On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:57 PM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:23 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com wrote: > >> Maybe the first comment / issue posted by an account would need to be >> approved, but once approved they could post subsequent comments / issues >> without delay? >> >> > @dalley, sounds right to me. I think this could be implemented using > bmbouters b) option, with 1 difference. If the user can't even file until > approved, I think we shouldn't do it. If the user can file an invisible > issue, I'm ok with this. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> b) create a "trusted users" group and have that allow users to either >> post comments, post issues, or both and then disable those permissions for >> "other accounts". This would prevent a new user from filing a bug in a >> self-service way though. >> > > b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is not > visible until approved. When issue is approved, user is moved to "trusted > user" group. Further issues are not delayed. > > This would fix the problem at the cost of delaying response to new > contributors at a critical time, right after their first contribution. > Using "trusted users" would allow us to filter out most issues, > significantly reducing the workload to review for spam. > Nothing has changed except my patience. Ugh. IMO we need to remove the incentive, which means hiding the first issue/comment of new users. Unless anyone is strongly against this, I'll file an issue and we can discuss the technical details there. > However, we could also users "trusted users" as an invisible flag that > makes no difference to the user. This would be the exact same amount of > work as b) for us, but new contributor issues are always visible. So after > all this, I'm leaning toward a) + 1/2 b) > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> a) manage the spam better >> > > a) Story >>> A new user is created they file an issue. Issue is visible > immediately. Spam review must review every new issue from every user. > > a) + 1/2 b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is > visible immediately. Issue is flagged internally for spam review, if not > spam, user is added to trusted group. Further issues would skip this > process. > > I have one last thought that might make b) more attractive, but its a shot > in the dark. Since the spam is coming from humans, someone is paying them. > If we never show the spam, we remove the incentive, and hopefully someone > will notice and stop it. If y'all think this is how things woud go down, we > could always do b) until the problem stops and switch to a) + 1/2 b). > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev