Changes To Reactions Redux

In an effort to simplify things, the reactions have been changed. “Like”, “Off Topic”, and “Vote Down” have been removed and “Abuse” has been added. Our hope is that this will streamline things.

Posts with at least 5 Abuse tags will be placed in the moderation queue.
«13

Comments

  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    I'm not seeing the Abuse flag.
  • Sorry, it’s under the “Flag” option.
  • Oh, my bad.
  • joeclarkjoeclark Posts: 123

    How about “Posts containing http:// or https:// will be placed in the moderation queue,” since those are dead givaways of somebody just dumbly pasting in an URL?

    Will Typedrawers ever solve its actual problems?

  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    FWIW, I totally don't mind somebody being the only person who cares about something. I just think Joe needs to admit it can come from a deliberate, non-dumb decision.

    BTW Joe "an URL" is wrong to me.
  • Regardless of one’s position on URLs, it’s hardly the sort of thing that the moderators should be responsible for any more than they should be responsible for other formatting decisions in a post. You must think the moderators have an extreme excess of free time on their hands.

    André
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    @Dan Reynolds Joe's post does NOT merit an Abuse flag.

    I hope the moderators are serious about implementing consequences for abusive flagging.
    #4: http://typedrawers.com/discussion/751/read-this-first-the-typedrawers-rules
  • Stephen ColesStephen Coles Posts: 784
    edited December 2017
    I dunno, Hrant. If you repeatedly complain about an issue that is clearly your own, I would consider it spam, and thus abuse. See Rule 3. 
  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,206
    We do get spam here, but they deal with it well.
  • The problem with using “Off Topic” is that it doesn’t alert the moderators. There was no easy way for us to keep track of who was consistently making off topic posts. 
  • I took the off-topic flag to mean "cool it" which resulted in me either cooling it or starting a new thread. It's not the same as a disagree flag. Some people might take disagree to mean "please tell us more".

    But then I suppose you could get a better result by posting, "I've started a new thread in the X section so we can continue this."
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    @Dyana Weissman Everybody naturally reacts to the various flags differently, so it's a matter of finding common language, instead of assuming the worst. @Ray Larabie is right that in many cases an "Off-Topic" flag can help increase focus. In contrast "Abuse" is the harshest reaction and should not be used lightly; it's a disproportionate escalation when used on a minor annoyance.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    There was no easy way for us to keep track of who was consistently making off topic posts. 
    Is there a way to put "Off-Topic" under Flag?

    I hope you can also figure out a way to keep track of who is consistently marking posts... Veiled personal attacks from the safety of flagging versus actually posting is something that can quietly amplify resentment.
  • Dyana WeissmanDyana Weissman Posts: 321
    edited December 2017
    The changes are not about the meaning of the flags. The changes are about the limits of the forum software (and the complaints of our users). We can't put Off-Topic under Flag, for example. There's no Flag other than Abuse that will send a post to the moderation queue at this time. 

    As noted in Rule #4, people should flag responsibly. 

    If removing some of the flags means people will have to be more communicative, then, maybe it's time for that. Designers are communicators, after all. 
  • Frode HellandFrode Helland Posts: 136
    edited December 2017
    So, if someone is not abusive but is polluting the conversation with off topic comments, how are we supposed to alert moderators?
  • @Frode You can send a message to any of the moderators using TD's messaging function.

  • >>Want to thank someone for making you smarter? Click "Insightful" <<

    What would be the opposite of "Insightful"? 
  • Maybe an "eye-roll" reaction?  :)
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    @Frode @Ramiro Espinoza First see if you're the only one flagging something off-topic, and give it a chance to have an effect. Also, the less even-handed the flagging, the less seriously it's taken.
    Veiled personal attacks from the safety of flagging versus actually posting is something that can quietly amplify resentment.
    Case in point: check out the two Abuse flags on me that just kicked in (retroactively) and judge for yourself whether they're warranted.

    I hope the moderators are sensitive to this.
  • @Frode As noted in the rules, "Any post breaking these rules can be flagged." Off-topic posts would be breaking Rule #2. Feel free to flag in those instances and/or contact the moderators privately, as @Ramiro Espinoza noted.

    It is unfortunate that we can't rename the Abuse flag to something more intuitive. 
  • On the one hand, Like and Agree are different ideas. But we also have Insightful available. For me, Like and Insightful cover enough ground in this area.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,571
    edited December 2017
    I think Agree is the most valuable of the three, and Like can do most of the job of Insightful and then some. Also, Insightful is sometimes [mis]used in a subversive way...
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 235

    “Like” has been awarded a lot to posts which are supposed to be funny, but don’t help the discussion very much. I think there can be enough fun between the lines of serious posts. No need for “funny posts”, and the “Like” flag which rewards such posts.

This discussion has been closed.
https://typedrawers.com/discussion/comment/32714/
typedrawers.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-16
78297
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7GFFVWRF3DENRDQ54FRVRJTE3JC42HLU
<urn:uuid:0c694620-d113-4c84-ba30-596a6503cf4d>
2020-03-31T17:26:22Z
162.159.138.78
text/html
sha1:D2K46VHPGFCPVXISF7OO5GHVWB5NVH7B
<urn:uuid:8c5a1424-6f05-4604-9381-04344d920f8f>
https://typedrawers.com/discussion/comment/32714/
response
<urn:uuid:321a157d-19bc-4dbf-8fad-bef080cbd6d2>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-16
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-91.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (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/