Timeline for Make comment flags less stupid
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 26, 2017 at 14:03 | comment | added | user310756 | @Wrzlprmft I agree meta.stackexchange.com/questions/291555/… | |
| Jan 16, 2017 at 18:44 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | "Irrelevant" and "superfluous" mean almost the same thing, but "obsolete" has a different nuance. So to keep the label short while being as informative as possible, consider "obsolete or irrelevant". As Seven says, the other terms can be seen as negative, but "obsolete" is neutral (or even sometimes positive -- hey, I got the OP to clarify that!). | |
| Jan 16, 2017 at 14:41 | history | rollback | TarynStaffMod |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| Jan 16, 2017 at 14:38 | history | edited | Wrzlprmft | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Consistent formatting of flag names, some further stuff.
|
| Jan 16, 2017 at 14:31 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft | Note that I get that this is what you are trying to improve, but so far there is little guidance (if any) as to how to use comment flags and before said auto-flag there was no reason to guide anybody on the difference between not constructive and too chatty as there wasn’t any (see this very question). | |
| Jan 16, 2017 at 14:29 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft | I've seen comments like […] all flagged as not constructive, when really they should have been flagged as too chatty. – And how should anybody know this? At least your first and third example comment do not contain any constructive information (the second is difficult to evaluate without context). They are not aiming to improve anything, except the mood of the addressee. These comments are not constructive in the generally accepted meaning of those words. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 18:36 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I think that names matter though. The name is the label we're asking them to brand a fellow user('s contribution) with, so we don't want to discourage it with a name that may be perceived as negative. The description will often be skipped if the name already decided someone whether it's right or not, too. A neutral name helps the flagger accurately identify a neutral flag. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 18:27 | comment | added | Taryn StaffMod | @SevenSidedDie I think that is encompassed in the description that would also be included, no? And as Shog mentioned in his comment, possibly it should be unnecessary instead of superfluous. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Having processed many flags on a fairly friendly site, I'm concerned that "Irrelevant or Superfluous" will be avoided by courteous users. They're kind of dismissive words, so using that flag easily feels like saying "your comment is garbage!", which could discourage flagging innocuous comments. I'd prefer seeing "obsolete" leading that name to soften it: Obsolete, Irrelevant or Superfluous. Ultimately I think this makes the category clearer: not useful or helpful, but no harm, no foul. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 15:23 | comment | added | Taryn StaffMod | @BradLarson I get what you're saying, my issue is I don't think 'noisy' is the correct term. Saying a comment is noisy might not be the best way to describe something for non-native speakers. I've been trying to find something that encompasses the no value, unnecessary definition that we're trying to capture. I think that adding guidance to the dialog might help with some of the 'I'm flagging this for....' and it's for the wrong reason. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 15:19 | comment | added | Brad Larson | Personally, I like the idea of using "noisy" as a flag category. I worry that some people will read "irrelevant" as "technically incorrect" and use that as permission to start flagging comments they think are wrong. I'd say the largest category of comment flags we decline are ones where someone is trying to get us to delete technically incorrect comments, and I'm concerned this wording will encourage that behavior. To me, "noisy" seems closer to what we want people to actually be flagging for, but maybe there's an even better term for this. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 23:37 | history | edited | TarynStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 12, 2017 at 23:23 | history | edited | TarynStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2017 at 23:10 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @bluefeet when I wrote that question I was thinking subcategories (because "obsolete" was a flag type), but with your change I would use a text box, "inline" in the dialogue if possible. User clicks "irrelevant" and gets a textbox with "Why?". Subcategories of "irrelevant" would be too hard to bake in, I think. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 23:07 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @bluefeet well, those are just comments... and it's easy enough to find such "gang flagging" and stop it (warnings, suspensions) when someone reports. (e.g. "Why was my valid comment gone?") | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 23:07 | comment | added | Taryn StaffMod | @MonicaCellio Are you talking about subcategories or a text box for explanation? | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:59 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | I like the general approach, but one problem that some of us mods struggle with from obsolete flags will remain and perhaps get even worse with this approach. At least now I have the information that somebody thinks a comment is obsolete, though I have to do way too much digging to figure out why; now I might face this investigatory problem with everything coming in as irrelevant. Any chance of allowing the flagger to communicate why if he doesn't think it's obvious? | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:59 | comment | added | Taryn StaffMod | @ShadowWizard I'll have to think a bit more about both. I like the idea of #1, but I wonder the implications of that (gang flagging). #2, might minimize the other flags but I'll need to kick it around some. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:57 | comment | added | Taryn StaffMod | @Shog9 I'm ok with that as well, I was torn between the two. I really tried to find words that fit as a big bucket of meh we don't need this any longer but would make sense to anyone including non-native speakers. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:55 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | I like the thought you've put into this. My only concern is that "superfluous" may be a stumbling block for non-native speakers; "unnecessary" - which you use in the description - is somewhat more common a word. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:54 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Reducing the amount of reasons is great idea, thanks. Two more suggestions though: 1) have three rude or offensive flags auto nuke the comment, instead of the six required today (or is it four? I always forget with comments). 2) Add a checkbox "All or most other comments under this post also need moderation" (or something shorter) to reduce "other" flags saying the same. What do you think? | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 22:44 | history | answered | TarynStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |