Timeline for Allow recovery from flag hellban
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
55 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 3, 2018 at 22:44 | comment | added | Shog9 | Correct, @TylerH. Also it's a rolling 7 days, so a bunch of flags marked helpful on Monday followed by a bunch of flags declined on Tuesday can still result in a ban next Tuesday. | |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 14:29 | comment | added | TylerH | @Shog9 So for clarification this appears to be 'if X% of your flags are declined in the last 7 days'? I don't flag posts a ton, but when I do it can take a while for them to get handled... 3 of mine just got rejected and none of them were cast by me within the last 7 days (but it still got me post-flag-banned) | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 19:35 | comment | added | Jake Symons | These images are quite outdated. For the benefit of new users what about including the new flag images. Of course the images don't take away the point of the article so it is fine if they are left | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 16:15 | comment | added | Shog9 | Disputed flags get no special treatment, @Randal'Thor. They aren't helpful and they aren't declined; for the purpose of this particular set of tests, they're no different than flags that are still pending or have aged away or been otherwise invalidated. | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 13:47 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor | How do disputed flags factor into this? Since you only talk about percentage declined, does disputed count the same as helpful for the purposes of flag bans/warnings? | |
| Nov 9, 2016 at 18:53 | history | edited | ArtOfCode | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| S Aug 28, 2015 at 3:24 | history | suggested | TylerH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a descriptor (per Shog's comment below and per the question here:http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/286136/flag-decline-warning-appearing-seemingly-outside-the-stated-conditions that makes a difference in whether the banner is shown (unhandled flags aren't considered in the calc)
|
| Aug 27, 2015 at 22:35 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 28, 2015 at 3:24 | |||||
| Jan 22, 2015 at 21:26 | comment | added | user207421 | @KevinMontrose 1. Both 'Review before flagging' or 'review instead of flagging' are used, which seems merely inconsistent, and the former implies that you can review and then flag, when in fact you have to wait out the ban. 2. 'Your most recent flag' isn't correct. It is the most recently processed flag. Not the same thing, and misleading. I have no better wording to suggest, but it needs improving. It also needs reviewing whether implementing it as most-recently-processed is really fair to the user, or really accomplishes the objective. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 12:46 | comment | added | Stijn | The first page of my flagging history spans 3 months and holds roughly 50 flags (if I counted correctly). Two were disputed, my third-most-recent flag was rejected and the rest was helpful. Considering this flagging history, seeing a warning message doesn't feel all that great to be honest. | |
| May 14, 2014 at 21:40 | comment | added | user2284570 | @KevinMontrose : Well, as I said I can put the ~10 screenshot of my olds post, since there is the date of the handling. I just need to find a suitable area; times; and someone to review them (I did it for me). | |
| May 14, 2014 at 21:28 | comment | added | Shog9 | No. But there's also no way for you to tell (at this point) how many flags have been handled in the past week. @user2284570 | |
| May 14, 2014 at 21:05 | comment | added | user2284570 | @Shog9 : Even when processed as helpful and it is the fourth flag (before the 10th) in the past 7 days? I also mean : is it possible to be banned with less than 10 handled flag in the past week? | |
| May 14, 2014 at 20:52 | comment | added | Shog9 | Yes, it is @user2284570. Well, strictly-speaking you could be banned immediately after the 10th flag of yours is processed (in a 7-day window). | |
| May 14, 2014 at 20:39 | comment | added | user2284570 | @Shog9 : With this type of system, is it possible to be banned from flagging because (and immediately after) of getting an helpful flag? | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 4:07 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
switch to generally-accepted tag recommendation
|
| Feb 28, 2014 at 1:58 | comment | added | Shog9 | Correct, @BoltClock'saUnicorn | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 1:58 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | OK, I reread your answer - so it looks like the new system will account for those scenarios by first warning the user. And you'll (well, we will too) monitor this and see how users respond to the warnings. | |
| Feb 27, 2014 at 18:47 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Not sure why I thought close flags weren't in this; I had several different criteria at different times, and I guess I ended up looking at the wrong one last.
|
| Feb 27, 2014 at 16:22 | comment | added | Shog9 | It counts handled flags, @psubsee2003. If you drop 30 flags in the queue before any of them are handled, you're not going to see anything. Note that the normal rate-limits still apply though: new users only get 10 flags a day: if you use them all and they're all declined, you're banned for the rest of the week. | |
| Feb 27, 2014 at 16:21 | comment | added | Shog9 | My last comment was specific to the scenario where someone screws up three times out of 10 with only 10 flags in a given week, @Bolt. Not 3 flags, all failed, in a given week or any other combination of mostly-failure but less than 10 total in a given week (which are much more common). Before we crank the screws on this, it's worth letting it run a while to see how many folks actually pay attention now that we give them a heads-up that there's something to pay attention to. | |
| Feb 27, 2014 at 12:35 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @Shog9 how does this work with active flags? Does this only county handled flags in the last 7 days, or all flags? And if it counts all flags, how do the active flags factor into the formula? | |
| Feb 27, 2014 at 4:46 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | Since your last comment, have you seen more users with at least 3 declined flags in a row? I see a lot of them. I don't want to have to look at the same person knowing they are going to flag "urgent plz help", up to 10 times, before they get banned. I might as well suspend their account entirely at 3 declined flags since they probably won't really learn how to use the site. | |
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:22 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Finally, this is done.
|
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:16 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Finally, this is done.
|
| Sep 9, 2013 at 11:20 | history | bounty ended | gnat | ||
| Jul 24, 2013 at 17:37 | comment | added | Shog9 | There's an even odder edge-case possible for 3 declined flags followed by 7 good ones, @msh210. Our observations so far indicate that these would be fairly rare though. | |
| Jul 24, 2013 at 17:32 | comment | added | msh210 | So someone throws ten flags, of which one is declined (and nine are deemed correct or not yet handled). When he throws his eleventh, he's told "many of your recent flags have been declined". That's an odd message to get under the circumstances. | |
| Jul 23, 2013 at 18:53 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Address common problem with "flag to get my question answered" on SO
|
| Jul 12, 2013 at 0:45 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Arjan: perhaps I need to reword that. The intent is to not bother trying to flag-ban (or rate-limit) people who are already flagging so infrequently that it doesn't matter - the old system was notorious for banning folks who flagged a few times a year. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 11:14 | comment | added | Arjan | As for "Only look at folks who cast at least 10 flags a week", it seems that such was not implemented? My (rare) flags still do get handled. If I'd know they would be ignored, then I'd not flag at all anymore. (It takes me a bit of time to put all details in the very limited allowed character count of "other" flags! Silently ignoring would kind of offend me, to be honest.) | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 8:48 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @Shog9 - little advice. If you go for absolute numbers in your formulas (-> the "10 flags/week" in the first example) try to scale them to the specific site traffic. 10 flags may seem nothing on a site but may be too much for others. | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 15:52 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Ben: the scenarios you're describing (consistent but very low-volume bad flags) are very unusual... And not particularly disruptive. Yes, it allows for a theoretical worst-case scenario involving very short, high-volume bursts of bad-faith flagging... But as Bolt notes, those occurrences are already trivial to detect and deal with. (FWIW: most declined flags by a single person for all time on SO: 292 out of 477; on UX: 15 out of 104) | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 13:54 | comment | added | Zelda | @Yannis that makes sense...maybe provide some way of knowing which users have recently/repeatedly been flag-banned then? If we have to manually suspend offenders it would be nice to know who they are (without having to have manually dismissed billions of their flags) | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 13:13 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | @Yannis: Not to mention we already do that here :) | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 13:11 | comment | added | yannis | @BenBrocka "even the most blatant, deliberate flag abusers can pester us every other week at least 10 times" No they can't, we have a suspend button for that. And yes, I realize that suspending someone for incorrect flags sounds harsh, but so does "blatant, deliberate flag abusers". If they are, suspend and forget. | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 13:03 | comment | added | Zelda | Er, unless there's some major "you done goofed" feedback involved, it seems like this system would mean that A) we can constantly be pestered by crap flags 9 (but not 10) times a week with no reprisal B) even the most blatant, deliberate flag abusers can pester us every other week at least 10 times. Is there any protection here from people that aren't spamming dozens of crap flags all at the same time? Because that's totally not how crap flags have worked in my experience. | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 12:59 | comment | added | Manishearth | Since there's a rewrite going on anyway, could this be implemented? While the "too many of your flags have been declined" message does help fix some of the problems listed there, it won't work for the cases when a good flagger has the occasional declined flag that I want to teach him about, and when a flagger has a helpful flag that I want to give him more info about. | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 12:45 | comment | added | yoozer8 | @Shog9 is this 6-8 weeks away, or is there a more concrete target date? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 22:07 | comment | added | gnat | I see, that's an interesting nuance, I didn't think of it before | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 21:57 | comment | added | Shog9 | @gnat: keep in mind, moderators don't necessarily have this information in front of them. It's pretty easy to see when someone flags 30 short answers with "should be comment" back-to-back, but a bit harder when they're trickling in at a constant rate. Right now, the latter is actually more likely to get folks flag-banned if mods are being too generous with "decline" - this would change that. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 21:50 | vote | accept | yoozer8 | ||
| Apr 5, 2013 at 21:49 | comment | added | gnat | I see, "prolific and extremely wrong". This seems to be covered by guidance as well, doesn't it? I mean, right before all this nice talk about trying to err blah blah, article clearly instructs decline to "deter serial abusers of the flagging system" | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 21:45 | comment | added | Shog9 | That guidance is fine up to the point where folks are prolific and extremely wrong (flagging wrong answers instead of down-voting, using spam flags for off-topic questions, etc) - we don't want to be too harsh, but teaching folks bad habits isn't good either, @gnat. On Stack Overflow and a few other large sites, there are additional concerns since flags feed into review. We'll probably update that guidance eventually - we're moving further and further away from the "max out your flag weight!" system that made declined flags so painful. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 21:38 | comment | added | gnat | my understanding is, the planned changes keep the guidance on marking helpful / declined in September 2011 Moderator Newsletter intact, is that correct? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:44 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @Yannis That should be addressed by the rewrite as well, last I heard. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:44 | comment | added | Shog9 | FWIW: there's only 1 person on Stack Overflow who meets the "ban" criteria right now, and 19 who would be warned (more would've been banned a few days ago though). There are 13 people with 0 flag weight... None with over 100 flags total, all of who took months or even years to hit the flag-ban. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:39 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | One other important aspect of this would be to enable mods to selectively act on specific flags on a post. If the flag feedback gets more prominent, the cases where users receive the flag feedback meant for another user will get more noticeable and more confusing. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:39 | comment | added | yannis | This all is great, but please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, give us a way to dismiss flags on the same posts with different validities. 25% of your flags from the past 7 days seems like it could be affected by bulk approvals / rejections and may lead to unjustified bans. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:38 | comment | added | Shog9 | Thanks @Hydronium - and yes, it'd be a sliding window. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:33 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
screenshots; reword awkward sentence
|
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:29 | comment | added | Hydronium | "This must necessarily include feedback on how you're - " I think you accidentally a word. Also, is the "10 flags a week" a rolling average, cumulative average, per-week number..? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:26 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |