A less personalised blog ‘Booted Out’ has now been set up as a potential parallel forum for discussion.
Take a look over here, and join the discussion on how best to use the site.
Having never tried this blogging thing before, I’m impressed at the ease of setting stuff up, and truly humbled by the support I’ve received.
I’m sure that for somebody more experienced this looks like a pile of crap, and I’ve probably done loads of stuff wrong, but it’s served its purpose and more already.
One thing I particularly like is the site stats.
I’m pleased to note that there have been a total of 52 unique visitors, mostly from the UK but also from Deutschland and the USA.
What particularly caught my eye were the referral sites:
As you’re reading this, “Hi mods!” [waves]. Just a suggestion, but whichever one(s?) of you has that trigger finger might want to get it seen to. 🙂
So in my post banned state, I’ve started to wistfully think back to some of the highlights of my time as a commenter on the Guardian Tech Site.
Here are a few highlights, please feel free to add your own in the comments:
1. I’ll start with this post, which (a familiar theme for regular readers of Boot Up) was on the topic of the lack of coverage for Samsung’s (at the time, newly launched) Galaxy S3:
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/16604566
Response to modelportfolio2003, 13 June 2012 1:55pm
While we are waiting for a Samsung S III review…
To be honest I’m not really bothered about waiting for it. There’s enough else out there (almost universally positive, apart from the body design aspect which seems to divide opinion) that you can get a pretty comprehensive idea of what it’s like and whether it suits you as a buyer.
I think people are more interested in seeing whether or not Charles is going to do a hatchet job on it, relentlessly comparing it to cherry picked elements of the iphone experience with which he’s most familiar.
If the review comes out even remotely favourably it will be a major accomplishment for the phone in the Guardian. It’s a bit like the old feminist quote
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”
but instead:
“Whatever [insert non-apple tech company name here – in this instance Samsung] do they must do twice as well as Apple to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult”
Which seemed to rattle somebody’s cage:
Response to beardyweirdy666, 13 June 2012 2:23pm
“I think people are more interested in seeing whether or not Charles is going to do a hatchet job on it”
My agenda is to find out what the user experience is like, and report on it. Basically, you’re saying that my honestly-held and informed-by-experience opinions will be picked apart by people with an agenda, which is to assign an agenda to what gets written, and critique everything in that light – ignoring the fact that they’re being mendaciously stupid.
People like that are literally beneath contempt: I don’t find it worth even bothering to be contemptuous of them. I just ignore them. You seem to be classifying yourself into that group, so we won’t be interacting again, but do have a great rest of your life. You might use a moment of it to find my Nexus S review. Don’t let it overturn your world view too much. I’m sure you’ll be able to integrate it into your various idees fixes in time.
Nice way to talk to customers dontcha think?
2. Then there was the Apple Maps palava:
This review famously contained the phrase:
The news in May that Google was sidelined as the provider of maps for the iPhone (in any phone that runs iOS 6, to be released later on Wednesday 19 September) caused a fair amount of hand-wringing and worry. Would it be as good? Or would it just use some in-between rubbish?
Don’t worry – it’s very good.
Then the huge number of problems and flaws emerged and were pointed out, and it was suggested that the review be amended to reflect that. Instead we were treated to this, rather strange and overly defensive post:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/dec/14/apple-maps-good-or-not
To which I replied:
On Friday afternoon I left a comment saying well done to Charles for acknowledging his mistake and explaining how it had arisen.
This follows an earlier exchange where I’d urged him to write a footnote to his original review, highlighting the issues that came to light after the launch, and revising of his conclusions a as a consequence.
It’s possible I’m even one of the people being characterized as a Nelson
Muntze in this piece (I would hope not, but my expectations of this section of the paper have been tested a lot recently, and it would no longer surprise me.)On further reading I’ll admit I’m rather disappointed by Charles reaction and account.
I believe it’s unnecessarily defensive and seems overly concerned with those who, like myself, have questioned and criticised the original review and the lack of a subsequent to the infamous issues arising.
I don’t blame Charles for his original liking of the maps. I recognise that there are limits to the amount of testing one busy individual can carry out (Apple on the otherhand should clearly have conducted hfar better real world testing, but that’s by-the-by). However, the proclamation was so unequivocal, so confident on its assertion, that it went beyond a personal opinion. Once the issues came to light (very quickly afterwards) I do not see why out wasn’t obvious, almost automatic, to annotate the review and revise the conclusion.
‘Mistakes’ such as the “Don’t worry..” proclamation will always happen, and I’m sure every adult has at some point experienced an equivalent (if less public) situation at some point in their professional lives . However, how we respond to such an event is a measure of our character, and a willingness to admit to our mistakes both promptly and sincerely, perhaps even with some self deprecating humour, is the most disarming and honest response you make.
Whilst I respect the fact that Charles has eventually written a response to his critics here, it is not remotely prompt, nor does it really demonstrate an acknowledgment or attempt at understanding what the critics have complained about, instead choosing to lambast those who have been critical and broadly maintain a stance that the review remains valid.. This gives me little confidence that the same sort of situation might not recur, and if it did that the responses would be very similar.
3. Then there was the recent proclamation about how the Guardian Tech section choose to spend their limited resources:
Lollygagging (one of the elder statesmen of the Guardian Tech comments) asked this fairly innocuous and sensible sounding question as the Guardian went into lathers on a bland story about Apple reaching a milestone in App sales:
Google IO is about to start. Does this tech section not indulge in speculation any more? I don’t think any articles have mentioned it.
I wonder if the same will be true when Apple’s WWDC comes around?
This brought out the surprising (and quite frankly blatantly untrue!) response:
@lollygagging –
“Does this tech section not indulge in speculation any more?”
We prefer to focus our resources on news, rather than feverish guesses. We’ll have coverage of Google I/O later today, plus other events that are actually happening, rather than “speculation” – you can find plenty of the latter elsewhere, I’m sure.
I wonder whether he really believes that himself?
It seems so, as even when I pointed out plenty of evidence to the contrary, he remained uncontrite:
@CharlesArthur –
Your sentiment is admirable.
Unfortunately it’s not entirely consistent with reality:
– Odds shorten that next Apple product will be cheaper iPhone
– Could Apple buy Intel?
– iTunes is 10 years old today. Was it the best idea Apple ever had?
– Does Apple have anything left up its sleeve?
– Boot Up: Apple iWatch hints
– Can Apple do it again with the iWatch?
– Could iWatch be the next Apple TV?
– Will Apple’s plans for an iWatch herald a new era of wearable tech?
– Tim Cook hints at ‘new’ iPhone format and talks of rapid growth
– What might Apple’s iWatch look like? – in pictures
– Apple watch: has its time come?
– Should Apple launch a cheap iPhone?
– iPhone 5 features: crowdsourcing the specifications
– iPhone 5 release date rumours mount
– iPhone 5 expected to launch in September with new connector
– iPhone 5 demand leads to ‘huge’ increase in air freight costs
– iPhone 5 sales could see Apple boosting US economy, says JP Morgan economist
– iPad Touch? How Senseg’s haptic system gives touchscreens texture
– iPhone 5 poll: are you wiser than the crowd?
– Next iPhone reportedly in production – and may have different charging system
– iPhone 5 ‘to launch in September’
– Apple ‘iPhone 5’ expected in September
– iOS 6: what to expect – and not to expect from Apple’s WWDC 2012
– Google and Apple to go head to head over ‘smart’ TVs
– Next up for Apple, it’s iTV – the television that will respond when you shout at it
– Apple TV: the rumours evaluated
– Apple netbook rumours persist
– Apple tablet rumours send blogosphere into frenzyDo I need to go on? (there are plenty more available)
5. And then there’s the recent iPhone splurge. Look here, and be amazed at just how many stories (many of them remarkably similar to each other) can be written about the launch of an upgraded version of a phone. Starting from around 9th September.
6. Oh and I nearly forgot this gem. The history of the smartphone. Which as everybody knows started in 2007. What? Yes that’s right. No smartphones existed before the iPhone. If you thought you’d owned one for years beforehand, then you’re deluded. Read the comments for an amusingly desperate attempt by the author to qualify the criteria, which predictably fails.
So today I was banned from commenting on the Guardian site (which rather ironically is called “Comment is Free”!) I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s not the first time. But I’ve been assured that it will be the last.
The reason for my ban? Well, the moderators don’t actually provide you with a reason, you just get faced with a “Commenting has been disabled for this account.” statement where the comment box should be. However, immediately prior to my ban I’d highlighted the large number of posts that were disappearing from the thread. And posted a link to a blogpost about overzealous moderation on other fora.
http://domain-name-lawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/forum-moderators-can-be-absolute-morons.html
Now, the headline of that blogpost is actually “Forum Moderators Can Be Overzealous” which was the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately I didn’t notice the URL was worded slightly differently until after I’d posted it. Oops! Still, an outright ban for that? Seems a tad harsh don’t you think?
Most of the posting I do on the Guardian is on their Tech site (or as it should probably be known, their iPhone site!) The Tech editor is rather obsessed with mobile tech, and in particular with the mobile tech of one particular company based in Cupertino. This leads to the site being massively skewed towards coverage of the iphone and ipad, and any coverage of the competition tends to be superficial and framed negatively.
Unsurprisingly, the editor gets called out for this on a regular basis in the comments, often in well structured, constructive manner. What is surprising, especially in a paper that’s founded and supposedly prides itself on liberal principles, is the way such criticism is dealt with. Multiple posts mysteriously disappear, sometimes with a stain: “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”, but more commonly in recent times they just disappear altogether.
As I mentioned at the start, this isn’t the first time this has happened to me. Below is some of the email correspondence I’ve had with the “Community” team who manage the moderation.
This was the first lot, from last year:
From: beardyweirdy
To: community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk
Subject: Removal of premoderation
15/10/12 19:47As raised in todays boot up column when this topic was being discussed, I would be grateful if you could
a) remove pre moderation and restore privileges to my account (Beardyweirdy666)
b) provide me with an explanation as to why my posts (particularly from Friday evening and into the weekend) were subject to such censorship
c) explain why I was placed under pre moderation and why posts I made since then have not been published.I repeat my earlier point that I did not breach the community guidelines or otherwise “misbehave”.
—-
On 17 October 2012 16:57, <community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Beardyweirdy,
Thanks for getting in touch.Initially you had a comment blocked for stating that the Guardian coverage of the iPhone 5 was influenced by preferential treatment, which we consider against our Community standards. Point 2 states that:
“2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.” (you can read the Community Standards here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards)
After that comment was removed you posted consistently about moderation, which as you know as a regular on the tech threads can severely derail a conversation away from the topic above the line. This gave us no choice but to place you into premoderation, point 8 of the Community Standards states that:
“8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic (“off-topic”) then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.”
Premod is always temporary and we always restore full posting rights once we’ve seen you’re posting within the standards again, however you have attempted to create new accounts to get around moderation sanctions, which of course is also against our terms and conditions. If you can post without either accusing the Guardian or our writers of professional bias, or complaining about moderation then we can restore your account. Premoderated comments are usually looked at very quickly, often within a few minutes, though sometimes it can take longer. Please do continue to post as normal, and you’ll be back to full rights in no time.
Thanks
Marc
Community Moderator—–
On 9 November 2012 11:17, e-mail beardyweirdy wrote:
Hello,
Following on from our earlier correspondence (below) my account was subsequently banned without explanation.Subsequently, after a break, I set up a replacement account ‘LetThemEatStatic’. After using this account for a couple of weeks, it too has now been banned.
I take issue with this. I am sometimes critical of the editorial policy on the Guardian’s Tech section, but I do so in a respectful and considered manner, am careful to always label my opinions as such, or otherwise substantiate my arguments.
I do not believe that I was originally breaching the community guidelines and have had many posts deleted that do not seem to contravene them. You replied in your email to me that my post was deleted because I had ‘stated’ that a review was influenced by preferential treatment. I did not ‘state’ this, I suggested that it was possible and gave a link to an article from another journalist who described why this sometimes comes about and how the company in question are known to encourage positive press in this manner. I do not think it is a workable policy to prevent any discussion or challenge about the articles that are published – it should in fact be desirable to allow robust scrutiny of what is said in, surely this is one of the benefits in having and encouraging comments from readers?
I believe that you have been overly strict in your application of the community guidelines and I would respectfully ask that either one of the two accounts above is reinstated.
I do accept that I breached the guidelines in setting up duplicate accounts, however, I feel that I was left in a ‘Catch 22’ situation whereby it was the only avenue available to be able to continue to post. I understand the principle of using pre-moderation, but it appears to be unworkable in practice. The additional level of scrutiny appears to filter out completely innocuous posts that would not otherwise have been moderated, and furthermore the delays between posting and the post appearing are sometimes so long (several hours) that they effectively prevent any opportunity to engage in the debate. It then becomes rather self-defeating as there is no incentive to write intelligent, considered posts (that sometimes require some time to compose) if the likelihood is that they will either go unpublished or not be read due to appearing buried halfway through a long series of existing posts.
I apologise if I have inadvertently caused offence in any of my posts. I am a long-term (20 years+) reader of the Guardian and would like to continue to engage with you. Any challenges I have made are in fact driven by my loyalty to the paper and my desire to see it upholding the high standards I still believe it stands for. I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I can have one of my accounts reinstated, or if necessary a new one created.
Many thanks
After which, and a further period “on the naughty step” I was eventually allowed to repost.
More recently, I was banned again. This time for including the phrase “Very good” in a post It’s become something of a meme on the site following this review of the iphone 5 where Charles Arthur proudly declared:
The news in May that Google was sidelined as the provider of maps for the iPhone (in any phone that runs iOS 6, to be released later on Wednesday 19 September) caused a fair amount of hand-wringing and worry. Would it be as good? Or would it just use some in-between rubbish?
Don’t worry – it’s very good.
Immediately before people started trying to use it and hundreds of stories started to emerge about the poor quality of the mapping with misplaced towns and weird mapping effects.
That lead to this email exchange between me and my new friends in the moderation team:
On Friday, July 12, 2013 12:55:24 PM UTC+1, e-mail beardyweirdy wrote:
Hi,
I’ve just had commenting privileges disabled on my account ‘beardyweirdy666’.Please can you explain why and let me know how to get them reinstated.
Many thanks
Jon
—-
On 13 July 2013 15:02, Community Suggestions <community….@guardian.co.uk> wrote:
Hi there,You indulged in some repetitive mocking of an author. We have banned you for this before and only reinstated your account on the express understanding that you not fall back into that pattern.
Hope you understand.
Best,
Tom
Community Moderator.
—-
On Saturday, July 13, 2013 6:50:43 PM UTC+1, e-mail beardyweirdy wrote:
Hi Tom,
I appreciate you coming back to me, but I’m left rather confused by your response. I was most definitely not mocking the author, other posters were talking about posts being disappeared for simply containing the phrase ‘very good’, I was simply trying to establish whether or not this was the case as it seemed rather draconian and was not mentioned within your community guidelines. If I’ve caused offense to anybody then I’m genuinely sorry, but if I’m being completely honest I fail to see how my posts could be deemed offensive. Being banned seems like rather an over-reaction, especially given that the original complainants still appear to be posting without restriction.If you would be kind enough to reinstate my account, I am happy to promise that I will refrain from ever using the phrase ‘very good’ ever again.
Yours
Jon
—-On 14 July 2013 14:49, Community Suggestions <community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk> wrote:
Hi there,The phrase ‘Don’t worry, it’s very good’ has been used to suggest that Charles Arthur is heavily biased. You know this. You were sanctioned above the other users because: you initiated the suggestions of bias, proceeded to spam the thread with variations on it, and have been banned previously for doing the same.
You are a welcome and informed contributor to the Tech section, and we certainly have no problem with you criticising the content of articles, but we won’t allow this to snowball into sustained attacks on authors.
In this case we are prepared to offer a last, last, last, last chance before a complete final ban. A month in pre-mod. That’s the best you’ll get.
Regards,
Tom
Community Moderator
And now I’m guessing I’ve crossed that “last, last, last, last chance”.
I stand by my view that the Guardian Tech site shows extreme bias towards one tech company. This is unhealthy. It’s not about “hating on Apple” as any dissent is often dismissed by their diehard fans, it’s about wanting to see fair and balanced journalism in a newspaper I’ve read and believed in since I was a teenager. Sadly I can no longer respect or recommend the paper.
By way of illustration, Samsung (the world’s biggest manufacturer of smartphones) recently launched their new flagship phone, the Galaxy Note 3. It got half an article (it was shared with coverage of their new tablet) from a press agency. Apple launched their new iphone models last week and there have been at least 37 articles on them to date. Including this one published yesterday which would be hard to distinguish as anything but advertising copy (admittedly poorly worded advertising copy). They’ve even mimicked the Apple advertising style for the layout and fonts etc.
So, perhaps it’s just as well that I’ve been banned. I’ve only stayed for the community: some very clever, informed, funny and interesting people frequent the comments sections, some of whom I’d consider like friends. The ‘journalism’ on display in the tech section is generally very poor, overly reliant on opinion from a narrow pool of like-minded writers and ‘analysts’, and often demonstrating lack of knowledge and distinct bias. Unfortunately it’s ended up clouding my impression of the paper as a whole, and that’s rather sad.
 | Johng46 on Being banned |
 | beardyweirdy666 on Being banned |
 | rory kenneally on Being banned |
| An alternative forum… on Being banned | |
| beardyweirdy666 on Being banned |
A refuge for the unloved current and former members of the Guardian's Boot Up column. Don't worry, it's very Good!
All Comments Are Free, But Some Are More Free Than Others
beardyweirdy666 