A relatively recent change to the flagging system has been elimination of the flag "hell ban," in favor of a more transparent system that includes feedback.

This is a good thing.

The new system, however, doesn't seem to take into account a user's flagging history, and has a pretty low threshold for what triggers the temporary ban users from flagging.

This is a bad thing.

For example, this jerk. 2180 helpful flags total, but 3 of 15 flags since the 19th declined, and flag banned. (I'm assuming it's 3 of 12 flags on posts, and a few comment flags thrown into the mix to make 15).

The effective threshold on bad flags one can throw before hitting a ban seems pretty low, at 2.5 (must have >= 10 flags, and >=25% declined), and it seems to me that a better approach would be to up the number of flags at which the system starts considering people for flag banning.

For example, if it were tweaked to start looking at 20 or 25 flags in a week (which is still pretty low, ~3/day), the lower threshold would be 5 or 6. To me, that seems like a threshold that's more in line with the intent of the new system.

  • 1
    I was about to tell you off for the "this jerk" remark until I realised you were referring to yourself ;) Feb 24, 2016 at 12:03
  • 1
    At that point you might as well just remove the entire system; there are simply so few people that are regularly casting that many flags. Keep in mind the idea is to ban people from flagging before they've submitted a huge number of flags, to the point of being disruptive, not after. Waiting to get 25 flags before banning someone with a 100% rejection rate is waiting way too long.
    – Servy
    Feb 24, 2016 at 14:45
  • 1
    @Servy ...and banning on 3 of 12 bad is too soon. Tweaking both parameters is possible as well, as is a longer rolling average calculation on failure rate Feb 24, 2016 at 15:35
  • 1
    @HopelessN00b Considering it's actually quite rare for anyone to actually hit that ban, combined with the fact that it's only for a few days, I'd say no, it's not really too soon. Just wait a few days, and be a bit more careful in the future.
    – Servy
    Feb 24, 2016 at 15:39
  • 2
    @Servy That's not happening. As with the review queue review audit nonsense, I'm not willing to tolerate that, nor are the majority of active users on the site from whence I hail. Overly aggressive default parameters for this system, instead, only serve to discourage use of the system. Feb 24, 2016 at 15:43


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .