How to temporarily remove a thread for editing

[Alvin63]

Ok so a member has started a thread that is long, controversial and full of capitals in bold. It also conflicts with other resources on the forum. The member is keen but I need to edit the thread a lot and message them and explain why. I can only see an option to delete it. I tried unapproving it as I thought that would make it invisible while I'm going through it - but it is still showing up to be opened and read. Whether logged in or not logged in.

Is there a way to temporarily remove it for editing?

 

[Alvin63]

Ok I see what you're saying. It's just the one member - plenty of others have written stuff but are clear it's from their perspective. It's related to medical issues so it's the topic material partly.

 

[Alvin63]

Really? So one MUST refer back to "authoritative" sources? So, if I wanted to write an article on how to repair/modify a telescope mount using processes I implemented/figured I have to dig around and find a source of someone that may have also done such, realizing that I never depended on an outside source for my actions/processes?
If one asks for outside input, then one simply attributes in the article (either in a footnote or when using the actual input itself) the provider of that data in the format of a quote or footnote reference.

Just because YOU may not like the way it's written does not mean that it is written wrong.



Does that user have a normal title? Are they shown as staff? I seriously doubt that a normal user, looking at a post from another normal user would interpret anything as a "forum policy".

In fact, you can EASILY create some prefixes for that node that ONLY the moderators/admins have access to and have one set aside as "Posters Opinion", "Opinion" or similar and then assign that prefix to that post. If said user tries to change it, or does change it several times, then that is a user moderation issue that is addressed in the appropriate manner.

A telescope isn't medicinal though!

 

[Alvin63]

Just because YOU may not like the way it's written does not mean that it is written wrong.#

If it's full of bold capitals and has a patronising tone and incorrect information that could mislead other members then it's an issue. The disclaimer on the forum advises that the forum is for sharing, and support but any medical issues they should consult a professional.

 

[TPerry]

A telescope isn't medicinal though!

The theory is the same.
In fact, in YOUR case you need to have a GIGANTIC disclaimer notice that anything discussed within that (or similar) areas are the opinions of the poster only unless there ARE links provided to supporting well recognized medical authority should readers "trust" it.
And I DON'T mean a "sticky thread"... I mean an actual notice assigned to that node that cannot be dismissed.

 

[Alvin63]

Good point. Forum rules need updating. It's obvious to most people. It was a fun place till now lol. People can of course start threads and say whatever and others can reply and disagree with them and that's normal. But if setting themselves up as an expert giving medical advice it needs something doing about it.

 

[Alvin63]

If you want that type of moderation/post approval start a blog with multiple authors and be the editor.

I already have one forum that's been running for 18 months and never had an issue like this - but the subject material is different and that makes a difference. I don't want this new forum getting a bad reputation (as some others have) for scaremongering and incorrect information. So yes I need to update the forum rules.

And be diplomatic with the poster that some things need changing if it's to be a medical related article and they are not medically qualified.

 

[beerForo]

My suggestion is to enable the Q&A function so members can upvote/downvote the posts. Let them do the work. Downvotes are less reliable. DONE! Imagine if Yahoo answers or Quora edited your post for accuracy.

 

[Alvin63]

I would like it to be a reliable source of information. Which is why you set restrictions on who can upload resources or articles. Anyway it is now in the newly formed private section for review as it was inappropriate. I just haven't come across an issue like this before.

 

[beerForo]

So you want WebMD type reliability as a forum with user generated content?

 

[Alvin63]

I am not quite sure why I am getting all this hostility - it is difficult to explain. Medical aspects are a minor part of the main topic of the forum, and there are already resources - yes with verified MD type authenticity so people are not led astray or try dangerous things at home etc. And the disclaimer - to keep things on topic. So the post is inappropriate to the forum. I think all sites have a bit of an identity and ethos.

An appropriate thread would have been a normal thread like the others where people can agree or disagree or express different views and say why etc, or even argue about it (or more likely report it and complain if I had left it).

 

[TPerry]

I am not quite sure why I am getting all this hostility - it is difficult to explain. Medical aspects are a minor part of the main topic of the forum, and there are already resources - yes with verified MD type authenticity so people are not led astray or try dangerous things at home etc. And the disclaimer - to keep things on topic. So the post is inappropriate to the forum. I think all sites have a bit of an identity and ethos.

An appropriate thread would have been a normal thread like the others where people can agree or disagree (or more likely report it and complain if I had left it).

I don't know where you detect "hostility" from. You are simply being given options that would probably BETTER fit than what you are currently doing. A Q/A node is an ideal scenario for a WebMD type experience. The user posts a question on "how do I treat this" and then users reply. Then those replies can be ranked by other users, based either upon authoritative knowledge or actually having used it.

ANY time you provide a place that gives medical advice, you REALLY need to be VERY clear that the data posted there are to be considered ONLY opinions and that the end user is responsible for researching the validity and appropriateness of it either by contacting a licensed physician or medical provider (ergo the suggestion of use of notices).
That's like the hullabaloo over ivermectin and COVID treatment. Studies (and results) change as treatments are investigated. What was blown off initially may on down the road show some validity (not taking a position on ivermectin, simply using it as an example).
No different than a site that hosts legal questions... you typically find disclaimers on them unless they site is ran and answers provided by licensed attorneys.

 

[Alvin63]

I could have just pulled the thread entirely but decided to put it in a holding place, and the original query was about how best to handle this with the member while being diplomatic. So rather just get rid and say "inappropriate" I was working out how to diplomatically suggest it could be phrased differently so it does say these are only their opinions and encourage them because they are keen. I would love to have a licensed professional onboard to answer questions but think it would be a different kind of site altogether then really. And the purpose of the forum is not medical - that is a very minor aspect which the disclaimer covers!

 

[TPerry]

It's not YOUR place to tell them how to write (or edit) their thoughts/articles. YOUR place is to ONLY determine if the postings are within policy/guidelines. If outside of guidelines, then yes, the post can be edited by staff, and the edits denoted that original content was removed due to site policy violations. Otherwise, YOU need to be the one to create ALL articles to make sure they meet your "posting standards" OR you need to have an area set aside for creating an article where the posts can ONLY be viewed/edited by the author and moderations/admins provide editorial oversight for the article/post, the post checked that it meets standards and if so, then moved into an appropriate area.
You could do similar in the general area and moderate ALL posts there, but the way I refer to would be better as not all posts (think replies) need to be moderated and that would add a LARGE load on the staff.

As far as "articles" go... this is an area that XF's implementation is rather weak. Yes, there are "articles", but without doing a lot of work using custom thread fields and such, there are better solutions out there (@Bob's AMS being the strongest contender).
And just like with XFRM, you can have AMS create a thread for discussion of the actual article in a defined area.

 

[Alvin63]

I have Bobs AMS and use it as a home page. I also have the resources add on and permissions set as to who can add resources on there. I am aware that it is not my place to tell people what to think and yes it was breaching forum rules.

I am going to suggest that this member breaks it down into separate topics and gently point out the forum rules.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I just set permissions for myself.

That’s all you need do. Or for a trusted admin/mod usergroup who you may want to see it.

Always worth checking analyse node permissions for regular members in case you want to double check.

 

[Alvin63]

Thank you.