New Report to moderator stats ;) thank you theymos

[InvoKing]

I don't have a report history or the amount which is good, bad or unhandled so I don't think it's ranked based. I've made a very small amount of reports though so I'm guessing the more in depth stats become available once you've reported over a certain amount of posts.

Users who didn't made a report in the last 30 days, normally couldn't find anything in their history.
If you mean that you have for example less than 10 reports and you couldn't see how many are good/bad/unhandled then probably you are right about the minimum requirement (even if i don't understand the reason behind it)

Edit : @thequin & welsh : yeah probably.

[TheQuin]

Users who didn't made a report in the last 30 days, normally couldn't find anything in their history.
If you mean that you have for example less than 10 reports and you couldn't see how many are good/bad/unhandled then probably you are right about the minimum requirement (even if i don't understand the reason behind it)

It was a long time ago now but I remember when I first started reporting that my accuracy stayed on 0% for a while. I guess it might be a minimum sample size required to make a percentage relevant.

[Welsh]

Users who didn't made a report in the last 30 days, normally couldn't find anything in their history.
If you mean that you have for example less than 10 reports and you couldn't see how many are good/bad/unhandled then probably you are right about the minimum requirement (even if i don't understand the reason behind it)

Potential reasons could be to prevent users who aren't posting regular enough to complain about their reports not being handled or being marked bad which I expressed my concerns about earlier in the thread. Could also be that users who don't report regular don't need access to the in depth data that the regulars do.

[criz2fer]

Users who didn't made a report in the last 30 days, normally couldn't find anything in their history.
If you mean that you have for example less than 10 reports and you couldn't see how many are good/bad/unhandled then probably you are right about the minimum requirement (even if i don't understand the reason behind it)

Potential reasons could be to prevent users who aren't posting regular enough to complain about their reports not being handled or being marked bad which I expressed my concerns about earlier in the thread. Could also be that users who don't report regular don't need access to the in depth data that the regulars do.

Agreed to some of extent, but how about include them also?
For example, I want to improve my reporting to have a 100% and my reports are 50% bad. How could I improve it without seeing it?(Just an idea because I would like to report regularly once I bump into one of them)

[LoyceV]

Agreed to some of extent, but how about include them also?

My guess is, more stats will show up when you report enough.

For example, I want to improve my reporting to have a 100% and my reports are 50% bad. How could I improve it without seeing it?(Just an idea because I would like to report regularly once I bump into one of them)

As the report page says: "Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports."
In other words, it's better to report 10 posts without being 100% sure they're bad, and get 8 of them deleted, than just reporting the one you're absolutely sure about (which means the remaining 7 bad posts aren't deleted).

[criz2fer]

Agreed to some of extent, but how about include them also?

My guess is, more stats will show up when you report enough.

For example, I want to improve my reporting to have a 100% and my reports are 50% bad. How could I improve it without seeing it?(Just an idea because I would like to report regularly once I bump into one of them)

As the report page says: "Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports."
In other words, it's better to report 10 posts without being 100% sure they're bad, and get 8 of them deleted, than just reporting the one you're absolutely sure about (which means the remaining 7 bad posts aren't deleted).

Meaning, its better to report than never. 

[WelshOnTheRoad]

Agreed to some of extent, but how about include them also?
For example, I want to improve my reporting to have a 100% and my reports are 50% bad. How could I improve it without seeing it?(Just an idea because I would like to report regularly once I bump into one of them)

Striving towards 100% is a good attitude, but honestly anything more than 60% is considered good. Your nearly there!

I don't know the number of reports you would have to make for it to appear, but I'm assuming you could just watch the posts after reporting them or if you haven't reported that many your accuracy is likely going to fluctuate a lot, and you can judge whats correct or not from that. By the time your percentage doesn't change all that much you'll probably have access to the more in depth stats.

On my main account I have tonnes of bad reports probably the most on the forum don't worry to much about it. The community would prefer you to make reports you are unsure about rather than ignoring a post that requires an action.  

If the deciding factor of reporting a post or not is because of your accuracy you are doing it all wrong. This I'd why moderators are there to review your report and I'm sure they don't mind having bad reports.

[khufuking]

It's been discussed, and there's two reasons why it's a bad idea:

1. Easy to abuse. For example, users creating alt accounts, and purposely posting something which would result in a good report.

Well lets be honest the current Merits system is easy to abuse too , If we go to any local forum right now I can show the amount of Merits that being giving away for just an Ann translation or literally useless posts

2. Merits are suppose to be used for rewarding a high quality post. Merits shouldn't be used for anything other than the measure of a users post quality.

Having a clean forum should be enough of an incentive.

Well I thought Merits is made to fight and reduce the spam on this forums and I think reporting a spam fall under the same category ( Fighting spam ) .

[Welsh]

Well lets be honest the current Merits system is easy to abuse too , If we go to any local forum right now I can show the amount of Merits that being giving away for just an Ann translation or literally useless posts

This isn't always abuse, rather it's misuse of the merit system. Besides, the initial merit people received will run out, and we'll see less signature campaigns, and announcement threads getting merit. Small amounts aren't too bad in the grand scheme of things.

Well I thought Merits is made to fight and reduce the spam on this forums and I think reporting a spam fall under the same category ( Fighting spam ) .

I disagree. I believe merits should be only used for rewarding high quality posts. I'll give you an example why reports are way to easy to get merits. I have 32k reports if that translated into merit it would mean I would be well above even theymos who has received the most merit. Plus, many other members who post technical, informative, and intriguing content which is unfair to them. This would easily be abused too via users posting with brand new newbie accounts, and reporting it with their main accounts.

We would no longer see people contributing to the forum with high quality posts, instead they would setup automatic bots to post, and report the posts. Thus, the merit system would become useless.

 

[onnz423]

I guess I need to step it up... Only 95% accuracy.

Still it's good to show the users some stats about their work, let them know that what they are doing is actually contributing some value to the forum.

Would be nice to also see a breakdown of who had the most accurate reports, could be like a competition (perhaps to decide the next mod?)

[Welsh]

I guess I need to step it up... Only 95% accuracy.

Still it's good to show the users some stats about their work, let them know that what they are doing is actually contributing some value to the forum.

Would be nice to also see a breakdown of who had the most accurate reports, could be like a competition (perhaps to decide the next mod?)

This is the most recent update(8 months ago):

All time:

Code:

+--------------------+-------+-----+-----------+----------+
| realName           | good  | bad | unhandled | accuracy |
+--------------------+-------+-----+-----------+----------+
| Lutpin             | 11008 | 167 |       334 |   0.9851 |
| shorena            | 10423 | 359 |       524 |   0.9667 |
| Cyrus              |  4641 | 170 |        90 |   0.9647 |
| botany             |  4568 | 159 |       220 |   0.9664 |
| xandry             |  4271 |  89 |        91 |   0.9796 |
| xhomerx10          |  4098 |  65 |       184 |   0.9844 |
| mexxer-2           |  3936 |  80 |        71 |   0.9801 |
| Foxpup             |  3719 |  21 |        99 |   0.9944 |
| EFS                |  3597 |  74 |       171 |   0.9798 |
| rickbig41          |  3321 |  46 |       367 |   0.9863 |
| Quickseller        |  2982 | 130 |       173 |   0.9582 |
| mprep              |  2794 | 120 |       159 |   0.9588 |
| hilariousandco     |  2723 |  82 |        30 |   0.9708 |
| TheButterZone      |  2430 | 230 |        97 |   0.9135 |
| DannyHamilton      |  2425 |  31 |       111 |   0.9874 |
| Welsh              |  2213 |  42 |        20 |   0.9814 |
| achow101           |  1847 |  29 |        47 |   0.9845 |
| redsn0w            |  1786 | 276 |       118 |   0.8661 |
| -ck                |  1756 |  26 |        14 |   0.9854 |
| subSTRATA          |  1633 |  58 |       121 |   0.9657 |
| mitzie             |  1526 |  65 |        32 |   0.9591 |
| dbshck             |  1523 |  14 |         9 |   0.9909 |
| deadley            |  1495 |  79 |        16 |   0.9498 |
| SFR10              |  1417 |   5 |        14 |   0.9965 |
| EcuaMobi           |  1370 |  13 |        17 |   0.9906 |
| malevolent         |  1317 |  37 |        18 |   0.9727 |
| --Encrypted--      |  1268 |  23 |        28 |   0.9822 |
| tmfp               |  1230 |  39 |        22 |   0.9693 |
| Lauda              |  1197 |  22 |        66 |   0.9820 |
| suchmoon           |  1111 | 119 |       172 |   0.9033 |
| Vod                |  1110 |  17 |        23 |   0.9849 |
| okae               |  1063 |   0 |         0 |   1.0000 |
| OmegaStarScream    |  1060 |  17 |        14 |   0.9842 |
| railzand           |   965 |  61 |         3 |   0.9405 |
| mocacinno          |   955 |   0 |         0 |   1.0000 |
| austin             |   896 |  46 |         0 |   0.9512 |
| Mitchell           |   895 |  36 |       118 |   0.9613 |
| Muhammed Zakir     |   877 |  71 |        89 |   0.9251 |
| unamis76           |   852 |   2 |         7 |   0.9977 |
| NLNico             |   779 |  20 |         8 |   0.9750 |
| MissCrypto         |   773 |  18 |        14 |   0.9772 |
| xetsr              |   750 |  47 |        44 |   0.9410 |
| dogie              |   725 | 215 |       109 |   0.7713 |
| KWH                |   705 |  72 |        51 |   0.9073 |
| Chris!             |   696 |  37 |        31 |   0.9495 |
| grv                |   677 |  16 |       946 |   0.9769 |
| dihydrogenmonoxide |   647 | 159 |        87 |   0.8027 |
| pedrog             |   643 |   5 |         5 |   0.9923 |
| ocminer            |   617 |  33 |         6 |   0.9492 |
| cr1776             |   606 |  12 |        10 |   0.9806 |
+--------------------+-------+-----+-----------+----------+

Last 120 days:

Code:

+---------------------+------+-----+-----------+----------+
| realName            | good | bad | unhandled | accuracy |
+---------------------+------+-----+-----------+----------+
| rickbig41           | 1535 |  24 |       248 |   0.9846 |
| xandry              | 1208 |  25 |         2 |   0.9797 |
| xhomerx10           |  542 |   9 |        31 |   0.9837 |
| Foxpup              |  401 |   2 |        30 |   0.9950 |
| DannyHamilton       |  363 |   7 |        32 |   0.9811 |
| Lutpin              |  341 |   7 |        32 |   0.9799 |
| grv                 |  306 |   6 |       540 |   0.9808 |
| subSTRATA           |  269 |   3 |        18 |   0.9890 |
| mprep               |  248 |   1 |        27 |   0.9960 |
| frodocooper         |  191 |   4 |         5 |   0.9795 |
| The Pharmacist      |  176 |   2 |        20 |   0.9888 |
| -ck                 |  155 |   0 |         4 |   1.0000 |
| EFS                 |  154 |   0 |        14 |   1.0000 |
| vizito              |  145 |   4 |         4 |   0.9732 |
| MissCrypto          |  137 |   0 |        13 |   1.0000 |
| HI-TEC99            |  136 |   1 |         3 |   0.9927 |
| dbshck              |  134 |   0 |         1 |   1.0000 |
| OmegaStarScream     |  131 |   1 |         5 |   0.9924 |
| fxpc                |  130 |  42 |        36 |   0.7558 |
| bL4nkcode           |  123 |   9 |        12 |   0.9318 |
| PauloLauro          |  122 | 106 |         3 |   0.5351 |
| Flying Hellfish     |  109 |  10 |         1 |   0.9160 |
| shorena             |  106 |   5 |        12 |   0.9550 |
| Vadi2323            |  105 |  19 |         3 |   0.8468 |
| Meuh6879            |   99 |   4 |         5 |   0.9612 |
| achow101            |   97 |   0 |         4 |   1.0000 |
| Pearls Before Swine |   97 |  11 |         7 |   0.8981 |
| mocacinno           |   86 |   0 |         0 |   1.0000 |
| Kubra Dam           |   85 |  13 |         0 |   0.8673 |
| NotFuzzyWarm        |   85 |   2 |         7 |   0.9770 |
| Quickseller         |   83 |   1 |        12 |   0.9881 |
| Mitchell            |   81 |   3 |        17 |   0.9643 |
| Here4Trades         |   78 |   1 |         7 |   0.9873 |
| Joel_Jantsen        |   77 |   3 |        10 |   0.9625 |
| Vod                 |   72 |   0 |         6 |   1.0000 |
| P E K K A           |   71 |  24 |         2 |   0.7474 |
| Blackshadow007      |   68 |   5 |         0 |   0.9315 |
| Byte16              |   66 |   7 |         0 |   0.9041 |
| instacalm           |   66 |   5 |         2 |   0.9296 |
| AT101ET             |   64 |   1 |         0 |   0.9846 |
| odolvlobo           |   62 |   0 |         1 |   1.0000 |
| sweetdesirez        |   61 |   3 |         4 |   0.9531 |
| sbogovac            |   61 |   1 |        21 |   0.9839 |
| pooya87             |   59 |   0 |         9 |   1.0000 |
| Lauda               |   59 |   0 |         1 |   1.0000 |
| nydiacaskey01       |   58 |   2 |         1 |   0.9667 |
| 110110101           |   57 |   0 |         0 |   1.0000 |
| richardivan         |   55 |   7 |         2 |   0.8871 |
| suchmoon            |   54 |   3 |         4 |   0.9474 |
| LeGaulois           |   53 |   2 |         1 |   0.9636 |
+---------------------+------+-----+-----------+----------+

Thanks a lot to all active reporters!

These stats have likely changed dramatically since then though.

[khufuking]

Well lets be honest the current Merits system is easy to abuse too , If we go to any local forum right now I can show the amount of Merits that being giving away for just an Ann translation or literally useless posts

This isn't always abuse, rather it's misuse of the merit system. Besides, the initial merit people received will run out, and we'll see less signature campaigns, and announcement threads getting merit. Small amounts aren't too bad in the grand scheme of things.

  Well when you see someone give other 20+ Merits for just a translation post and the person rewarded the Merits replied by with 20+ Merit to a totally useless post ( All I see here is abuse yes both might be 2 different persons but for me it is not different from making new accounts and report them ) exchange Merit is against the rules ,  Abuse is abuse in all forms   .

I disagree. I believe merits should be only used for rewarding high quality posts. I'll give you an example why reports are way to easy to get merits. I have 32k reports if that translated into merit it would mean I would be well above even theymos who has received the most merit. Plus, many other members who post technical, informative, and intriguing content which is unfair to them.

I totally agree 100% with this point , and yes this point alone is enough to not reward Merits for reports . 

[Welsh]

Well when you see someone give other 20+ Merits for just a translation post and the person rewarded the Merits replied by with 20+ Merit to a totally useless post ( All I see here is abuse yes both might be 2 different persons but for me it is not different from making new accounts and report them ) exchange Merit is against the rules ,  Abuse is abuse in all forms .

Yeah, your obviously referring to a specific scenario here, but if there isn't any trading back, and forth then it might not be abuse. It's annoying to see people send their merit to scam ICOs, or plain bad altcoin announcements, but I can't blame them for doing it if they believe in it.

[botany]

I guess I need to step it up... Only 95% accuracy.

Still it's good to show the users some stats about their work, let them know that what they are doing is actually contributing some value to the forum.

Would be nice to also see a breakdown of who had the most accurate reports, could be like a competition (perhaps to decide the next mod?)

I think the days of choosing a moderator by their reporting stats is well and truly over.
Too many other factors at play - whether there is a requirement, what time of the day moderators are required, etc.

[bitart]

Users who didn't made a report in the last 30 days, normally couldn't find anything in their history.
If you mean that you have for example less than 10 reports and you couldn't see how many are good/bad/unhandled then probably you are right about the minimum requirement (even if i don't understand the reason behind it)

Potential reasons could be to prevent users who aren't posting regular enough to complain about their reports not being handled or being marked bad which I expressed my concerns about earlier in the thread. Could also be that users who don't report regular don't need access to the in depth data that the regulars do.

Agreed to some of extent, but how about include them also?
For example, I want to improve my reporting to have a 100% and my reports are 50% bad. How could I improve it without seeing it?(Just an idea because I would like to report regularly once I bump into one of them)

I had also missed the 'Your report history' link, but I've started to report spam from the Bitcoin Discussion topic 3 days ago (with nearly 0 report count that time). I haven't really paid attention for the number of the reports so close, so I can only guess that the magic number is somewhere around 300 reports, because today I'm over 300 and the 'Your report history' link has appeared. It's good to see which posts were reported in vain...

[Welsh]

I had also missed the 'Your report history' link, but I've started to report spam from the Bitcoin Discussion topic 3 days ago (with nearly 0 report count that time). I haven't really paid attention for the number of the reports so close, so I can only guess that the magic number is somewhere around 300 reports, because today I'm over 300 and the 'Your report history' link has appeared. It's good to see which posts were reported in vain...

Strange number, but I guess it's been implemented to prevent those who only report now, and again from moaning about their reports being bad. Seems to be working so far as I've not seen any complaints.

[botany]

I had also missed the 'Your report history' link, but I've started to report spam from the Bitcoin Discussion topic 3 days ago (with nearly 0 report count that time). I haven't really paid attention for the number of the reports so close, so I can only guess that the magic number is somewhere around 300 reports, because today I'm over 300 and the 'Your report history' link has appeared. It's good to see which posts were reported in vain...

300 reports in 3 days is not bad at all.
There does not seem to be any logic for that the report history link not appearing for those who have made fewer reports...

[funsponge]

I had also missed the 'Your report history' link, but I've started to report spam from the Bitcoin Discussion topic 3 days ago (with nearly 0 report count that time). I haven't really paid attention for the number of the reports so close, so I can only guess that the magic number is somewhere around 300 reports, because today I'm over 300 and the 'Your report history' link has appeared. It's good to see which posts were reported in vain...

300 reports in 3 days is not bad at all.
There does not seem to be any logic for that the report history link not appearing for those who have made fewer reports...

300 reports is very good and I think Bitcoin discussion could do with a new mod! I think there's some logic in restricting who can see in depth stats about reports as I doubt those who don't report much would use it or need it and it would just affect the speed of the forum if it was available to everyone.

[bitart]

...
300 reports in 3 days is not bad at all.
...

Thanks
Well, you can imagine, it's easy to get used to it pretty soon
When I was about to reply to your post I've clicked the 'Report to Mod' link first below your post instead of the Quote button (realized it in time of course )
I have to find the healthy balance between the amount of reporting and replying

[TheQuin]

I have to find the healthy balance between the amount of reporting and replying

I think personally it's somewhere around 50%. Whenever I've reported more posts than I've written I think it's time to take a break and do something else for the rest of the day.

The thing I'm finding most useful about the report history page is I don't have to spend time trying to find things in the modlog to know what happened. I've never really known whether what I consider to be a shitpost is worth reporting, but so far every one I have done has been deleted.