Timeline for Posts destroyed as spam should trigger a retroactive audit failure for previous "No Action Needed" votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2024 at 15:37 | answer | added | Starship | timeline score: 14 | |
| Oct 23, 2015 at 17:06 | comment | added | derobert | Make sure there hasn't been an edit (e.g., revision one looks legit, goes through review, spammer edits spam in after review is done). Not sure if any spammers actually do this... | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 20:51 | comment | added | Brad Larson | @benisuǝqbackwards - The reason I was using a generated and immediately failed audit as a mechanism is that bans have to have some reason to them, and failed audits automatically provide that. Additionally, the severity of the ban would be calculated based on the number of recent failed audits / bans before this one, which is already done for failed audits. Seemed like an easy way for the developers to inject this into the existing system without the addition of a completely new mechanism. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | ben is uǝq backwards | I really dislike your proposed method; you're using a concept for something it wasn't designed for and it just makes the data overly funky. Why not just review ban for a period. There's no need to create non-existent reviews in order to get there. A ban is a different concept than an audit and doesn't have to be created by one. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 19:59 | comment | added | Braiam | Community flags may be added to the package too. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 17:44 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Good idea. I definitely agree with the statute of limitations, though; sometimes we find and destroy old spam, and I wouldn't want to ding a user who has long since learned about that. @enderland I wouldn't agree to an automatic perma-ban because sometimes spam seeds look credible, but letting mods separately perma-ban people would be good. (Currently there are no perma-bans AFAIK.) | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 17:42 | comment | added | Brad Larson | @enderland - Oh, how I wish we could for some people. Max is 30 days, and we've got some people on SO who are now on their 40th+ review ban. We've had to start outright suspending some accounts to get certain high-rep users to stop this. This proposal is more about automating the identification and handling process for people the system may not have caught yet. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 17:31 | comment | added | enderland | This almost sounds to generous. Someone who has already had multiple review bans and robo approves something which is deleted as spam? Don't just slap their wrists, give them a permanent review ban. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 17:24 | comment | added | ʇolɐǝz ǝɥʇ qoq | I find this very useful. Support! | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 17:22 | history | asked | Brad Larson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |