Better transparency to end users for Report Center

[puterfixer]

Hi guys,

I'm not sure if you have already considered this for the next release, but I'd like to suggest an improvement which should make life a bit easier for moderators handling issues brought to their attention through the Report Center.

Currently, reporting is pretty much a black box for end users with unidirectional input for end users. Unless a moderator manually sends a private message to announce the reporter that something has been done, he/she has no idea if, when or how the report has been handled. This can be a pretty important source of frustration for members of the community.

My proposal is to turn this mechanism in something more closely resembling a ticketing system, especially from a transparency point of view:

- define "assigned to" and "resolution" fields for each report;

- admin to define at usergroup level if member initiating a report can see a list of "My reports" similar to "My posts";

- admin to define at usergroup level if member initiating a report can see only the current status, or also the "resolution" field (if closed), or also the entire thread of comments from other moderators;

- member to be able to select whether to be notified or not (notification icon, e-mail, private message etc.) every time his/her report has a change in status, in asignee, or reaches a resolution;

- allow moderator to assign the report back to the original caller with a comment visible to the caller (can be either a follow-up question or a request to confirm that the issue has been resolved in a satisfactory way), to which the member can reply (and change assignment back) or mark as completed.

Community - any other ideas on this topic, please?

Thank you for reading :smile:

[Jυra]

Why would they assume something wouldn't be done? Why do they need to know if something is done? They could revisit where something was reported?

I don't think some forums would want to tell them what happened.

[AndyF]

The problem is you then risk the reporter contacting the moderator to ask questions etc. The moderator would probably if in doubt send the reporter a message if they wanted clarification on what was being reported I guess.

I can in a way see the value in a notification being sent (mod should be able to choose not to do this though) with just some simple text:

Your report of <reported item> has been reviewed and marked as complete

Obviously it should only send that if / when the report is marked as complete.

Given the possibility of deletion of the reported content, perhaps just basic generic information and no links should be here ie:

Blog Entry

Member Profile

Topic

etc, rather than anything really specific.

[Ryan H.]

Being able to send a note directly to the reporter (including some reference/title/content of the report if possible) would be frequently helpful for us.

[Jυra]

Why?

[puterfixer]

Jura, my feeling is that you are borderline trolling. However, I'll give you the one-time benefit of the doubt and give an explanation.

Why?

Because one could view the activity of mods/admins as some sort of support service to the members; sure, filtering reports through their own judgement, but still performing a service. As such, the ITIL standard for service management has some very good principles which can streamline this activity through various actions such as the one mentioned above.

Because, in some cultures, the base expectation for courtesy and transparency demands that the requests DO receive an answer. Since the mods/admins already provide a status, why not prevent them from manually sending back private messages with their conclusions when this whole thing can be easily automated?

It's not mandatory. If you don't see the point of it, you don't have to enable it. My board and community requires it; the subject of transparency in mods' actions is a frequent discussion topic, and we can't just repeatedly kick their teeth out or ban them for questioning authority.

It's a big world out there, chances are there are other communities which could benefit from having more flexibility or additional features in the way the Report Center automatically communicates with people submitting reports.

I'm pretty sure that, when the discussion came to design private messaging to work between multiple people, there have been some voices saying "this is unacceptable, PMs are for 1:1 communication, if they want to talk in groups then they should bloody take it on the public forums, that's why they're there". Yet here we are, with the feature being flexible enough to be restricted down to 2 participants, or extended to hundreds, satisfying the very different particular needs of admins. Why can't we do the same with the additional features proposed for the Report Center?

[Adriano Faria]

define "assigned to" s topic, please?

Agree: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

[Jυra]

Because, in some cultures, the base expectation for courtesy and transparency demands that the requests DO receive an answer.

So it's a cultural thing?

I would be strongly against taking action on members asking questions, but I think my original questions still stand to be answered.

Having discussion and questions doesn't mean opposition. I would like to think flushing out reasoning would only help your suggestion.

I'm pretty sure that, when the discussion came to design private messaging to work between multiple people, there have been some voices saying "this is unacceptable, PMs are for 1:1 communication, if they want to talk in groups then they should bloody take it on the public forums, that's why they're there".

Having a few or so people in a conversation is still private. You would have to make a forum only for them if you wanted a topic?

Agree: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

It would be possible that such a modification could offend staff that aren't selected frequently or for more complex situations. Could also delay reports. Wouldn't a forum have it's moderators treat reports about the same based on how the forum decides to?

[puterfixer]

Why would they assume something wouldn't be done? Why do they need to know if something is done? They could revisit where something was reported?

It's probably a mix of culture + possibly some immature arrogance/defiance against authority. Some people see this report center as a "please take a look at this, I don't think this is right", but others think it should work like "I WANT YOU TO DO AS I SAY RIGHT NOW".

A legitimate claim from the first category is handled pretty fast, but mods don't always spend the extra minute to send a private message to confirm or thank the requester for spotting an issue. However, in most situations they do document the case in the Report Center. So, it would be nice to be able to send a notification to the requester with the status change or even to expose the resolution - up to the admin to define how much is displayed to the requester. The information is already there; all that is required is to automate the notification to elliminate the manual step of sending a private message. Benefits: less work for the mod, better user satisfaction for contributing to the forum management and involved in the decision process, even if only to be informed.

Unfounded claims, however, are dismissed by mods, again with a note as reference to other mods (currently). But the caller doesn't know that his/her request has been rejected; they just don't see any action, and escalate in a public complaint that mods don't do their "jobs". The benefit is even higher in the case of these troublemakers, to show them how fast their report is handled, and that the mod's decision is to reject the claim (with reason or not). Sure, they could still make a fuss in public that they disagree with the mod's decision, but they are a minority vs. those who complain about not knowing when/if the mods have made a decision at all.

I've got my whip on the troublemakers for some time, but it's not them I am targeting with this improvement. I am interested in providing a better tool to the people who can be influenced by the management to participate with their pair of eyes and judgement in keeping the forums clean, when their only reward is knowing that their efforts matters and opinions are listened to. And that's done through transparency in decision process. Otherwise, if the moderating activity is kept as a completely "black box", they are just as easily influenced by the troublemakers in keeping a negative vibe of dissatisfaction with the mods.

Was this a sufficient glimpse into the reasoning for the suggestion and how it could help? :smile: