| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Should non-paying non-verified members forum posts be vetted? Thread poster: Ty Kendall
|
|---|
Kay Denney 
France
Local time: 10:20
French to English
| (can't think of a title!) | Jul 13, 2012 |
Natalie wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
But not everyone wants endless emails like that
But in this case people shouldn't complain that they haven't seen posts that appeared at previous pages of the thread 
[Edited at 2012-07-13 11:17 GMT]
But why can't those posts appear after the last post when they are at last published?
I could make a point of always quoting so that people know what I'm referring to, just in case five pages of stuff had been published in the meantime.
| | | |
Natalie wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
But not everyone wants endless emails like that
But in this case people shouldn't complain that they haven't seen posts that appeared at previous pages of the thread
[Edited at 2012-07-13 11:17 GMT]
I see no reason to change the current system. The reasons posted here don't seem to be convincing enough.
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote:
So this brings us to a rather circular argument. Non-paying members may be able to post without being vetted (is this actually the case? - would a verified non-paying member please stand up......),
Aye, I'm non-paying but verified i/d and my posts aren't vetted.
Well, unless I'm a naughty boy.
but becoming verified usually involves paying membership fees and hence no longer being a non-paying member.
...but yes, this is how I got verified in the first place. I was young and foolish then....
The thing about the position that vetted posts appear is no-win, really, especially under circs when the vetting takes a while. Well, OK, it could be win-win if posts were approved (or not) immediately. Anyway, if they are posted when first entered, people miss them (I do, certainly, and I agree that subscribing to every thread is a royal PIA and not really a solution*), but at least they appear in the right place; if they were posted when approved, people wouldn't miss them, but they might suddenly appear to be jumping back when a conversation has moved on.
* on the plus side, you get to see the unexpurgated version, because they are emailed out before they get vetted, which is great on a controversial threads when people are getting annoyed, before the mods clean it up.
[Edited at 2012-07-13 13:28 GMT]
| | | | Natalie
Poland
Local time: 10:20
Member (2002)
English to Russian
+ ...
MODERATOR SITE LOCALIZER
Texte Style wrote:
Natalie wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
But not everyone wants endless emails like that
But in this case people shouldn't complain that they haven't seen posts that appeared at previous pages of the thread
But why can't those posts appear after the last post when they are at last published?
... most (or at least many) people do not quote posts to which they answer, and changing the orders of posts would lead to a mess...
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:20
Hebrew to English
TOPIC STARTER | Order of posts should not change... | Jul 13, 2012 |
A chronological order makes sense, but only on a level-playing field when everyone's posts appear instantly.
If anything was to change, I'd rather it be the policy of vetting NPNV (non-paying non-verified) members. There are inherent problems with changing the order of posts which can just be avoided completely by instantaneous posting for all*
*except those with restrictions for offences obviously.
I would support an argument for re-ordering the sequence o... See more A chronological order makes sense, but only on a level-playing field when everyone's posts appear instantly.
If anything was to change, I'd rather it be the policy of vetting NPNV (non-paying non-verified) members. There are inherent problems with changing the order of posts which can just be avoided completely by instantaneous posting for all*
*except those with restrictions for offences obviously.
I would support an argument for re-ordering the sequence of posts if ProZ flat out refused to level the playing field though.
[Edited at 2012-07-13 14:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Henry Hinds
United States
Local time: 02:20
English to Spanish
+ ...
In memoriam
Ty Kendall wrote:
Sorry, but there are non-paying members whose identities have been verified yet their forum posts do NOT appear instantly.
I know this for a fact after following a recent LONG thread where verified non-paying members posts would just "appear" out of nowhere after hours/days.
Unless these are individual cases whose forum posts have a vetting restriction for some reason....I'd have to talk to the individuals to be sure.
Like I said, I'd still like a non-paying verified member to stand up.....
(Also: Powwow identity verification - does anybody 'actually' do this?).
Yes, I will stand up. I am non-paying and my identity is verified (in my case through a powwow hostess known personally by Proz.com staff), but I am not a "member"; for that one has to pay, so I guess I am just "registered" on the site, or whatever the term might be.
And no, my forum posts do NOT appear instantly.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:20
Hebrew to English
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks Henry | Jul 13, 2012 |
I knew I wasn't imagining it....
| | | | | Hi, Ty. In this respect I agree with you | Jul 17, 2012 |
I was quite reluctant to express my opinion when you started this thread, and I did not really care then. Now I do care. Other people (non-members) should either be forbidden to post at all, or their post should be checked at least in a slightly faster manner. It is really to long to have to wait for two days for your post to become visible, when everybody else is already talking about something else and they don't go back. Also a few of my posts totally disappeared -- there wasn't anything bad ... See more I was quite reluctant to express my opinion when you started this thread, and I did not really care then. Now I do care. Other people (non-members) should either be forbidden to post at all, or their post should be checked at least in a slightly faster manner. It is really to long to have to wait for two days for your post to become visible, when everybody else is already talking about something else and they don't go back. Also a few of my posts totally disappeared -- there wasn't anything bad in them or inappropriate: they were just about some multilingual children in the US. One of the posts could have been an exaggeration, so I would not even mind if it was not accepted, but the other two at least, had nothing of questionable nature in them. Why did this happen? Why aren't posts checked at least the same day? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
nmfurla (X)
Local time: 10:20
Italian to English
| Methinks it's merely a question of money | Jul 17, 2012 |
Henry Hinds wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
Sorry, but there are non-paying members whose identities have been verified yet their forum posts do NOT appear instantly.
I know this for a fact after following a recent LONG thread where verified non-paying members posts would just "appear" out of nowhere after hours/days.
Unless these are individual cases whose forum posts have a vetting restriction for some reason....I'd have to talk to the individuals to be sure.
Like I said, I'd still like a non-paying verified member to stand up.....
(Also: Powwow identity verification - does anybody 'actually' do this?).
Yes, I will stand up. I am non-paying and my identity is verified (in my case through a powwow hostess known personally by Proz.com staff), but I am not a "member"; for that one has to pay, so I guess I am just "registered" on the site, or whatever the term might be.
And no, my forum posts do NOT appear instantly.
Like Henry, I am not a paying member but a mere registered user, for about two years now. It seems to me that vetting is primarily for non-paying users of the site and not because moderators (or whomever is responsible for this procedure) are concerned about the verifying the poster's identity.
Earlier today I tried to engage in a discussion on another topic but by the time my single comment was actually visible it was ineffectual as the discussion had moved on.
| | | | | I was a verified non-memeber | Jul 18, 2012 |
I joined as ordinary member in Feb 2003, attended a Powwow in Bombay in November 2004 and was verified.
Since that time onward all my posts appeared instantaneously. I became platinum member in July 2007 but that is another story.
Regards,
N. Raghavan
Ty Kendall wrote:
Sorry, but there are non-paying members whose identities have been verified yet their forum posts do NOT appear instantly.
I know this for a fact after following a recent LONG thread where verified non-paying members posts would just "appear" out of nowhere after hours/days.
Unless these are individual cases whose forum posts have a vetting restriction for some reason....I'd have to talk to the individuals to be sure.
Like I said, I'd still like a non-paying verified member to stand up.....
(Also: Powwow identity verification - does anybody 'actually' do this?).
| | | |
Narasimhan Raghavan wrote:
I joined as ordinary member in Feb 2003, attended a Powwow in Bombay in November 2004 and was verified.
Since that time onward all my posts appeared instantaneously. I became platinum member in July 2007 but that is another story.
Regards,
N. Raghavan
It works that way, there can be other reasons preventing a verified user's messages to appear instantaneously, but not simply because he/she is not a paying member IF verified.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:20
Hebrew to English
TOPIC STARTER
Angie Garbarino wrote:
Narasimhan Raghavan wrote:
I joined as ordinary member in Feb 2003, attended a Powwow in Bombay in November 2004 and was verified.
Since that time onward all my posts appeared instantaneously. I became platinum member in July 2007 but that is another story.
Regards,
N. Raghavan
It works that way, there can be other reasons preventing a verified user's messages to appear instantaneously, but not simply because he/she is not a paying member IF verified.
I wonder how we explain Henry's predicament then. I'm sure he'd:
a) be aware
b) tell us
if he had any personal vetting restrictions which applied only to him.
| | |
|
|
|
| | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:20
Hebrew to English
TOPIC STARTER | I'm well aware of the rule, Angie | Jul 18, 2012 |
I think we can agree that it would be pretty disingenuous to come onto this thread and say that your posts are vetted, despite being verified knowing there's a good reason why!!! (i.e. a personal restriction).
Henry is a well-established member of this site, I don't believe for a second he would do that.
Ty
[Edited at 2012-07-18 13:21 GMT]
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Ty - Not a site guide.
Best regards
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should non-paying non-verified members forum posts be vetted? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
