ChatterBank3 mins ago
Report function review?
3 Answers
Dear AB Editor
Back in April of this year you acknowledged that the current system for reporting questions and answers was 'open to abuse', and that you were hoping to address it at some point.
I was wondering if you could confirm what, or if any, progress had been made at this stage?
As I understand the site rules, three separate users (or 1 user with three ID's) need to a report a post in order to have it pulled.
This effectively allows one user to determine what, and more importantly who, should be allowed access to the site.
It has become clear in recent months that a small minority are using this function to remove the contributions of others users with whom they have a dispute, which is not related to the content of the question or answer.
My own suggestion would be to tighten up the 'New User Registration' process. Simply being asked to provide an email address is frankly an insufficient obstacle to slow down potentially malicious users looking to create multiple accounts.
How about asking for a valid postal code and address, or other additional verifiable information? I appreciate this could also be 'sidestepped', but it would at least provide further hurdles and may act as a deterrent.
Back in April of this year you acknowledged that the current system for reporting questions and answers was 'open to abuse', and that you were hoping to address it at some point.
I was wondering if you could confirm what, or if any, progress had been made at this stage?
As I understand the site rules, three separate users (or 1 user with three ID's) need to a report a post in order to have it pulled.
This effectively allows one user to determine what, and more importantly who, should be allowed access to the site.
It has become clear in recent months that a small minority are using this function to remove the contributions of others users with whom they have a dispute, which is not related to the content of the question or answer.
My own suggestion would be to tighten up the 'New User Registration' process. Simply being asked to provide an email address is frankly an insufficient obstacle to slow down potentially malicious users looking to create multiple accounts.
How about asking for a valid postal code and address, or other additional verifiable information? I appreciate this could also be 'sidestepped', but it would at least provide further hurdles and may act as a deterrent.
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Nemesis9. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
HI Nemesis9
Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated some technical quirks (don't want to give away our secrets tho) that prohibit, to some great extent, malicious reporting. It would be a fallacy to presume that most ABers are victims to this - when unfortunately, it only seems to happen to a select group of posters.
Prohibiting multiple aliases is another issue, however. Though we are constantly working on ways to keep negative posters out - most forums find it difficult to prohibit, in total, multiple aliases.
Asking for addreses, DOB, etc as you mention is not a rock solid solution as we are all inclined to lie. Plus, unless it was absolutely necessary, I would not want to keep a database of addresses. The AB is not that kind of site.
Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated some technical quirks (don't want to give away our secrets tho) that prohibit, to some great extent, malicious reporting. It would be a fallacy to presume that most ABers are victims to this - when unfortunately, it only seems to happen to a select group of posters.
Prohibiting multiple aliases is another issue, however. Though we are constantly working on ways to keep negative posters out - most forums find it difficult to prohibit, in total, multiple aliases.
Asking for addreses, DOB, etc as you mention is not a rock solid solution as we are all inclined to lie. Plus, unless it was absolutely necessary, I would not want to keep a database of addresses. The AB is not that kind of site.
Dear AB Editor
Thanks for such a speedy reply.
I think the majority of users appreciate the difficulty in policing an �open access� site like this one, and realise it would be too costly and unrealistic to employ enough Editors and Moderators to monitor every post, on every thread, in every section, for every minute of the day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, etc, etc.
Understandably, the only practical solution, therefore, is to entrust the users themselves with the responsibility and ability to remove unsuitable content. The dilemma I guess is to try and strike the balance between giving users the power to remove what is inappropriate, without affording the �mischievous� element the ability to misuse it.
I�d be interested to hear the thoughts of other AB users though, is the balance about right, too much, or not enough?
PS. Seeing as you�re the Boss, have some stars!
Thanks for such a speedy reply.
I think the majority of users appreciate the difficulty in policing an �open access� site like this one, and realise it would be too costly and unrealistic to employ enough Editors and Moderators to monitor every post, on every thread, in every section, for every minute of the day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, etc, etc.
Understandably, the only practical solution, therefore, is to entrust the users themselves with the responsibility and ability to remove unsuitable content. The dilemma I guess is to try and strike the balance between giving users the power to remove what is inappropriate, without affording the �mischievous� element the ability to misuse it.
I�d be interested to hear the thoughts of other AB users though, is the balance about right, too much, or not enough?
PS. Seeing as you�re the Boss, have some stars!
Nemesis, I absolutely agree with msot of what you say re the abuse of multiple IDs. Pretty certain I've been the victim of such malicious reporting myself at times, when the most inoccuous question gets removed seconds after it appears. Clearly they are being reported because they are MY questions, not because they are in any way breaching Site Rules (said questions ALWAYS return after review by Ed). I've long believed that as much as is humanly possible should be done to crack down on such multiple IDs as there are no positive benefits to the site or it's users to them being allowed. However, I do understand the difficulty in achieving that.
One further point to consider, I am also aware that if a user or group of users fidn you offensive/annoying/too outspoken etc then they may well agree to each report you and so boom! you can get zapped that way too. They don't bother with their multiple IDs, but merely msn some like (narrow) minded buddies and when 3 of them have reported you, you're gone.
So, although I'm a firm backer of the "AB Users Say No to Multiple IDs" campaign, I don't think it will entirely solve the problem of malicious reporting. Unfortunately, the sneaky, small minded and cowardly will always find a way.........
One further point to consider, I am also aware that if a user or group of users fidn you offensive/annoying/too outspoken etc then they may well agree to each report you and so boom! you can get zapped that way too. They don't bother with their multiple IDs, but merely msn some like (narrow) minded buddies and when 3 of them have reported you, you're gone.
So, although I'm a firm backer of the "AB Users Say No to Multiple IDs" campaign, I don't think it will entirely solve the problem of malicious reporting. Unfortunately, the sneaky, small minded and cowardly will always find a way.........
1 to 3 of 3
