Timeline for The time of automatic review bans should be increased with every new ban
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2013 at 23:06 | history | edited | Bernhard Barker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 320 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2013 at 22:12 | comment | added | Dave Alperovich | I'm all in favor of MORE AUDITS. Even more frequent suspensions. The answer should be more aggressive audits and minor suspensions. You want to educate, not ban or turn off. I'm speaking as someone who's been suspended for good reason and bad. There are different users with different goals, But take a look at the ridiculous backlog of Close-Vote reviews and tell me how many 3K+ users you want to ban or suspend for a year. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 21:47 | comment | added | Bernhard Barker | @DaveA We have a (probably huge) problem with users approving content they shouldn't. Admittedly the problem here is probably the fact that audits aren't extensive enough, but audits 'growing some teeth' isn't bad. But tell me, is this really worse than what's currently implemented? The purpose of this proposal is actually to help reviewers who review a lot (with 'growing some teeth' if you keep failing in a short time frame). Yes, I want to ban these people - if they don't know what's appropriate for the site, they probably shouldn't be performing MODERATION tasks in the first place. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 21:30 | comment | added | Dave Alperovich | This idea hurts SO community. The idea that users are indentured servants misses the point. People who have earned a certain score (supposedly proving a level of understanding) are taking their time out to do something communal. You want to ban people like this? You think there is an abundance of users with scores of 2K, 3K, 5K? | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 16:00 | comment | added | user206222 | That is fair. Not totally sure it would work, but it makes sense to put it here. | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 15:07 | comment | added | Bernhard Barker | @Emrakul Well, it doesn't have to be 30 audits (or even just 1 failed for that matter). No-one else suggested something similar, so I thought I'd put this out there. | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 14:58 | comment | added | user206222 | Passing 30 audits in a row is extremely difficult, depending on the queue, even for me. Audits are often arbitrarily incorrect, so I'm not sure this would work well in practice. | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 9:10 | history | answered | Bernhard Barker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |