Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

From one of the graphs above, four flags isn't a significant difference from 3. We have systems in place that review everything reported retroactively. I plan to modify those to require at least two eyes on everything. I don't know of an instance where we've flagged a false positive and missed it - but you're welcome to review the data for yourself.
– Undo
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 21:10
1

@Undo, "[using] four [machine] flags [out of six] isn't a significant difference from [using three out of six]". That's considering only one metric: time to delete. But on the metric of human workload, the difference presumably would be, as I mentioned in my answer, much more significant: a reduction of (about) a third.
– user136089
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:05
@Undo, "I plan to modify those to require at least two eyes on everything." The implication that you would do this in the future seems to contradict the part of the OP's proposal that says "Multiple people review each post we catch, whether it's autoflagged or not", which suggests the system already is set up such that it will require human peer review even if the proposal is implemented. (As an aside: if the system does already require human peer review, then either the proposal makes no sense, or else it uses "nuke" in a very misleading way. "Nuke" indicates irrevocable deletion.)
– user136089
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:14
3

Currently, you have to have at least three people look at everything before it's deleted. With 5 automatic flags, it would only be one person to nuke. I'm going to add another person to review after the nuke so we can't miss any false positives (which, historically, are 1 in thirty thousand) - essentially keeping at least two eyes watching for false positives.
– Undo
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:16
@Undo, "Review after nuke" is self-contradictory, for the reason given in my previous comment, i.e. that in the context of computer systems, "nuke", like "shred", means irrevocable deletion. Please can you write comprehensibly?
– user136089
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:18
@sampablokuper - "nuke" in this case means deletion. What Undo means is looking at what happened after the fact - reviewing the situation in hindsight, after the post has been deleted.
– Mithical
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:20
2

Nuking a post is reversible by a ♦ moderator. It's something we don't want to happen; it's extremely unlikely to happen, but if it does, we can fix things together.
– Glorfindel Mod
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:21
1

Glorfindel and Mithrandir, perhaps "nuking" means something different in Elrond, but if the OP wants their post to be understood by the average SO user, it would help a lot if the term could be used according to the common convention in computing contexts, i.e. to mean deleting irrevocably. If you & Undo & the OP are appealing to some kind of in-group anti-pattern redefinition of common terms, then that practice should be dropped before attempting to bring others into the discussion, or else entirely avoidable misunderstanding will occur, as has happened here :(
– user136089
Commented Mar 5, 2018 at 22:31
4

I agree with sampablokuper here, @Undo - it'd be kinda nice to nuke the "nuke" terminology, since it suggests something rather more... final than what is actually being discussed here. Trivia: I have a bookmarklet on my phone named "nukethis" that takes whatever post is on my screen, offensive-deletes it, and then destroys its author with a reason that ensures their IP can't post anything for the next little while. That's about as close as we can get to "nuke" here.
– Shog9
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 3:45
Thanks, Shog9 :) Incidentally, s/Elrond/Rivendell/ . Apparently, it's a long time since I read Tolkien...
– user136089
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 6:10
@sampablokuper for better or for worse, "spam-nuke" is the most common (short) term I've seen for the 6-flag = auto-deletion mechanism. I think I've even seen some of SO's mods call it that :/
– mbrig
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 17:24
For clarification, when we ‘review’ a post we’re generally looking at a mirrored copy that we store in our web dashboard, that’s why we can still see it after it’s been ‘nuked’ (or deleted)
– angussidney
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 20:23
@mrbrig: that's for worse, surely.
– user136089
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 21:14
@angussidney, thanks for the clarification. However (and this is not directed at you personally, just at the groupthink that resulted in it happening): storing "a mirrored copy ... in our web dashboard" - i.e. migrating, archiving, or quarantining - is so far from what "nuke" conventionally means in computing that I can't even begin to express how mind-bogglingly misleading it is to use that word to describe it.
– user136089
Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 21:18

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »