• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Thread approval

Hodari

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
84
I'm pretty sure I've suggested this before, if not here, then on IRC. However, at a low number like 5 reports, I or someone else could easily arrange any thread to be hidden.

Pretty much any system can be abused in one way or another. At that point, it would be up to the mods to handle it appropriately. As for the fear of reporting a thread and having the mod disagree, obviously infractions or other similar actions should only be given if it's blatantly obvious that the post was flagged abusively. And also note that it would take several people flagging it for the post to be hidden, which would make it even more obvious, especially if they see that it's the same person using multiple accounts to do so.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
And also note that it would take several people flagging it for the post to be hidden, which would make it even more obvious, especially if they see that it's the same person using multiple accounts to do so.

I wasn't referring to multiple accounts. I was referring to crowd-sourcing the reporting by telling other people about how stupid the thread is.
 

Muesli

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,714
Location
Sheffield, UK
WCA
2009SMIT05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think we're all overthinking this.

WHAT'S WRONG
Occasional spam threads. Essentially something that takes up one slot on the front page and affects nothing else. The only reason they reach the top is because everyone posts on them, feeding the trolls.

WHAT WE DO NOW
Report and forget, mod deletes it later.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING
A system where every new thread that is to be made needs to be run through a mod first, causing more work for them, a slower forum and possibly bias on the threads that make it through (For example, that religion thread would have probably never made it) possibly stopping interesting topics.

WHAT IT WOULD SOLVE
Less spam threads, a minor annoyance that is easily ignored.

AT THE EXPENSE OF
The mods' valuable time and effort.

IS IT WORTH IT?
No.
 

Zane_C

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,757
Location
~100km W of Melbourne, Australia
WCA
2010CARN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Why not just have a way for people to flag a thread for mod review? This could be limited to users with a certain minimum post count being able to flag them if needed and once a certain number of users do so, the thread becomes hidden until the mods can review it. Once a thread has existed for a certain amount of time(perhaps a day or 2 at most) it becomes immune to being blocked in this way. The existing Report Post button could probably be modified to be used in this way(if an option like this isn't already on there).
Not that I have any experience with forum software, but this seems like an awful lot of fiddling around to do for such a small issue (agreeing with Muesli). If this could be easily implemented, perhaps it will be successful. Otherwise, the simple solution for fast deletion of spam/non-constructive threads is 24/7 moderating coverage.
 

Hodari

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
84
Not that I have any experience with forum software, but this seems like an awful lot of fiddling around to do for such a small issue (agreeing with Muesli). If this could be easily implemented, perhaps it will be successful. Otherwise, the simple solution for fast deletion of spam/non-constructive threads is 24/7 moderating coverage.

I don't have much experience with forum software specifically either but I'm guessing something like this would take a couple dozen lines of code at most. I'll agree that I don't see this as being a huge issue but if people think that it is serious enough to require something be done about it, then this seems like the best solution. Certainly it would be better than requiring ALL posts to be approved.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
I don't have much experience with forum software specifically either but I'm guessing something like this would take a couple dozen lines of code at most. I'll agree that I don't see this as being a huge issue but if people think that it is serious enough to require something be done about it, then this seems like the best solution. Certainly it would be better than requiring ALL posts to be approved.
I'm sure there's a plugin that can hide threads after a certain number of reports. I think it is simpler and more efficient to just increase moderator coverage.

They seem to be resistant to good ideas
Please don't just start making **** up. The moderators do a good job.
 

asportking

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
892
Location
Michigan
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't know if mods already do this, but if they delete a thread, they should make it very clear to the person why it was deleted and how not to make the same mistake. Because most people who make the stupid threads aren't complete trolls, they just don't know better. And when a mod deletes their thread without saying anything as to why it was deleted, they'll never learn.
 

Zane_C

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,757
Location
~100km W of Melbourne, Australia
WCA
2010CARN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't know if mods already do this, but if they delete a thread, they should make it very clear to the person why it was deleted and how not to make the same mistake. Because most people who make the stupid threads aren't complete trolls, they just don't know better. And when a mod deletes their thread without saying anything as to why it was deleted, they'll never learn.
It's rare for non-trolling threads to be deleted, normally they are closed or merged. Mods usually/always conclude a thread with the reason for its closing. If one thread is merged into another, it's obvious why the thread has been merged.
 

Robocopter87

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
220
Location
New York
WCA
2013KUNK01
I think we're all overthinking this.

WHAT'S WRONG
Occasional spam threads. Essentially something that takes up one slot on the front page and affects nothing else. The only reason they reach the top is because everyone posts on them, feeding the trolls.

WHAT WE DO NOW
Report and forget, mod deletes it later.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING
A system where every new thread that is to be made needs to be run through a mod first, causing more work for them, a slower forum and possibly bias on the threads that make it through (For example, that religion thread would have probably never made it) possibly stopping interesting topics.

WHAT IT WOULD SOLVE
Less spam threads, a minor annoyance that is easily ignored.

AT THE EXPENSE OF
The mods' valuable time and effort.

IS IT WORTH IT?
No.

Okay, this helps in no way at all. We already discussed how that idea isn't going to work. It makes sense but isn't reachable. Its not that it isn't a bad idea, its that its too much effort. We already know this, we are proposing new ideas. You don't need to make posts like that. You added nothing to the topic with that post. Please post something more helpful or something constructive.

To the Mod opinions thing, multiple ideas cropped up after statue had posted, thus meaning he probably hadn't read them yet. I was saying that obviously moderators need to put two cents in otherwise this whole thread is pointless. The Mods are the people who will end up being in charge of how this turns out (if it does at all) thus they need to be behind it in order for it to work.

To the flag thing, it makes sense. But once again the power is in the hands of members. Like aron said, you could easily get a group of four other people and take down every single thread in the site. And that simply won't work.

What we need is a way to filter the threads that are made. Because once they are made, it isn't really what the thread is about, its about how many trolls will take it down.

To be honest, the fact that we need a filter for this is pretty pathetic. The fact that people think its OK to troll someone who obviously doesn't know any better is just plain pathetic. However this is the internet, and will always be, the internet.
 
Last edited:

insane569

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
432
Location
Don't Worry About It
WCA
2011LUEV01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Just thought of this. What if the mods had some help. Like a mod with half the power of the current mods. They would go over the threads and any thread with a large number of flags would be reviewed by this mod and if this mod thought that it should be removed then he could add it to a list of threads to be reviewed further or add it to a list of ignores (Like if a large group flag a thread because someone like womack made it) Think of it as a thread mod that only has power over threads. But the problem is they would have to find a new mod. One thats trustful and has no grudges towards other members.
 

jonlin

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
409
Location
MDVA
WCA
2012LINJ01
YouTube
Visit Channel
What you guys are thinking are that the people like WOMACK and FlyingFingers are very annoying people that post stupid and useless threads(sorry guys, but it's true.). They are obviously clueless that the whole of the speedcubing community is angry at them for posting useless and cluttering the forum up. The forum gets mad, flames them, and they never listen.
Do we really need mods to delete threads? Why can't we set up a system which if you report a certain number of times, it gets deleted by mod's consent?
No really, theREASON that they actually post threads is that they are clueless that the forum is being cluttered and that they are being flamed 1,000 times on the internet. Do you understand?
 

aaronb

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
424
Location
Maine, USA
Just thought of this. What if the mods had some help. Like a mod with half the power of the current mods. They would go over the threads and any thread with a large number of flags would be reviewed by this mod and if this mod thought that it should be removed then he could add it to a list of threads to be reviewed further or add it to a list of ignores (Like if a large group flag a thread because someone like womack made it) Think of it as a thread mod that only has power over threads. But the problem is they would have to find a new mod. One thats trustful and has no grudges towards other members.
This is an idea that I somewhat like. So like, if a thread/post gets flagged x amount of times, then thread moderators get the ability to delete it. Thread moderators could be biased towards some members, so maybe you need x amount of thread moderators to delete it? Thread mods, have no other powers, except deleting posts/threads, so they could held to a lesser standard than regular moderators, so you get easily get many more thread moderators, right?

I don't see any major flaws, but I am exhausted, so I am sure in the next few posts, people with point out many flaws in this idea. :p
 

aaronb

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
424
Location
Maine, USA
Why? Why not just give the new moderators the same level of power as the current ones?

The problem with a lot of other solutions, was that there are not enough mods. You can't just hand out mod privilege to anyone, so having mods with less power that can moderate threads, will allow more people to be mods, since you don't have to be as trustworthy.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
The problem with a lot of other solutions, was that there are not enough mods. You can't just hand out mod privilege to anyone, so having mods with less power that can moderate threads, will allow more people to be mods, since you don't have to be as trustworthy.

There is no shortage of trustworthy people on this forum.
 

thackernerd

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
517
Location
Fergus Falls, Minnesota USA
WCA
2011THAC01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think the time limit idea is a good one. When I first got here I posted probably about 10 useless threads in the first month that I joined. After that I realized people were getting mad at me and all of my threads were a bad idea after all. In my opinion I think that having a 1 month time before you were aloud to post a thread would eliminate at least 75% of all the useless threads that are created.
 
Top