[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/meta/ - site discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password
(For post deletion)

Discuss the future of the farm
Mark your calendars for the last Townhall of the year

Apply as Administrator
Apply as Farmhand


File: 1471479766061.jpeg (58 KB, 600x600, image.jpeg)

No. 3227

Survey for all Farmers


The farmhands have crafted a survey for all site users to take, in order to improve moderation. Be as honest as you'd like; negative feedback is what will lead to the most positive changes. Discussion can always be had here in meta, but this is an opportunity to voice concerns off-site where no one needs have any concerns about confidentiality.

No. 3228

>>3227
Maybe try making it not a Google survey so that people don't have to be logged into their real accounts so that they don't get datamined by this anonymous website?


No. 3229

>>3228
>>3227
Also now that you've killed the website by introducing a shit ton of drama with the admin change and post-change changes, and alienated a large portion of the userbase thus slowing the entire site down, you're looking for advice?

We all know you're going to use this survey to give yourself asspats while writing off any negative criticism as "bitter salty jelly haters" or "robots"


No. 3230

>>3227
>google
lol, kill yourself

No. 3231

link where

No. 3233

>>3228
>>3229
What's with the salt? Pretty much nothing "bad" has actually happened after the admin change. It's been pretty uneventful, the most we've had is irritating robots attempting to "raid" us for the umpteenth time, and at least they've actually received swift bans.
I do agree that a Google survey is less than ideal, though.

No. 3234

>>3229
Has anything even changed since the new admin? There's not been anything major, just MPA retards and robots being cracked down on, which is exactly what the site needed, and the old admin already wanted that and did it to some degree.

What else is there to complain about?

No. 3235

Janny's never ban the off topic bullshit even when I report it for them. I don't even bother anymore. Need to cut their daily hot pockets rations until they actually do their job.

No. 3236

>>3228
Do you have to be logged in to complete the survey? I thought it worked even if you're not logged in?

No. 3237

>>3229
How the fuck is it new admins fault that the previous one essentially shitted on everything then quit?

No. 3238

>>3229
yeah the mods actually doing shit like moving threads to manure now sure is alienating! I for one loved the site being run by a bitter, totally disinterested admin who just did random crap instead of improving things.

No. 3239

Whoever the farmhand is that puts random red text shit like
>pointing out someone using "xD"
>making a funny remark in response to a post
etc is fucking annoying and needs to stop.
That's all my input, other stuff is fine.

No. 3240

>>3239
This. The internet is very serious business, moderators should exclusively post (User has been banned for this post). Even saying put out to pasture is too much, it gives an atmosphere of the forum actually being simply a place to go for fun.

No. 3241

I'd like to see a separate board for hobbyist generals.

One with browser oekaki, higher file size limits, text file uploads, embedded audio, multi-image posting, the sort of stuff that jives well with creative types.

No. 3242

>>3240
Well hello farmhand

No. 3243

There should be more active moderating IMO. Boards that provide no useful info and are solely vendetta or bullshit should be removed immediately. This saves everyone wasting time reading a crap ton of crap.

No. 3244

Mods are completely biased based on what thread you're posting in. I've been banned for giving my opinion on /snow/ while others who are doing the same don't get touched. If im banned, i'm banned. But atleast dont ban me because you didn't like what i said about that particular snowflake. I've seen this happen to other users too and its clear that they didnt didnt agree with what they said. lol.

No. 3245

>>3242
Come on anon, surely you have a better argument than just going "Oh yeah well you just disagree because you're part of the group I'm being dumb about!". That's not even a step above calling me a shill.

I just honestly think of all the possible issues you could have, a farmhand cracking a joke when they ban someone is pretty minor, it doesn't actually do anything, and it's more interesting than just a stock banned message.

No. 3246

Alright, I did the survey - my answers were pretty long but I hope it does actually help. I think using Google Docs was a good choice, better than fighting about your opinions in a thread and nobody really being listened to.

No. 3247

lol you're fucking insane if you think I'm filling in that survey

No. 3248

>>3245
i think what anon means is that it isn't when they ban people? like I've seen remarks on stuff that didn't break the rules so it'snot like they're banning them AND joking about it, just putting red text instead of answering something in anon. Like the kota post that wondered about her age and a farmhand put "her age has been confirmed many times" but I don't think they banned the user

No. 3249

Having so many ~banned topics~ have killed the board. I have never seen the board this slow and dead.

Like I said in your advice thread, you want to improve the board yet uphold precious admins board nuking changed and you can't do both. U R ADMIN. ADMIN IS NO LONGER ADMIN. Stop trying to toe the line and undo all his changes and then work from what YOU see.

And hale no you're out of your mind if you think I'm touching that survey.

No. 3250


No. 3251

Only two pie answers? Bitch Wtf!

No. 3252

Get rid of unwanted threads

No. 3254

>>3244
I had a similar experience to anon (not banning, just policing). Makes you feel like not posting.

Farmhands should ID themselves 100% of the time (even today I see something that looks like a warning but is not ID-ed. And they should be minding the farm, not overdoing it in their fave thread.

I've seen some of my reports acted on of late, so thanks!

Sorry but a google survey is not for me, I hope this is helpful anyway.

No. 3255

>>3248
That makes more sense then, yeah, farmhands shouldn't use the red text if they aren't banning someone or trying to get something across to an entire thread, but even then, just use it in their own post.

>>3249
What banned topics do you mean? I always see people complain about it, but aren't the only banned topics the MPA and /r9k/ ones?

No. 3256

>>3236
you don't have to be logged in. google surveys don't record your account or send it to the survey maker.

No. 3257

>>3233
>>3234
>>3238

Anytime I see people defending the new mods, I always just assume they are farmhands/samefagging mods.

No. 3258

>>3257
That's a pretty dumb thing to believe anon, especially when no-one has actually managed to say what's changed or what's so bad about them except bitching that a couple farmhands didn't ID themselves and that it's been hellweek for a while.

No. 3259

Can we just delete threads that are full of robots?
For example, >>>/b/88245
I'm so sick of them shitting up the board

No. 3260

File: 1471616889674.jpg (71.01 KB, 324x500, Imean.JPG)

>>3259
Please

No. 3261

Why bother keeping all of old Damon's vendetta bans? The board is too slow now.

No. 3262

>>3261
*Old admins

Sorry, mobile typo.

No. 3263

>>3260
Agree.. At this point just getting the robots out of shitting in /b would be great.

No. 3264

>>3263
from what i understand, the point of /b/ was to act as a 'containment board'. Resorting to outright censorship of specific subjects or anonymous opinions, no matter how much you may dislike or disagree with them, is the death knell of any chan imo.
You can kind of see how saying that we need to ban all the robot posters is a really slippery slope. Although robots are annoying af, we have to acknowledge the possibility that a poster may not be intentionally baiting, their opinions may really just be that inflammatory. (I think that this is why there's the perception that mods just delete posts they disagree with; it might be a case of another user reporting your post as 'derailing' 'baiting' or 'off-topic', and at least on /pt/ and /snow/ the standards for 'off-topic posts' are much stricter than /b/ or /g/.)

Blatant /b/ baiting (for example, starting an entirely new thread just to ask, 'why are women so fat?' when the Fatty General 2.0 is still on the front page) is more of a grey area, but within a thread like the 'Penis Size' thread, it's not out of line for posters to make comments like 'baww women only like big dicks muh genetic inferiority', no matter how aggravating these statements are to see over and over again. Unfortunately, the only way I've found to deal with it personally is to hide or ignore these types of posts unless they are explicitly breaking one of the site rules.

No. 3265

>>3264
I'd generally agree, but when it's just obviously intended to be inflammatory, it shouldn't be tolerated.

Go have a look at some of the stuff in that penis size thread, there's people just listing all the ways women are shit and evil, and then insulting everyone who says he's being retarded.

It's fine to have an opinion, but blatant bait, or asking questions over and over that have already been answered should be cracked down on.

If you want to whine, put it in an appropriate thread like the vent one, but there's a big difference between venting and just attacking other users in my opinion.

Plus, you know, this isn't /r9k/, and we shouldn't encourage that sort of behaviour.

No. 3266

>>3264
You don't have to ban them, just lock or even delete threads that art out into endless robot discussions.
And no one can tell me that Penis Size thread wasn't made by a robot in the first place

No. 3267

>>3261
Which ones in particular? You mean all the ana shit getting banned? Because that was a great choice, the containment threads were way, way quicker than pretty much any other thread and you'd end up with 14 all in the catalog at once, and it leaked to other threads, with comments like "Ew she's so fat/her nose is weird/2 out of 10 her elbows are too pointy" starting to fill up unrelated threads. It still happens, but less.

But I might be missing topics, what else was outright banned?

No. 3268

>>3259
Agreed. It's not like there was any valuable discussion going on in the dick size thread anyway. It's just a big flashing sign saying HI ROBOTS PLEASE RAID US

No. 3269

>>3265
I was actually reading through the penis thread just now, so I completely get what you mean.
I mean, I don't think that the thread was complete shit at first, probably just a robot who was curious about 'the wimmenz chan', but after that one troll(s? idk) came in then it devolved pretty rapidly. It looks like the mods already banned at least one of the posters, but it's possible that they could be using proxies to circumvent the ban and keep going. When I say it's a 'gray area', what I mean is that I think there's some uncertainty about how to handle threads like that–whether to ban the problem poster(s?), delete their posts outright (and/or the responses made to those posts), move the whole thing to /manure/, or completely nuke the thread.
I think that if we start deleting threads because the topic attracts robots, the robots will probably just make new threads or infiltrate the existing ones with OT whinging. Expecting the farmhands to constantly monitor /b/ in case threads are created that have too many inflammatory responses/attract too many of the /r9k/ types seems unrealistic–/b/ was never meant to be subject to the same rigorous standards as /pt/ and /snow/–but if you have any better ideas, I think the fact that this survey was even put up in the first place shows that the new administration is probably open to suggestions.

No. 3270

>>3265
that's not a thread I would open. who would even expect it to be quality? what discussions even need to be held about it? it's a matter of personal choice, case closed. the robots need their space to be fools so that we don't have to deal with them elsewhere.

No. 3271

>>3269
>but it's possible that they could be using proxies to circumvent the ban and keep going.

Even easier than that, they just reset their IP on their end, it's why bans aren't generally that effective on chronic shitposters.

I honestly just think that if there's a whole chain of comments with bots that they should just wipe the whole thing, or at least if it's the generaly baiting "women are all whores" one. If they're just having a discussion it's different, but bait should just be wiped in my opinion.

I really do agree with what you're saying though, it's not as easy as just doing a single thing to fix it, and obviously my beliefs aren't the same as everyone elses, so it's hard to say. Could be worth running a survey on this issue specifically I think, or at least a poll with the most commonly suggested solutions included. Survey would be better though, you could just put a "Your own idea" at the end of it.

>>3270
You're right, but it should be a containment thread. I swear we used to have one that was explicitly for robots and /pol/ types to post in, what ever happened to that?

No. 3272

File: 1471675073313.png (151.21 KB, 892x590, 1451670134339.png)

also, can we add something like pic related to the sticky on /b/? ignore robot posters etc.

No. 3273

>>3270
But as soon as discussion rises up in the thread, the spamming begins (at least that is what happend yesterday)

No. 3274

>>3267
Kick my ass if you want but I miss the ana-chan shit a lot.
My only problem was it bleeding into some other threads, but if the current team of farmhands start giving a shit that problem wouldn't happen.
Same with all the robots in /b/ i don't even go on there really anymore.

No. 3275

>>3274
>I miss the ana-chan shit a lot.

You know there's forums dedicated to this right? And other similar forums that do allow it?

Here, it attracted the sort of underage people who need to make every thread about if a person's pretty enough or not, and generally doesn't have anything to contribute and should be banned.

Maybe bring back a couple of the individuals that were banned who actually did interesting stuff (like, Kadee isn't banned despite her being related to ED somewhat), but I don't think we should bring back general threads like that, it should be something that has to be ran by admin first in my opinion (so you don't get a flood of different people who aren't interesting at all drowning everything else out), and is heavily moderated (so the MPA people get banned when they start treating this forum like that one). I agree a flat out ban is a bit harsh, but it should definitely be a situation where it's not allowed unless you're expressly given permission for it.

Bots are harder to deal with though, because they come here simply because it's mostly women here.

No. 3276

Actually listen to reports and take down CP and threads about minors/under 18s. Delete threads that are vendettas. Just remove the extreme shit.

No. 3277

Could nitpicking be warn-able offense? A lot if threads have devolved into nippicks when things are slow an I've seen a few terrible threads pointing out boring things. Our cows arent cows because they suck at makeup or are a bit fat. They're crazy people or cunts. Example: Miranda and Sere are lowcows. The jvolggers are just boring people you nitpick.

No. 3278

fucking finally make it show >> (YOU) if someone replys to my post.

No. 3279

>>3277
Fucking this. It's frustrating as hell when threads just turn into people complaining about the cows eye make up or if they have a good nose or not. It's fine if people have discussions of stuff related to the milk, but being bitchy about how they look is just annoying, and it's why the anachan threads were removed at least in part.

No. 3280

>>3263
>>3260
There should be a sitewide ban on anybody that says or implies they are male tbh. If you want to communicate with males go to 4chan or something. I don't even go to /b because it's full of males.

No. 3281

>>3280
You know original admin was male, right? This isn't a girls only website.

No. 3282

>>3281
And? Original admin is shit. If males want to post they can leave out their gender or pretend to be girls. All they contribute is whether or not they'd give a cow their benis.

No. 3283

>>3282
I agree that people who feel the need to go "guy here btw" should be warned at least (isn't that already the rules?), but this isn't female wizchan, it's not necessary to ban people simply for having the wrong junk. Ban them if they're being retards and bringing up their gender unnecessarily, sure, but there's times it is on topic.

No. 3285

Is the admin actually gonna do anything about our feedback?

And I agree. Threads which are just same fags picking apart someone's looks when they don't have any drama is stupid.

No. 3286

pls let spoony back, if she truly was 90% of the posts or whatever bullshit it means she flew under our radar a lot as long as she wasn't talking about herself, but more importantly it gave me shit to read. lolcow is dead as fuck now.

No. 3287

>>3283
If a male posts in /g/, they generally receive a temp ban (if they're not a robot), because that board is specifically for girl talk. Otherwise, we will warn. If we see the same person doing it repeatedly, we will temp ban.

>>3285
Admin is in the process of going through all of the results, and will decide what to do from there. The process has already started.

No. 3292

>>3235
>>3276
Please continue to report anything that goes against the rules and giving reasons whenever possible, it really helps in maintaining the site.
However it is important to remember that we don't always add red text or delete posts even if we have taken action against the poster.

No. 3293

>>3286
Lolcow is dead because most of the users left when new admin arrived, and the ones who didn't flee right aways when she came along, left when they realised what a circlejerk of SJW's and radfems this was becoming or when they saw what a bunch of retarded newfags became mods

No. 3294

>>3293
>when they realised what a circlejerk of SJW's and radfems this was becoming

How could you possibly come to the conclusion that a site where /pol/ opinions have a dedicated thread full stop, and the only other threads on politics I've seen is right wing in nature is for SJW's? Let alone radfems somehow.

The reason the site's so much slower is because a lot of the MPA crowd left when the ana threads got removed. Quality of posters is more important than the number of posters though, don't you think? 4chan's fast, but the community is just absolute shit.

No. 3296

>>3294
The board is so slow now though.

No. 3297

>>3293
Admins need to have a personality. It's the hallmark of a good leader. This one has made no effort to introduce herself through a crafted personality, not even through a silly cow/whatever avatar in order to showcase some creativity , or to make her intentions for the site clear. Is she going to keep running censorship through forbidden threads? Is she going to be ok with farmhands making unprofessional snippy "comments" in red on posts that have broken no rules, but just have opinions they disagree with?

I think she needs to be more transparent with us, or to at least seem that way. Also that old stickied admin thread about hellweek or whatever is annoying as shit, I get that it's hard to move due to scary coding but come on now…

I'm female but I have a lot of internalised misogyny, so I'm scared that this admin is overly emotional and egoistical. Unable to strive for neutrality and subjectivity like a good admin should. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot simply dislike the gender of this new admin.

No. 3298

>>3297
>I'm female but I have a lot of internalised misogyny
>internalised misogyny

What the actual fuck

lol I'm about to start taking seriously the anon who was sperging about sjws circlejerks taking over the site

No. 3299

>>3297

Admin can you guys just ban sjw users like this? They don't even need to be here if they're this special. I agree with >>3298 kek.

No. 3300

>>3299
Only one part of her post was even using politically correct terms or whatever bullshit, you are overreacting.

P.S. I don't like how the new admin is some kind of doormat and barely exists, it has nothing to do with her supposed vagoo. I didn't like the old one either on the premise that he was a duder who ran a primarily female site and from what I heard he was a weirdo.

No. 3301

>>3298
>>3299
Sometimes people exaggerate or say obviously illogical things for comedic value. If I was truly an sjw feminist I wouldn't dislike Admin for being female.

>>3300
At least this admin is maintaining the site and seems aware of coding, which is already much more than we could have hoped for at certain points in time.

What I'm worried about is a repeat of the staminarose fiasco. The admin was a bit of a wuss and didn't really care much for the site anyway, so upon the first signs of potential legal trouble (pt cp report drama) she bailed. This admin also seems bothered by threats (forbidden people ) and seems to think they don't need to be objective when it comes to what people like (you might think the ana threads are goddamn retarded but a lot of people obviously enjoyed them.)

No. 3303

>>3297
>Is she going to be ok with farmhands making unprofessional snippy "comments" in red on posts that have broken no rules, but just have opinions they disagree with?

Whatever else this post is, this is a good point.

No. 3304

>>3301
> alot of people obviously enjoyed them


You do realize it's the ana threads that attract shitty underage girls from myproana right? Literally some of the worst people you could want being attracted to lolcow.

No. 3305

>>3304
Fucking this. At least robots are really obvious and easy to ban, MPA types are just bad posters, they don't violate any rules, but they just shit up the site.

Plus, there's nothing that interesting about most of the ana's they posted, it was just talking about their weight over and over, and stupid gossiping about their looks. The ones who were interesting were allowed to stay, as far as I know.

No. 3307

>>3301
Stop denying the undeniable. This shit site has been filled with SJW's ever since old admin left.

No. 3324

File: 1473386862936.png (18.38 KB, 503x480, graph.png)

So, about 100 people responded to the survey that was posted. Overall, there was more positive than negative feedback.

As for the banned cow topic, it seems that the majority feel that banned topics are a bad idea and shouldn't be deemed as such. However, there was an overwhelming agreement that ana threads should stay off-limits.
Former admin was pretty clear that some of the banned threads should stay banned (ie Berry and Aly). So some of the previously locked threads may be opened again now that we have a full Farmhand staff.

There were some critiques about moderation but nothing that hasn't been brought up already and is being corrected.

There has also been a lot of clear annoyance with SJW/tumblr/PULL-tier users posting. There isn't a whole lot we can do about it besides do more temp-bans and make an example of it. It should go without saying that those types of posters are frowned upon here.

It also seems there's a universal discontentment with the separation of /pt/ and /snow/. There have been a lot of requests to move threads back or have clearer distinction, so that's something to look into as well.

There is also a general desire to have a busier site. Maybe with the unlocking of certain threads site traffic will pick up somewhat.



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]