Timeline for A machine can flag spam automatically. Can it do better?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:18 | comment | added | user136089 | @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. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | user136089 | @mrbrig: that's for worse, surely. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 20:23 | comment | added | angussidney | 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) | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 17:24 | comment | added | mbrig | @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 :/ | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 6:10 | comment | added | user136089 | Thanks, Shog9 :) Incidentally, s/Elrond/Rivendell/ . Apparently, it's a long time since I read Tolkien... | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 3:45 | comment | added | Shog9 | 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. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 0:58 | history | edited | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:31 | comment | added | user136089 | 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 :( | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:21 | comment | added | Glorfindel Mod | 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. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:20 | comment | added | Mithical | @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. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:18 | comment | added | user136089 | @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? | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:16 | comment | added | Undo | 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. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:14 | comment | added | user136089 | @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.) | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 22:05 | comment | added | user136089 | @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. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 21:10 | comment | added | Undo | 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. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 19:15 | history | answered | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
