Voice of Arizona Trash

Posted By: jeano
Posted on: Feb. 8, 2006 at 12:06 PM

11 Comments

3.8 / 5

Based on 11 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

This is an open letter to Voice of Arizona.

I just discovered the Trash category. Here's the header:

"This is where Articles go that are labeled as Trash by our users. All articles are reviewed by the Voice of Arizona staff before being moved to the trash section. You can read these articles if you want, but we do not recommend it because of their poor quality, and we feel your time is better spent else where.

"You might want to know why we just don't delete them, well, we're data pack rats and don't believe in throwing data away no matter how terrible it is. So if you feel like reading some poor quality writing, then be our guest. Keep in mind, we will not move articles if they have a lot of "difference in opinion" votes. "

* I see no evidence to support your contention that the two articles there were labeled as Trash by Voice of Arizona users. Both articles, coincidentally (?) by the same author, possess a Rating and Rank that exceeds some of the current articles in the Politics Forum.

* You don't delete these because you're "pack rats"? Segregating an article from its parent forum, on any basis, is tantamount to censorship but deletion would be the equivalent of book burning, wouldn't it?

* Voice of Arizona presents itself as a forum that's open to all in the celebration of free speech yet some forums are more open and some contributors are more free than others? If I were IMPEACH BUSH, I'd be pissed! What makes that contributer's articles any more or less trashy than the crapple routinely published Average American?

I urge Voice of Arizona to eliminate both the Trash category and its policies surrounding it. That would be a good deal more consistent with the pluralistic forums you promote.

Click here to view more articles by jeano

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 Next »

The Antichrist

Feb. 8, 2006 at 02:09:14 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

agreed 100% as more than 3/4 of my articles should be placed there but arent. and since i saw those sections ive deleted a few pending articles because thats exactly where they would end up. does that mean im a bad writer? no, it means that instead of being able to post freely ive got to watch what i say so my articles arent policed.

i do however find this section useful in one situation, and only one. if we get someone here advertising for another website or business that has nothing to do with voice of arizona, then it would promptly go into the trash unless the person had permission to post that kind of stuff here.

Report Abuse

Pinb@ll Wiz@rd

Feb. 8, 2006 at 10:14:13 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

I see where you're coming from. I would like to see some kind of evidence that we users have labeled them as trash.

Those two articles are pretty much trash though so I don't disagree with them being there at all.... those articles look like pure spam if you ask me and I'm glad they're somewhere I will likely avoid. But then again maybe the trash section will be my favorite area of the website to read because they're likely to be funny articles.

I've also read a few of Average American's articles and they are far from trash in my opinion. Sure some of the stuff he or she says is complete BS but just because I don't take the same political stance as him doesn't mean his articles are trash. His articles are a good read and don't really hurt my poor eyes like those two "trashed" articles do. I'm not even sure I'd call them articles.

RE: Voice of Arizona
Where is the evidence? If there is evidence, show us the evidence that these articles are trash. What really is the requirement for an article to become trash?

Report Abuse

know it All

Feb. 8, 2006 at 10:32:44 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

thank you jeano for pointing out the trash button.
I know I voted impeach bushes articles to the trash can myself. His stuff belongs on their events page if you ask me. But then again my articles might end up there so it might be a cool reading place. I look forward to meeting my fellow writers in the trash can. I have some real trashy stuff I can talk about.

Report Abuse

The Antichrist

Feb. 8, 2006 at 11:51:34 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

my goal is to overflow the obscene section. like a plague, a horrible black plague. a little section of my own where everyone else is scared to tread for fear that i as an individual might warp thier fragile little minds.

just you wait!

*for those of you lacking a sarcasm meter... it should be off the scale at the moment of reading this comment*

Report Abuse

jeano

Feb. 9, 2006 at 08:43:16 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

CENSORSHIP

Perhaps that should have been the title of this article because that's what I'm addressing here.

Let me make my thoughts clear.

I'm talking about garden-variety, run-of-the-mill articles, like Impeach Bush's which have been placed in the Trash category.

I am not addressing articles considered obscene - that's a stickier issue

My interpretation of VoA's rules (reproduced in the article) is that once an article is "deemed Trash" by readers, VoA staff will make the final decision about whether the article should remain in its parent Forum or be transferred to the Trash category.

Whether you or I agree with Impeach's postings is irrelevant. Whether or not we consider the post to be trash is irrelevant.

It's Impeach's right to post whatever he/she pleases without fear of retribution. If the majority of VoA readers considered Impeach's articles trash, so what? To not leave those articles in their parent Forum is CENSORSHIP and I don't care who's making the decision.

Popularity or consistency with the majority's thinking or with the boss's opinions isn't the constitutional test for legitimacy of one's remarks. One has a constitutional right to say whatever he/she pleases, period.

I don't see why VoA's rules should be any different. Thus, I advocate eliminating the Trash category and the VoA rules pertaining to it.

Some footnotes:
I realize there are those who would abuse the privilege to speak without fear of CENSORSHIP, perhaps even consciously abuse the privilege, however, that's the price we incur to permit freedom of speech for all.

I'd even question the VoA Article Rating System because I don't see any benefits associated with it. In the Politics Forum, where the most heated disagreement are expected, it's clear from the content of the articles who agrees and disagrees with whom and to what degree. The Rating System adds nothing.

Average American routinely publishes articles that defy the political standards of the majority of contributors in the Politics Forum. Yet, two of his most vocal critics have recently, and rather eloquently, described his value to that Forum as they see it. Neither suggests that Average American's unpopular articles should be censored by anyone except the author.

Report Abuse

The Voice Staff

Feb. 9, 2006 at 02:37:40 PM

View Profile

We appreciate your interest in the trash feature. This is how it works:

If an article gets 10 trash or obscene votes, then we are notified to review the article. Once we review the article, we make the final decision whether it is labeled as trash or obscene and update its category accordingly.

What do we consider trash or obscene? Here is the list:

(By the way, our TERMS OF USE identifies these issues.)

TRASH:
* Excessive gibberish (Random incoherent text)
* Excessive spam (What the author in question tends to do)
* ALL CAPS WITH VERY LITTLE MEANINGFUL CONTENT

There may be other situations where we label an article as trash which we haven't run into yet and there is a possibility that we will delete content. Users that spam links to various off topic sites, such as sex sites, or warez sites will have their content deleted and their user accounts terminated.

OBSCENTIY:
* Excessive vulgar language
* Explicit sexual language
* Articles which have racist, sexists or degrading meanings.

Remember, we don't police the articles, YOU do. We're just the middle man that determines an article's final resting place if enough users of this site agree.

We are not censoring any users' articles, we are simply moving them to another location. The header text of the article that jeano quoted was meant to be a fun description of what a user will find in the trash area.

We have reviewed numerous articles written by Average American and other users that were labeled as trash. We will not move articles to the trash because too many people disagree with someone's opinion. If an article is well structured, has what appears to be well thought out content that relates to the category that it is in, we will leave it in that category.

We do believe that many of our users really put in the effort to create a decent article, and we will not put such articles in the trash even if the users writing skills are not so great. Some people on the other hand, don't put any effort what so ever into their articles, such as the author in question.

As a note to the author in question, the articles you posted are more suited to the EVENTS section of Voice of Arizona. If you want to avoid getting your articles labeled as trash, you may want to write a well structured article about what you are protesting and why you are protesting it with well thought out content.

If you have read our TERMS OF USE, then you will know that we have the ultimate say in what content stays on our site. It also mentions spam in there numerous times and what could happen if you do spam on our site. We do consider the author in question a spammer, and if the author continues to spam our site, we will ban their username and ip address from logging into our site.

Remember, this is a free service for the people of Arizona, as we live here too. We do respect the opinions of the users of this site, and we are more than willing to listen to the users of this site. However, we will not take abuse from the users of this site.

In conclusion, we do believe in Freedom of Speech, but the majority of our users don't want the site cluttered with spam and gibberish. So if users post spam and gibberish, and our users label it as such, we will move it to where it belongs--in the trash.

Report Abuse

Normalized Vector

Feb. 9, 2006 at 04:30:07 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

I'm glad VoA decided to trash that guys articles, they look like the s*** I get in my email telling me that I need to buy their viagra.

I like the trash can, too bad more articles on this site weren't labeled trash... Like this one.

For you people that think that guys articles belong in the site, picture this:

- TODAY! - PROTEST AGAINST JOHN KERRY & HILLARY CLINTON! 2/4/06, SAT, 2-5 PM at the corner of CAMELBACK & 24th St!

RUSH LIMBAUGH will be at the Protest! rushrules.com

BRING ICE CREAM! WEAR RUSH RULES T-SHIRTS! MEET OTHERS THAT ARE FED UP WITH THE WHINEY LIBERALS LIKE YOU!

How many whiney dems are going to have to piss and moan before you had enough? 2,500? 4,500? 7,500? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

THIS WILL BE A MAJOR EVENT!

"SILENCE HILLARY NOW!" "SHUT THE LIBERALS UP...NOW!" "GIVE JOHN KERRY A HAIRCUT NOW!"

Also, visit: www.kerryfortrashman.org >>> Today's protest is in correlation with the one going on in Washington DC today!

Wouldn't you click the trash button for that one?

Report Abuse

jeano

Feb. 9, 2006 at 08:26:24 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Thank you for your response VoA.

I did not intend my remarks to offend and, in reviewing what I've written, I fail to see what I've said that could be construed as "abusive", so I don't believe any apologies are necessary. If you feel otherwise, let me know.

Look, I've tried to walk in your moccasins. Obscenities are a massive problem in a site like this and I'm willing to abide by whatever policies you establish. I'm not concerned with obscenities.

I'm sorry if I put you on the defensive by implying that I saw nothing in ImpeachBush's posts that I'd consider trash -- but that's my opinion and, ostensibly, that's what VoA is all about, particularly in the Politics Forum, in an election year.

I recognize it's your site and you make the policies and rules but, in a scan of VoA's Terms, I was not able to uncover the ground rules you've brought up in your post. The problem may well be mine - I confess, I didn't find the Terms very stimulating reading and may well have overlooked these policies.

I recognize that monitoring all the posts at VoA for what you call "trash" is unrealistic. I also could care less what 10 readers or 10,000 Neo-Conservative Republicans think, but that's my opinion, again. You have a Forum to run, I don't.

If you feel you cannot depart from your existing policies and rules regarding "trash", I'd urge you to somehow make the "trash" policy clear to everyone - outside of Terms, that you change the name of the Trash category to something less pejorative and get rid of the glib header - tell the reader why articles have ended up there. I would humbly suggest that this is serious business and suggest it be treated as such.

Endnotes
1. In my postings, I've named contributors. These contributors were meant to serve as examples of the points I was making. No inference was intended about my assessment of the quality of their postings.
2. VoA: would you please elaborate on what you refer to as "spam". I know spam when I find it in my Inbox, but your persistent use of the term in your response makes me wonder if we're using the same definition.
3. VoA: what is your policy on posting links? Some I've clicked on are clearly labeled, as in ImpeachBush's articles, and others are labeled as User Posted Link. Why is the web address for the latter not shown?

Report Abuse

Average American

Feb. 9, 2006 at 11:49:39 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Wow,

Jeano, you thought using my name was a sure winner didn't you?

Sorry about the backfire. What's CRAPPLE? "No inference was intended about my assessment of the quality of their postings." So CRAPPLE is not an assessment of the quality of my postings...Well that's nice to know.

As to some of those who have now placed some value on my postings I must be a "MAN" about it and say, Thank you. I do understand that you see me as something to use for your own purposes, but a value assessed just the same is appreciated.

Now to the real issue, Jeano hates Bush and thinks you like him because you sent a hate Bush writer (and I use that term loosely) to the trash can.

I can assure you Jeano, Voice of Arizona is as close to neutral as you will ever find. If you are upset over a policy that is clearly stated you might want to refer to the following: wwwlearntoread.com
I wish you the best with the ebonics training...

P.S. you got s*** from your own people, that must suck.

Report Abuse

Akman

Feb. 10, 2006 at 08:48:44 AM

View Profile

Ah, Avg, I've been waiting for you to show up to level that anti-Bush allegation at Jeano. Thanks for winning the bet for me.

You validate Jeano's disclaimer, too, even you don't know what Crapple is...

I support Jeano's concerns while recognizing VoA's difficulties policing this herd of cats.

This is serious business and I, for one, have no doubt VoA is trying to establish fair and equitable policies. Toward that end, I believe Jeano's suggestions should be considered if the Trash "Forum" is retained.

As usual, AA makes no substantive contribution to the discussion but I sure wish I'd made a side bet that he'd lapse into profanity again...

Report Abuse

1 2 Next »