Automatic moderation tools come with complex functions.
Even if those tools can save some time for your moderators (thus reducing your costs), you’ll still need some moderation workforce. Here’s why:
Content moderation, a 24/7 mission
Regulating exchanges, moderating user-generated contents on areas such as websites, forums, blogs, social medias and chats, is a job carried out by professionals, 24/24, 7 days a week.
The moderator has the power to monitor the published contents. He/she is the guarantor of the quality of discussions on the participatory web. He/she ensures compliance with the rules set by the website’s publisher, protects the public from potentially inappropriate, irreverent, criminal or unhealthy behaviors.
The moderator must erase illegal, insulting, self-promoting, or more generally, content contrary to the moderation charter.
Smart automated moderation: a dream or a reality?
It can be legitimate to dream of a fully automated solution.
The objective is always to offer customers the best possible moderation service.
Indeed, a large part of the flow can be processed automatically. Automatic moderation can be smart (we have made great progresses in terms of programming) but can the machine totally substitute for a man?
Nothing is less certain for now. Find out why in 5 points:
An automated moderation eases the work of moderators but there are also some limits to it:
#1 Semantic analysis: a human being is irreplaceable
However, automated moderation can be talented: it can detect people called “haters” who show their hate to everyone, and the people who spend their time grumbling on everything. The program will take care of those messages. It can also spot misspelling.
But human moderation is undeniably more effective than automatic moderation to face the subtleties of language whereas semantic nuances are ambiguous or confusing.
Texts can be judged acceptable by the machine without sentences having any meaning.
How could algorithms detect the irony in a given sentence? It is impossible for now!
And sometimes, some of the words may be automatically (and unfairly) discarded.
In terms of semantic analysis, human beings can’t be replaced.
#2 Illegal contents: nothing is worth the human eye
The automated analysis of images or videos does exist but its isn’t advanced enough yet.
Tools lack precision and subtelty. For example, the tool can identify photos of people who may appear naked but nothing will replace the human eye to check that these photos are indeed forbidden in the site’s editorial charter.
A manual check is therefore mandatory to complete the work of the filtering system.
#3 Escalation processes: who can manage it better than a human being?
It’s a question of reaction speed! But not only. Imagine a tool set up on a keyword that, in the hours that follow, is used in abundance in the comments on the networks.
What does the machine do? Send alerts without interruption?
Again, human intervention is necessary to revise this parameterization, refine it and find, as soon as possible, a solution. Otherwise, thousands of warnings could appear.
#4 Whatever happens, you must remain master of customer relations
Human beings can manage a live space, defuse or even anticipate a crisis. It doesn’t mean that automated systems do not have a role to play. For example, if a mobile phone provider receives an increasing stream of content, the automated system will probably give the alarm. An overload of content can mean a major failure that requires human action to prevent it. At this advanced stage, a human being must take over and supervise the relationship with his customers.
#5 Regular picking is mandatory to guarantee the quality of moderation
The moderator can control an imperfection in the system. And correct a setup error.
Only human intervention can guarantee the reliability of the system and modify, for example, the level of automation and the parameterization of the tool.
#6 (bonus!) Attention to contents that are discarded
As a moderator, you can rely on an automatic moderation tool that is supposed to manage 100% of the content.
Nevertheless, human intervention is still necessary to qualify contents that are identified by users as being inappropriate.
Indeed, the tool may ignore this fraud attempt or a shocking statement for some reason, either because the text seems to correspond to the chart even if it doesn’t in some specific contexts, or simply because the message does not use the Keywords in the tool.
In this case, a person must manually handle this content identified by one or more users.
An example : the moderation of the forum aufeminin.com
Forums are sometimes subject to fraudulent practices.
Users may try to sell a product, service or other, in an oblique way. It is a practice difficult to identify for a tool but that can be identified by a user or detected by a moderator.
The site aufeminin.com, for example, prohibits any commercial practices – unless agreed – as the charter of moderation specifies. The eye of the moderator is therefore necessary to track down any abusive practices!
The man and the machine complement each other perfectly.
A mixed automatic / manual system is a reliable solution. And it is for you the most effective way to reduce the human cost of moderation.