It's been a cruel, cruel summer...

[Argie's Wife]

There's some good input here and sa meredith makes some good points. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me (or even anyone) but thought I'd run this idea up the flagpole to see if anyone else agreed or had other suggestions.

The restaurant section of the forum is a great resource, in my opinion, as I use it as a guide on where to go and what's good. I've made recommendations to friends/family based on the input in the forum even when I haven't actually visited the restaurant myself.

Although some of the comments about some restaurants have seemed to have come out in the wash, with the owners posting their take on things, I've just noted that many of the negative (and untrue) posts are from people who haven't been around that long.

Yes, I do take into account they're new and the posts have less merit with me, as newbiesaukee wrote, but I feel that this forum could cause damage just the same. Maybe it's just a couple of recent threads that have me concerned but some people have been less than kind.

[GWC...]

Since this is the election season, my vote for Webmaster (the person who makes the rules and deals with the legal ramifications) is for Don.

[phoenix]

I would hate to put an artificial number limit on posters. I also have to say that I look a little differently when a new poster gives a bad or great review but this is a freedom of speech country( and the live free or die state) and i think we always have Don as the fail safe when a poster gets out of hand. there are a lot of restaurants in the lakes region and i use the remarks to decide to try or not try for the first time , after that i use my own experience.

[Pineedles]

The Phantom Gourmand hasn't responded yet. Perhaps The Webmaster has already put this proposal in effect? Just kidding TPG.

It is a perplexing problem, Argie's Wife. I believe Don put a challenge in asking for substantiation about the suggestion of a "gun" in the Diamond Island accident. This type of monitoring is his job. We can, IMHO moderate the restaraunt section so that people who want to rely on the Winn Dot Com opinions for where to go to eat, can look past the initial post and see a more diverse opinion if the initial post was spurious. It will remain a question though as to who will defend the restauraunt first. The owners response has been particulary effective, but it is Winnie dot com members that post that have the greater effect. Besides, these owners are working fron 5AM to 1AM to maintain their business, so it is not unreasonable to expect that their response coud be delayed a day or two.

It is a nice idea of defending your favorite, but I was the stupid idiot that questioned the post of someone who tore Waldo Peppers (a beloved person, and resteraunt, prior to my post) apart, with their first 1st or 2nd post. The poster was proven to be correct, and I apologized. I have learned to "tune down" my response, but the fact still remains, if you see something that you think is wrong , defend it!

So, in the end I am not in favor of a ban on the first 25 posts until you are allowed to post on the restaraunt thread. Gun shy? Perhaps. Still a staunce defender of what I believe is right, YES!

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

Although some of the comments about some restaurants have seemed to have come out in the wash, with the owners posting their take on things, I've just noted that many of the negative (and untrue) posts are from people who haven't been around that long.

And how do you determine that the original post is untrue...just because the owner comes on and repudiates it? Who's to say he/she is being truthful. Like I said before, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two.

Maybe it's just my personal experience, but I don't like business owners/managers who get into pissing contests with customers. I think Pepper handled negative comments on here about her establishment perfectly. But when an owner/manager starts making negative comments about customers, my red flag goes up. That should never, ever be aired in public.

[Argie's Wife]

Rose - I determine that a posters comments are untrue when they are so perfectly contradicted by the owner/manager of an establishment and then that person does not return to say, "No, that's NOT how it happened..."

I agree that pissing contests are unsightly but I also think that making potentially harmful statements about an establishment on a forum like this and then not r-e-a-l-l-y being a member of it is also bad. I also agree with you that Pepper's situation was handled gracefully and in a professional manner - she earned more respect from me (if that was possible) in that situation.

But back to my point....

I think there's been some "hit and runs" here in the restaurant forum area. I think Don does a wonderful job of monitoring things here and I'm sure it's not easy. I'm just thinking out loud on how we can maybe (maybe!) improve things....

[Mr. Moyer]

This is silly. We are now censoring who can say what and when. This is ridiculous. This is supposed to be an open forum. As for someone giving a bad review, that is their opinion, and will only minimally effect my decision to eat at a restaurant, if at all. If 6 others chime in and say they have had the same experience, or refute the review as garbage, that may make my decision. All in all, any censorship or restrictions are ludicris.

[KellyG]

I have to say that I think it is silly to require a certain number of posts. Let's say you had to have a minimum of 25 posts, what is stopping the person from just posting random things in the other parts of the forum, just to get to that minimum? I do not have many posts, but I have been reading this forum for about 1 1/2 years. It is a great source of information. Everyone also has to remember that there are 3 sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. I personally do not decide not to go to a restaurant because one person said they were sick after eating there. These restaurants serve hundreds and thousands of people, one person claiming they were sick from eating there, or one person stating that they had really bad service, will not stop me from going to a restaurant. By having a minimum number of posts to make a post in a certain section, new people may not want to come on this forum. Also, someone could have just come back from vacation and wants to post a nice review about a restaurant, but can't because they have under the minimum number of posts. That is unfair to the restaurant.

[jetskier]

Hi all,

We went to the Lobster Pound a couple of weeks back and the place was full. I am quite sure that the comments on this board have not materially affected their business. I believe that we all should weigh comments based upon our own metrics. As such, let anyone post who feels the urge. We are all big boys and girls here.

Personally, I gave the Lobster Pound a try independent of the comments here. My impression is purely based upon my experience with them.

In the long run, good restaurants will survive and poor ones will not. Word of mouth is stronger viral marketing than these boards. I would hate to start censoring on the basis of seniority.

Jetskier

[RI Swamp Yankee]

I think Argie's Wife brings up a good point but the solution is elusive. I remember a few years back when several people had comments about a local business that had gone downhill. Someone chimed in about how great it was and the negative comments were not true. Shortly afterward Don commented that the post had come from the network of the business mentioned. It is easy for someone with an axe to grind to say something good/bad and those comments are read by many people that may not even be members here, just browsing the forum. I think the equalizer here is the responses of the good members of this forum. They make it a point to contradict or reinforce what may be a totaly onesided opinion.

If I may take exception to Mr. Moyer, and with all due respect for his opinion, I think a certain amount of censorship or restrictions is ok. That is how Don has kept this forum from degerating to posts containing material unsuitable for family consumtion as some other forum have done.

[redc5]

Argies Wife, I guess if you want censorship and this is YOUR forum you can do what you want. I will probably leave and stop reading though. If I want censoring, I can move to China.

[livingonwinni]

I agree with REdc5 and KellyG, Just cause you don't post on every single little thing doesn't change your experince. And it's all about perspective just cause an owner defend his postion doesn't make the incident any less valid. It seems to me that people with only a few posts pick and choose what they comment on . I'm new to this fourm, but I have been reading it for a long time. Because I don't post all the time means I shouldn't have an opinion??

[Lakepilot]

I read this forum every day. I think it's great. I don't post often because I only post when I think I can make a contribution that others haven't or aren't likely to make. I don't talk just to hear myself talk either.

Censorship doesn't work. I will stop leaving to when moderation turns to censorship, because I won't know what is being censored or how much is being censored. I'm capable (usually) of filtering other peoples posts.

[Argie's Wife]

To those of you who wrote that you have read this forum for years but only have a handful of posts.... well, that's how I started out here, too. I understand what you're saying and respect your opinion. My history is very similar. This forum is a great resource for sharing information - it's part of my "daily news".

On one of the Lobster Pound threads, the owner, Mike, mentions the integrity of this forum and questions how it will be taken seriously if people post inaccurate information. I've paraphrased his comment here, but you get the idea of what he's saying.... And he's got a good point, in my opinion. (Have you ever read the "Rants and Raves" section of Craig's List? Good grief! That's the last thing I'd want to see here!)

I also put myself in the shoes of the business owner who is trying to defend his livelihood because a customer went off half-cocked and then decided to go public with accusations of food poisoning, bad customer service, etc. but have no other history here on the forums anywhere. The mad customer is just using the forum for their own agenda - to get back at the restaurant manager/owner who didn't give in to them.

Is that really fair? It's certainly not ethical.

What I'm suggesting isn't necessarily censorship, as it's more of a "quota" or even a verification method (which some forums - yes, open forums) require for membership. And when did "open forum" mean you can simply spew garbage from your keyboard anytime you wish? I'd like to think this forum has way more class than that (and it does!)

Sometimes censorship is necessary for the protection of the other members of the board - I've seen posts and even whole threads removed from this forum in the past - but it was because someone(s) weren't following the rules. Is that reason to leave - because others can't play nicely? I think not...

Like I've said - I don't expect people to agree or for this to be popular but maybe some safeguard should be in place... who knows? But integrity here is important.

[KellyG]

I have a suggestion. I read the trip advisor forums, and I have hundreds of posts on there, and on that site there is a button on every post that states "report inappropriate post." You click this button when you find something to be inappropriate, giving a reason why it is inappropriate, and then the moderator takes care of removing it. I find that on that forum, someone will sign up and on their first or second post they talk very negative about an establishment. The people that are regular posters, or people that read the forum often, can usually tell that it is someone that just signed up to post negitively. There are others that have read that forum for a long time to get information on their trip and they will sign up to talk about their trip to give back to the boards.

Every person on every forum was new at one point. Does this mean that the person that has a great deal of knowledge about a place should not be able to post because they just found the forum? It kind of reminds me of switching careers. The employer wants someone with experience, but how can the person switching careers get experience if no one will hire them because they have no experience?

[Mr. Moyer]

RI Swap yankee,

You are absolutely correct, we have a difference in opinion. I absolutely feel there is no place for censorship, especially on this forum. I can't imagine that if you feel differently that you will be able to change my mind. I feel the freedom to express one's self is at the core of our nation"s strength. As for the webmaster, removing whole or partial posts, I would disagree with that practice as well.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moyer

...I absolutely feel there is no place for censorship, especially on this forum...I feel the freedom to express one's self is at the core of our nation"s strength. As for the webmaster, removing whole or partial posts, I would disagree with that practice as well...

People need to remember, there are no first ammendment rights guaranteed, implied or granted by the owner of this website.

This website is a private domain, the exclusive property of the "Don". The only individual that has the right to free and total expression, as guaranteed by both the NH and Federal Constitutions is the owner of this property...the "Don".

Anyone that wishes to express their first ammendment rights is free to do so, simply by creating a website of their own.

However, whenever we peruse or post to this particular website we do so clearly as guests of the owner, and are subject completely and only to those thoughts and expressions that the owner wishes to convey through his property.

I like being one of Don's guests, and when I am visiting in his "house", I obey his rules. If I don't like his rules, then I am simply and utterly free to leave his house anytime I wish, just as he is free to show me the door when my welcome has worn out.

It's as simple as that....

Oh, thanks for letting me visit again today, Don!

[Mr. Moyer]

Skip,

I usually find your posts very informative. I never said that my rights were being infringed upon due to 1st amendmant protection. I simply said that this is where our nation derives it's strength. I also try to instill this in my open family discussions, as well as in my business. I feel that this is why I have been successful and have been open to quaility feedback, solicited and unsolicited. I realize that the webmaster Don, can do whatever he would like since it is his forum, but I am also free to disagree with it as well. We have no protection here as we don't on many website and forums. I just personally feel to stifle any discussion (whether it is through censorship or not), is in poor judgement and will leave this forum weaker in the long run.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moyer

...I just personally feel to stifle any discussion (whether it is through censorship or not), is in poor judgement and will leave this forum weaker in the long run...

Thank you for the kind words...

But I will respectfully bow out of this thread as it is clearly starting to deviate, with the following observation:

As a long time member and clear supporter of this site and it's webmaster, with close ties to many other long time members, I clearly point to the "speed limit thread" as a clear and perfect example as to why Don has to carefully control and fairly and consistently moderate discussion on this site, to keep the site's mission within Don's original vision.

I think Don has clearly censored posts in the past, including (deservedly)some of my own, and has at times found it necessary to stifle discussion.

His ability to do so, and do it in a fair manner, is clearly one of the reasons that this site remains so succesful, has grown so large and remains a credible, important and powerful Lake Winnipesaukee region resource.

'Nuff said by me....

Thanks Don!

Skip

[angela4design]

This is interesting... but IMHO, that's why we have the number of posts a user has contributed VISIBLE. So, we can "consider the source". I think that a user with many posts holds more credibility than a 'newbie', as they have more experience posting, and probably also hold good intentions of supporting our local lifestyles, even if reviews reflect a diappointing experience at a restaurant, perse.

I can see the point, some newbies just pull the pin and throw it in, and the forums explode with debate.

Bottom line for me... with experience comes credibility. We can see how many posts they have... It's up to us to 'take it for what it's worth'. It's just good judgement. just my 2 cents

[sa meredith]

This might work..
I have read in the past that Don reads every post...and I'm pretty sure no new account is open until he reviews the information (I think).
So, although it would be more work for him, perhaps Don would consider having every new memeber on moderation, until say 10/12 posts. Meaning he would have to clear their first 12 posts, before anyone could view them. If someone is just looking to make trouble, it would be a much longer process for them, and they would have to come up with 12 reasonable/meaningful posts.

[ironhorsetim]

I came on this site to vent on a situation and went about it the wrong way, It was removed and I have been on moderation since then (which I totally desrved) I might add. Don's job is not an easy one he has to weed out the truths or falsehoods and he basis his decisions on what he thinks is best for this forum. I've found that sometimes what we are trying to say may not come across the right way or we might not have the knowledge or resources to go along with our comments, that's when the moderation comes in. It's easy to come on here and throw in a comment or two but it's facts that people want to read and not just false accusations. Sometimes things turn out to be true, sometimes not, sometimes people come on and pretend to be people they are not for instance ..say a guy comes on and say's he found the best shoestore in the region, cheap prices great service and so on and he ends up being the owner, you never really know. We depend on the moderator to help us through, and he will....my point being if we all use common sense and good judgment we will know what to listen to or what to toss out in the trash....thats my 2 cents...if I may

[Seeker]

I was one of those whose initial post was a very negative review of a very popular (to some) restaurant. I had been reading the forum for some time and had friends rave about this establishment for years. We finally went and had poor food and poorer service with exorbitant prices. It was then that I decided to actually join the forum. Some took me to task over my comments but others, interestingly, confirmed similar experiences.

From what I am now reading this restaurant read the reviews and I have seen no negative comments lately.

Maybe it takes an experience like that or a run in with a Captain Bonehead to get someone motivated enough to post.

Obviously I don't agree with a requirement of X# of posts in order to post in the review or any other forums.

Seeker

[Rose]

Originally Posted by angela4design

I think that a user with many posts holds more credibility than a 'newbie'...

Many moons ago, when the forum had a different format, my husband made his first and last post. If I remember correctly, he provided information on GPS, which was relatively new at the time. He ended his post with a light-hearted comment. A user with many posts critiqued his post, saying it was very credible until the last comment. My husband, having lots of experience posting in the ne.weather newsgroup but eventually stopping because of the divisive nature there, decided that he wasn't going to waste his time posting here if that was the type of BS he'd have to put up with.

When I sarcastically congratulated the "experienced" poster for chasing my husband away (he hasn't even read it since), this poster proceeded to question my husband's manhood because I stood up for my husband instead of him standing up for himself. Luckily, several other posters got on and basically shouted this guy down. I don't know if he continues to post...if he does it's under a different user name. I do know that I don't want anyone who is relatively new to be pushed off because they feel like they're providing an informative post and get grief for it. And perhaps some of them don't follow up because, like my husband, they feel they'll probably get more grief if they continue.

Like Skip, I'm going to bow out of this thread, and perhaps the forum for a while. When I find that my informative to contentious post ratio going down, it's time to give it a rest for a while.

[Argie's Wife]

Rose.... Skip.... and others....

The heart of this thread isn't to create a "big brother" or some utopian forum with lots of censorship but to look at the integrity of the information we're putting out here in cyberspace. The heart of it is to examine what can be done on a personal or collective level. I am very sorry that you feel you can't be a part of this thread.

I sincerely hope that you weren't offended by my initial post and my counter posts and at the same time, I also hope that others posting on this thread will be considerate in their responses. It is my experience that communication on a forum, in writing, is flat - you can't see my face or hear my voice and know that I'm discussing this as an angry person or as a friendly person. There's a lot missing from communication via this medium, I'm afraid.

I honestly take this as a solid debate of the issue and I'm not bothered by people not agreeing with me. IN NO WAY am I saying my idea or notion is the answer - not at all. Some of you posting against the idea have given some good input as well - certainly food for thought.

Peace.