Removing incentive seems like a good tactic to try. And perhaps we can take a look at some metrics to see if it's helping after trying for a bit.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:57 PM Austin Macdonald <[email protected] wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:23 PM Daniel Alley <[email protected] 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
