[sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !

Callum Lerwick seg at haxxed.com
Sat May 3 16:49:16 PDT 2008


On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 15:10 -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> Well, I proposed my alternative. But what the hell, how about another?
> 
> * Nothing is banned automatically.

Well fine, if everyone is so determined that any automatic takedown is
evil, then N = infinity. I don't particularly care. My proposed workflow
still stands.

> * Flagged posts are handled in order of some function based on how  
> old they are and how many flags there are and what type there are.  
> For example, spam flags get an exponential function of the number of  
> flags, say 0.1 * 2^N.

Or you could just sort based on number of flaggings. Why does it need to
be so complex? An item should never be on the review queue for more than
T amount of time anyway, making the sort order a mostly inconsequential
detail and we are splitting hairs at this point.

> * If something is obviously being flagged falsely, the IP address of  
> the all flaggers are put on a silent blacklist for one day, and all  
> flags from these address are silently voided.
> * The length of the blacklist is increased each time it's invoked.

These don't contradict anything I've said. The details of punishment are
orthogonal to the workflow, it is to me a well covered and thus
un-interesting problem space.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/417c5e3f/attachment.pgp


More information about the SLDev mailing list