The future of the Pie & Piston
Discussion
I'm sorry to post this but why has the thread been locked? I'm aware that some arguments are repeated but then that's because a lot of people share the same opinion. I was new to the thread and now I can't contribute anything, useful or not. Fair play for looking into stuff a week sooner than planned but why on Earth should a thread exactly about website feedback be locked in the 'Website Feedback' forum? Is everything that isn't totally original to be locked these days?
I imagine it got locked because they people that run this place had a tantrum.
This is not a community, it is a business.
After seeing posts of mine removed in the past, I realised that the mods don't have to justify a thing - they just take action based on what they consider to be the best choice for them and the company they represent.
Unfortunately as we are no longer part of a community with a say in things, we are just clients - this is likely to bite them in the arse, as clients take their business elsewhere.
I am part of online communities that survive on a much higher level than this site ie. wikipedia - and it is run by the community, I also contribute to commercially run forums where the mods are at least honest about this site ie. "this is a business, we have to make money and keep the advertisers happy"
Pistonheads - Haymarket Media Group matters.
This is not a community, it is a business.
After seeing posts of mine removed in the past, I realised that the mods don't have to justify a thing - they just take action based on what they consider to be the best choice for them and the company they represent.
Unfortunately as we are no longer part of a community with a say in things, we are just clients - this is likely to bite them in the arse, as clients take their business elsewhere.
I am part of online communities that survive on a much higher level than this site ie. wikipedia - and it is run by the community, I also contribute to commercially run forums where the mods are at least honest about this site ie. "this is a business, we have to make money and keep the advertisers happy"
Pistonheads - Haymarket Media Group matters.
It was locked simply because the last few pages had descended into a bit of an escalating circular argument between a few people. Nobody to blame, everyone having their own view, but ultimately not advancing the arguments for and against one bit, and having enormous potential to turn nasty.
Paul's closure was reasonably conciliatory I thought - he's promised to review everything a week before we had originally planned to, and we've got some serious thinking to do this week with a lot of very forcefully made and constructive criticism to take into account.
Please don't automatically assume that we're just trying to stifle debate on this issue - we're not I can assure you.
As for the comments about you being treated as clients, that's resolutely not the case. Had it been then there'd have been absolutely no debate on the subject tolerated, and we'd all be sitting here with our fingers in our ears pretending that nothing was wrong. The fact that HM staff and moderators have been answering questions and attempting to respond to points raised at all ours of the day and night should be ample evidence that we don't treat this like any other 9-5 business. We've said that we'll look at the overall impact of the changes, we've now agreed to bring that review forward because of the strength of feeling on the issue, and we're under no illusions that simply announcing that everything is fine and carrying on won't be acceptable.
I don't think that anyone has ever been under any illusion about the nature of PH as a commercial operation, both under Ted or Haymarket's ownership. To say that moderators just operate how they like though is also unfair and untrue. We have a set of rules and regulations for PH which you agreed to when you signed up to the site, and the moderators operate with one aim: to keep the site as good as it can be for the people that use it, and to help us steer clear of any legal issues relating to libel or offensive content.
Much of the moderators behaviour is itself generated by the community since they themselves rely on reports of offensive language or content from other members. OK, it isn't quite the not-for-profit ethos of Wikipedia which pervades here, but I would say that the moderators always operate out of a desire to do what's best for the community and PH (even if individuals may not agree) and never out of regard for Haymarket's commercial concerns. Whenever such an issue arises it is always referred to Paul or I for a decision.
Horton in your particular case an offensive comment was reported by another user and removed by one of our most experienced, measured and sensible moderators, and a bloke who I know operates solely out of a genuine love for PH and the people that populate it.
Paul's closure was reasonably conciliatory I thought - he's promised to review everything a week before we had originally planned to, and we've got some serious thinking to do this week with a lot of very forcefully made and constructive criticism to take into account.
Please don't automatically assume that we're just trying to stifle debate on this issue - we're not I can assure you.
As for the comments about you being treated as clients, that's resolutely not the case. Had it been then there'd have been absolutely no debate on the subject tolerated, and we'd all be sitting here with our fingers in our ears pretending that nothing was wrong. The fact that HM staff and moderators have been answering questions and attempting to respond to points raised at all ours of the day and night should be ample evidence that we don't treat this like any other 9-5 business. We've said that we'll look at the overall impact of the changes, we've now agreed to bring that review forward because of the strength of feeling on the issue, and we're under no illusions that simply announcing that everything is fine and carrying on won't be acceptable.
I don't think that anyone has ever been under any illusion about the nature of PH as a commercial operation, both under Ted or Haymarket's ownership. To say that moderators just operate how they like though is also unfair and untrue. We have a set of rules and regulations for PH which you agreed to when you signed up to the site, and the moderators operate with one aim: to keep the site as good as it can be for the people that use it, and to help us steer clear of any legal issues relating to libel or offensive content.
Much of the moderators behaviour is itself generated by the community since they themselves rely on reports of offensive language or content from other members. OK, it isn't quite the not-for-profit ethos of Wikipedia which pervades here, but I would say that the moderators always operate out of a desire to do what's best for the community and PH (even if individuals may not agree) and never out of regard for Haymarket's commercial concerns. Whenever such an issue arises it is always referred to Paul or I for a decision.
Horton in your particular case an offensive comment was reported by another user and removed by one of our most experienced, measured and sensible moderators, and a bloke who I know operates solely out of a genuine love for PH and the people that populate it.
moleamol said:
I'm sorry to post this but why has the thread been locked? ...
...Fair play for looking into stuff a week sooner than planned but why on Earth should a thread exactly about website feedback be locked in the 'Website Feedback' forum?
...Fair play for looking into stuff a week sooner than planned but why on Earth should a thread exactly about website feedback be locked in the 'Website Feedback' forum?
Garlick said:
The conversation is now going around in circles, without adding anything new and so it's a good time to close it while it still offers something useful.
Sounds like a good enough reason to me.Thanks for the reply Stuart.
I won't try to address my removed post - that is not what this thread is about, I didn't agree with the removal but such is life.
The problem as I see it is that this site is a commercial enterprise that has (at times) the feel of a community.
I've seen similar on other sites that are commercially backed, but have a community feeling - someone posts something, the people with financial interests get nervous and you get a "we are happy to listen to your comments, but at the end of the day other people are pulling the strings so STFU" style comment.
same goes for the Name and Shame issue, it is in the interests of the members here to know where to avoid, if 2 people slag off a company and 200 people say they had no problems, people will make informed choices.
P and P was removed without (as far as I know) requests from PH members, the response has been negative, but nothing happens - this smacks of "we know what is best for you"
Is PH an open forum, or a semi-controlled media outlet?
I won't try to address my removed post - that is not what this thread is about, I didn't agree with the removal but such is life.
The problem as I see it is that this site is a commercial enterprise that has (at times) the feel of a community.
I've seen similar on other sites that are commercially backed, but have a community feeling - someone posts something, the people with financial interests get nervous and you get a "we are happy to listen to your comments, but at the end of the day other people are pulling the strings so STFU" style comment.
same goes for the Name and Shame issue, it is in the interests of the members here to know where to avoid, if 2 people slag off a company and 200 people say they had no problems, people will make informed choices.
P and P was removed without (as far as I know) requests from PH members, the response has been negative, but nothing happens - this smacks of "we know what is best for you"
Is PH an open forum, or a semi-controlled media outlet?
As far as the commercial aspect is concerned, it may help to know that the moderators are volunteers, and get NO freebies, special privileges, or other incentives from Haymarket. They all operate with the sole intention of keeping Pistonheads as a lively discussion forum, and it was mainly the moderator group that formulated the rules of posting, and continuously discuss how to apply the rules, how to sanction people who cross the line etc. etc. Most changes are, as Stuart says, generated by comments or complaints from forum members - there is no big incentive from the Haymarket people to drive the forums commercially. The advertising/commercial side etc. is not discussed at all with reference to moderator behaviour - if anything, the HM boys usually defer to mods when decisions are being taken about individual cases, because the mods are here in far greater numbers, and so cumulatively spend a lot more time dealing with issues that may arise. Of course, PH is now a commercial site, but the forums are more distant than you might believe from that commercialism.
The mods are here in their spare time, and are here because they enjoy being part of Pistonheads and are prepared to put time and effort in to make the forums run as smoothly as possible. There really is no commercial imperative driving these changes that the moderators are aware of, and why should there be? The forums are only part of the site, and although the majority of page impressions may come from the forums, the front pages, news and classifieds sections are very active, and it wouldn't surprise me if the classifieds attract more new viewers than any other section. It is a convenient argument to suggest that commercial interests have driven the recent changes, but it isn't correct. It's more like trying to rebalance the feel of the forums, and like all balancing acts there's a bit of see-sawing before equilibrium is re-established. Please be patient, and give Garlick, Stuart, Pete and Will the chance to respond to the constructive points that have been made. They do care about the site, and they're all good guys.
The mods are here in their spare time, and are here because they enjoy being part of Pistonheads and are prepared to put time and effort in to make the forums run as smoothly as possible. There really is no commercial imperative driving these changes that the moderators are aware of, and why should there be? The forums are only part of the site, and although the majority of page impressions may come from the forums, the front pages, news and classifieds sections are very active, and it wouldn't surprise me if the classifieds attract more new viewers than any other section. It is a convenient argument to suggest that commercial interests have driven the recent changes, but it isn't correct. It's more like trying to rebalance the feel of the forums, and like all balancing acts there's a bit of see-sawing before equilibrium is re-established. Please be patient, and give Garlick, Stuart, Pete and Will the chance to respond to the constructive points that have been made. They do care about the site, and they're all good guys.
Nubbin said:
Of course, PH is now a commercial site...
And at the risk of labouring the point, and to re-enforce Stuart's point, in reality has been from 8 months after Ted started it as he said in his interview http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=1916...The naming and shaming issue is one we've talked about plenty of times. It dates from Ted's days when, be in no doubt, a rapacious lawyer or three could easily have sent the site under if there'd been free reign for members to talk about issues with companies they'd had dealings with. As much as we'd all like to allow this to happen, the sad fact is that there are small armies of lawyers as determined to ensure that their clients aren't libelled in a public forum as members are to try to do so.
Since Haymarket took over we've adopted a slightly more robust view on the basis that, as with tabloid newspapers, we have to accept that in some cases there is a genuine public interest in a story surfacing, and decide to "publish and be damned." As a company we also retain a law firm who are very effective at advising us and, when necessary, defending us over what we publish. For anyone in any doubt, we're ALWAYS liable for what is written by a member on our site. However I'm currently defending three such cases, the legal bills are unpleasant and I can easily see how we'd tip the site and the business into huge loss if we didn't remove N&S posts.
The other thing which might surprise you is that N&S is almost never connected to advertisers. With advertisers we usually have a dialogue anyway, so when stuff emerges we can have a frank discussion and arrive at a compromise with lawyers normally not earning a penny.
So the N&S rules are and always have been driven by commercial imperative, but only in the sense that we've no particular appetite to become the whipping boys for various "reassuringly expensive" London law firms when we could be spending the money on the site.
Since Haymarket took over we've adopted a slightly more robust view on the basis that, as with tabloid newspapers, we have to accept that in some cases there is a genuine public interest in a story surfacing, and decide to "publish and be damned." As a company we also retain a law firm who are very effective at advising us and, when necessary, defending us over what we publish. For anyone in any doubt, we're ALWAYS liable for what is written by a member on our site. However I'm currently defending three such cases, the legal bills are unpleasant and I can easily see how we'd tip the site and the business into huge loss if we didn't remove N&S posts.
The other thing which might surprise you is that N&S is almost never connected to advertisers. With advertisers we usually have a dialogue anyway, so when stuff emerges we can have a frank discussion and arrive at a compromise with lawyers normally not earning a penny.
So the N&S rules are and always have been driven by commercial imperative, but only in the sense that we've no particular appetite to become the whipping boys for various "reassuringly expensive" London law firms when we could be spending the money on the site.
NiceCupOfTea said:
Off topic, but, Stuart, I know you can't discuss details, but the legal wrangles you are having due to N&S issues - are they results of things people have posted in the forums?
Yes. Only ever to do with this, in fact. Journalists tend to have it drilled into them how best to phrase something so that it stays on the right side of the law!Stuart said:
NiceCupOfTea said:
Off topic, but, Stuart, I know you can't discuss details, but the legal wrangles you are having due to N&S issues - are they results of things people have posted in the forums?
Yes. Only ever to do with this, in fact. Journalists tend to have it drilled into them how best to phrase something so that it stays on the right side of the law!
Blimey!:mentally goes through recent posts to see if he's written anything libellous:
NiceCupOfTea said:
Stuart said:
NiceCupOfTea said:
Off topic, but, Stuart, I know you can't discuss details, but the legal wrangles you are having due to N&S issues - are they results of things people have posted in the forums?
Yes. Only ever to do with this, in fact. Journalists tend to have it drilled into them how best to phrase something so that it stays on the right side of the law! Blimey!:mentally goes through recent posts to see if he's written anything libellous:
Are the posters aware of their transgressions?
Slightly academic really. Since libel is a civil and not a criminal offence, with considerable costs for both sides involved in a case going to court, a libeled party will very rarely go after the person who posted the comment, instead focussing on the publishing website (i.e us) since we're deemed equally culpable in law, but perceived as having deeper pockets and therefore more likely to pay up. In practice most people are genuinely only seeking to have any damaging comments removed, but occasionally we'll get the odd character trying to go for damages, but it can be a risky business and we do as much as we can to co-operate with any complaints so as to minimise the damage should it go to court.
In short - you won't lose your house over something you post on PH, but do us a favour and abide by the rules of N&S!
In short - you won't lose your house over something you post on PH, but do us a favour and abide by the rules of N&S!
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff