Reddit has a nifty 'Hide' feature. Facebook has something similar. Once you click it the thread, post or other content immediately no longer shows. This allows users to keep browsing when they encounter content that they find objectionable.
This function has multiple benefits. Not only is it useful to readers, but its also useful to admins/moderators: if something is found objectionable by multiple members then most likely there is a problem there.
It would be nice to have a setting to send content to moderation if more than X members have hidden it. (threads, posts, resources, media, etc. Obviously not forums)
And yes I know: people SHOULD just report. But many people dont want to take the effort or feel bad about reporting someone. Having a hide button is quick, simple and effective.
Frankly I think this 'Hide' concept is a pretty decent idea really. Actually seems like a far better solution than the mediocre & very easily weaponizable-(*by unscrupulous & often exceedingly hypocritical members using the)-'Ignore' bollocks.
Seems more reasonable to simply enable the ability for thin skinned members to hit a 'Hide' option on a per post, &/or per thread basis.
However I question whether it would serve beneficial to incorporate such a 'Hide' option with automated mod listing.
At least, I would anticipate that it wouldn't be prudent to reveal an auto-mod listing aspect publicly, simply due that common feralized members–& shameless mobs thereof would almost certainly hijack and weaponize it for their own purposes...as is already often the case with 'Ignore' & 'Report'.
Furthermore, which is why it is important to highlight the potentially erroneous/biased interpretation for:
"...if something is found objectionable by multiple members then most likely there is a problem there."
Which is a perfectly logical conclusion of course.
Yet this would likely create issues when combined with the idea for incorporating the 'Hide' concept with auto-modding due to the fact we first require having had identified exactly what the root cause of the problem is.
For example: merely that multiple members may appear as if to independently object to certain content/or certain members content, does not prove the 'Hidden' content to definitively be objectionable.
Whether it is or isn't objectionable as arbitrarily defined by respective fora administration and moderation staff, is of course at their sole–(often duplicitously hypocritical)–discretion.
Yet the content itself may not be the root cause of the apparent problem at all.
It may simply be that those members using the 'Hide' option are themselves problematic, as has been so the case with the 'Ignore' & 'Report' options.
Dysfunctional individuals tend to be exceptionally skillful at indirectly creating problems specifically so to appear as though caused by anyone other than themselves–they also often automatically participate engaging such covertly aggressive offending with other dysfunctional individuals merely for transient self-gratification which dysfunctional individuals gain from abusing others.
Now I can appreciate that matters such as these may possibly seem unimportant or wholly irrelevant for some, however the fact is that administrative duties also includes the inescapable requisite assumption of all community social responsibilities, legally, ethically and most crucially morally. Executing administrative duties whilst failing to account for–& proactively addressing–one's own personal–as well as each individual community member's–potentials for psychological dysfunction, amounts to executing administrative duties in dereliction.
In essense:
Where 10 members object to 1 member's content does not preclude the 1 member's innocence.
As to definitively presume that the 1 member must be at fault while the 10 members objections must be justified, merely due to numerical superiority of the 10 ~vs~ the 1, would infact be a logical error.
It may be that the 10 members are simply dysfunctional a$$holes ganging up on the 1 member.
