Why AP is censoring comments?

Dear members,

some time ago I added some comments to certain pictures here. But oddly enough none of them was published. I followed all given rules, did not write in caps locked, did not offend someone etc. E.g.: "Stunning! EC-worthy"

I´ve also added two ironic comments (but none of them was offending). The page is indeed corrupt because our "Senior Admins" decide what they want to see, but censor comments (normal comments) is unreasonable...

With best regards (while seeing this page going more and more down...)

Totally agree with you, I have experienced the same quite recently.

Hi Alexander,

I obviously don't know if this is your case, but when you post a comment in a picture, and you click "send" a search engine searches that the comment is correct (without bad words, insults and else), and usually it takes a few seconds. Semtimes it happens that you think that the coment wasn't posted but it actually was posted, just that it doesn't appear untill a few minutes later, that's why sometimes, there's a lot of comments that are posted twice, because the person thinks that it wasn't posted and they post it again (see attached picture).

In the other hand, sometimes if you close/change the window from the website, it can happen that you interrupt the process and this causes your that comment isn't posted.

This is a huge worldwide website and I think that before blaming the "senior admin", you should be sure that this isn't informatic problem.

I hope my comment is helpfull.

Javi.

Attached photos:

Sure Javi, problems like this might appear, but tbh it is strange that my comments on "more or less" boring ECs f.e. are not published.

And as a plus after seeing an interesting chat running (with clear and shocking words of the senior admins) it appears that the leadership is controlling what should be online...

So this strange kind of "supervise" grinds my gears...

Strangely enough this only happens to "doubtful" comments, so it is obvious that they are deleted by one of the admins... I really don't see what's the problem in saying my opinion on an photo if I think that it is not EC worthy or grainy or whatever. Imo you should be more tolerant of critical comments.

Yes we do moderate comments. Any comments stating that 'it should be an EC' will be removed - it's the senior admins decision what's an EC.

If a comment questions the quality of an image or its selection as an EC then it will be removed.

These decisions aren't up for discussion - I'm sure if I had allowed some of the comments directed at one or two of your images you would be on here complaining about them being allowed.

If you have an issue with the quality of any image then use the team email address at the bottom of each page, not the comments section.

Thanks Michael for explaining this. Your first point was new to me.

Altough we have to deal with it (more or less) it is still sad that such a great page has this kind of supervise. Particulary the lack of ability to take critism on doubtful ECs e.g. we had recently is pathetic...but yeah...nothing we can change here ;)

" I'm sure if I had allowed some of the comments directed at one or two of your images you would be on here complaining about them being allowed."

Well, some critism never killed anybody. Critisize and be criticized is a part of our daily life, and a part of development aswell. In times of "freedom of opinion" nothing new. But I see here it is still lagging behind (maybe something should be changed on this fact).

Please don´t see this as an offence.

With kind regards

PS: Michael, I would appreciate it, if you could send me some of the comments on my pictures which were not published (via email for example)

Interesting topic.

Well, I had similar experience twice for mentioning word EC and it was far away from meaning that the photos I commented should be EC on AP. No suggestion at all, I just said that the photos were "Eye Catchers".

Funny thing is the phrase "Eye Catcher" isn't copyrighted by AP and it is in common use worldwide for something that simply "catches your eye" (commercials, posters, photos…whatever) and you should really stick to EC as Editor's Choice only because something that catches someones eye doesn't mean that suggests that photo should be "Editors Choice" on AP! It's simply personal thing and personal taste what pays someone's attention.

Some AP rules indeed need to be modified to ease members frustrations. I support that all comments on AP should not contain any speech of hate, insults but I think that EC is a good example for killing freedom of speech especially when it's not meant to be any suggestion or critics to editors.

Alexander the first point i.e. mentioning EC or eyecatcher in a comment, is an unwritten guideline within the team. In fact if I remember correctly it was me that suggested it. I didn't think it was fair that anyone should be allowed to sway the senior admins decision. Also wouldn't look well if the comment was allowed and the image never became an EC - cause for more forum posts?

When comments are deleted they can't be retrieved. I wasn't singling out any particular person in this thread and my use of the work 'your' was plural.

Alexander I should also point out that the team does take offence to the use of the word 'corrupt' in your original post. This site isn't perfect, and we certainly aren't perfect but we try to be as fair as possible. We don't gain anything (financially) from doing what we do. So to call us corrupt really doesn't go down too well.

Boytronic, you are perfectly correct in the the phrase 'Eyecatcher' isn't copyrighted by A-P but it is a term that is used throughout the site and when it is used in comments its general meaning is that of Eyecatcher i.e. Senior Admins' Choice.

The comments system should definitely not be used for critiquing anyones images - members have asked the screening team to decide whether an image is acceptable or not. They haven't ask other members for their opinions and it would be unfair for us to allow others to do so.

This post has been edited by on 16th August 2016 - 16:14