Growing Successful Communities

[#1]

Hi there,

Thus far, I've marked threads like the "Community Guidelines" as a read-only message, but this "mark thread as read only" isn't a feature I use often...doesn't seem like you'd want to stop interaction & input in a community very often.  Would be rather self-defeating.

Recently, one of my moderators is requesting the ability to mark a thread as read-only after a certain point in the interaction (e.g. the member has been directed to submit an incident to support & they just keep posting in the forum).  I recognize this speaks to figuring out a bigger situation in our community (also being defined in the company, the industry, etc.)--how the community interacts with the more traditional support channels from a customer's perspective.  Not real wild about letting the moderator mark a thread read-only...doesn't seem like it's really addressing the root of the problem.

But this brings me to the question...when & why do you mark threads as "read only"?  Generally,  I woudd guess that you should explain why you marked something as "read only" but would be open to any other guidance.

Thanks,

[#2]

Roxy,

The fact that you haven't had to use the feature much is probably a good thing. Additionally, based on that tidbit alone, I can guess that you operate a Support or Internal Community.

On Enthusiast/Brand-Loyalty Communities, marking threads read-only can be a minute-to-minute activity for Moderators. While we preach that a Moderator should be able to handle any situation without using any kind of tools (other than their minds), that feature is an absolute necessity alongside the Delete, Move, and Ban functions in some Communities.

Generally speaking, we feel that "locking" and deleting threads are last resorts, but in many cases we are forced to utilize them. Lithium Moderators are taught to always leave a message in the locked thread or contact the user(s) privately to explain the reasoning behind the decision. Unfortunately, that can't always be the case in Communities that get 30+ thousand messages per week.

Here are some general cases where I feel locking a thread is warranted:

• The discussion has deteriorated into flaming, name-calling, or other bashing of any kind.
• The thread contains inappropriate content for the standard audience of the Community.
• The thread is outdated and irrelevant but was bumped by a mischievous user.
• The thread was created solely to complain about a Moderator action (this discussion should be held privately).
• Any other situation that you deem inappropriate for your Community. This is where an elastic clause in your guidelines comes in handy ("We reserve the right to lock, edit, delete, ban, or otherwise manage the Community as we see fit..." etc).

It has always been my personal feeling that before closing a thread, you should think about the ramifications of doing so. Do you have probable cause to close the thread? Can you cite a guideline that would make sense why this discussion was closed? Can you explain to users why it was closed in a way that is understandable and appropriate? If you can answer those questions with "Yes", then you are probably justified.

Finally, a lot of folks are timid to close threads because they are afraid of the backlash, but even if you are in a situation where closing the thread will create a tremendous uproar, you can not sacrifice your morals and standing in the Community as the leader only to avoid upset feelings. You have to take the appropriate actions for the betterment of the Community, even if it is going to cost you some time explaining the ruling to angry users and temporary unrest among the faithful.

Hope that helps,

Brian

[#3]

On one of the forum I moderate, we Mark "Read Only" threads that are of a Customer Support nature and that *Sparks* a long list of "Me too" type responses. We do this because the forums isn't intended for discussion of customer service related issues.


Also on a second forum that I moderate I sometimes lock threads that are of a "duplicate nature". For example if a new user comes around and starts a thread about something that has already been addressed or there is another healthy thread about the subject, I will post a reply with a little explanation and a link to the active thread and lock the "duplicate" post.


Cheers

[#4]

Brian sums it up pretty well above. Ppriston also posted an excellent reply recently on the subject of persistent off-topic threads, and the "Some of the things you have to look out for" section is particularly relevant:

http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Growing-Successful-Communities/An-issue/m-p/2865#M1120

That's just one use case, but it can give you a pretty good idea of the thought process. I think the key is to weigh the expected outcomes of leaving the thread alone vs. locking it, and how it would affect the community as a whole.

For instance, in the use case Roxy listed above, you should weigh the outcome of the user continuing to post in that thread vs. the user creating another thread if you lock down the first. By keeping your warnings private and your actions focused on the user you can try to contain the issue while you work through it. WWUD (What Will the User Do?) can be a useful mantra for a moderator before taking action. But if the issue goes on too long, you can be sure that other members in your community are watching and taking note.

So it's good to have policies and guidelines and to follow them consistently - but not blindly.

[#5]

---

BrianO wrote:

Here are some general cases where I feel locking a thread is warranted:

• The discussion has deteriorated into flaming, name-calling, or other bashing of any kind.
• The thread contains inappropriate content for the standard audience of the Community.
• The thread is outdated and irrelevant but was bumped by a mischievous user.
• The thread was created solely to complain about a Moderator action (this discussion should be held privately).
• Any other situation that you deem inappropriate for your Community. This is where an elastic clause in your guidelines comes in handy ("We reserve the right to lock, edit, delete, ban, or otherwise manage the Community as we see fit..." etc).

---

One additional reason that I lock a thread is during any Public testing (our forums are for computer software). At the beginning, I clearly state that threads created for the 1st release will be locked when the 2nd release is posted. Additionally, I let them know that they can still link to the thread, but that the current thread needs to deal with the current release. This saves a lot of headache and ambiguity between which release is being reported on.

If you're locking aged threads, the batch processing makes it VERY EASY. Have fun!

[#6]

We, strangely enough, use the feature of locking or setting a thread to "read only" very frequently. Generally, it is used on the following types of threads:

• Annoucements from the forum team -- these are locked on the annoucement or other forum to ensure that people will only be seeing what the annoucement is--not whatever other people have to offer. Of course, people are encouraged to make new threads to discuss what is going on. Furthermore, they are locked to retain chronological order on the forum. When people are constantly replying, it may be hard for new users or returning ones to see what they've missed as everything is jumbled up.
• Inappropriate content that is not vulgar, obscene, or offensive -- these types of threads are lockek and responded to with a custom message as to the reason. If it is a general discussion thread that has been turning to trolling or spamming, then that is the most likely situation in which a thread would be locked. If the message or thread contains inappropriate material, then it is simply moved with a message. Most messages that break the forum rules are moved / deleted because I think it clutters up the forum--especially with the vast amount of things that have to be moved on a daily basis.
• Annoucements from other staff -- other staff, outside of those working on the forums, may have an annoucement. In which case, it will generally be locked if it meets the same parameters discussed in the first point I made.

[#7]

---

BrianO wrote:

Finally, a lot of folks are timid to close threads because they are afraid of the backlash

---

Hee!  That made me laugh because, as a moderator, I don't think I've ever been called that.  Other things, yes, but not timid.

i closed a long-running thread yesterday about an already solved issue because when I read the final 10+ messages in it they were just arguing around in a circle about what should have been done.  And because it made me go "Tsk, this is ridiculous".

In my final message in the thread before closing it, I noted that we were in shoulda-woulda-coulda territory that really wasn't getting us anywhere.  I recapped the important points (new version had been released, delayed features, timeline for next update), then I thanked everyone for participating and hit the read-only button.

I try think through things carefully and not give in to too many knee-jerk reactions to messages or cause too much uproar/backlash in deference to Mark and the forum's health, however the opposite can be just as bad.  I've run into a couple of moderators who want to discuss something endlessly while things deteriorate.  That makes me want to just bark "less talk, more action"!

Jane

[#8]

I think you guys have pretty much nailed this thread! 

The only other thing that I can think of is using the feature during events and competitions. 

Our teams will often run fun competitions with our community, which involve giving them a time limit to respond to a thread. Once that time limit is up, we lock the thread, and post a reply linking to a second results thread.

We found this was necessary as some competitions resulted in dozens of pages of replies, which means it becomes very difficult for casual observers to actually find the competition results!

Cheers,

    -Phil...