Genealogy Chat

it is good to know that not just anyone can RR ............. there was a fear that someone who was a non-member could have do it


so thank you for proving that incorrect.



but it still seems that a Free member can do it ................ which I think is equally wrong!

No I wasn't Sylvia...I was just putting paid to any possible theory that 'anyone' can RR. I have never been a free member so am not qualified to comment on that I am afraid.

Susan wiv numbers


but were you a Free member of GR?

ie, able to build your tree on here?


Those are the ones who seem to be able to RR ................... and it does work, as one of my "friends" is a Free member and tried to RR me as an experiment.


If you had deleted your account, then GR would have no record of you.

A while back I deleted my account and tried out the theory of being able to RR while not a member ....tis not true......I clicked on the report button of a friend for the purpose of testing this theory and was taken to the registration page. So.....no fee.....no RR.....One can read but absolutely nothing else.

Very glad to see that Paul's post was re-instated .......... to late to be of us, of coruse.

But commonsense has prevailed :-D

I agree with you Silviain....I,too,wouldn't think twice about reporting someone who put up something obscene,sexual,racist etc......but would NEVER report anyone for something connected with geneology.
After all,this is supposed to be a geneology CHAT site,where like-minded people can "talk" about anything geneological!
Very glad Pauls' posting was reinstated...as Christina says, "common sense prevails"

Common sense prevails :-D :-D :-D

So I just noticed that Paul's thread asking for an Ancestry lookup has been
reinstated by GR.

Gai

Elaine ...................

who knows!!??


I think you can still report threads and posts on GR even if you are not a member, or are only a free member ................... those people can not post on the threads, but they can read them. Plus, up until a couple of months ago it was known that they could also Report .........

...... it was suggested to GR that was not right, bit I have no idea whether they ever did anything.


I personally think that those who report maliciously are members of GR who, for various unknown reasons, get a kick out of reporting posts. This means that, at some point, they did have an interest in family history.


Posts are reported for cause, of course ....................... obscene, derogatory sexual or racial posts, or offensive posts come to my mind. Those are the kinds of posts that I report.

I never report posts in discussions, of opposing views to my own OR to the thread, nor posts within genealogy threads.

Posts containing personal details of members or of living people are reported by some people. Most of us prefer to contact the person posting that information to let them know that this is NOT a safe site, that such information will be on the internet in the wink of an eye, and that it is in fact a breach of GR's T&Cs to post such information.

This gives them a chance to remove or alter the information themselves, while the post remains.


I personally dread some weekend nights, Friday usually being the worst ................ when problem reporting sometimes seems to be much worse. I do have my own idea about the reason for this ............. but have had posts reported for publicising my idea :-D

so,as i understand,the people reporting don't even have an interest in geneology?

actually, Cynthia ..................

I don't think so.


What seems to happen is that the "company", let's say Yahoo as that was named in the documentary ................ signs up with an "organiser", and pays a fee for the job to be done.

Then an internet link is set up between Yahoo and the "organiser", which means that any reported post will be immediately sent to the "organiser"

The "organiser" has a list of people signed up with him. He presumably pays them either by the post, the hour, or some other agreement.

He or she will then contact one of his/her "moderator", or even post the link on a "jobs available board" so that anyone on his or her list can see it, and work on it.



What this does mean however is that NO-ONE is checking the thread for context. A reported post stands alone ............. along with its alleged offense.


......... and an innocent joke could well seem like a threat, or a comment out of context be seen as bullying.



BTW .........


........ the researcher for the radio programme talked to a couple of people who did, or had done, this "job". Their comments basically boiled down to "boring", "poorly paid, but it filled the hours when I had nothing else to do", and "it let me earn a little bit of extra money when I wanted to take a beak in the middle of the night from studying"

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Yeah they probably get given free access to GR records for a year so they dont lose any benefits :-D

Does this mean there is the possibility that someone is being paid to RR threads?

:-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0

I was interested in a documentary I heard on the radio about a new "job" in the internet world.

The "job" has become very popular with people who spend lots of time on the internet; those who have nothing else to do with themselves; and with students and others with some spare time and wanting to earn extra money.

It is ........................ moderating internet sites.

The researcher said that Yahoo, Twitter, FB, and "many" other social media sites utilise this service. GR counts as one of these

People willing to do this "job" sign up with one of a number of organisers.

A post that is reported on any site using it is steered to the "organiser", who then directs it to one of the signed up people.

The person reviews the post, and acts "accordingly".

Basically ...................... while these reviewers are SUPPOSED to act in accordance with each site's specific instructions and T&C's, the radio researcher found that this did not happen in many, if not most, cases.

Reported posts were subject to the whims of someone doing the "job" for a very short period of time.

I was told 3 or 4 years ago by GR that they used a "well-respected company of moderators who were well trained in moderating" ........

....... ie, even then, they did not use in-house staff.

so ................ ???????????????

I have reported threads on occasions in the past .........................


for obscene comments

for racial or sexist derogatory comments

for personally offensive comments, directed at me or at someone who is unable to respond.



I firmly believe that no other postings should be reported ........................ anything else is fair comment, whether it be in a discussion, an exchange of ideas OR in the reporting of access to another site.


All matters of contravention of T&C's should be the responsibility of GR NOT members of GR.




What sort of things do others on here report???????????????/

Threads have been posted many times in the past notifying GR members of free time on other sites ...............



and there has been no problem. The threads have not been removed.



GR only acts when someone reports such a thread, so it is Board Police who are taking it upon themselves to report.

I have a subscription on GR and one on Ancestry,together with Family Search,and Rootschat and Rootsweb for my Irish enquiries!!(some are free)....I find that I have to go from one to another,as each offers something different.

I agree Christina...we are all after the same thing in the end>to find out as much as we can about our ancestry(sorry,no pun intended!),and anyone who can point me in the right direction is ok by me.

But surely a thread telling us about free access to another site isn't making a cost comparison, just finding something on there that could help someone?

Quoting Estelle

" It is fine to mention other sites with regards to look-ups, especially if you have found something on there that could help someone.
What we don't accept is the following:
1). People asking questions about Ancestry (or other sites) - how much it costs, and that type of question.
2). Derogatory comments about our site in comparison to other family history sites. "