I wondered maybe if we could do this with a couple queries and distribute the effort to flag these around some people
as much as I like doing this it's 80+ serial upvoters, another 20-30 voting rings, and if I'm to start flagging serial downvoting too another 80-100 of those, every week
(which can be an attractive nuisance worthy of blacklisting if it is dominantly used by spammers, but then you need to provide some evidence that this is indeed the case)
@YvetteColomb It goes by whoever has put tpu- on the post as well as the autoflagged, the first 3 are auto flags and then me and @Byte flagged through fire
@gparyani There is a check in place to ensure no autoflag is cast on an account with moderator powers. So if you for instance moderate SU and sign up for all sites, it'll auto-skip SU when it comes to autoflagging
if you click through, they are often order forms directed to a specific geography, which can be US or Canada or France or Germany or etc but generally what is sometimes called the "developed world" with a straight face
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs we can obviously only speculate, but it's unlikely that a purely Indian operation would have any interest in sending free placebo pills to the US
The '6' row showing up in the query kinda scared me, but it's fine.
New query:
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT q.id) AS 'PostCount',
MAX(q.flag_count) AS 'FlagCount',
AVG(TIMESTAMPDIFF(SECOND, q.created_at, q.deleted_at)) AS 'ATTD'
FROM (
SELECT
t.id,
t.created_at,
t.deleted_at,
t.reason_weight,
sites.max_flags_per_post,
COUNT(DISTINCT flag_logs.id) AS 'flag_count'
FROM (
SELECT
posts.id,
posts.site_id,
posts.created_at,
posts.deleted_at,
SUM(reasons.weight) AS 'reason_weight'
FROM posts
INNER JOIN posts_reasons ON posts.id = posts_reasons.post_id
I just realized that Microsoft has a product called "Teams". I'm surprised that SE wanted to rename Channels to have the same name and the same purpose - team communication. That seems like something that could be a liability.
I was going through the First Posts review queue, and was simply leaving a comment on this question.
Didn't Upvote, didn't downvote, didn't even click No Action Needed.
For some reason, I had failed the audit because I was leaving a comment to the OP.
Seems a little extreme to me, but I thin...
It's low volume enough that discouraging a contributor like the OP of the flagged post is a really big deal. And worth a considerable number of crappy posts to avoid.
@terdon Some context on how that reason works: It's only active on 1-rep users (like most of what we do), so that guy will never be caught again anyway
And the chances of having crappy posts of that sort on a site like this is very very small. Such tolls are usually accompanied by peer-reviewed publications assessing their value.
@Undo Which won't make much difference if he never comes back.
The first message by David Postill was quite clear with bolded text telling I must disclose or it will be flagged as spam. It sounded quite strong to me and actually I was thought about just deleting the answer and leave. A formultaion such as "Can you add a note that you are the author, please?" would have sounded much better. I already read elsewhere that SE was not very welcoming to new users, and so far I agree.
The root issue is that an action which would have been the right one in 90% of the sites on the network isn't really right in this one. So I am asking you to let us, the community actually involved in that site, to sort it out ourselves.
@ArtOfCode And I'm saying I am absolutely fine with that. Bring on the spam. I would much rather have spam then discourage even a single new user.
@Andy Um. No, I also have several years of experience in the field and with other online forums of that field so I do know the sort of thing that will be posted.
We really don't have much of "whohoo, my program is the bestest, use it everyone"
Put it this way: even with the reason enabled, if nobody had commented then this conversation wouldn't be happening. That sorta points at the comment as the problem, not the reason - and we can adjust the text of comments easily enough, even easier if they're form comments.
@Andy My point is that I don't consider that a bad thing necessarily. More importantly, if and when that turns out to be a problem, you can switch the rule on again.
I'd much rather you just turned off the one rule you already said was easy to do. Assuming it is indeed easy to do. And then not post on meta but let me open the meta discussion on this I was planning to.
I was going through the First Posts review queue, and was simply leaving a comment on this question.
Didn't Upvote, didn't downvote, didn't even click No Action Needed.
For some reason, I had failed the audit because I was leaving a comment to the OP.
Seems a little extreme to me, but I thin...
