5 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyedwe now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network widetwo keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

4 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyedwe now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network widetwo keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

3 I seee
source | link

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever seeesee

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever seee

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

Let's think about the worst that could happen if an 'innocent' account got caught up in this, which I don't think would happen very often, but it could. Remember, we have over 100 sites, each one has at least 3 moderators.

  • They'd see a lot of junk associated with their account
  • They'd waste time writing contributions that no one would ever see

I'd much rather just not accept content from a host associated with N accounts being destroyed recently for spam unless it's a logged in user with more than 20 rep, or a verified email address. I'd rather someone caught in a false positive see this:

Sorry, we can't accept any more posts from your network today due to chronic spam or abuse. If you're an established user, please simply log in to lift this restriction.

... and be informed by support that:

If you have less than 20 reputation, you can verify your email address by (instructions) in order to lift the restriction

... after demonstrating that they're obviously human, rather than risking them wasting their time writing answers that will never help anyone, or questions that are never really asked.

That's what we have to consider here, cases when we're wrong, and that's why I don't like hellbans. The system should be keeping this stuff out automatically for the most part, and I think we need to continue to strive in that direction. I do not want hellbans implemented at any level in the system, and if it ever got to the point that scale just demanded that we have them, I don't want human beings tasked with pulling that lever. It's just too easy to want to pull it as a solution for other problems.

Remember, we now keep track of why accounts get destroyed, and there's talk about two keys needing turned to be able to clean up spam network wide. As soon as data agrees that one of several implementations to keep this crap severely at bay will work, then I'm more than certain that we'll start moving in that direction.

2 added 100 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link