http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1048325


in reply to Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
in thread Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

++ Yes, I like that idea.

Furthermore, while I don't baulk at downvoting spam, given the flood we seem to be getting recently, I often feel I've wasted about a quarter of my votes each day doing so. Simply getting them off "Newest Nodes" (and the "Unapproved" lists in whatever section) and only requiring "Reap" considerations to remove them would be a significant improvement in my opinion.

I'd also suggest that they don't appear in "Worst Nodes" either; although, if they weren't actually being downvoted that may be a moot point.

-- Ken

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 07, 2013 at 10:47 UTC
    Furthermore, while I don't baulk at downvoting spam, given the flood we seem to be getting recently, I often feel I've wasted about a quarter of my votes each day doing so.

    Indeed. I've seem to have perpetual "dog votes" because of the downvotes cast against spam. Even if someone else has already cast the required downvote; you have to vote to know that :(

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

      Even if someone else has already cast the required downvote; you have to vote to know that :(

      Hmm, just a quite unreflected thought: some kind of symbol like "¬"/¬ might be ok for display on a node that has received at least one -1.

      Cheers, Sören

      Créateur des bugs mobiles - let loose once, run everywhere.
      (hooked on the Perl Programming language)

[reply]
[d/l]
Re^4: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by davies (Prior) on Aug 07, 2013 at 11:57 UTC

    I'm not quite clear what your criterion is for exclusion from worst nodes. If it's "Reaped", I'd agree totally, but otherwise I might differ. Back in the day when I wrote Re: History now influences voting, I didn't have the power to consider nodes and could only downvote to flag them to others. I now check worst nodes most days to see if there is anything that needs considering (although I may do other things, like upvoting a "thank you" that has a negative reputation). Reaped nodes obviously don't need considering, which is why I agree with you, but merely being considered might be problematic. Sometimes nodes sit for weeks with a consideration. I'd also restrict your exclusion to "Worst nodes of the day" rather than to the other categories, as it can be helpful to know which bridges are troll-infested.

    Regards,

    John Davies

[reply]

      I don't check "Worst Nodes" that often, but I have noticed recently that the majority of the "Day" and "Week" lists have been spam: I did check yesterday (around the time I posted) and there were 8 in the "Day" list and 6 in the "Week" list; checking again just now, it's 6 and 6. The Reputations of the spam nodes range from -3 to -6.

      My original thought when suggesting exclusion from "Worst Nodes" was that this section could actually reflect what it was (at least in my opinion) intended for. Your comments bear this out to some degree: a "thank you" with an accidental (or even malicious) downvote, with a Rep of -1, is not going to show up when you look.

      Anyway, we appear to be in agreement about "Reaped" spam. Prior to consideration, I would assume that they're treated as any other node; that would fit with your current usage of checking for nodes requiring consideration. When considered with a "Spam" button, as suggested by BrowserUk, or by any other mechanism that flags them as spam, I was suggesting that would also prevent them from appearing in "Worst Nodes".

      -- Ken

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion