better feedback on report accuracy

[tspacepilot]

If you click the "report to moderator" button you can see an estimate of how accurate your reports are.  I presume that the reason for the information being displayed is so that we can get an idea of whether or not our recent reports were the kinds of report to keep reporting.

However, the issue is that it's amost impossible to tell what was inacurate or not because you don't see the actual list of reports.  To make matters more confusing, the number of "handled" vs "unhandled" reports isn't shown either.

Here's what I mean, I recently saw that my accuracy was 95% of 22 posts.  Then, I reported two posts, the next day I saw accuracy of 90% of 24 posts.  But what happened.  Clearly one of my reports was inaccurate (but which one?).   Was the other one accurate or just unhandled?

Anyway, the reason I'm interested is that I don't want to report to moderators stuff which they consider inaccurate (which is, I assume, the reason I'm shown this metric), but as things stand, the number doesn't really help a whole lot.

I don't know if it'd be hard to implement, but if you could show the list of recent reports and their handled/unhandled/accepted/rejected status, that would completely sort out the problem and it would be easy to learn which kinds of reports the moderators had appreciated, which ones they hadn't appreciated, and which ones had been ignored.

Is this doable?

[Digital_Lord]

There should be a link on your profile which guides you a table with all the information needed such as, show the list of recent reports and their handled/unhandled/accepted/rejected status and also who handled the request, the ban that the user received or if the post was removed

[Quickseller]

I would generally agree with your suggestions/points. However I don't think they will be implemented because I believe that theymos has said in the past that anything above 40% is considered 'good' and I don't think you will get banned or have any other negative consequences for making 'bad' reports.

I would also like to see some kind of hall of fame type stats regarding reports. I would like to see where I stand compared to others when it comes to my accuracy and number of reports I have made. I would also like to see who has had the highest number of accurate reports, both in all time and the last 30 days (maybe the top 50 or so reporters)

[tspacepilot]

I would generally agree with your suggestions/points. However I don't think they will be implemented because I believe that theymos has said in the past that anything above 40% is considered 'good' and I don't think you will get banned or have any other negative consequences for making 'bad' reports.

Sure, I don't think I'm making "bad" reports, and I guess I wasn't worried about negative consequences.  However,  I find the feedback a little useless unless there's some way to learn from it.  As things stand, the accuracy rating is enticing---it makes you want to know more---but not super-helpful.

I would also like to see some kind of hall of fame type stats regarding reports. I would like to see where I stand compared to others when it comes to my accuracy and number of reports I have made. I would also like to see who has had the highest number of accurate reports, both in all time and the last 30 days (maybe the top 50 or so reporters)

Hall of fame would be fun, I agree.

[botany]

Dated hall of fame.
I guess the amount of spam (and reports) has increased since then. 

In case anyone's interested, here are the people with the most good reports:

Code:

+-----------------+-------------+
| realName        | goodReports |
+-----------------+-------------+
| hilariousandco  |        1450 |
| ckolivas        |        1362 |
| mprep           |        1025 |
| malevolent      |         990 |
| railzand        |         793 |
| austin          |         789 |
| Welsh           |         538 |
| TheButterZone   |         500 |
| Eal F. Skillz   |         485 |
| Cyrus           |         425 |
| grue            |         416 |
| justusranvier   |         400 |
| jl2012          |         366 |
| lasciv          |         303 |
| KWH             |         265 |
| NLNico          |         253 |
| jackjack        |         246 |
| dogie           |         244 |
| shorena         |         221 |
| deadley         |         220 |
| Birdy           |         202 |
| b!z             |         195 |
| mitzie          |         187 |
| Holliday        |         167 |
| Peter Lambert   |         156 |
| odolvlobo       |         156 |
| kcud_dab        |         153 |
| Foxpup          |         153 |
| surfer43        |         152 |
| Adriano         |         151 |
| miter_myles     |         146 |
| DrGregMulhauser |         140 |
| tysat           |         137 |
| Bargraphics     |         131 |
| buyer           |         130 |
| Equate          |         125 |
| Portnoy         |         123 |
| Bfljosh         |         117 |
| BitcoinEXpress  |         117 |
| escrow.ms       |         115 |
| Vod             |         112 |
| MiningBuddy     |         108 |
| devthedev       |          98 |
| favdesu         |          98 |
| Inaba           |          96 |
| phantastisch    |          96 |
| BitCoinDream    |          95 |
| 01BTC10         |          95 |
| anemol          |          91 |
| gizmohead       |          91 |
+-----------------+-------------+

[Quickseller]

Since that report came out I have made well over 1,000 reports and hilarious told me several months ago that his report count was over 2,500 (iirc)(a jump of over 1,000). There are also several people who I have seen claim to make massive amounts of reports that are not on the above list.

[botany]

Since that report came out I have made well over 1,000 reports and hilarious told me several months ago that his report count was over 2,500 (iirc)(a jump of over 1,000). There are also several people who I have seen claim to make massive amounts of reports that are not on the above list.

I agree. An updated hall of fame would be nice. It has been almost a year since theymos published the last one.
Would be interesting to see the people with the most number of good reports.

[erikalui]

I would agree with this option of getting to know my accuracy rating and the report status. I haven't made much reports since 2 months as my rating had reached 60% but now it's 70%+. Also if there could be remarks of why the report was excluded would help me to improve my rating accuracy.

[hilariousandco]

I'd like to see an updated list also. Maybe it's time to add another mod or two as well. Last time that table was shown was when I got made one.

Since that report came out I have made well over 1,000 reports and hilarious told me several months ago that his report count was over 2,500 (iirc)(a jump of over 1,000). There are also several people who I have seen claim to make massive amounts of reports that are not on the above list.

Currently on 2797 posts with 98% accuracy. Wouldn't surprise me if someone has surpassed me or is getting close. I don't have to report that many posts any more as I can already handle most myself. The ones I do report can often take some time to get handled so that's why I think we could use another mod or two for those subs that are unmodded or even promote some highly active existing staff to Globals.

[SaltySpitoon]

Well first thing I want to address, is that the indicator isn't used for people to get competitive over. If you have 50 reports with 50% accuracy, that is still highly appreciated. Getting your score as high as possible isn't a huge concern. Though if you have 500 reports with 6% accuracy you are pretty much wasting moderators time, and should look at what you are doing and reconsider. That's not to say that I discourage people from reporting posts ever, but if your score is miserably low, might want to read some moderator clarifications on policies in meta.

I don't think the report accuracy feature is important enough to warrant additional features until there isn't much left to do software wise. If you have a question, send a pm to a moderator and ask. They will probably be able to give you a more thorough answer to a range of questions than you could extrapolate from accuracy %. Admins are always swamped, so my advice would be to shoot a pm off to the local moderator of the thread in question, or a global moderator. Always happy to fire off a pm to someone not trying to start some drama. Questions are a highlight of my day 

[Welsh]

I normally find out if an action has been taken or not. I frequently watch the modlog for any bans/deletions when an action does appear on there, or I always find out when I revisit the thread/board. I've kind of got to know when most staff come on and certain other members. Just keep up the reporting, if you have a good score >40%/60% then there isn't too much to worry about. The ones I do report are normally straight forward and you know that they are going to be moderated, but the ones that are controversial and aren't very regular. I'm sure if a moderator deals with your posts daily and recognises your not strong in one area, they'll provide some constructive criticism. If you have a good score you have a pretty good understanding of the moderation policy and what opinions the moderators share with you, so a feedback feature isn't that necessary in my opinion. Although, it could be a neat feature it the future.

Well first thing I want to address, is that the indicator isn't used for people to get competitive over. If you have 50 reports with 50% accuracy, that is still highly appreciated.

Reporting posts almost seems like it's a status thing now

If you have a question, send a pm to a moderator and ask. They will probably be able to give you a more thorough answer to a range of questions than you could extrapolate from accuracy %. Admins are always swamped, so my advice would be to shoot a pm off to the local moderator of the thread in question, or a global moderator. Always happy to fire off a pm to someone not trying to start some drama. Questions are a highlight of my day  

I've got to back this up, I've sent several questions over time to various different moderators and nearly all of them have got back to me with everything I wanted, only one/two haven't due to what I assume is that they are busy. I  contacted Salty in particular and he cleared up everything I asked and also gave me a few ideas on reporting habits.

Here's a quote for dear old Maged, which might interest you:

Your success rate doesn't actually matter all that much. If you're above 60%, we'll teach you the rest once you become a mod. As long as you can maintain that, quantity of reports is much more important than quality. Specifically, we're looking for people who report things during time periods where the reports aren't immediately acted on, because that indicates a need for additional moderators for that time block. People who report things during those time are far more likely to be chosen, and you're more likely to report during those times if you report more in general.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I've reported 16 posts with an 88% accuracy so I feel I'm lagging behind many of you gentlemen 
I don't tend to report things very often though, only things that really annoy me like that idiot posting gay porn or talking about pedophiles.
Thanks for making the forums a better & safer place though guys.
Keep up the good work.

[tspacepilot]

Well first thing I want to address, is that the indicator isn't used for people to get competitive over. If you have 50 reports with 50% accuracy, that is still highly appreciated. Getting your score as high as possible isn't a huge concern.

I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric.  My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones.  That seems a little broken.  Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve?

[Grand_Voyageur]

Well first thing I want to address, is that the indicator isn't used for people to get competitive over. If you have 50 reports with 50% accuracy, that is still highly appreciated. Getting your score as high as possible isn't a huge concern.

I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric.  My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones.  That seems a little broken.  Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve?

I cannot have resisted to post a Mine is bigger than yours picture; however, I mostly agree with the point that knowing what reports are goods or bads could help people reach a better understanding of the meaning of the forum rules. However, this is still doable without any further Admin intervention, simply by partecipating in initiatives like Muhammed Zakir's Help the forum and earn Bitcoins! initiative by looking what post have not been deleted. I have to credit it to allowing me to better grasp forum rules meanings & recovering my reports' accuracy rates after a dozen of bad reports, in my newbie days of course.

[Welsh]

I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric.  My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones.  That seems a little broken.  Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve?

Well, the accuracy system is feedback, although it may not be as in-depth as you were hoping for it's not useless it does give you a general idea of how you are performing, overall. The thing is with providing a in-depth feedback system which would allow you to see what was rejected and what reason it was rejected for, could potentially be subjective.  Therefore, if you see that x post got rejected by one moderator, you might refrain from reporting it again which in the eyes of another moderator could be a correct report. At least that's my interpretation of one of the issues.

Although, most of the posts on this forum are pretty straightforward, there are a few which pop up which are subjective, for example you feel that the post in question is better suited in another section, however a moderator disagrees and feels it's best where it is.

[dogie]

I frequently watch the modlog for any bans/deletions when an action does appear on there

Doesn't modlog only show nukes and not time bans?

[Muhammed Zakir]

I frequently watch the modlog for any bans/deletions when an action does appear on there

Doesn't modlog only show nukes and not time bans?

Yes. Only permanent bans.

[tspacepilot]

I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric.  My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones.  That seems a little broken.  Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve?

Well, the accuracy system is feedback, although it may not be as in-depth as you were hoping for it's not useless it does give you a general idea of how you are performing, overall. The thing is with providing a in-depth feedback system which would allow you to see what was rejected and what reason it was rejected for, could potentially be subjective.  Therefore, if you see that x post got rejected by one moderator, you might refrain from reporting it again which in the eyes of another moderator could be a correct report. At least that's my interpretation of one of the issues.

I guess this makes sense.  Perhaps reading too into it would be a mistake.

Well, I guess I've made my request. If it was easy, it'd be nice to see the list of your reports and what happened with them.  If it's not easy I guess it's probably not worth it.  Thanks for the discussion guys.  I'll leave the thread open in case theymos or some other admin or something has further comments, but I think I'm done here.

Cheers

[Bicknellski]

Or is it just forced perspective. Seems to be a lot of that bias creeping into the forum at the moderation level.