|
I don't quite get what is you problem:
1. Andrew made a good suggestion to improve the site, which Chris will implement.
2. Andrew asked that points which were abusively taken from him be set back, which seems to me a perfect valid request.
If you'd care about reputation, and I would halve yours just for fun, wouldn't you be glad that the CP Team reinstates it to its original level ?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that's what happened here.
The suggestion is to only deduct the points once the post is actually removed for being spam.
I personally feel that's a good suggestion, the uni-voter (or uni report voter) will lose his 'power' and the posts that really are spam will get enough votes to have the points deducted.
I'm pretty sure Chris wouldn't just put points back unless it is actually the right thing to do. No matter how much anyone whines.
I still don't get the whole obsession with the points but hey that's just me I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: posts that really are spam will get enough votes to have the points deducted.
But if it is Spam, then the user is removed from the site. What is the point of deducting points from a user that no longer exists?
|
|
|
|
|
Not really.
A single message can be reported as spam without the user being reported.
|
|
|
|
|
when an item is reported anywhere other than the forums there are no points lost until enough votes have accumulated to mark the item as spam (or abuse). Once marked, points are deducted, but single votes will not cause points to be deducted until the threshold has been met.
Everywhere except in the forums. We've planned, and stated we were planning to make the forums consistent (and fairer) many times.
So if you feel that's unfair and arbitrary, and that members should be able to continue abusing the forum system and marking messages as abuse or spam for no apparent reason (and I'm certainly not going to point fingers in who is or isn't doing this) then maybe this community isn't for you.
If on the other hand you're complaining because I've removed the ability to knock hundreds of points off members for the spam votes then my answer is that I wouldn't have done this if the system wasn't being abused, and as soon as I've had a chance to make the reporting system consistent those penalty points will come right back.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rissing wrote: Would it be possible to only apply the negative points AFTER the post has been deemed as spam/abusive?
At this point the user is removed. What exactly is the point of deducting points from an account that no longer exists? Also if they are a spammer then they couldn't give a sh*t if they lose reputation points.
|
|
|
|
|
For actual spammers you are right off course, but for those spam reports made to give a reputation hit to the poster this would be a good solution. This way spam reports for malicious reasons does not work anymore.
0100000101101110011001000111001011101001
|
|
|
|
|
When messages are marked as spam the message is removed, but not the user.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
As spammers are not users of the site, I am still failing to see the mileage in penalising them rep points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I second that: gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
It is like they're crack heads looking for any fix that can get.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed: one rather bland post has been reported (for fun, I'm sure) a number of times:
Participant points: -880
I don't care about the debator points (par for the course and I'm sure I deserve it for something) but -880??? That is not right.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
modified 29-Nov-12 14:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't care about the debator points, but the participant -80+ is a really punch to the gut. I'm actually going to recommend a new way of doing reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
Just remove the ridiculously punitive participant points: surely not needed. I had no idea it was quite so harsh - my apologies to anyone that has suffered such an undeserved loss cos I reported your post.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to be making all spam reports public.
I don't spend my time creating a code sharing site for a bunch of primary school kids. We're adults, so I'll treat everyone as adults.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: primary school kids
Sadly, it only takes a few of them to spoil a good great site.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry you're having to deal with such BS. Unfortunately people find a way to deal with issues with one another in the most childish ways possible... we're having similar issues at the workplace... it's hard to listen to.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said sir, well said. That sounds like a grand idea to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insert joke about crystal balls.
.\\axxx
|
|
|
|
|