 | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:H5L4GC.DqG@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> As you all noticed, we are pre-moderating the comments, meaning nothing • goes
> live without passing by human eyes. We are trying to provide a safe haven
> for discussion for kids of all ages...0-99! We are still getting the hang
> of the moderation, and that first "off-topic" line shouldn't have been
> deleted. However, what we can't do is allow personal information of any • type
> to be uploaded. There is *way* too much risk involved with that when
> dealing with children.
>
> That being said, I have really gone to the mats to ensure that we aren't
> "censoring" posts, but rather simply removing cuss words and personal
> information...all things that don't meet the Terms and Conditions. If the
> post would require a great deal of changes to be able to go live, we will
> simply reject it and have users try again.
>
> (For more information on what is allowed, please refer to the Terms and
> Conditions all users agree when logging into the site the first time,
> and/or the posting guidelines accessible via the link on the "Add • Comment"
> page)
>
> There was also some questions about timing of moderation. We are trying to
> moderate posts as fast as possible. We are still working out the details • of
> what we accept and reject, so bear with us for a short while as we get • this
> process solidified.
[ ... snipped ... ]
I still have one post that is waiting approval, it has been about 24 hours
now since I posted it.
I assume that the reason for the non-approval is due to the links to the
LUGNET Set Guide I referenced in my post.
My first post was approved but "edited" beforehand. It too had a link to
the LUGNET Set Guide. The link was remove from what was actually posted on
the board.
I went and reviewed the ToS and it doesn't expressly state that off-site
links are prohibited.
In my case, the point I was trying to make is greatly enhanced by being able
to see a picture of the set I am referring to. I suspect that many of the
users of the message board will not be as familiar with the older set
numbers as some of us insane people here on LUGNET. If I say the 725 Basic
Building Set should be the next legend, unless you know what I am talking
about, you have no idea why I think it is such a good set.
Jake - can you clarify your policy on including links on the message board?
Mik
FUT: lugnet.lego.direct
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Mike Walsh writes:
> My first post was approved but "edited" beforehand. It too had a link to
> the LUGNET Set Guide. The link was remove from what was actually posted on
> the board.
> I went and reviewed the ToS and it doesn't expressly state that off-site
> links are prohibited.
> In my case, the point I was trying to make is greatly enhanced by being able
> to see a picture of the set I am referring to. I suspect that many of the
> users of the message board will not be as familiar with the older set
> numbers as some of us insane people here on LUGNET. If I say the 725 Basic
> Building Set should be the next legend, unless you know what I am talking
> about, you have no idea why I think it is such a good set.
>
> Jake - can you clarify your policy on including links on the message board?
You are right, your post was edited to exclude the URL. I am still working
out what the external URL policy is, and will add it to the ToS and post
here as soon as it is resolved.
As far as the editing, what do you all think? Would you prefer to have just
the link (and possibly the part of the message related to that link)
removed, and the post pushed live? Or would you rather see the post rejected
entirely with a reason of "Includes External URL" (you can see rejection
reasons in MyComments)?
Once we get all these questions answered, the turn around time should be
much quicker.
PS: If I recall correctly, one posts was edited to remove your name (i.e.
Personal Information)
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Senior Producer
LEGO Direct
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> In lugnet.general, Mike Walsh writes:
>
> > My first post was approved but "edited" beforehand. It too had a link to
> > the LUGNET Set Guide. The link was remove from what was actually posted on
> > the board.
>
> > I went and reviewed the ToS and it doesn't expressly state that off-site
> > links are prohibited.
>
> > In my case, the point I was trying to make is greatly enhanced by being able
> > to see a picture of the set I am referring to. I suspect that many of the
> > users of the message board will not be as familiar with the older set
> > numbers as some of us insane people here on LUGNET. If I say the 725 Basic
> > Building Set should be the next legend, unless you know what I am talking
> > about, you have no idea why I think it is such a good set.
> >
> > Jake - can you clarify your policy on including links on the message board?
>
> You are right, your post was edited to exclude the URL. I am still working
> out what the external URL policy is, and will add it to the ToS and post
> here as soon as it is resolved.
That will be great. I would stump (as I did in my comment in the board
feedback section) for references to the guide section of LUGNET(tm) and
Peeron(tm) inventories and other things to be left alone.
> As far as the editing, what do you all think? Would you prefer to have just
> the link (and possibly the part of the message related to that link)
> removed, and the post pushed live? Or would you rather see the post rejected
> entirely with a reason of "Includes External URL" (you can see rejection
> reasons in MyComments)?
I'd prefer that I can see pending, accepted, and rejected with comments as 3
separate categories in MyComments. For the "rejected with comments" let me
edit and fix whatever the issue is and resubmit.
> Once we get all these questions answered, the turn around time should be
> much quicker.
>
> PS: If I recall correctly, one posts was edited to remove your name (i.e.
> Personal Information)
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Senior Producer
> LEGO Direct
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > As far as the editing, what do you all think? Would you prefer to have just
> > the link (and possibly the part of the message related to that link)
> > removed, and the post pushed live? Or would you rather see the post rejected
> > entirely with a reason of "Includes External URL" (you can see rejection
> > reasons in MyComments)?
Jake, for URL's would it be possible to leave them in the message,
but just not make them 'clickable'??? Then the user could just
cut and paste them to another browser window, and it's not really
something that lego.com linked the user through? Maybe that won't
satisfy the powers that be, but it's an idea.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kyle McDonald writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> >
> > > As far as the editing, what do you all think? Would you prefer to have just
> > > the link (and possibly the part of the message related to that link)
> > > removed, and the post pushed live? Or would you rather see the post rejected
> > > entirely with a reason of "Includes External URL" (you can see rejection
> > > reasons in MyComments)?
>
>
>
> Jake, for URL's would it be possible to leave them in the message,
> but just not make them 'clickable'??? Then the user could just
> cut and paste them to another browser window, and it's not really
> something that lego.com linked the user through? Maybe that won't
> satisfy the powers that be, but it's an idea.
Well, the issue is that providing the URL (linked or not) opens a potential
door to inappropriate content. As Steve put in an earlier post, the goal is
to have a Message Board that anyone feels safe participating in, or sending
their kids to participate in.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Senior Producer
LEGO Direct
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Well, the issue is that providing the URL (linked or not) opens a potential
> door to inappropriate content. As Steve put in an earlier post, the goal is
> to have a Message Board that anyone feels safe participating in, or sending
> their kids to participate in.
Maybe the solution is to allow an image to be optionally supplied with a
message. That way the message and the image can moderated together and then,
since the image is served from the Lego site, there is no possibility of its
content changing to something inappropriate subsequently.
Kerry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jake,
I think that pictures of (at least) sets would be essencial.
So, would it be possible to include pics in the msg instead of explicit URLs
?
I don't know how your Tech/Web designer would implement this, but it could
have some extra fields (Pic.1, Pic.2, etc... up to 4 ? 6 ? ) to fill with
Pic URLs and then the user would simply say in the text part "[...] as you
can see on Pic.1 [...] another way is what you can see on Pic.2 [...]"
etc...
Another way would be to translate pic URLs embedded on text to proper pics,
but that would make the text a bit weird to read.
If the pictures can point to oficial LEGO URLs/Pics, all the better.
Just a thought...
mc. :)
PS: I'm not a Message Board user yet.
> Well, the issue is that providing the URL (linked or not)
> opens a potential
> door to inappropriate content. As Steve put in an earlier
> post, the goal is
> to have a Message Board that anyone feels safe participating
> in, or sending
> their kids to participate in.
| | | | | | |
