Timeline for Do we want Smoke Detector to auto flag spam?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2018 at 10:07 | comment | added | Edlothiad | @Valorum from my understanding, all that seems to be suggested is that clearly the SFF community is only out to undermine the hard work that the CHQ community has done. The scandal is so deeply engrained that we've, even, got the moderators involved writing well worded pieces to deceive the community which must be voting wrong because this couldn't possibly be what a community would decide. Although of course throughout all this we're told our community's decision will be respected. | |
| Mar 18, 2018 at 8:37 | comment | added | Valorum | @Edlothiad - It's also sorta patronising to suggest that "some people" are voting for this answer because they didn't read it and understand it, an attitude that seems emblematic of this entire discussion; 'If only people were smart enough, they'd vote the correct way instead of for this answer' | |
| Mar 14, 2018 at 3:19 | history | edited | DVK-on-Ahch-To | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2018 at 9:04 | comment | added | Makyen | @Edlothiad I partially agree with you. However, given human nature, it should be expected that people don't read the whole post and vote anyway. Thus, I ultimately disagree. This post was made by a moderator. Rand did an excellent job of clarifying the issues, which is what a moderator should do. However, IMO, it is also part of their job to do as much as possible so that the voting-results on answers to a question like this are as clear as reasonably possible. I don't think that what was done was wrong, or bad, I just think that it could have been better and that we can learn from that. | |
| Mar 8, 2018 at 7:43 | comment | added | Edlothiad | @Makyen if people are unwilling to read the post through to completion and understand exactly where it stands they shouldn't really be voting. This meta isn't about understanding the Smoke Detector, it's about how this site wants to interact with it. Explaining what Smoke Detector is is fine in the answer, if people up-vote for the explanation but disagree with the stance, well then they probably shouldn't have up-voted. That's not the poster's issue. That's the issue of the people unwilling to read to completion or up-voting for whatever other bizarre reason. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 17:21 | comment | added | Makyen | IMO, it would have been better to put the portion of this answer which clarifies Smokey as an edit to the question, leaving the answer as a clear position statement with arguments in favor/against. As it is, with both in this answer, it muddies the water a bit as to what people's votes on this answer mean. It could be that some people are voting just on the information content rather than only the position. I don't think having both invalidates the votes as indicating support for the position, but having people's opinions be crystal clear (expressed by votes) would have been better. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:13 | comment | added | a spaghetto | That's fair. The distinction I wanted to highlight is "we haven't had an FP at x yet" versus "OK we've had a handful at y." | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:12 | comment | added | TARS | Sure, I'm not saying the numbers are wrong or just PR mumbojumbo. But I'm with Rand al'Thor that there is a bit of a philosophical difference between taking 100% as meaning "the universe considers this spam under every possible definition" and "it hasn't been wrong so far yet", a distinction that might not be clear to every passerby judging this whole concept. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:09 | comment | added | a spaghetto | @TARS I mean, this is a very big sample. We've been pretty much scanning every post and storing the reason weights on stuff that hit filters for 2 years. I don't think it's too unfair to talk about the population from this data. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:06 | comment | added | TARS | @Randal'Thor "Maybe this is just the pedantic mathematician in me coming out" - Not necessarily. It cuts to a bit of a general problem with those numbers that might make them seem more accurate than they really are to the layman. The fact that for the bot 100% is totally possible while in reality it never is is a little telling about what 99.99% actually means then. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:04 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | @quartata Cheers; I edited to reflect that. I don't like calling it "100% accurate" though, since nothing is completely 100% - OK, you've never had an FP that high, yet. Maybe this is just the pedantic mathematician in me coming out, but I think it's important to remember. People might see "100%" and think they never have to worry about FPs, leading them to flag blindly. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:02 | history | edited | Rand al'ThorMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2018 at 1:59 | comment | added | a spaghetto | This is a much better summary of the state of affairs. I just want to point out that the thresholds we brought up on Meta aren't necessarily what we'll go with (they're more like a lower bound, we wanted to keep our options open). We'll see how it plays out on mother Meta, but it's decently likely we'll go with 300+ reason weight for 5 autoflags (which is 100% accurate, we've never had an FP that high in the 2+ years we've been keeping records.) | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 1:59 | comment | added | Möoz |
but a 5-autoflagged post only needs one idiot to delete and lock it. I'm sure there are tons of those idiots available... (myself included).
|
|
| Mar 6, 2018 at 1:57 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | @Möoz Absolutely, but I don't think that should be much of a problem. I tried to address this further down: "SFF doesn't get much weird content which would be considered spam/abusive on other sites but is OK here, so there's not much danger of non-SFF Smokey people manually flagging things wrongly." If they're getting rid of stuff that's unambiguously undesirable, then ... well ... thanks? Also, every chat mod has Smokey powers, so if they do screw up, an SFF mod can go in and reverse the damage. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 1:51 | comment | added | Möoz |
Posts which contain certain blacklisted content ... are reported into chat for user review. Users then decide whether or not to flag based on their own appraisal of the reported post. Can I point out that these are off-site people, not necessarily those actively involved in this particular site (not necessarily a bad thing per se).
|
|
| Mar 6, 2018 at 1:45 | history | answered | Rand al'ThorMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |