. Sometimes, when an old post is reported, I don't notice the date. 99% of reported posts are recent. As you point out that it was from June, before I contacted you about this before, you can disregard the message. However, you should be aware that the reason I send these messages is not to threaten action, but to try to prevent the need to take action. It's a plea, not a threat. It is always like this. I don't like taking action, and I would rather prevent it.

No. I do not remember our discussion. I send and receive many communications every day. It is not feasible, with the tools we have available, to check if we've had a discussion or not before. It is also not possible for me to check how many or what posts you've made that have been rejected. The tools and access are not available to moderators. Therefore, I can concede I've made a mistake in this case.

I apologise for that, and perhaps you can understand, from the above, that even with the best will in the world, mistakes happen.

As far as the content you've posted - unfortunately (again) given the amount of time I devote to moderating, I don't have a huge amount of time to actual read many of the excellent discussions that people have.

"We will post links when there is ready made explanation available in the form of Blogs, Docs and Old discussions."

This is the bit I object to. You seem to be saying that you will carry on posting links if you think there is a ready made explanation already. Even though I've asked you not to. I did say that maybe I've misunderstood. I'm very happy to be corrected.

[former_member182470]

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for understanding my explanation. After reading your reply, I have a strong feeling that you do not want us to post links at all. I gave you the circumstances where we can post links with briefing about them.

But as per Rules of Engagement, we can give links by giving a reason How they can help. This is what we are doing. If you reject every reply which has links, that doesn't make any sense of keeping this in Rules of Engagement.

In fact, I gave in what ratio we are replying with links. If you reject all, then it's better to put a restriction on SCN for not able to post links. Give us a Pop-up message(Not allowed) whenever somebody wants to post a link. Now I understand your expectation. What about others?

It seems we cannot predict the Moderation style of Moderators.

Regards,

Suman

[matt]

You can post links if they support the text. That is perfectly acceptable. Where the link is the answer, then you're right - I don't want it posted.

Obviously there are grey areas, where it's a subjective judgement whether the link(s) outweigh the text.

There is one site that must not be linked to. This is the site that is *******ed out when you type it in.

Is there anything too hard about this?!

If a moderator allows an answer like "This will help... link...", then in my view that moderator requires training.

[former_member209728]

Hi Matthew,

Why this starred site must not be linked ? Which category of the rules of enagagement does it violate ? Copyrights ? Is this restriction only limited to SAP BW space because i just did a simple search across SCN for this site and it gave me atleast 85 hits since 1st Oct 2013.

I had once posted a reply with some help text alongwith a link to this site and it was rejected. Post that i have taken care not to post any link from  this site. I don't vouch for the quality of this site neither am i advocating the use of external links in the forums. But having more clarity on such blocked sites would be helpful for some junior member like me. I went through the Rules of Enagagement and ToS but there was noting explicitly mentioned against not using this site. Is it that no content outside of SAP networks is welcome in SCN space ?

Thanks,

Kush Kashyap

[former_member182470]

Hi Matthew,

If you observe the links which I post sometimes are from SCN search(mostly SCN Blogs, Docs and Older Discussions) only. I don't get them from Google.I believe, I hardly posted external links through out my SCN journey. So there will be no unwanted links at least from my end.

Regards,

Suman

[Former Member]

People are able to post those links, and visitors are able to navigate by clicking on them.

Only the hyperlink text is starred out, and it can be because the site is big enough, and has word SAP in its name.

So the reason behind it is more connected to Trademark than Copyright.

[former_member209728]

Hi Manish,

I have been explicitly told NEVER TO POST ANY LINK from that site. But i think you are right, it might be because of trade mark or copyright issues as the users can easily get confused that the site and information belongs to SAP.

Thanks,

Kush

[matt]

This first clue is that it is starred out. That should indicate that it is frowned upon.

The reason it is forbidden is because it contains much content copied from elsewhere - including documents that are copyrighted.

[matt]

There are people who simply search on SCN on a keyword from the original post and link the first hit or first few hits.

As Thomas as already pointed out.

1) The usefulness of those links can only be determined by going through them

2) It is a tactic used by point hunters

3) The member could have found them himself

4) Anyone searching for help will have to go through a cascade of links before finding the information

So, if someone asks a question - don't search on SCN for the answer for them. Let them do so themselves and gain a valuable skill.

[former_member209728]

Thanks Matthew. I got that. I believe it is again left to the judgement of moderators to decide if it is to be moderated or not.

[former_member182470]

Great thing Matthew. Henceforth, you will get report abuse messages from my side if any one does this. I will not do that.