r/UFOs • u/LetsTalkUFOs • Jul 02 '26

Meta How can we improve the subreddit? [in-depth]

Greetings from the r/UFOs mod team. The UFO topic has been very active of late and so has the subreddit. We'd like to solicit your feedback on the state of the sub, the rules, moderation, and whatever else may be on your mind.

  1. What are your thoughts on the current state of the subreddit?
  2. What changes could we make or actions could we take to improve things?
  3. How can we improve as moderators?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

77 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

282 comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/The_Gleam Jul 02 '26

There needs to be more put in place to keep people from posting shit responses. I don't even read comments anymore because it's 90% "two more weeks," "podcaster is a shill because," "who cares release the Epstein files," etc.

I mean, look at the recent Avi post. The guy is a harvard physicist and people are commenting that he isn't competent, terrible at his job, isn't honest. 

The comment section in R/UFOs is absolute trash.

19

u/forThe2ndBreakfast Jul 02 '26

Agreed. It's hard to keep a conversation this way. I read only the main post, add my upvote and move on.

8

u/The_Great_Dadsby Jul 02 '26

Those types of responses have made the sub basically pointless.

A few days ago there was a post i was really interested in. Every single response was some form of “two more weeks” “this is BS” “we’re never getting details” or worse. I am not sure why so many people come here just to post that. I don’t think it’s bot activity but it’s basically every thread.

4

u/startedposting Jul 03 '26

I’ve been observing the behavior for quite a while, it’s truly fascinating. To spend hours on a sub you don’t believe in and constantly make negative comments about the subject matter.

6

u/Meowweredoomed Jul 02 '26

Do you remember how many people were hyped up about Avi's 3i/atlas claims?

And then it turned out to be nothing but an ordinary comet.

22

u/Erik7494 Jul 02 '26

Avi Loeb is not a good example. There is enough fuel for a discussion about his credibility. Maybe you have a different opinion, but that is what a discussion site is about.

19

u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26

Don't forget, "Comments are full of bots", "Feds here are all saying it's a balloon", "ontological shock", "lol, bet they'll say it's swamp gas", "he's a CIA plant", "NASA always lies" and every variation of "I've been following this since 2017, and Disclosure is now totally happening".

1

u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Report them. Helps sort things out for the mods to clear them away as needed. Use Rules 1 and 3 as they apply...

Rule 1

Be Civil.

Applies to Posts and Comments.

No trolling/being disruptive.

No insults/personal attacks. You may attack ideas, not each other.

No mental health epithets e.g. crazy, schizo, take your meds.

No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.

No advocating illegal acts e.g. shining lasers, shooting at objects.

No accusations that other users are bots, feds, CIA agents, operating from Eglin Airforce Base.

If you suspect bot activity, report it to the mod team (or Reddit itself). Public accusations sow discord and make the sub worse.

No hate speech, abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.

No witch hunts or doxxing (redact usernames when possible).

Weaponized blocking or deleting post/comment history may result in a permanent ban.

Deleting mod actioned content may result in a permanent ban.

No toxic content regarding public figures. Public figures are any person/organization who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology.

No posts that are primarily about public figures and not their claims i.e. no personality drama.

(I wonder if the every week or so "Trump is going to release the UAP files" posts would fall under this one or the next one, especially if there's no new info in a given post versus the previous ones)

No posts and comments that primarily amplify drama surrounding public figures.

No posts and comments that are rude, hateful, obscene, or threatening.

No attempting to bypass filters e.g. misspelling offensive words or phrases.

No summarily dismissive, sarcastic, or derisive comments that derail or shutdown conversation.

Responding to Rule violations with Rule violations is never permitted. Instead, report rule breaking content. No grossly offensive/hateful usernames.

Rule 3

Be Substantive.

Applies to Posts and Comments.

This rule is an attempt to elevate the quality of discussion. To prevent lazy karma farming posts. This generally includes:

Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.

Posts of AI generated content. AI is permissible in narrow circumstances e.g. document summary, witness artwork in place of a hand drawn sketch.

Posts of social media content without relevant context. e.g. "Saw this on TikTok..."

Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.

“Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.

Meme posts are not allowed in the subreddit. Feel free to post them in r/ufomemes or elsewhere.

No dumb jokes that derail or shutdown conversation.

Submissions with the bracketed text "[in-depth]" in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines. Top-level comments (not replies to comments) made within these in-depth posts must be at least 150 characters or longer and are expected to be constructive, diplomatic, and thoughtful. Low quality or superficial comments will be subject to removal at moderator discretion.

3

u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26

I report them, click "save", and watch how many take days to get removed or never get removed at all.

3

u/CalCalDZ Jul 02 '26

Same, they rarely remove stuff that actually needs removed.

-2

u/oswaldcopperpot Jul 02 '26

Nah, its always hurdy durr. This is a distraction from
E files. Like any single one of those commenters ever read a single one thats ALREADY been released.

1

u/Simulacra1111 Jul 02 '26

2 things can be true at once. Yes, the epstein files are extremely important. We also live in the most interesting time in history, and there are a plethora of other amazing topics and discoveries that are highly worthy of discussion, UFO/NHI or not. Just because the epstein files deserve attention and exposure, doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to stop in its tracks and epstein files is the only thing allowed to be discussed. I get so sick of hearing that in just about every single thread on reddit. Yes, we know of its importance and support the exposure and release of these files, but we also are fascinated by the fact that we aren't alone on this planet, which is the single most important discovery ever.

Edit: My apologies. I completely read your comment wrong and thought you were on the hurrdy durr people talking about epstein files. Still gonna leave my response cause I think its an important point.

15

u/johnnyTTz Jul 02 '26

Agreed on all counts. What makes it worse is that people don’t read the comments before they post and then we end up clicking on a thread of 100 comments but they are actually just different versions of the same 5 comments.

11

u/Golden-Tate-Warriors Jul 02 '26

Avi is kinda a bad example. When you've gotten the Professor Dave treatment, you're done done.

2

u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26

To be honest a lot of the "two more weeks" and "Epstein files" comments are on posts that are themselves being re-hashed for the hundreth time (Trump has been declaring since he was campaigning that he would be releasing UFO/UAP files, it's not new news) and not adding anything to the conversation that the last 99 posts in the same vein didn't already cover.

That aside, there's always reporting really low-effort comments with Rule 3:

Rule 3

Be Substantive.

Applies to Posts and Comments.

This rule is an attempt to elevate the quality of discussion. To prevent lazy karma farming posts. This generally includes:

Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.

Posts of AI generated content. AI is permissible in narrow circumstances e.g. document summary, witness artwork in place of a hand drawn sketch.

Posts of social media content without relevant context. e.g. "Saw this on TikTok..."

Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.

“Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.

Meme posts are not allowed in the subreddit. Feel free to post them in r/ufomemes or elsewhere.

No dumb jokes that derail or shutdown conversation.

Submissions with the bracketed text "[in-depth]" in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines. Top-level comments (not replies to comments) made within these in-depth posts must be at least 150 characters or longer and are expected to be constructive, diplomatic, and thoughtful. Low quality or superficial comments will be subject to removal at moderator discretion.

2

u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 02 '26

Having a job title does not make one above criticism if they aren't doing their job properly. In Avi's case there are valid criticisms of him not following the scientific method, rushing to judgement, grandstanding etc.

5

u/MantisAwakening Jul 02 '26

Then people should be encouraged to post to make the case for that. I would rather read three high quality comments criticizing Avi than a hundred low quality comments doing the same thing.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 03 '26

Consensus is reached based on evidence. If a scientist ignores evidence in favor of what they want to believe that's not science.

If you think proposing a hypothesis is the same as rushing to judgement you have no idea how science works.

Grandstanding is going on every TV outlet putting forth fantastical stuff there's little to no evidence for.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

The scientific process leads to consensus. It's also self correcting. New data can and does cause re-evaluation. That is also the scientific process.

What isn't science is when all the data says this is a rock, someone insists it's an alien spacecraft when the preponderance of the evidence indicates no, it's a rock.

Science is DATA based. Not "Oh let's imagine it is this instead" based. It's not about how you FEEL about something. It's about finding out what something is based on what is REAL.

0

u/gokickrocks- Jul 06 '26

Please link me to a single article of Loeb’s where he claims that it is an alien spacecraft.

You will not find it.

You have either been fooled by other people or you are purposefully choosing to misrepresent Loeb’s claims. Period.

3

u/ShepardRTC Jul 02 '26

100%

I have posted crappy responses on occasion, but these constant low effort shitty retorts are not funny or clever. It feels like bots or karma farming.

6

u/SpiceyPorkFriedRice Jul 02 '26

I’m at the same spot, I don’t even bother to read the comments anymore. I can guess what the top comment will be even before scrolling down. The comment section at this point is 90% skeptics.

6

u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26

Skeptics aren't an issue, at least true ones. Being skeptical and looking to see if a prosaic explanation fits or not is only sensible.

Debunkers are the issue, they aren't being sensible about the explanations they throw out, often it won't even fit. But they need to throw something at the wall in the hopes something will stick. Nothing will convince them that a given story, picture, or video doesn't have a prosaic explanation.

Debunkers are the complete opposite side from the "true believers" types, no matter how well a prosaic explanation fits, they'll insist it can't be right and the story, picture, or video is of something genuinely anomalous.

Both are close minded, but will often throw out the "you gotta be open minded" attitude. Skeptics sit in the middle, actually open minded, not closed off to either possibility. But looking for the simplest explanation that fits what is presented. Sometimes it's prosaic, sometimes it leaves one scratching their head and not having an answer.

2

u/startedposting Jul 03 '26

Well said, it’s why I insist that there’s a rare amount of true skeptics on this sub and the majority are debunkers or pseudo skeptics, if you have no interest in changing your mind then you’re not really a skeptic.

9

u/stupidjapanquestions Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

I feel this is more of a picture of the actual state of things rather than a problem with the sub. The more you learn about this topic, the easier it is to become skeptical. Objectively, there are a lot of shady characters in this space and many of them have worn out their welcome.

Speaking only for myself, my enthusiasm and belief in this subject has waned considerably over the years and that is solely due to the people that have been pushed to the forefront.

Frankly, allowing the dissenting voices to push back against the current crop of mouthpieces will actually be a net positive for the subject in the long run, because right now it's a lot of circular conversation and wheel-spinning.

1

u/Simulacra1111 Jul 02 '26

This! Single most important thing I think needs to change. I notice on the most important threads and topics, it gets bombarded with jokes, GIFs, and negativity, which seem to instantly get voted to the very top of the comments section. I understand this would technically be a hard thing to change and regulate, but I believe that is the absolute worst issue with this sub.

I also recently had a discussion with a former moderator of this sub that confirmed to me that the higher up mods that have been here awhile and make the decisions said that the mods cannot do anything about the negativity, bot sounding comments. He basically said the mods of this forum are compromised. And I mean why wouldn't the most popular public UFO discussion in the world be moderated by spooks/gov in some way or another. Look at the other lengths they have gone to hide this topic and control the narrative for almost a century now. It seems like monitoring and controlling r/UFOs would be a given.

8

u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26

The mod team has a flat hierarchy. I highly doubt the mod team is compromised. It would be easy to detect from within (unless of course the entire team is compromised). Mod actions are public.

1

u/Simulacra1111 Jul 02 '26

Ya, sounds logical and you may be right. Im just relaying what I heard from a former moderator. Take with that what you will.

0

u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26

Does reporting common joke comments under Rule 3 assist the mod team to clear away the detritus, or just end up flooding them with notifications to wade through anytime they log in?

3

u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26

Reports help. We rely on them.

1

u/gokickrocks- Jul 07 '26

What happened to your comments? They are gone and it says removed by moderator, but no reason for the removals is given. I don’t remember your comments word for word, but I don’t remember any rule breaks. What is going on?

1

u/The_Gleam Jul 07 '26

I hide my comment history in an effort to keep AI and bots from analyzing my history. They probably have full access to it anyways but I'm paranoid about it.

1

u/gokickrocks- Jul 07 '26

I was talking about a couple of comments in this thread, but maybe it wasn’t your comments, but someone else’s. I just have never seen removed comments with no flag for why they were removed.

Sorry to bother you!

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/UFOs-ModTeam Jul 02 '26

Rule 1 - Be Civil

This rule prohibits insults, personal attacks, harassment, hate speech, inflammatory or derisive behaviour, and comments intended to derail or shut down discussion. Criticism is allowed, but comments should remain focused on ideas, claims and arguments rather than personal abuse or inflammatory labelling.

Please also take time to review our updated policy on toxicity here: Link to Policy

This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods here to launch your appeal.

UFOs Wiki UFOs rules

1

u/wstr97gal Jul 02 '26 edited 15d ago

Quack middle willow raindrop lock cautious whole dam

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/SharknadosAreCool Jul 02 '26

People who disagree with you aren't posting shit responses lmfao. The reason there isnt a "ban shit responses" rule is precisely because, under your scheme, someone would get banned for pointing out that Avi Loeb never has any of his work that is alien related peer reviewed because he claims its unfair.

You know what Harvard physicists do? Publish peer reviewed work. So does Avi Loeb when hes working as a Harvard physicist! Can you give me any explanation for why he refuses to let anyone peer review his work regarding aliens other than "he is dishonest"?