The Register operates a hybrid moderation policy. Here's how it works. The vast majority of comments will appear on the site automatically. This is because we trust you to follow the house rules. But just in case ... we have a mechanism for readers to report comments. The moderators will continue to deal with any comments and/ …
"don't pimp your own website," - linking to articles that you've written on your own blog, about the subject in hand?
Michelle, We have had this policy in place for a long time. It is meant to deter people who sign up to The Reg simply to promote their own blog. Or more usually to link to some spam site.
I don't have a particular beef with people who link to articles that they have written elsewhere. But of course if this facility is abused we will send people to the naughty chair for a very long time.
That's cool. Thanks for clarifying! Getting sent to the naughty chair does sound a bit kinky and therefore nice, but the length of time is probably enough of a threat to keep me in my place :-)
@drewc - thanks for the clarification. Definitely think if you're going to put someone "on probation" they should be told. Otherwise they might never even realise it's happening and figure pre-moderation is the norm.
Can we have automatic 'naughty step' placement for the following crimes against humanity:
1: Using "your" instead of "you're" [UR should incur the death penalty]
2: Using "their" or "there" instead of "they're"
3: Any other grammatical howlers that they used to teach in primary school, when I was a nipper
@madra - Hope this was meant in a light-hearted manner!
So you're wanting to ban some of the non-English first language commentards, as well as those not as educated as yourself?
Whilst I find it difficult to read some of the comments written in poor English, I have known many people with very valid technical information and comments who do not have English as their first language. I think I can put up with poor grammar so long as the comment has substance.
I think that those who use bad grammar as a reason to shout down a comment they don't like is just as bad as gratuitous use of poor English.
If your comment was tongue-in-cheek , then might I suggest that you use the Joke Alert! icon, rather than the Troll icon.
Naughty Chair or Naughty Step?
...could make a difference on content in comments
Specifically, which legal code?
[quote]If we suspect that your comment may be libellous, we will reject it. We err on the side of caution. Remember we are subject to *UK* libel laws.[/quote] (Emphasis added)
But Scots law is different to that in England and Wales. Does El Reg operate as if regulated by *English* law?
I would imagine they just punt anything that looks dodgy. If a comment sails close enough to the wind I would personally drop it long before I considered which legal domains would find it appropriate or not.
Of course we are regulated by the law of England and Wales. But equally if someone weirdly chose Scotland to pursue a defamation action against us, we could not ignore it. By the way, Pinsent Masons, a Scottish law firm, has a guide to defamation as it pertains under UK law.
I can't change my handle
I get tired of being a Donkey. Sometime I want to be a Irish Kangaroo. But I can't change my handle.
What is the handle changing rules?
it says I have changed my handle too many time. It this because I am being watched/pre moderated/Laughed at.
changing your handle will make a difference for moderation. The mods will identify the account by the login name, not the handle.
I don't know what their policy is on registering two accounts against different email addresses. I thought I read somewhere that it was either discouraged, or maybe that it was enough to get the accounts suspended.
The FT has a policy that when you change your handle - all your previous posts change along with that handle.
Our policy is that you change your handle and all published non-anonymous posts after that have the new handle. But you lose your old handle - and no-one else can nab it. I think the FT policyh is sensible but I don't have a strong view on this.
Please enact this policy.
On my previous handle (admittedly a name that was a bit childish) I had accrued a nice large number of posts (I think?), I would like my previous posts to be under my new a33a handle.
Articles and their Comments (or the lack thereof)
It would be nice if ALL Articles allowed Comments.
I'm looking at you Mr A O.
As we are discussing comments here, it might be nice if you dropped by and explained once and for all why you don't like comments on your posta (well, a good % anyways)
This title is optional
Test, test, one, one, two, three.....
When you trust your readers...
...you make a fool of yourself.
Unable to find a replacement Moderatrix?
Obviously Sarah was a harder act to follow than you thought. This is the only rational solution.
HTML elements in comments
I don’t know what the planned future direction is for HTML elements in comments — whether it will eventually be granted to all commenters in good standing, or whether it will remain the preserve of the Blessèd Hundred — but it would be nice if at least the style-oriented elements (or at bare minimum, a span element with only a style attribute) would be available to commenters in general.
Subject to UK libel laws, but not UK dictionaries it would appear!
What if your USian dictionary corrects my UK spelling and creates a potentially libellous comment? Where would we be then I ask you?
Where indeed. A highly improbable set of circumstances.
Polite AND nasty ?
I have never had a problem being polite on any commentary or forum platform, indeed on occasion I have been positively helpful. But I am only an occasional contributor to any of my several interests, whether El Reg, simulation or computing fora. I enjoy 'The Register' and read it most days - when my internet connection (under discussion ) lets me - but I only comment occasionally. I don't think I have ever had any comment rejected, but I would need to start cranking them out much more frequently to get inside the 5 in 3 months rule.
As my late Auntie put it - politeness costs nothing. Apart from anything else, it is not difficult to be really insulting and terribly polite at the same time, but life is too short.
Serial reportards here we come
That really is going to appeal a certain sort of person, probably the sort of serial downvoter that sees red for every pro/anti apple/MS fanboi ejaculation. A kind of grumpy nerd version of the Neighbourhood Watch Whitehouseian curtain twitcher minus the blue rinse but probably still with the Daily Mail sub on their fondleslab. Nothing appeals to yer basic human instincts better than watching someone else get an 'official kicking' in the metaphorical gonads.
I am aware of one serial reportard. If this becomes an issue we will deal with it.
Re: Serial reportard
Out of curiosity, what about folks who decide to serial-down-vote a given handle, regardless of content of commentardary? I appear to have picked up one of same, and have received 50 down-votes in a short period of time (probably corresponding to the first page of my posting history) a couple of times now ... Personally, I don't give a rat's ass ... But this attempt at bullying can and does keep folks from commentarding over the long-haul, and tends to kill conversation.
Now thoroughly confused. My last two posts suddenly both appeared at the same time in "my posts" page; but neither have yet shown up here?!?
Perhaps... "accepted" but being held by the moderator while he comments on them? That's cheating, you know :)
All three of my recent set of blather read "Accepted by moderator at [time stamp]" on my posts page. Plus my three from yesterday. It seems like the 6th, at least, should have qualified easily under the "5 happy posts in 3 months" rule.
Therefore, apparently it prints "Accepted by moderator" whether it's referring to a human or an automated system.
I'd prefer if it said "Accepted by automoderation" or something like that. Perhaps with a nice link to the guidelines anchored on "automoderation".
Ah, I have now *earned* the "commentard" moniker. My Mysteriously Missing Missives were there all along -- waaay up higher in the discussion, threaded under what I was replying to. Duhhh.
I think I'll go do something useful now, like load the dishwasher...
"I think I'll go do something useful now, like load the dishwasher..."
Hopefully the .sig-other appreciates your efforts ... Me, I have a Belted Galloway calving. Everybody needs a hobby in the wee hours ...
A nonny nonny
Just want to see what it'll look like in "my posts"
...then the dishwasher, really...
Not Sir Postalot
Can't you find a more mathematically rigorous concept for determining regular readers/commentards? That is a computer you are using and not a civil servant I assume. And, those of us on the other side of the big pond [which includes everyone not on your island] tend to post when the night crew is working.
Here's hoping the moderator is working from the pub or home....
We considered more rigorous formulae but that does not scoop for the otherwise sensible person who is drunk dialling in the middle of the night - or for the hate-filled rant.
However, the five comments in three months was simply a stake in the ground while we assessed impact of automodding. The answer I think is to simply lower the limits - say five articles in six months or one year.
good and plain english, but....
The whole of the text, and especially specific sections, simply *BEG* to be BOFH'ed.
"Currently we allow posts of up to 2,000 characters, which is quite a bit longer than most forums, [...]."
First, it used to be 4000 or so, which I'll buy might qualify for the "quite a bit longer" claim, but AFAIK 2000 is more or less what everybody else does, modulo the mainly old print gone web2.0 bunch that insist on playing Scrooge here. Worse, I tend to run into the limit and I'm certainly not the only one. So, at least stop making boisterous claims how doing the same as everybody else is somehow better than everybody else. But really I'd prefer to see the old limit reinstated. Why'd you feel the need to dial it down, anyway?
So - I only actually checked out the actual character allowance recently. We were running at 10,000 chars - not 2,000 as had been specified.
We have been experimenting with 2K - we will re-introduce bigger limits soon.
Required level of arbitrariness
The Reg is making a big mistake in publishing explicit rules. Games (and fora) are addictive only if they contain a reasonable level of arbitrariness. Take that away and we'll quickly get bored!
So please flag and ban whoever you want, but don't be dickheads and tell us why! (Dickhead, in the sense of 'Schwachkopf', is, of course, in no way meant to be insulting to monolinguists.)
Tard me up, Captain.
Page displays funny...
I think I see how this works...
Comments about stupid 'merkins are fine, but if I, a stupid 'merkin, refer to the time-honored English tradition of mating with sheep, it gets Yanked. "Yanked," get it?
I have adblocked those badge images. I find them particularly annoying.
Don't be a racist arsehole, a homophobic wanker, a xenophobic idiot or a sexist pig.
May I say you just broke your own rule. Just because you are a racist does not make you an arsehole. That is an opinion not a rule. And as for that porcine remark, are you Isl**ic or something? Sorry can't say that.
As for giving me a bronze badge. Thank you, but it will not improve my performance.
Since Channel items also appear on the main Reg front page when can't you just make a comment thru the usual forum? I am sure I am not alone in not wanting to sign up for more stuff arriving in my inbox, preferring instead just to browse thru the Reg when I have a spare moment.
I mean come on :-
share comments on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2012/02/01/register_comments_guidelines/
so why can't other stories as well?
Moderated! Oh the shame!
Just wanted to mention that my post was rejected because I pointed out that 3.6 square kilometres is not 1,179 times the size of Belgium, as the Reg Hack had suggested.
Is this the first step in a campaign of disinformation by El Reg? Will they, as the only remaining online source after the coming of the BT Filter, gradually persuade us that the whole of Europe will fit into the average garden shed, then use that misconception to get us all checking our sheds to see whether this fairisle land has been invaded by Johnny Foreigner, while crack teams of SPB operatives break into our homes while we're distracted and steal all our shiney?
Or was it because of my gratuitous use of the word 'Belg**m'?
Inquiring minds need to know.
19. Calling an author out
Will get your comment rejected. Because they can't handle criticism.
I'm looking at you 0rlowski...
I resent being censored when I object to specifics of the Gay agenda or Gay marriage. Gays are allowed to marginalize and even be derogatory to heteros, but any perceived opposition to gay rights is quickly rejected by the moderators.
Note that the anti-GLBT crowd ALWAYS derides GLBT.
GLBT almost never derides the straight population (radicals are ... well, radical).
The wife & I are het. The gay guys on the other side of our rose garden are ... uh, gay. And a couple of our best friends.
Methinks that your "agenda" is in your mind, not reality. What are you afraid of?
"I resent being censored"
Me too, but nobody's stopping you running a blog with your own comments guidelines and expressing your opinions. The difference is that you're in El Reg's virtual living room and they can decide who gets to sit on their sofa and bad mouth their neighbours, just like you can at your house. So good news, you're not being censored.
How did I violate the rules?
Under the Article:
Google buys 'mood music' biz Songza (along with a window into your LIFE)
Google dude. I’m about to get, er, intimate – which music should we play?
- Updated HIDDEN packet sniffer spy tech in MILLIONS of iPhones, iPads – expert
- Apple orders huge MOUNTAIN of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s
- NOW we know why Apple went running to IBM: iPad is an iFAD
- PROOF the Apple iPhone 6 rumor mill hype-gasm has reached its logical conclusion
- Black Hat anti-Tor talk smashed by lawyers' wrecking ball