post moderation

is it really necessary to have a live moderator pre-review every post? I would just like to share my opinion that this is quite annoying and not conducive to natural discussion, and while it may keep out undesirables better it also serves to keep the site from becoming dynamic.

Hi @DariaVader

Thanks for the feedback - we definitely hear your concerns and understand where you're coming from. These forums are intended to promote discussion among members- patients, family members, clinicians and providers- to provide much needed and trusted support. The forums are also intended to generate ideas from patients about the questions and research THEY feel is of greatest interest to them. The forum is moderated for several reasons, but the most important is for the safety of our members and to ensure that it remains a trusted site. As a medical institution, we must be cautious to avoid content that is misconstrued as direct medical advice which is regulated by law and medical professional standards.

That being said, over 95% of posts have been approved, showing that most of the discussions patients are interested in having are indeed going on. We hope to hear your voice in ongoing discussions!

SusanR,

As one who wrote a post that is still under review from yesterday regarding cpaptalk.com, I agree with DariaVader. If this forum is going to turn into that same type of censorship that I felt the old ASAA forums had turned into before the new management seemed to see the light on, I see no point in participating.

By the way, folks on that site were strongly encouraged to participate here but were understandably weary because of the censorship issues. It looks like they may be right.

I understand your concern and complaint, DariaVader. However, I do see the reason for reviewing posts. I was very involved with another site (for a different condition) and there were posts that were often misleading or outright wrong. They were deleted but for some people, the damage was done and bad information was circulated. People claimed they had a cure when there isn't one or they were peddling what we called "snake oil" medicine that promised all sorts of things that just weren't true. Sometimes people posted who were just trying to help but the information wasn't good. Sometimes there were people who posted bad information just to get your money. So while this set-up may take a little longer, it seems to be much more trust-worthy to me.

As a newbie, I was hoping that after I posted a few times, and proved myself to be harmless that I would no longer have each comment monitored. It does feel like "big brother" is watching me. I can see where the moderators are coming from, but it seems extreme to me.

I participate on another forum, for a different type health problem, which is at the other extreme. It is un-moderated and I sometimes wish someone was keeping an eye on the discussion. If there are inapproriate, offensive or inaccurate statements made, the recourse is to report to to the site administrator. This has been very rarely necessary with over 3,000 comments within my group. When someone is inappropriate or whatever, typically the regular members of the group jump all over the comment, make corrections and address the issue with the person who initiated the offending post. As a group member, I far prefer being able to converse back and forth with someone 24/7 without having to wait for each comment to be moderated.

I would appreciate a middle of the road approach i.e., a bold disclaimer that the views posted are the personal views / opinions of the person posted and should not be taken as medical advice. In addition, if there was a staff person designated to review the posts daily and address/remove any inappropriate comments, I think that would be ideal.

Janet

100% in agreement with you Janet. The conversation is stale rather than dynamic with the current model.

I don't know anyone dumb enough to take forum participants advice as gospel truth... furthermore, I do not believe that the medical community has a corner on truth. Studies are valuable. Interpretation of the data that comes from studies is hotly debated rather than rigid. Anecdotal evidence also has a place, and forums are an ideal place to share that.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your comments - we really appreciate member feedback as we are building this portal. As was mentioned above, we are currently in a position where we need to screen posts for possible medical advice, which is quite strictly regulated by law and medical professional standards. While advice of all types is certainly up to interpretation and evaluation by the receiver, it's not quite that simple from our end.

Most importantly, I'd like to point out that we hear your concerns about the extent of post moderation, and our team has seriously been discussing an array of possible changes. We ask you to trust that we're thinking through the best way to promote open, dynamic discussion. We will definitely keep you updated in the coming weeks, and will ask you directly for feedback at that point!

Thanks, Kyle

Happy to know are listening and considering ways to make the forums user-friendly.

Appreciate it.

Janet (2Sleepy) = still sleepy

Hi @2Sleepy and @DariaVader,

As I mentioned, we seriously value feedback from members. This portal is for you, and we want to make it as useful as possible! We just pushed a big release that includes changes to post moderation: all posts will be visible immediately after they are created. We now have visible flags for posts that are pending review, and we will have moderators actively reading all posts to make sure people are getting quality information!

We were primarily able to make this happen because the forums have been such a positive place, and we've heard so many positive comments. I hope you enjoy this update, and are able to interact more dynamically going forward :)

As always, let us know if you have any questions! Kyle

Thanks, Kyle

Appreciate it.

I think this approach will allow for more real-time interaction.

2Sleepy....but improving