> > Cindy, > In your case, we would use pattern recognition, and > in my case, we would simply assume that all posts are potential source > of "noise".
That is exactly the important difference - "assuming that all posts are potentially noise". How disrespectful to the user! The thing is, no one thinks their post is noise, and most of them are correct. You should only be interfering when you have some real "evidence" that their post is noise. It's a subtle difference but the "feel" of any community is mostly governed by subtle interactions. So far, my model is to > 1. upon posting, ask for the title first > 2. search the title and present the results > 3. if the poster isn't interested in the results, let him/her post > 4. if the post body is recognized as "noise"(too many caps, etc), > reject the post > I think this is great (you could move #1 to between #3 and #4 potentially as well) > 5. the post isn't publicized until the poster comes back in a few > hours and reconfirms it I think you'll lose 90% of posts this way. When you ask the user to come back, a lot won't bother - just human nature. > > 6. other users can flag the posts as "redundant" or "rude" so that > moderators can act upon it "rude", yes. "redundant", I think that's rude if it's public. But it would be really useful to flag as redundant IF you used that as a guideline to what FAQs to create next! > > 7. create a wiki and FAQ Definitely good. Cindy ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
