Charcoal HQ

terdon

2:00 PM

Second most spammed site on the network, after all.

Magisch

So you probably see the point then

John Dvorak

@terdon I think it took a few days to clean up, yes. And that was with our help.

The screenshot in said meta post shows 9 spam posts posted within the span of 46 minutes. I don't want that to recur.

Magisch

nevertheless I see your point

ColleenV

@ArtOfCode OK, thanks! So the "time to deletion" should be accurate as well for the posts that were recorded I assume?

Magisch

It can feel like a invasion if you have a bunch of people just coming in to your site and removing stuff

ArtOfCode

2:02 PM

@ColleenV yep

John Dvorak

So... if a small country (say, native tribes) is invaded by foreign armies, should neighbors let that be just because said country sucks at diplomacy and doesn't have the right treaties?

2

terdon

@JohnDvorak Um. 1. That's about as bad an analogy as I can imagine. Don't be ridiculous. 2. Yes, absolutely. You don't have the right to intervene in a country's affairs unless asked to.

3

But let's not compare spam to mass murder eh?

John Dvorak

it's a murder of the website

terdon

I honestly can't tell if you're serious. I really hope you aren't.

John Dvorak

OK, heavy poisoning?

ArtOfCode

2:05 PM

We have tools and knowledge to be able to help clean up spam. That doesn't mean we're the only ones who should do it, or that the communities are bad at it.

John Dvorak

OK... are we allowed to offer them help then?

terdon

Of course. And that's what you do and are great at.

But you should also be willing to take no for an answer. Even if, in your opinion, "no" is absolutely the wrong answer.

2

John Dvorak

... and do we have to wait for 8 hours until enough of the community had the chance to vote?

terdon

You can then come back with a deservedly gloating "I told you so" when the site comes grovelling to ask for help again.

@JohnDvorak If you've been asked to keep away, then yes. Of course.

Magisch

@terdon I guess the disagreement comes down to autonomy of sites

John Dvorak

2:08 PM

@terdon I mean, what if the site didn't have the chance to cast us away?

terdon

@Magisch Exactly. You all here have a bird's eye view of "The network". So you only see the forest, not the trees.

Sometimes that's a good thing and other times it's less so.

ArtOfCode

We see individual twigs on the trees, but they're not particularly representative.

terdon

@JohnDvorak "cast you away"?

John Dvorak

Are you pro-euthanasia by any chance?

Magisch

@terdon I see all sites as part of SE and I see spam as a SE problem. So I don't see how site autonomy comes into play at all

terdon

2:09 PM

@JohnDvorak Ah, back to life and death comparisons. Constructive.

ArtOfCode

Leeeet's not make this about any more than this is. It's flagging spam on SE, not any form of life and death.

2

Magisch

It's not like anyone is defending the viagra spam from being deleted

terdon

@Magisch I know you do, and that's just it. Other people see it as a site problem.

WELZ

I think a 3 minute timeout is in order

ArtOfCode

meh

Magisch

2:09 PM

@terdon I think that needs to be decided by a CM then.

John Dvorak

@Magisch it is exactly like that, unless I'm misunderstanding something...

terdon

@Magisch Why? SE tends to prefer to let users sort things out. Why would this be any different?

Magisch

Because I think seeing it as a site problem is wrong and shouldn't be an option

Ground rules and all that

terdon

If the CMs wanted to deal with this, they'd have integrated smokey more officially after all.

Magisch

@terdon Same reason sites don't get to opt out of "be nice"

John Dvorak

2:10 PM

@terdon we already have double the API limit

Magisch

@terdon They actually wanted to, we have double the API limit, the hangup is currently dev time and not fundamental disagreement

John Dvorak

the reason we don't have more integration is the CMs didn't feel we needed it

Magisch

IIRC

terdon

@Magisch Very different subjects though. And nobody is saying "we want spam". Some people are saying "we want to deal with spam our own way"

There's a difference there.

ArtOfCode

@terdon Eh on that. I think both parties are open and willing to do it, but dev time constraints are the main thing holding it back at the moment

terdon

2:11 PM

@ArtOfCode Sure, that makes sense

Magisch

@terdon That's fundamentally the same as "we want to deal with rude people our own way"

SE doesn't permit one, I don't think it should the other

John Dvorak

^

terdon

@Magisch Yes, yes it is. As long as they're being dealt with, if a community wants to deal with rudeness by first warning and then suspending, it's up to them.

For example.

Magisch

spam is about as universal a rule as exists on SE

John Dvorak

@terdon I don't count 8 hours of unusable site as "being dealt with"

ArtOfCode

2:12 PM

Individual sites are individual communities, and on the majority of the network, the majority of Charcoal people are not part of those communities. Pretty sure all of us can agree on that.

terdon

@Magisch I don't understand why you're discussing this. Nobody is arguing in favor of spam. People are arguing about how best to deal with it and whether having an automated system do everything is better or not.

Magisch

@terdon Not really. There are guidelines in place for what you're supposed to do with rude people, and a site for instance saying "but we don't delete any rude stuff, we just edit it" would probably be reigned in by CMs quite quickly and hard

Henders

@JohnDvorak Unusable site being defined as what..? That seems a bit of a stretch.

John Dvorak

@Magisch would it, actually?

terdon

@Magisch Um, no. That's actually what happens and even what is recommended in many cases.

Magisch

2:13 PM

@terdon You're not arguing against the automation. You're arguing against charcoal reviewing on these sites at all

John Dvorak

@Henders By that I mean the front page covered in spam

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in body: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function register_nav_menus() by Swagatika on wordpress.SE

fp- by ArtOfCode

terdon

If a post is fine and just has a swear word, the right thing® is to remove the swearword, not delete the post and penalize the user who had no reason to know we have anti profanity rules.

Henders

@JohnDvorak Except I thought a few downvotes would bump it from the front page..?

terdon

@Magisch No, no I'm not.

Magisch

2:14 PM

not dealing with spam quickly and efficiently enough is a criterion for site closure, after all

John Dvorak

@Henders Who casts those few downvotes? Not us

JAD

@Henders if someone can downvote, why not flag?

terdon

I'm arguing against charcoal wishing to do its own thing without taking the community's opinion into account. That's what I'm arguing against. Against what comes across as "we know best, you shut up" attitude.

John Dvorak

@terdon I thought you did...

terdon

@JohnDvorak No. AU without charcoal flags would be horrible.

Magisch

2:15 PM

@terdon I don't ask the opinion of every single tag community on SO either

We're asking the opinion of SE as a whole

terdon

Smaller sites still figuring themselves out can do without comments, yes. But that's something else again.

Magisch

That should be enough. Since spam is a network wide issue, consulting the entire network should suffice

ArtOfCode

@terdon To be clear: this is not something that's going to happen. We absolutely will take communities' opinions into account; if they want it at current levels or off, that's fine. The current debate is more about whether the extra flags should be opt-in or opt-out.

Cerbrus

@terdon You're aware these autoflags are only cast when some very strict conditions are met, right?

Henders

@JAD A lot of people don't know that you can flag things. Especially if all the spam or rude posts are already dealt with before you see them. Why would you flag something if you've never done it before?

JAD

2:16 PM

@Henders fair enough

terdon

@ArtOfCode I know.

@Cerbrus Of course.

Magisch

When we're talking about autoflag material, there's no way it's not spam

Cerbrus

So, what's deleted is 99.75% certain to be absolute garbage

terdon

But if people want to be idiots, you should allow them to be. That's the basic point here.

John Dvorak

As for opt in v. opt out, I'd say opt out because we don't want sites that don't know of us to suffer.

Cerbrus

2:17 PM

Why would you not want deletion of that automated?

Magisch

99,75% of the time it's so blatantly spam that any site on the network would have deleted it as spam 100% of the time

The borderline cases with like self promotion or a salvageable answer are not in that bucket

JAD

I have a feeling is not so much the clear cut spam that gets autoflagged, but the edge cases.

John Dvorak

@terdon if they opt out, it's not us overriding that. CMs might veto the opt out, though, and we'll respect the veto instead.

ArtOfCode

I think they should be opt-out, because otherwise it's fairly likely that a bunch of sites will never build enough support to get the benefit from extra flags (whereas building support for turning them off is much easier)

Cerbrus

@terdon Would you argue the same for SpamRam (SE's built-in spam prevention) being opt-in?

thesecretmaster

2:18 PM

SpamRam is much more conservative. They're different systems.

ArtOfCode

We're not SE, people, good to keep that in mind. Our systems have parallels with SE's, but they're not the same.

terdon

@Cerbrus My own opinion is that I don't see much benefit. You folks have worked yourself out of a job. So dropping the average survival time of spam by 10 seconds just isn't worth any risk no matter how undeniably tiny it is.

Petter Friberg

\o Hiya allz, you know I love SD and for years I have been checking reports. What we never need to miss is that every community has voted for their moderators, these moderators spend lot of time to create good content and the only way to successfully improve the content is to collaborate with them. I know a flag x site would need some dev time, but then again it's mostly a properties file.

Magisch

@terdon Less people see it. That's a strict benefit, no?

terdon

@Cerbrus No, because SE is SE. But even there, if a community really wanted it, then meh. It's their call, stupid as that may be.

John Dvorak

2:19 PM

@terdon Are we talking about opting out of autoflags, or out of any charcoal intervention?

ArtOfCode

@terdon you've probably already heard, but... we're not looking at the average drop (50s -> 10s) as much as we are the outlier drop (210s -> 21s).

Cerbrus

@terdon don't forget the reduced incentive for spammers, if their spam is deleted within seconds compared to minutes

terdon

@Magisch To me? Not one that is worth even the 0.0001% of deleting non spam. It's just fine already.

@ArtOfCode I know.

John Dvorak

@terdon CMs may shut down any site. "Too tolerant to spam" might be one reason to.

terdon

And again, the fact that the outliers are <10 and already have a life time that's less than 35 minutes makes it a very minor issue for me.

@JohnDvorak Then that site will have asked for it. Silly buggers.

Cerbrus

2:21 PM

@terdon What's the difference? Why wouldn't you make SpamRam opt-in, but would you make MS / SD opt-in?

ArtOfCode

@Cerbrus because we're not SE.

John Dvorak

@terdon I think CMs will force them to accept our assistance instead...

terdon

That.

Cerbrus

So?

ArtOfCode

SE gets to dictate that SpamRam is used because they own the place. We do not.

Henders

2:21 PM

^

terdon

And you may have noticed, the communities tend to kick back even when SE adds new stuff.

People get very protective of their communities.

And don't necessarily see them only as "part of SE" but also see them as their own thing within SE. This is a distinction that goes away when you're looking at "The Network".

Cerbrus

I think this whole project has been exceptionally well received by community managers, moderators, and users in general. The only real kick-back I see are a vocal minority, usually with arguments saying: I want to decide for myself. To which I'd say: You can opt out at any time!

terdon

@Cerbrus Of course it's been well received! It's bloody brilliant!

Cerbrus

To be blunt: Forcing "us" to go "opt-in" is rather selfish towards other sites.

ArtOfCode

I think you've been hearing without listening...

John Dvorak

2:24 PM

proposed conclusion: It should be CMs' call whether Charcoal is opt-in, opt-out or "for the greater good"

Cerbrus

@JohnDvorak this

terdon

@Cerbrus The only thing that's been suggested to be opt-in is raising the autoflags to 5, not the presence of smokey in general.

ArtOfCode

We're being asked to respect the fact that communities, not necessarily individual users, may want to change whether and how they get this or not. Which is entirely reasonable.

Cerbrus

@terdon Why the distinction?

terdon

@Cerbrus Seriously?

ArtOfCode

2:25 PM

@Cerbrus The benefit is more questionable.

terdon

That's what this entire conversation has been about from day one.

Cerbrus

@ArtOfCode The counter arguments have (so far) come from individuals.

John Dvorak

@terdon oh, then I don't mind that much if it's opt-in. I still do mind a touch, and for the very same reason, though. Sites might not know about us.

thesecretmaster

What do y'all think of making 4 flags the global default, but letting sites opt to have 3 or 5?

WELZ

Why not do a test of removing autoflags altogether on certain communities and see the ttd rate

terdon

2:26 PM

@WELZ What would that prove? Nobody's denying that the autoflags are working like a dream.

ArtOfCode

@Cerbrus Of course they have. A community is not a sentient entity; someone needs to present an opinion for the community to share it.

Cerbrus

Why wasn't this made configurable when we went up to 3 auto flags?

John Dvorak

@thesecretmaster seems fine

Cerbrus

@ArtOfCode addendum: lacking backup from other moderators from the same site.

terdon

@Cerbrus Because 3 leaves considerably more wriggle room for possible errors.

Cerbrus

2:26 PM

@terdon What's the difference?

ArtOfCode

@Cerbrus someone still needs to present an opinion.

thesecretmaster

@JohnDvorak I'd build it, if that is a thing that would be useful.

ArtOfCode

already exists, just no front-end to it

Cerbrus

Why is 5 flags an issue, but not 3? Why isn't a single automated flag an issue?

terdon

@Cerbrus Have you read any of the various meta discussions on smokey and on autoflags?

Magisch

2:27 PM

@terdon chat rooms do the same. Then they get nuked

Cerbrus

@terdon No, of course I haven't

Duh.

Mithrandir

@WELZ we already experimented with different autoflag numbers (1-5) to get average ttd

Magisch

SE communities only get self determination to an extremely limited extent

thesecretmaster

@ArtOfCode I meant that I'd build a front end. I know that we have the capability to

John Dvorak

@Magisch I imagine chat rooms have less authority than SE sites

ArtOfCode

2:28 PM

yeah, that'd be a useful thing whatever the outcome of this

Cerbrus

My point: If you make it opt-in, at least make it completely configurable per site.

ArtOfCode

It is, always has been

Cerbrus

Well, opt-in configurable

John Dvorak

configurable through a dashboard without our involvement?

ArtOfCode

@JohnDvorak no, configurable by Undo

Magisch

2:29 PM

I don't think opt in works. I think it should be opt out and only if a large and broad community AND moderator consensus is reached

Cerbrus

@JohnDvorak Opening it up to the opinion of a single user

Magisch

And after consulting the CMs

John Dvorak

I think a bit of friction is desirable, so that a community weighs in before one of its mods starts tweaking numbers as they please.

Cerbrus

I guess I just don't get why some people are so protective of their ability to delete spam themselves.

John Dvorak

@Cerbrus they're afraid non-spam would get deleted

ArtOfCode

2:31 PM

Neither do I. But not understanding a point of view doesn't mean it's wrong or not of value.

2

Cerbrus

It's like someone disabling ABS in their car. Unless you intend on taking a risk with said car, you're not gonna disable it.

@ArtOfCode You're wrong ;-)

Henders

@Cerbrus If you use your car in a slightly different way to the normal user, maybe you would want to disable ABS.

John Dvorak

@Cerbrus What do you mean? I always drive without ABS. I get points for drifting.

Cerbrus

@Henders See my edit to that line

ArtOfCode

@Cerbrus You jest, but it's actually kinda serious. This is why we come across as combative sometimes. Respectfully disagreeing is fine, but that requires recognising that others' points of view are not necessarily wrong or invalid because you disagree with them.

Cerbrus

2:33 PM

We're not the only ones guilty of that, though.

thesecretmaster

@ArtOfCode I was thinking that it's mod configurable, but requires approval by a MS admin before it actually becomes active.

Cerbrus

That goes for both sides.

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more: IS IT SAFE TO USE? by Letwo 19 on drupal.SE

tpu- by WELZ

ArtOfCode

@thesecretmaster meh, easier to just let admins do it and mods can ping us

SmokeDetector

tpu- by Cerbrus

ArtOfCode

2:34 PM

@Cerbrus It does, but one side has been more guilty of it than the other in this debate, and it ain't terdon.

WELZ

This is too complicated to follow -_- (maybe someone will write up a short summary - once this is finished. on what happened etc.)

John Dvorak

@ArtOfCode It's interesting you consider Terdon a party for themself.

Petter Friberg

With collaboration you go further. I don't actually see it as strange that some minor community moderators like to have a look at stuff going on in "their" site (where they spend tons of time to keep it great). You need to understand that also giving any random person in this chat capacity to unilaterally delete a post is a big step. Let's be honest there is and always have been users with to aggressive flagging behavior.

Cerbrus

@ArtOfCode "you're wrong" (I respectfully disagree)

Henders

I think we could all benefit from trying to understand each other's view points. I've been sitting in the background reading a lot of these discussions and I can see why some people feel attacked when they disagree with us. If we have a good system, what harm does it do to allow people to say they want to opt-in? If it's a good enough system, they'll want to opt in.

The last thing I want is for Charcoal to come across as 'we know better' so maybe we could watch out for that a little bit and understand it's difficult to get your point across in a room of advocates. Piling on doesn't help.

ArtOfCode

2:36 PM

@JohnDvorak don't read further into that than I meant. Terdon's the only one here debating it with us, that's all.

JAD

@WELZ this is a good place to start:github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/issues/1665

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer: Is "blue scorpion venom" a legitimate treatment for cancer? by Donna Krupp on skeptics.SE

tpu- by Glorfindel

Cerbrus

@PetterFriberg "You need to understand that also giving any random person in this chat to unilaterally delete a post is a big step." Imo, that's overstating the power of that user.

John Dvorak

@ArtOfCode sorry; was in jest

ArtOfCode

@Cerbrus the way to respectfully disagreeing is "I think you're wrong because"

thesecretmaster

2:37 PM

@ArtOfCode But, for example, if mods want to go to 5 flags, do you even want to review that? I thought y'all only want to review if a site is scaling down.

John Dvorak

@Cerbrus agreed. The biggest responsibility is on our AI, not the guy with a finishing blow.

Cerbrus

@ArtOfCode I didn't really intend on going down that rabbit hole.

WELZ

!!/watch greenhouseherbalclinic\.com

SmokeDetector

@WELZ Added greenhouseherbalclinic\.com to watchlist

ArtOfCode

@thesecretmaster Yes. I want to know about any change to settings around autoflagging.

Petter Friberg

2:38 PM

@Cerbrus hmm if auto flagged, anyone can nuke it and with enough people in chat someone will flag, I have seen it a thousand times... Personally I don't care nuke it all, but it's more then understandable that some moderators team like to have a saying on their home turf.

Glorfindel

!!/blacklist-website w\W?w\W?w\Wgreenhouseherbalclinic\Wcom

SmokeDetector

@Glorfindel Blacklisted w\W?w\W?w\W<i>greenhouseherbalclinic\W</i>com

John Dvorak

@ArtOfCode But, should we allow mods to go from default-4 to 5 without asking their meta first?

Glorfindel

@SmokeDetector uh oh ...

@WELZ I'm not sure if that would work since they're obfuscating their links.

John Dvorak

@Glorfindel what did you do? WHAT DID YOU DO?

Cerbrus

2:39 PM

@PetterFriberg And my point is that they've always had a say

ArtOfCode

@JohnDvorak seems fair that if we're asking for a meta post to downgrade then we should ask for one to upgrade too

John Dvorak

@ArtOfCode what if the default isn't four, but soft-four?

SmokeDetector

CI on 91a6685 succeeded. Message contains 'autopull', pulling...

ArtOfCode

@JohnDvorak what's soft four?

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector ] SmokeDetector started at rev 91a6685 (SmokeDetector: Auto blacklist of w\W?w\W?w\W<i>greenhouseherbalclinic\W</i>com by Glorfindel --autopull) (running on teward/Solar Flare)

Restart: API quota is 13616.

John Dvorak

2:40 PM

@ArtOfCode it's like four, but it can be bent into the shape of a five once

thesecretmaster

@ArtOfCode But you already would have network wide approval for 5. Isn't that enough?

Petter Friberg

@Cerbrus darn just setup a properties file auto flags x site, fill it with 3, ping moderators in teacher lounge and ask what they want... you can only do that much.... and 1 day I will also convince Art to setup flagging accounts, instead of using other users flag :)

ArtOfCode

@PetterFriberg heh... that one day is a long time off yet

but yes... while we don't use these heathenly things you Java folks call properties files, we have something on those lines ;)

Cerbrus

@PetterFriberg I guess I'm mostly debating against the "opt-in". The rest is already configurable.

John Dvorak

something called a database? :P

ArtOfCode

2:43 PM

yeah, that thing

app.config file

:D

settings.json.txt

@Cerbrus don't call it opt-in, but rather "default per-site autoflag count".

Petter Friberg

@ArtOfCode I will ping you in a week about this ;), not using other peeps accounts will save you some head ache and make SD even greater :D

ArtOfCode

2:44 PM

@PetterFriberg oh there've been long protracted debates about that one

JAD

opt-in kinda implies we do nothing if they don't want to, but if I understand correctly, if they don't want to, we keep sitting at 3 flags.

Cerbrus

@PetterFriberg As was "mentioned" on your answer: That'll probably end in a similarly heated "sockpuppeting" debate

Petter Friberg

@Cerbrus it's more socket puppet now

Undo

@thesecretmaster It's another case of solving a problem that doesn't exist yet. If there was any question about technical accuracy I'd accept it as a possibility, but we're already going down the path of the previous meta post: Procedural "you're talking to the wrong people" concerns instead of anything substantial.

quartata

OK I think something we need to make clear is that we only cast 5 auto flags at 300 weight or above. We literally have never had an FP there.

Magisch

2:46 PM

@ArtOfCode There is something like an "overton window" for discourse on SE too

Undo

@quartata one.

thesecretmaster

I'm just thinking that more transperency will be a good thing.

quartata

I respect "not wanting to be backed into a corner" but people are scared

Magisch

I think the point of view that someone should get to opt out of spam protection is outside that window

quartata

@Undo all right, one. In 3 years.

ArtOfCode

2:47 PM

@thesecretmaster want a project?

Cerbrus

@PetterFriberg Well, yea, no... I see what you mean, but as I said, the current system relies on the trust a lot of users place in the system, and the trust SE places in the system

Glorfindel

@Undo which one? (I'm curious ...)

Cerbrus

Trust ^ 2

quartata

They're rightfully so.

Cerbrus

@quartata Isn't that in the SE meta question?

John Dvorak

2:47 PM

Now... as for the question as I understood it originally - should we allow sites to opt out of being reported here entirely should they so desire? (pro-choice) I'm totally fine with "nah, bad idea" but I want to see if there's any support.

Cerbrus

@JohnDvorak Yes.

WELZ

@Glorfindel yes, but just in case.... (they may slip up)

quartata

@Cerbrus it's phrased as a "perhaps." people wil glaze right over that if it's phrased like a weak conditional

thesecretmaster

@ArtOfCode I was thinking about emails

Cerbrus

If they wanna go race without ABS...

quartata

2:48 PM

And so far they consistently have

John Dvorak

@Cerbrus ...drat

Cerbrus

Yea, sorry, I'm completely in favor of having it configurable

Just not opt-in

John Dvorak

@Cerbrus even if they crash into a wall = get vetoed out of existence by CM?

ArtOfCode

@thesecretmaster Monica was thinking about chat notifications. Wondered whether you might be able to figure something with ChatX, possibly a once-a-day or -week bot

Petter Friberg

@Cerbrus baah as for any bot, there is a lot of people that just want to flagzz, I have seen it a lot (get the gold badge). I'm always in for stuff that don't make it a game. You have +220 in list, my bet 1/2 of them don't give crap other then the flagzzz.

SmokeDetector

2:49 PM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected: Serious why did it happen by Luke Mawer on stackoverflow.com

tpu- by Glorfindel

quartata

@PetterFriberg the thing about bot accounts for flagging is that we would need way way more than just 3 with the association bonus since they will run out of flags

It would never be tractable, it took forever to get Smokey itself the assoc bonus

thesecretmaster

@ArtOfCode I'd get chat rate limited really fast

Petter Friberg

@quartata I don't think so, you get 10 x site in the beginning then it grows to 100...

John Dvorak

@quartata create dynamically, and be donated rep by CM fiat?

Cerbrus

@JohnDvorak Then we can point and say "I told you so"

John Dvorak

2:50 PM

but then again it would be easier to donate those accounts flag power instead

quartata

@PetterFriberg We get more than 10 posts on a given site during the spam hour

thesecretmaster

Actually... I have an idea

Petter Friberg

@quartata with auto-flags?

ArtOfCode

@thesecretmaster Nah. Comment and find out what Monica wants, but a few summary messages like the lines at the top of the site dash should be enough. Link to the dash as well, and if they see anything out of order they can go visit the dash for detail.

quartata

Yes

Here one second

Undo

2:51 PM

@PetterFriberg Pretty sure Drupal does that

@ArtOfCode If Monica is really concerned about badges... just cap it at 79 flags

Petter Friberg

Do some stats, I can only immagine SO, that post are nuked fairly quick but within a few days you have 100 flags x site...

ArtOfCode

@Undo Badges? Don't think so...

Undo

I really like the idea of having Smokey accounts to both remove the badge incentive (yes that's a thing for some people) and communicate clearly to mods where the flags are coming from. — Monica Cellio 44 mins ago

Cerbrus

@PetterFriberg Nowhere near that many, actually

ArtOfCode

ah

Undo

2:52 PM

But yes, if we were to do that it'd be cries of sockpuppeting heard from miles away.

ArtOfCode

Yeah, I'm kinda not interested in having that debate at the same time

Quick poll: those of you with the global flag summary script, can you give me your average accuracy?

quartata

22 on AU and 11 on SU in a mere 10 hours

@PetterFriberg

Henders

@ArtOfCode 99.84%

Petter Friberg

@Undo I don't think so, it's the other way around!

@quartata so in 1 week you are covered!

Glorfindel

@ArtOfCode 99.5%

quartata

2:55 PM

Hmm we could probably make a query

JAD

@ArtOfCode 99.08%

Undo

Gotta get that featured soon.

Petter Friberg

I doing a bot that flags for my chat friends or I doing a bot that flags for it self (using multiple accounts since meta agree)... Which do you think the community would like?

Andy

@ArtOfCode 99.70

Cerbrus

Thanks for the reply on that answer, @Undo

ArtOfCode

2:56 PM

@PetterFriberg the former, because sockpuppeting

quartata

I have to say I really don't see where the chat aspect becomes a problem

Floern

@ArtOfCode 99.92%

Petter Friberg

@ArtOfCode So it's not socket pupping having a bot flagging with multiple other users?

ArtOfCode

@PetterFriberg no, because those users agreed to be responsible for those flags.

Cerbrus

@ArtOfCode 97.7

Magisch

2:58 PM

@ArtOfCode 99,54%

Cerbrus

Declined flags are mostly custom ones

Petter Friberg

@ArtOfCode I don't think that would fly as a general rule on meta...

Magisch

@PetterFriberg we asked CMs about this specifically before doing it

quartata

My accuracy is probably pretty poor since I flag a lot of shitty posts that then get answers for whatever reason and I retract them figuring that people won't bother to close at that point

ArtOfCode

@PetterFriberg it was less controversial than bot accounts when we had that discussion last time round.

quartata

2:59 PM

Also a good chunk of my flags age away

Petter Friberg

@ArtOfCode where di you have that?

ArtOfCode

@PetterFriberg here, GH, MSE

all over the place when we started flagging

Transcript for