Moderate your own threads?

I know this is not an original idea, but it occured to me that thread starters/authors should be given the moderation abilities on their own threads. [Of course, this privilege need to be given to all members but maybe to members whose post count is upwards of a certain number (say n - which Jeremy decides)]

Before you put down this idea, consider these advantages:

1. Thread starter if he posts in the wrong forum can move his own thread to the appropriate one without bothering the regular moderators.
2. Thread starter, if his question is answered can lock the thread so that others need not waste time in reading it to find out if the thread has served its purpose.
3. Thread starter can actually close the threads which have lost their relevance over a period of time so that the issue need not be raised again.
4. A sense of responsibility will be given to the thread starter: he is in charge of his own thread and so has full responsibility as to how the topic proceeds. Of course, if he misuses his rights, a regular moderator can step in to correct the issue.
5. This will also increase the feeling of participation in LQ with a feeling of responsibility.

Just an idea. I think, if implemented will reduce the stress and strain on the regular moderators on such a busy forum as LQ.

Tell me what you think of it.

It'll also lead to bitch fights and petty power struggles between people who have no power.

Originally posted by ror It'll also lead to bitch fights and petty power struggles between people who have no power.

Agreed. You do have a good point. But of course, this measure wouldn't stop the regular moderators from doing their job.

Another aspect is that if a member misuses this right too often, it could be taken away from him.

All this is of course, conjecture. It depends on Jeremny and also on the forum software which he uses whether it permits him to add this feature or not.

Go too far with with the self moderation and you might as well let everyone edit everything and then you have a wiki

(and oddly enough, giving EVERYONE power means that wikis work, are wikis a total lack of authority on everyone's part or everyone having total authority? it's hard to tell).

We _have_ a wiki http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/

It's for reasons like #2 that something like this would not be viable. Thanks for the suggestion, but it's not something I can see being implemented at this time at LQ.

--jeremy

1) If the the thread starter(moderator) put it in the wrong forum to begin with, how does this person know which is the correct forum?
2) How do you know if it has served its purpose if you have not read it? So no one else should read it? What is the purpose of the search feature then?
3) Your relevance might be different than mine. Who is to decide?
4) The thread starter has the responsibility to put their thread in the correct forum to begin with. Start there.
5) I feel fine with the responsibility and feeling of participation as it now stands.

Originally posted by jeremy We _have_ a wiki http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/ --jeremy

I know, I was just trying to advocate it's use

Really when people start asking common questions, they should not be FLAMED they should be pointed to the answer that is already in the wiki.

You're right, the should *never* be flamed. We do everything we can to avoid that. If anyone has any ideas on how we can get members to search more, I'm always open to ideas.

--jeremy

Am I right in thinking (I would ask this on the wiki but it's forum there seems a little obtuse? (should I post to top or bottom of page?) ) that CC license is imcompatible with stuff like GFDL/GPL and that man pages can't be incorporated into the wiki?

The CC by-sa is currently not compatible with the GFDL, but that is something that is being worked on. As for man pages, the license on those vary from man page to man page.

--jeremy

Originally posted by jeremy You're right, the should *never* be flamed. We do everything we can to avoid that. If anyone has any ideas on how we can get members to search more, I'm always open to ideas. --jeremy

Hello all,

As far as getting members to search more I do see that when you go to make a new thread it gives you the option to see if this has been asked before. But for the most part it don't seem to be used. So here is my idea: instead of making it an option to click that button make the site do an automatic search of the forums/wiki and give results like these forums/articles may be a help, then they could look thru those see if they find a solution (pop up a new window to look at the thread suggestions) and if they do not at the bottom of the page it could say something like question not answered continue posting? Then you would click that and continue like usual.

Just a thought!

Originally posted by anti_microsoft Hello all, As far as getting members to search more I do see that when you go to make a new thread it gives you the option to see if this has been asked before. But for the most part it don't seem to be used. So here is my idea: instead of making it an option to click that button make the site do an automatic search of the forums/wiki and give results like these forums/articles may be a help, then they could look thru those see if they find a solution (pop up a new window to look at the thread suggestions) and if they do not at the bottom of the page it could say something like question not answered continue posting? Then you would click that and continue like usual. Just a thought!

I think most would find this an annoyance and it would greatly increase the bandwidth on the site, thus jacking up the heavy monthly costs, which are probably already high enough, compared to the funds from advertising/contributions to Jeremy's wallet..

if that happens there would be no need for moderators....and LQ would be a mess...mods are a must.

Hello all again,

I think my suggestion has be misunderstood. OK...Now..This my idea maybe in better english this time. Let's assume everyone used the "has this been asked before" button when you post a new thread (that was placed there to be used so if everyone used it like they were supposed to this would not be a bandwidth problem). So my answer to the double posting problems and such was before you post have the system do a auto search (the feature is done with the " has this been asked before" button). So now when people goto post they have to look at the results from an automated search and if they are not happy with what the automated system finds they can continue there post right at the end of the results it could say continue posting. Why does this pose a problem? Why would it be an annoyance? I mean all the original functions would still be in place it would just make the person who is going to post KNOW they are double posting if it has been asked. I consider a double post a waste of bandwidth and the flames that follow for doing so a waste also. I really don't see a problem with the idea. I think it's a good one. Of course that's just my 2 cents.

While double posts are an issue, the represent a very small percentage of posts - maybe .5% (probably much less). I don't think making *everyone* have to go through the above process could be justified. Additionally, the people most likely to double post likely still would. This would create a situation where double posts still exist and well behaved members are inconvenienced.

--jeremy