Timeline for Warn users that they might be committing vote fraud
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 21, 2016 at 21:14 | vote | accept | John | ||
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Sep 9, 2013 at 20:57 | comment | added | Hannele | Perhaps, this is only a warning that should only be given some small, set, number of times (once?). | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 20:30 | comment | added | LittleBobbyTables - Au Revoir | I'd be for this only if it the warning was in the form of an annoying animated paper clip. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 20:15 | comment | added | Richard Tingle | Perhaps warn after the reversal script hits them, the linked person seems to have been reverted many many times without realising it | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 20:13 | answer | added | JDB | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 20:05 | comment | added | jscs | I would say rather put the warning limits above the actual limits. If the reversal script would be triggered after 3 votes, then don't warn until 7 votes. Since there's no true penalty for good actors, hat achieves the same effect in their case, while keeping the secret in the case of bad actors (who, as has already been noted, can probably work out the magic number easily enough anyways). | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 19:47 | answer | added | Mad Scientist | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 19:41 | comment | added | Johnny Bones | I just got hit with a round of serial downvoting on SE not long after I posted my last question on Meta. It looks like they were doing a few at a time in the hopes of flying under the radar. So, why let people know exactly where the radar is set? If they're douchy enough to serial downvote, they're gonna do it any way they can. Once you let people know what that threshold is, it's gonna make it easier for them. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 19:35 | answer | added | Andrew BarberMod | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:17 | comment | added | jball | There are possibly a large number of semi-malicious users that, upon seeing a warning, will desist because they realize the system is watching them and they don't want to run afoul. And there are likely a number of non-malicious users that would like to know before they crossed the line too. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:17 | comment | added | jball | The idea that warning every user that they are veering towards prohibited behavior patterns will overwhelmingly help malicious users seems both cynical and naive to me at the same time. A truly malicious user can already spade the system by watching former victim's reputation histories and is probably not overly deterred by the current obscurity. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:15 | comment | added | Servy | @ŁukaszLech Such cases are simple enough to see when a mod is investigating. The votes might be reversed, but such a case is rather unlikely to result in bans, since it really is natural voting. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:11 | comment | added | Cjxcz Odjcayrwl | I don't think it would be adequate. It's just assuming that everything that triggers red alert is malicious. There are some great experts dominating smaller tags. For example. BalusC has provided the great number of answers to the questions I was googled, so it's quite probably a new user, learning JSF, would have over a half of votes to him, without targeting him in any way. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:08 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @John We don't really want to be obsessing over voting that much. That way lies madness. Moderators don't have access to the precise voting info required to fully investigate vote fraud except in the most obvious of cases, and putting up more and more red flags on users wouldn't scale very well to larger sites. There are only so many hours in a day and so many mods. :) | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:06 | comment | added | John | @AnnaLear and others: If someone is triggering a (sensitive) warning often, that would suggest they'd need to be watched more carefully, wouldn't it? | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:03 | comment | added | Troyen | @jball So you downvote someone until you get the warning (because it triggers before the downvotes will get reverted). Then wait some time and do it again. Now you can serially downvote users and avoid having the script detect and revert it. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:03 | comment | added | Bart | @WendiKidd I'd reserve it for a user whose edits are frequent but not substantial: "Whoa camel, what's up with all the bumps?". | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:02 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | @WendiKidd: youtube.com/watch?v=E1sgNRmL-5A | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:01 | comment | added | John | @WendiKidd That's a Yosemite Sam expression. If this is implemented, I'd expect they'd say something different. :) | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:00 | comment | added | WendiKidd | Am I the only one stuck on the word camel? What attribute is being implied by that? Speed? Ignorance? If asked to describe a camel I don't know what I'd come up with ;) | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 18:00 | comment | added | jball | @AnnaLear The threshold for a warning can surely be a lot looser than and therefore not directly revealing of the voting fraud thresholds? | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 17:58 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | The downside is that you're also going to warn people who are voting maliciously and therefore will be able to adapt to the system and fly under the radar more easily. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 17:54 | history | asked | John | CC BY-SA 3.0 |