tPF authenticator discussion

[Megs]

That was the point I've been trying to clarify that Swanky didn't understand: your personal instruction for authenticators to private message you personally when we had issues on our threads.

It was in no way referring to the reporting function on the posts. That's a completely different issue all together.

Yes, bad timing on that instruction and you being under the weather. This too shall pass.

Oh ya, we're on the same page!

I welcome anyone PMing me. I promise to get to it as quickly as possible and have been making it a big priority to check PMs that are issues often.

Well, it wouldn't be Monday without a little bit of a funk . Working on this all now!

 

[Megs]

Also just realized part of a discrepancy as I'm reviewing the posts I missed from this thread - yes, people can PM me anytime for anything, especially issues in AT threads. But also, please report the posts so we can make sure the mods can look into it as well!

We had both happen in the case many are speaking of which was so helpful! So thank you everyone for your reports and PMs

 

[littlerock]

When swanky said "that wasn't what was suggested", I don't think she was talking about PMing Megs.. I believe she was referring to the member who suggested we send a PM response to everyone who reports posts... And that that was not reasonable due to the volume of reported posts.. Not that PMing Meg's wasn't suggested.

Just wanted to clarify how I read it, it's so easy to misinterpret when a thread is moving like this.

 

[littlerock]

Obviously when we are PMd directly, we should and would respond. I think she was saying that "that wasn't suggested" above.. Aka what was suggested was that we PM every member who reports something.

 

[Prada Psycho]

Obviously when we are PMd directly, we should and would respond. I think she was saying that "that wasn't suggested" above.. Aka what was suggested was that we PM every member who reports something.

And that was never the case, at least as regards my conversations with Megs. It was strictly authenticators PMing Megs about problem issues in their given AT thread.

Megs: We're completely clear with each other and on the same page with no confusion (from me at least).

 

[Swanky]

when swanky said "that wasn't what was suggested", i don't think she was talking about pming megs.. I believe she was referring to the member who suggested we send a pm response to everyone who reports posts... And that that was not reasonable due to the volume of reported posts.. Not that pming meg's wasn't suggested.

Just wanted to clarify how i read it, it's so easy to misinterpret when a thread is moving like this.

exactly

 

[littlerock]

And that was never the case, at least as regards my conversations with Megs. It was strictly authenticators PMing Megs about problem issues in their given AT thread.

Megs: We're completely clear with each other and on the same page with no confusion (from me at least).

PP- Not you.. in this very thread someone suggested that, and THAT was what Swanky was talking about. Let me go find the post.

 

[littlerock]

See below.. the trail... Swanky specifically says "To the first part... Yes, of course!" In regards to PMing Megs. But she was referring to these next posts when she saidf that wasn't what was just suggested. Hope that makes sense.

Why can't a mod send a PM to the person that reported the poster get a response like "we are looking into it" or "it's being handled"? I'm sure it's frustrating when they never get a response and then get even more frustrated thinking nothing is being done.

Because some days we get literally 100 reported posts!
We can't PM every offending member plus all the members that push the report button, it's not necessary or feasible. We look at EVERY reported post and then the mods choose whether any action is needed or not. But they're all read, by several people.

There's actually not time in my day personally to ever send between 50-150 PMs.

However if an authenticator has sent PM a to Megs or to a Mod, as Megs instructed we authenticators to do, I fully expect a reply to that PM.

We authenticators have been reading page, after page, after page about how we are appreciated, how things will change to show we are being supported by administration and the mods. We have been given specific instruction by one of the forum owners to PM her on problems.

Taking care of the problem is one issue, but if the spirit of supporting the authenticators here is to be taken seriously, it's not only appropriate, it's the right thing to do to send the authenticator a short acknowledgement. It doesn't take 10 seconds to type "Thanks! I'm on it." and hit the Submit button.

To the first part... Yes, of course! But that wasn't what was suggested.

The second part is tricky because the admins don't always know who the regular authenticators are in every single forum. Unfortunately we have some forums that don't have mods so the admins get those reports.

 

[zippie]

If you read all 100 posts I'm sure there is time to type a short response or at least respond to authenticators that are busting their butt to help others.

Mods coming on here defending mods is not helping, the authenticators are very important to this forum and more will leave if they don't feel supported. IMO it isn't that difficult to take some additional seconds to respond to someone reporting an issue in the AT threads which are very important.

 

[littlerock]

Mods coming on here defending mods is not helping, the authenticators are very important to this forum and more will leave if they don't feel supported. IMO it isn't that difficult to take some additional seconds to respond to someone reporting an issue in the AT threads which are very important.

Agreed. I authenticate myself, well prior to baby, I know what work it is. I am not trying to defend anyone, but misinterpreting posts isn't helping the situation either. I was just trying to clear up the fact that Swanky was not trying to say it was not ok to PM Megs when there is an issue. Is there a problem with that? Would it make you happier for a member to just be mad over something that isn't true or is it better to hash things out and clarify? I believe clarification is always best. Apologies if that is annoying to you.

We are working internally on solutions that we hope authenticators will be happy with. None of this is going ignored.

 

[Swanky]

I'm sorry you feel like our contributions to this important discussion is in defense.
I can only speak for myself when I say it's more out answering questions or offering information.
Most people are surprised to hear how many reported posts come in.
I think it would be a little odd or make people wonder if they're being listened to if mods didn't respond at all, especially considering some of our mods also authenticate.
I'm sorry my posts have come across negatively in any way, it truly wasn't my intention

 

[zippie]

Agreed. I authenticate myself, well prior to baby, I know what work it is. I am not trying to defend anyone, but misinterpreting posts isn't helping the situation either. I was just trying to clear up the fact that Swanky was not trying to say it was not ok to PM Megs when there is an issue. Is there a problem with that? Would it make you happier for a member to just be mad over something that isn't true or is it better to hash things out and clarify? I believe clarification is always best. Apologies if that is annoying to you.

We are working internally on solutions that we hope authenticators will be happy with. None of this is going ignored.

She did not quote me in her response so I don't see how she was responding to me. But I appreciate all of you and what you do on a daily basis. I'm just trying to offer suggestions because I feel bad for the authenticators and what they have to endure sometimes.

 

[littlerock]

She did not quote me in her response so I don't see how she was responding to me. But I appreciate all of you and what you do on a daily basis. I'm just trying to offer suggestions because I feel bad for the authenticators and what they have to endure sometimes.

^ me too!!

 

[cdtracing]

I will say that when we have had some problems on the ATMK, we have reported it to Swanky & she has addressed the immediate problem. She did not remove all the posts but they were really further back in the thread that the majority of members won't read. She did, however, remove the immediate posts that were causing conflict, especially the argumentative ones. We greatly appreciate Swanky's help in the resolution. Those members whose posts were removed have not returned so far.

I know the mods & admins are busy & don't live on the site. Neither do we. I'm thankful that our thread has not had as many problems as some of the more higher traffic AT threads are. We that do the evaluations on the ATMK are currently working on a response to those who come on our thread for authentication for the sole purpose of reselling the item. We like to be on the same page where issues like this come up & all want to give the same standard response. We feel that if someone is authenticating so they can resell the item, they should go to a third party like AuthenticateOne & pay for the authentications as a cost of doing business. We are drafting a response that is clear but does not offend the member.

 

[unluckystars]

What if there was a mod dedicated to only AT threads across the forums? It might help if that's the only type of issues they handle, they'll have a better understanding of what the issues are, how to handle them and make everything more cohesive.