We should make an effort to mention this to new contributors when on say #pulp we encourage someone to submit or comment so they don't wonder what's wrong.
--Dana Dana Walker Associate Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:24 PM Robin Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
