RE: suggestions to make the admin/moderation system more convenient to new users

Question

July 2017 edit

This is a brief summation of this thread, since I realised it's too long:

• I feel like the admin system is a bit frustrating and offputting for new users. I know I'd feel that way if I was new here. My main problem was that to bypass the moderation queue you'd essentially need an upvote, which means it's very hard to pass it on your own terms. For a system primarily designed to block spam, it seems needlessly difficult to me.

• The suggestion I made below would require some code work, but I have a different idea that you could add right now and would function very similarly. Consider a) setting questions and answers to award 1 point each and b) setting the number to bypass the admin queue to a low number like 22. Then, you can pass by simply making a few posts, much easier and more tolerable for new users.

• I've been doing some computing courses recently, and have discovered the magic of local host networking. With that I tested Q2A's approval system using this idea, and I think it's pretty effective. The 1 point for posting questions and answers is only awarded when the post is actually approved and made public, which should mean no abuse and no spam.

• The requirement for posting on walls should be the same as the one for the admin.

• Comments from users with low points should also pass through the admin first. If spam is a concern, well you can go spam the main section with a new account right now. Though, I would only say this is justifiable if the admin system was easier to pass as above, since it would increase the load a fair amount and probably frustrate people more.

---

(Original post accessible via the edit history. Character limit.)

Comments

I like this suggestion. Even changing the wall-posting message for users below 30 points would be a good start, because currently they have to read the rules to know the 30-point minimum, and who even reads rules anymore amirite? I personally think that having 1 public post as the minimum is too risky. It would not take a lot of effort for a spammer to post an answer to a moveset question, get their public posts up to 1 and then start spamming (I am assuming that "public posts" includes answers as well as questions). However, you also don't want an influx of hastily-written questions/answers by new users, so I think that 2-3 public posts is a good minimum.

TL;DR I like the idea a lot but feel that 1 post is too low and easy to get around.

---

Yeah good points definitely. In fact I think it would be easiest for them to comment something trivial like "nice post, very helpful" to pass the requirement. But even then I still think the system is pretty sturdy; they'd have to wait until we approve the post to spam, or else the admin will pick up the following spam posts and we'll know to reject the posts and block the IP. They'd also have to know our system in the first place, which requires human intervention and eventually a custom-written program for the site which I don't think is worth it as I mentioned. But yeah, 3+ posts to pass the requirement would be hard to make before we suspect something. I guess it depends the level of security we're after; as above I would approach it pretty lightly, but perhaps that's unreasonable for the reasons you mentioned. Thanks for the input!

---

It wouldn't be difficult for a human to create an account and ask a legitimate question, then proceed to use a bot on said account to spam. It'd take no time or effort on said spammer's part. If we're gonna have a post requirement it might as well actually be useful.

---

Fair enough, I just don't think spammers are going to bother finding out how to game the system and then carry it out. Perhaps it is low effort -- they would copy paste an old thread if they were smart -- but I'm sure their time is better spent on a forum with no moderation system to beat. And keep in mind these people likely access the site though a list of potential targets and have no prior knowledge of any anti-spam functions on the sites they visit -- they will likely dump a post or two and leave it at that. This is reflected through the way spam has occurred on the site for years. Again it would not be productive to go checking for systems to exploit for each site, especially if the spammer originates from a non-English speaking country and do not know their way around a site in a foreign language.
So it's clear, I think it would be fine to use a number like 3-5, I just think 1 would do the job and go easier on people who actually want to use the site. I may well be wrong. But I don't think 1 is useless as you suggest.

---

From time to time, I see people answer old RMT posts. I'm pretty sure the current administration system doesn't let that happen. I think posts on RMT questions more than two months old should require moderating no matter what.

---

To my knowledge there is nothing stopping people from answering old RMT posts, so long as we approve them in the admin. If memory serves, there is extra moderation on Meta/RMT for old posts, but if there is not I agree there should be. Maybe not for everyone though, I think there should always be a way to bypass the admin if you are experienced.

Might also mention here, I'm no longer as confident that 1 would be the best number. All it would take is for one person to write an exploit then distribute it online and the system is broken. I still don't think anyone would bother, but if we want to remove all chance of spam possibly occurring, 2-3 is best since it would be hard to make multiple posts to pass the system without us becoming suspicious. I'll edit my post to reflect this. Thanks again for the input guys, you swayed me :)

---

Bump, I think Pokemaster was inactive when this was posted. Or he just didn't reply. Just in case he didn't see this yet this is a bump.

---

I'm pretty sure Pokemaster doesn't check the "all activity" section. It seems the only way to get him to see this is to post an answer so it appears when he clicks on "Meta".