|
|
|
I spent a bit of time streamlining the moderation page (and contradicting myself[^]) and was wondering how it's going for you guys at the battlefront.
Major changes are
- checkboxes
- a "Check all" button at the bottom
- auto-checking the checkboxes of spam that's over 98% likely to be spam
The big questions I have are:
- Is this making your life easier?
- Are you seeing any issues?
- Do you have any further suggestions?
Thanks again everyone for your help. You guys are doing an amazing job.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I saw those checkboxes, but all they do is increase the amount scrolling needed, so I don't use them.
Every once in a while there's a non-spam message among the spam so it's too much of a risk to use check-all.
I prefer to just click, wait, click, wait, etc. as always; it's easier on the carpal tunnel.
You could reduce the wait, but then I'd be even more likely to mis-click good messages.
Edit:
Now that I've read the other responses, how about "Check all by sfasfasf" ?
modified 9-Nov-15 11:07am.
|
|
|
|
|
 Yes, I like the check boxes a lot. They do make it easier.
Sure, you have to scroll through to uncheck non-spam messages, but it is still easier than having to go through and check the spammy ones and certainly a lot easier than having to delete them one-by-one.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
My 2c.
"Autochecking". Great!
"Check all". Dump it, it makes no sense. I need to have a look at all messages anyway, and I would never read them all and then scroll back for marking. So all spam messages would be marked already when I reach the bottom of the page where the button is.
Suggestions:
For when there's a bigger attack. Group the messages per author and give each protector messages from just one author, add a big label at the top informing that this is messages from just one author, and add a "Delete all" button.
|
|
|
|
|
As Jorgen suggests, grouping would help a lot when we get massed attacks - because it tends to be just three or four users at a time, if we can see that "fsdsdsds" has posted live streaming sports, and has 20 other offences to be taken into consideration, we don't need to read each of the other 20 to say they should all be dumped. Lot of work for you though.
The other suggestion involves how we use it: we spot a spammer, dump the posts, then add the spammer to the S&A forum so others can quickly close the account, though this weekend it was taking several hours in some cases. So could we change the "user" detail slightly? Move it to the left hand side of the page so it's easier to see (at the RHS it floats about depending on how long the spam title is), and could we add a "reports" count to it? That way, we can see at a glance that "fsdsdsds" has been spam reported three times, so he should already be in S&A and we don't have to go to his user page to report, and then to S&A to add him. Just save us a little time, and maybe reduce the number of duplicate reports?
And a thought: if the automated system has picked it up, and a protector agrees with it, could we reduce the number of "strikes" needed for a member kill? Perhaps three protector votes in the moderation list is enough? If we can kill the users faster then it's more work for the spammers and that hopefully will encourage them to bugger off and annoy someone else? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Lot of work for you though
Not overly much I feel, and only once.
OriginalGriff wrote: The other suggestion involves how we use it: we spot a spammer, dump the posts, then add the spammer to the S&A forum so others can quickly close the account, though this weekend it was taking several hours in some cases. So could we change the "user" detail slightly? Move it to the left hand side of the page so it's easier to see (at the RHS it floats about depending on how long the spam title is), and could we add a "reports" count to it? That way, we can see at a glance that "fsdsdsds" has been spam reported three times, so he should already be in S&A and we don't have to go to his user page to report, and then to S&A to add him. Just save us a little time, and maybe reduce the number of duplicate reports?
YES!
I often end up looking at the name wondering if fdsfdfdfd is the same as fdfdsfdfd or not.
|
|
|
|
|
That is why I found so good (and hence adopted) the idea of putting names in title of the report. I think it was PiebaldConsult who started
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
When I go to the spammer's profile and report the user, if the report count is one, I add a post to S&A, otherwise it's likely that someone else already has.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that "mark all" is not really needed, and less if you already are auto-checking the very high probabilities.
I find OriginalGriff's suggestions a good improvement: Locating the username always in the same place, grouping by author, making visible the number of the reports of the account in the list and reducing the number of reports if in the list + protector's report
That would make it easier to keep the place clean
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the other posts from Griff and Nelek I believe that what I'd like to see is:
A extra grouping column for the user having added info on whether he's been reported or not, and a button to reject all messages from this specific user in the moderation queue.
|
|
|
|
|
Another "useful" item would be a "repost, do not publish" choice to cope with the impatient without having to manually locate the post and delete it, or accidentally giving the poster a "spammer" kick by reporting the post.
I assume that hitting any of the "spam" options automatically reports the user as a spammer as well?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
How about another on saying, "Garbage, do not publish"? 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to re-answer.
I have used the scroll-down-and-click-reject-checked method a couple of times this evening.
It worked well with the one hitch that I nearly missed a spot where the poster's name changed. The new poster was previously unreported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gone
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
10th kick applied.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
10th kick applied.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
