It's been bothering me for some time, but the volume of misinformation being bandied about on VJ of late is astonishing. What could we do with a forum, if it became clutted with threads containing information shared as true, when not at all factual and could lead so many astray?

As it stands right now, someone could stumble upon a discussion, read it, think it accurate and depend upon it to their detriment. This is especially so, if some newbie (name withheld) shuts down the line of discussion where a member is trying to get facts out there.

If we had such a disposal system, then when members came across clearly inaccurate information they could inform moderators of the location of the diabolic stuff, and the moderator could simply deposit the post, or quite possible the entire thread, as in the case with christinejohn in this thread, in the "Trash compactor" never to be seen again ?

It is hard sometimes to wade through a thread with several people contradicting each other and not knowing who is right and wrong.

Although with some subjects where it's not black and white, debate is good.

Couldn't the report post feature be adapted for this?

I think if you (or anyone) feel(s) a thread/topic (or post) is totally out of line - all one needs to do is report it and let Ewok take care of it in an appropriate manner.

"out of line" and wholly inaccurate are different, and reporting a post only alerts Ewok to the fact that there is some debate. While I can't say for sure, but there might be cases where Ewok doesn't know if the information is correct. No offense Ewok...but unless you work with the information on a daily basis, who could be expected to know. What can't be contraverted is if there is a source from USCIS (in date of course) or some other agency that clearly sets the matter straight.

When a post is reported, it doesn't remove it from onther's eyes. I am not proposing that the thread be removed entirely...just references to information that is clearly not accurate. A notation could be made within a post that material was deleted and sent to the trash compacter, due to its erroneous content.

I must admit I feel the same frustration from time to time. Most of the time I let it go because this isn't a professional legal services site. It should come with a "User Beware" warning. Maybe the erroneous posts could be tagged with a " contains inaccurate information" indicator. I'm not sure that trashing them would be helpful because some parts of a post may be wholly correct. Plus I find that reading discussions on a topic where members are thrashing it out is quite a useful learning experience. Conflicting information actually helps to bring out the wherefores and whys of a particular law or regulation which, in turn, provides clarification to my understanding of a process.

I think as you did in the post that resulted in this request you correct the incorrect information.

I for one wouldn't want these posts or threads removed as I am quite capable of reading them and understanding who is right or wrong. Also none of us is beyond being wrong and I find it just as helpful if I post information which is incorrect when someone takes the time to correct it. If I hadn't of posted it I would have never know I was misinformed on that matter, others reading the post might also realise they had wrong information as well.

Just a shame some people can't point out others errors without ramming it down their throat

And also a shame that some can't accept that their information is flawed.

I was feeling a bit frustrated this morning, when I began this thread, so perhaps I could flesh my thoughts out a bit better.

I wasn't recommending that we take threads and simply make them disappear, rather that we could indicate somewhere within the discourse, that some "content" might have been removed because it was wholly inaccurate. That way the discussion is preserved and any potentially misleading information is not stressed upon. Maybe, instead, rather than placing the content in a compacter, it might be possible to place a 1/2 tone background to it, with a notation that the low-lighting has been added because there is a question as to its accuracy?

I think both are equally as bad, either removing the whole thread of the "wrong" bit. I have seen wrong information given in threads which until someone pointed out it was wrong and said why I thought was right. Therefore by leaving the incorrect content in place it gives others the opportunity to learn from it.

The way you did it in the other thread was a good way. Point out the errors and post evidence from the USCIS or other official site to support the correct version.

The idea of greying out or marking incorrect information has considerable merit.

I like the idea of 'greying out' questionable information.

The only problem with this idea, or any where we are moderating information, is who is going to handle the task?

Exactly. I would also add that sometimes the information is not exactly black and white. From reading on here, I've found that there is a grey area most times. What we as a concensus believe to be the facts are sometimes not so in some individual cases.

I find it harder to stomach some VJ "God" deleting and/or greing areas. I like the fact that people on here say "well, this is what happened to us" and we all are then able to take what we read and adjust it to our own situations.

that is my problem too... who decides if the info is "correct" or not...???

I have to agree. There is no one person probably here that can determine those things and presume to be correct all the time. Open shared discussion at least allows for a community effort to derive proper information. I could enable the rating tool for posts that allow people to rate posts however that also leads sometimes to people rating based on various opinions.

Another idea I had is below topics there is the similar topics area. I could code something that lists "similar FAQ's" or "similar Guides" to help people find information.

Captain,

A message board format, by its very nature, will have misinformation. Anyone who relies solely on information gathered here deserves what they get.

Maybe a disclaimer message at the top or bottom telling people to do their own sanity checks?

Indeed, but I don't think it would really involve someone having anything more than a keen eye.

What I was proposing was not someone to make decisions for or against, but, to see when there is obvious conflicting information. Conflicting in the sense that it is diametrically opposed to what the regulations state. Take for example, last night the thread that got my blood boiling, was the one about the I-130. Not to make an issue over any one member, but there was a person on there claiming that if an OP's wife were to choose to remain in the US and adjust, she would be doing so at great risk, and likely subjected to deportation. Someone else chimed in and said, that it is ok to file, but to leave before the I-94 expires.

Better yet. Member A asks how long does he or she have to marry a K-1 and not violate the terms of the visa. Member B answers 150. Member C corrects and says 90, and attaches a quote from USCIS to corroborate that fact. Member B continues to affirm that the correct answer is 150. Should that reference be low-lighted out, with a notation that says something like, "removed from discussion. Members should please check sources for veracity".

Now, I realise there is noone on here that is in right mind going to tell anyone *what* to do, nor am I suggesting that...but if you can place reference to a body of work that is either the CFR or the INA, and the member continues to ignore what is plainly written...then, in my opinion, that is being irresponsible.

We all know we are not to offer advice (not for UPL reasons, although that can be a consideration), but because we are not familiar with the specifics of anyone's case but our own, and there is too much at stake.

I guess my furor is over the fact that I hve been active on this and several other sites for a period of 6 years now. It's one thing to say don't give advice, but a personal opinion is AOK. It's another to permit "opinions" to remain that are not accurate. I am simply saying that there are two ways to skin a cat. One is to offer advice when one does not have either the qualfications to do, one has not assumed the liability for it, nor does one have enough information about the case to render advice. The other issue is also to give information out that is inaccurate, cloaked as an "opinion" that could cause an individual to make a wrong choice.

Of course there is no one person. You have three people now moderating behavior. If it takes three to somewhat corral the indians, it would obviously take that many or more to look for blatantly incorrect 'advice'.

I don't think there would be any harm in a group of administrators attempting to adhere to the original purpose of the site - anecdotal, accurate self-advice.

Yeah, I cringed at that one too.

Sorry. It wasn't meant to offend.

Maybe if there was a reminder on the VJ interface somewhere, perhaps an intermediate page when anyone signs in or uses the forum search. Just a statement to advise people to read all posts in a particular thread or to find a secondary source before making a decision. Also might be useful to remind people to take care when posting a reply. Some information can only be gained through anecdotal experience so we need to be careful how information is restricted or censored.
I have generally found that the most useful posts on VJ have given me the leads required to find other sources of information (not always a direct link or quote) and from there I have made a decision.

If we spent more time being encouraging and supportive to our knowledgeable crowd, if we shared information with a positive attitude, rather than correct others, then there would be no need for this.
Not talking about a specific topic or member, just a general trend/ feeling around the forum.

Saludos,
Caro

I have to agree with E, Jomo'sgirl, and Marilyn. There shouldn't be some 'deciding authority' as far as information. Adding to that thought: I think if there were, there's deffo be a bigger question as far as this site and U P L.



This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the first post.

I just read the thread in question, and I want to point out that the poster in question wrote this at the end of her first post:



So I think that covers it!

I think message forums by their very nature are self-correcting, and there is no need for further moderation. Even in the example provided by Mermaid the correct answer eventually came through loud and clear, even at one point being affirmed by a moderator. Getting to the eventual truth is painful sometimes, but I can't remember the last thread I read where someone didn't eventually step in with the right answer. Most posters are going to understand that they can't just pick the first answer to their question as the gospel truth. And those that do are often beyond much help anyway.

Another thing a "graying out" or "moved to the dumpster" system would do is intimidate the hell out of new posters, and it would also lead people to believe that posts that are not grayed out are the VJ-approved truth. This community is built on experience, and sometimes members post wrong information. They are corrected, and while not all of them learn from the experience, some of them do. Being corrected (often crassly) in public tends to encourage members to think about what they post. Having your posts grayed out or binned, on the other hand, would be humiliating and have an adverse affect on the "pipeline" that turns newbie VJ'ers into experienced VJ'ers.


It also tends to turn into a rating system on the person who posted the information, rather than rating the content of the post itself. There are people on these boards that have a very "anti-following" even though the information they provide is very spot-on. A ratings system would give that crowd a lovely little tool of disruption.

LisaD,

I don't get it. Do you honestly mean that someone can post something which is clearly inaccurate and then cover him/herself with a disclaimer "it's your call" and or "seek help of___"?

If so, why do we even bother to write anything? If a member posts a question...we just all need a widget to click and it will pop up. "blah, blah, blah (all inaccurate) and then, but "it's your call" "maybe you could check with an attorney".

My point, and I am appreciating others' take on this, is to keep the board clean of clearly inaccurate information. I am not talking about grey areas, or areas subject to interpretation of the law. I am speaking of situations that involve simple factual information that is readily available on USCIS, and elsewhere. I am speaking of, as an example









The problem and the reason I brought this whole discussion up is that in order to correct information that is being offered carelessly, it is important for those that know to post the right information. Often times with certain individuals this is not simply taken as given, and it involves some proof if you will, so that the person misguiding concedes. Sometimes, dependent upon an individual's willingness to concede, this can require a number of posts to get the "poiunt home", if you will. Then, there's the other hazard to doing this that can result. I, personally have been accused of attacking in the past. Not that it is true, mind you but the point is that in an effort to send a message loud and clear that the information is faulty, there is a tendency for certain individuals to take the discussion of on a tangent and turn it into a personal thing. The problem is, that in the course of doing so, the conversation can go off tangent. In the meantime, if a moderator wishes to "keep peace", the inclination is to close the thread. Sometimes, entire discussions are closed, due to the banter between members that disagree on the facts. So, in a situation like that...what happens? The matter is not settled. The misinformation is still swirling around, and the only thing to do is to start another thread to clear it up...which then could follow suit. Not exactly like I am doing now, but sort of


It was just an observation I had, and have had on a number of occasions, which I rhink is unfortunately working against the very foundation of the site like this.

But, eh, I'm easy and flexible....so it can stay as it is, if that's what everyone senses is best.

Whythat and not the rest? It's not like there isn't information on here that could, if anyone were so inclined, to be perceived as guidance. What about the information in the guides and everyone's participation?

It doesn't have to be a 'rating' like A,B,C,D,F. Make it a black or white 'thank you' or 'good vibes' type of thing.

At the very least, I believe something like that would be most helpful. There are all sorts of DIY boards out there - not just for immigration. Most of them have some way of pin-pointing the worker bees who have earned their stripes. All we have is boxes and hearts. I think it's really confusing. People who read message boards are used to looking for 'rating tools'. If I'm new and I see loads of boxes and no other way to determine anything about that poster, what else am I to do?

I'm not concerned that the 'anti-following' of members would taint the 'rating'. Anyone who is truly helpful is going to get more pluses than minues.

I'm very much a 'buyer beware' type person...I've said this a million times in the past but we are not a help desk. We're a bunch of ppl who are or have been at varying stages of this process. The information here is anecdotal...I see suggestions all the time 'let's do this for the newbs' 'let's do that to make it easier for them' and the question is...WHY? Many ppl here went thru this process before VJ was so user friendly, and they made it thru just fine. 'So why this urge to spoon feed?' I ask myself. The underlying tone of this site should be 'this is how *I* did it, but if you're not going to be completely responsible and verify everything you read with an official source, then you either need an atty or you need to realize you may be relying on misinformation.'




Well, imo it's already a shade of grey....moderating the flow of information goes deeper. 'I'm so and so and I approve of this message!' Plus, we have the whole issue of 'who is going to be held responsible to control the accuracy of the information'....this place shouldn't have a set heirarchy...of course some are known for certain things, but that's all very unofficial. If someone wants to stay here for 10 years and give out advice and constantly update his/her own knowledge of the process, well that is his/her choice...but that person is not VJ's 'staff writer' or any 'official' representative of the site. I do think there's a huge difference.

Then nothing would change. If you LisaD correct a member who asks if a K-1 is for mutliple entries by saying, "no, the K-1 is a single entry visa" what is the difference? If it's UPL, then it's UPL whether you say it or someone else. The irony is that the information is in the guides, and yet noone on here, including moderation, hesitates to instruct members to consult them.