Skip to Content
avatar image

[Status Update]New moderation reasons? Oh my...

Looks like we got some snazzy new items in the dropdown for "Alert moderator":

I'm scratching my head what "Incorrect Usage..." means and what would anyone be "Cheating" on since there are no more points. But at least it's good to see (finally!) necromancing and "Requires Additional Information" on the list instead of some nonsense that was there before.

P.S. "Unprofessional conduct" - oh man, I'm in soo much trouble now...

image2.jpg (18.1 kB)
* Please Login or Register to Comment on or Follow discussions.

20 Comments

  • Dec 02, 2016 at 09:49 PM

    I am quite sure @Mike Appleby will be very happy with the snazzy expanded list.

  • Dec 02, 2016 at 10:57 PM

    "Incorrect Usage...", ambitious clauses are needed, everyone shall feel included. :-)

    Spam was not understood by everybody, Jason for example had always tinned sausage in mind.

    Cheating is still a valid category, I am already on my first target since the reboot, we have just 489 years left till the time of your often referenced movie, the first ripples are already here.

  • Dec 03, 2016 at 12:02 AM

    There are points, remember? We have karma credits, but you generally can't see anyone else's besides your own, and the algorithms for earning them are not public. Still, people might be trying to game the system to earn more karma (which, paradoxically, sounds like a way to earn negative karma to me -- so there's that category, ready to go for that). And, when the missions do eventually roll out, there will be new and exciting targets for cheating...

  • Dec 03, 2016 at 06:54 AM

    Now we need another blog (with screenshots, if possible) explaining when to use which reason.

    Which one do we use for "do my job" questions?

    Requires Additional Information - if we start reporting every question, which lacks some information and the OP is incapable to formulate a question/response in meaningful sentences, there will be 10% of what we see now as activity...

    Maybe we can apply Incorrect usage of Platform to "do my job" questions - there are other sites, where you can get your job done (well... not for free). :)

    • Dec 05, 2016 at 04:55 PM

      Hi, Veselina:

      I was somewhat involved with the transition of the old list to the new list. In the case of "do my job," I believe many of those would fall under "failed to search," but perhaps I'm missing other potential scenarios.

      I'll reach out to Moshe Naveh, as he's better versed in the art of moderation.

      Best regards,

      --Jerry

      • Dec 05, 2016 at 06:02 PM

        "Do my job" is slightly different than 'Failed to search" - this is why I was unsure whether we can use the same category.

        Failed to search, I think is, for example: "Can I use FAE instead of INNER JOIN?"

        "Do my job" is : "Dear gurus, I have a requirement to build a report for sales orders (dumps the list of selection fields and the desired output from the FS). Please provide a solution."

        Don't get me wrong, I am completely fine with the idea to use failed to search also in the second case, I simply got confused with the new rich list of reasons, because I felt somehow, that this has a dedicated one, which I failed to recognize (there must be a separate place in hell reserved for people expecting from others to do their job for free, while they put zero effort into the task). :)

        • Dec 08, 2016 at 08:22 AM

          Why not use "Unprofessional conduct" for the "do my job for me" type of "questions"? I think it's very unprofessional to dump your work here and expect others to solve it for free, so you can get paid for others time and work.

  • Dec 05, 2016 at 07:42 AM

    Unprofessional Conduct

    Ok, i start to alert mods for my own replies....

    • Dec 05, 2016 at 03:42 PM

      I find that one both extremely subjective as well as the fact that usually regional or cultural variances exist.

      • Dec 05, 2016 at 04:57 PM

        That's a fair point, Christopher. To some degree, all moderation is somewhat subjective. But in the case of "unprofessional conduct," I've found that this type of alert is most often applied to cases where the trolling is fairly obvious. That being said, we do try to talk to those involved to see if there is some sort of resolution.

        Best regards,

        --Jerry

        • Dec 05, 2016 at 05:23 PM

          Oh I know you do....in fact, I had to help some mods before with one member who just kept being pretty offensive. Since I was one of the few he seemed to respect and have civil exchanges with, the mods asked me to play "go between" a bit. But for that guy...even that just didn't help. He was just "that guy" and had to go. It happens with most communities online....this one is no different there.

          edit: a thought hit me too....could this category not also be applied to those posting "give me exam questions", "help me pass an interview for a position I am woefully unqualified for" or "my client is paying me to do this, but have no clue, so can you give the me the step by step answer" ? I find those cases to be extremely unprofessional behavior/conduct. haha

          • Dec 05, 2016 at 05:50 PM

            Hi, Christopher:

            Sure, I suppose "unprofessional conduct" is wide enough to cover a lot of bad behavior. I personally think "failed to search" is the one I'll use most of the time, and could apply in many of the situations you described above.

            And then, of course, there is always..."other." :)

            --Jerry

    • Dec 08, 2016 at 08:24 AM

      unprofessional contact was deliberately open to cover anything from being an A$$ through to discrimination and sexism - something I was on the receiving of last year. Basically, would your online actions in the community be accepted in your office place? Copyright/Plagiarism could be another reason to flag content without getting into legal semantic debate as to which one it is.

      constructive feedback is not unprofessional behaviour if you are professional in your use of language (i.e. argue point and be constructive instead of attacking the individual)

      Moderators debated this quite a bit and there was an effort to keep the list simple versus providing sufficient options as guidance to users.

  • Dec 05, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Sorry for a collective comment - didn't want to hog everyone's activity stream.

    @Veselina - I've also had a brief moment of confusion when reporting a recent ABAP question that didn't even look like a question. On one hand - there was not enough information. On the other - OP clearly didn't put any effort before posting. Not sure though if it really matters to the mods which reason is used. But if it does then a clarification blog is in order.

    @Unprofessional conduct - previously some folks complained it was "unprofessional" when I sent them to Google. And not even via LMGTFY but by posting the actual search string and inquiring if none of the X results were helpful. So yeah, there is that...

    • Dec 06, 2016 at 07:12 AM

      I have never seen a single statistic on moderation categories. They mattered somewhat if no further explanation was entered.

      Right now is an explanation mandatory for any category. In general they are meant to indicate what unwanted content is, and the current set if much more clearer than the old set as it has the language of the people instead of the lawyers.

      Giving examples might be contra-productive as this usually results in arguing when a rejection happens and this specific case is not among the examples

      • Dec 06, 2016 at 11:25 AM

        Hi All,

        The categories were changed following the move to the new community and feedback/approval we got from moderators. I will post a blog to clarify what each category means and maybe a small story next to it to showcase it:).

        Btw, cheating could also be faking users to get likes.

        Unprofessional conduct could be "You are sooooo unprofessional, your answer shows you didn't graduate first grade"

        Regards,

        Moshe

  • Dec 08, 2016 at 02:46 PM

    <falls off chair in a daze......>

    Please!! Please help me! Where's my question gone ???

    <thump>........

    • Dec 08, 2016 at 03:52 PM

      So you did ask a question?

      That qualifies for "Incorrect usage of Platform", at least currently;).

    • Dec 08, 2016 at 06:14 PM

      Richard, you might want to participate in the New SCN Theme Song contest - "where's my question gone" goes quite nicely with the Imagine Dragons "Demons". :)

      • Dec 08, 2016 at 10:55 PM

        Enhanced Beatles lyrics to "Yesterday" was also some low hanging fruit from your other post...

  • Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded
https://answers.sap.com/articles/75739/status-updatenew-moderation-reasons-oh-my.html
answers.sap.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-18
136659
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ALVNK7WDJ6NCE5LKBJX7GDALQWCRBSTP
<urn:uuid:febdc26c-78b3-47e4-8bc0-4f2b88398649>
2019-04-20T10:48:45Z
18.185.13.170
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:YIDCEIRJ46C76TPV6PIQW4GSI4J7MFRM
<urn:uuid:a6304316-b5c8-4639-b694-eea44c301e2a>
https://answers.sap.com/articles/75739/status-updatenew-moderation-reasons-oh-my.html
response
<urn:uuid:99cfeb66-2509-4c06-879d-8056d33ef4ab>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-141-34-30.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/