New report feature? - Good, bad, unhandled reports

[RickDeckard]

I was dealing with some threads that I thought weren't fit/didn't had enough "juice" to create a discussion on here and then I noticed something that I'm 100 % sure wasn't there before:



We now have the ability to see the amount of reports that contributed to our accuracy and we are also able to see which ones are on the queue to be reviewed. That's quite neat! Although one could reach this values with simple math I think that having these values right in the open is an awesome opportunity to see how we've contributed to help organize the forum (or not).

Do you guys think that it would be interesting to have a feature where we could click on the bad reports (on my case the "1 bad") to see which ones we fail to correct analyze?

Great little feature by the way Staff

[1714891880]

1714891880

[1714891880]

1714891880

[1714891880]

1714891880

[Little Mouse]

You can, once you reach 300+ good reports. After reaching 300+ reports, you can check out which report is good, bad or unhandled.
You can get more information here- [Unofficial Guide]- Reporting effectively
And what was not there? I can't see any changes there, I think everything included in your image is there for even a newbie.

[isaac_clarke22]

You can once you reach 300+ reports. After reaching 300+ reports, you can check out which report is good, bad or unhandled.
And what was not there? I can't see any changes there, I think everything included in your image is there for even a newbie.

Not really meant to hijack the thread, but I have a bit of question as well though.
When I reach 300+ reports, is there a minimum accuracy to whether that feature you mentioned will appear or not?

I had bad reports back in the days, because I wasn't really sure what posts/threads fall into a good reports, making my accuracy go down a little bit.
Edit: Saw the edit that contained the thread as well. Found the answer
Thanks, Little Mouse!

[RickDeckard]

You can, once you reach 300+ good reports. After reaching 300+ reports, you can check out which report is good, bad or unhandled.
You can get more information here- [Unofficial Guide]- Reporting effectively

I actually didn't knew about that, thank you for letting me know! Also thank you about that thread, it does in fact mention that after 300 good reports we get access to a neat feature.

And what was not there? I can't see any changes there, I think everything included in your image is there for even a newbie.

I really think that the feature wasn't there the first times that I did the reports mainly because when I've went down in accuracy I wanted to know how many I missed and I had to do the math manually, hence why I think that wasn't there before...Perhaps someone else on the same account level than my could check?

[Little Mouse]

After reaching 300+ reports, you can check out which report is good, bad or unhandled.

I have edited my first post. There was a little mistake.

[Poker Player]

And what was not there? I can't see any changes there, I think everything included in your image is there for even a newbie.

I really think that the feature wasn't there the first times that I did the reports mainly because when I've went down in accuracy I wanted to know how many I missed and I had to do the math manually, hence why I think that wasn't there before...Perhaps someone else on the same account level than my could check?

That's because you hadn't noticed. It appears that way from the day you register and make your first reports. I could see it from the first reports I made. And I haven't even reached 100.

[Jawhead999]

Do you guys think that it would be interesting to have a feature where we could click on the bad reports (on my case the "1 bad") to see which ones we fail to correct analyze?

It would be better if we can see all our report history without reaching 300 good reports, I don't get the reason why it need at least 300 good reports. People might can learn from his bad report to become better if they can see which were the report marked as good, bad, or unhandled. I know bad and good is subjective, some people has different opinion to judge a post.

IMO it will not hurt if all report history can be visible for any users without 300 good reports.

[Lucius]

It would be better if we can see all our report history without reaching 300 good reports, I don't get the reason why it need at least 300 good reports.

Surely there is some good reason why the admin did not enable this option to all users, and why he decided that the user must have at least 300 reports to get access to report history. However, it should be noted that the report history contains reports from only the previous 30 days - so it is not possible to see the complete report history.

For any active member who report at least 5 posts a day, this option becomes available within 2 months, so we might consider it a kind of reward for contributing to the forum.

[DdmrDdmr]

I’ve sometimes wondered why the 300 good report threshold must be met in order to gain access to the last 30 day report detail window. At some point I guessed it was a perk that had the threshold as an incentive, but it’s not really common knowledge, so the incentive theory doesn’t quite add-up.

It could also have to do with minimizing strain on retrieving the information (by making it accessible to a reduced amount of people), but it doesn’t look like it would require any heavy lifting to retrieve the information.
 
Last stats I’ve found on reports from a global point of view are these from mid 2019:

Let it be anonymous, just give us the numbers of those between 1 and 300 reports, those with reports from 300 to 1000, from 1000 to 2000, 2k to 3k, 3k to 5k and above 5k, or something like this.

Counts of members with good reports in the last year:

1-10: 5028
10-25: 399
25-50: 179
50-100: 82
100-200: 90
300-400: 35
400-500: 14
500-750: 20
750-1000: 12
1000-1500: 15
1500-2000: 7
2000-3000: 5
3000-5000: 5
>5000: 8

Thanks to all reporters; we couldn't do it without you!

"In the last year" I presume means using a 1 year rolling window at the time of data retrieval.

I’d have thought that it would be better for everyone to see all their 30 day window reports from the get-go, since it does help to make a self-assessment on how one reports and to get a general idea in what reports are wrong. It also help to make better reports when one follows the outcome (i.e. the board a given post is actually moved to).

[Timelord2067]

You've got to wonder what the admin/mods are doing to let over seven hundred reports go "unhandled" especially when reports tend to disappear from the "your reports" list after a month or so.

Are they still there?  Why are admin/mods so undecided?

[LeGaulois]

Could it be because your reports may look "controversial"?
From a moderator's point of view, it may be better to not do anything to not then appear to be taking sides with someone and then find themselves criticized later in a 'drama' thread.

Your ratio between 'good' and others is too huge. It looks like if they decided to ignore you, which I doubt. Hence my question about your reports.

[Rikafip]

I’ve sometimes wondered why the 300 good report threshold must be met in order to gain access to the last 30 day report detail window. At some point I guessed it was a perk that had the threshold as an incentive, but it’s not really common knowledge, so the incentive theory doesn’t quite add-up.

Some time ago I asked the same thing, why don't we have report history feature right from the beginning, instead having this obstacle in order to get it and I got the same answer from others, that it serves as an incentive. But it would be much easier for beginners to have that feature right from the beginning as if you have report posts in bulk and some get deleted and some don't, you have no idea what are you doing wrong. I know that would have helped me at when I started reporting the posts for the first time.

Then again, there is much spam on the forum that if someone really wants to reach 300 good reports in order to unlock that feature, he can easily do it in a day. Just head to altcoin section  

You've got to wonder what the admin/mods are doing to let over seven hundred reports go "unhandled" especially when reports tend to disappear from the "your reports" list after a month or so.

Are they still there?  Why are admin/mods so undecided?

Iirc, I've read somewhere that unhandled status is sort of euphemism for "soft bad", like report is most likely bad, but mods are not sure and don't wanna mark it as such etc in order not to ruin report accuracy so they just leave it unhandled, or something along those lines.

[Husires]

most of the people who make less than 300 report are not interested in following them, so there is no point in giving them a report because it will mean that they will harass mods if he does not delete that post.
If the forum has a good database and can give users more information then it is okay to have detailed report.

[Timelord2067]

Could it be because your reports may look "controversial"?

Some maybe - but Seven Hundred?

From a moderator's point of view, it may be better to not do anything to not then appear to be taking sides with someone and then find themselves criticized later in a 'drama' thread.

Your ratio between 'good' and others is too huge. It looks like if they decided to ignore you, which I doubt. Hence my question about your reports.

Quite a lot of my reports have been threads where one user has posted multiple times (usually five or less minutes apart) - at a guess, the admin/mods have looked at the sheer numbers reported and decided not to bother.

Iirc, I've read somewhere that unhandled status is sort of euphemism for "soft bad", like report is most likely bad, but mods are not sure and don't wanna mark it as such etc in order not to ruin report accuracy so they just leave it unhandled, or something along those lines.

Maybe, but I'd say it was the numbers of reports as the bulk of my reports have been for sequential posts by the same user.

[Rikafip]

Quite a lot of my reports have been threads where one user has posted multiple times (usually five or less minutes apart) - at a guess, the admin/mods have looked at the sheer numbers reported and decided not to bother.

Hm, that is weird, that user was clearly breaking forum rules and that admins/mods decided not to do anything, but I really doubt that has anything to do with the amount of posts you reported, or that they were lazy etc so thats why they didn't do anything. I don't know if I understood you correctly, but did you report whole threads, or posts inside?

I've used to report posts in bulk, usually several hundreds at once and I never noticed that mods decided not to do anything just because I reported a lot. I know that some users even reported several thousands of posts in a single day and it got deleted, so that's why I don't think that's the reason for your posts staying unhandled.

By the way, care to share some of those posts that stayed unhandled, if you can find them?

[Timelord2067]

I was finding threads where numerous users were posting rapid fire and was reporting each and every post (e.g. five in a row, I'd report the four after the initial one) - perhaps the number of posts simply overwhelmed the admin/mods (I'm being very charitable and yet overtly sarcastic at the same time here).

I don't use any of the helps that people can install, just open a page, open each posts in a new window, copy/paste my report and send one after the other.

By the way, care to share some of those posts that stayed unhandled, if you can find them?

They aren't on the report page (removed after about a month IIRC)  I'll usually find a user doing it in one thread, then go back through their prior posts - usually in threads they themselves have started.

[PrimeNumber7]

I’ve sometimes wondered why the 300 good report threshold must be met in order to gain access to the last 30 day report detail window. At some point I guessed it was a perk that had the threshold as an incentive, but it’s not really common knowledge, so the incentive theory doesn’t quite add-up.

This is speculation: Maybe the admins don't want someone who has not shown they know how to effectively report posts trying to question unhandled and bad reports.

Quite a lot of my reports have been threads where one user has posted multiple times (usually five or less minutes apart) - at a guess, the admin/mods have looked at the sheer numbers reported and decided not to bother.

More speculation: If you are reporting posts that are old when you report them, your report may not be high on the priority list.

[Lafu]

I dont know how he , or what he has reported ! But with the amount of reported posts and threads that there are 704 unhandled is bit crazy.
Maybe there should be a overthinking about the reportingstyle and things about how he is doing.
Sometimes its also a reason how you report it and what you write in there.
Here are my reports:
You have reported 19035 posts with 100% accuracy (18930 good, 41 bad, 64 unhandled).

More speculation: If you are reporting posts that are old when you report them, your report may not be high on the priority list.

If you doing that they can marked also as unhandled and maybe you will get a message from a Global Mod as i have done that when i started.
Depends also on what you reporting.

[PrimeNumber7]

More speculation: If you are reporting posts that are old when you report them, your report may not be high on the priority list.

If you doing that they can marked also as unhandled and maybe you will get a message from a Global Mod as i have done that when i started.
Depends also on what you reporting.

Reports that are "unhandled" are not marked as anything. Reports in "unhandled" status mean that no moderator has taken action on the post you have reported. This could mean the mods have not had time to review your report, or it could mean that some mods reviewed your report and were not sure if they should take action or not. It could also mean that responding to your report requires research that the mod does not have time to conduct.

You are not going to be notified if a mod is not sure if action should be taken or not.

[Joel_Jantsen]

You've got to wonder what the admin/mods are doing to let over seven hundred reports go "unhandled" especially when reports tend to disappear from the "your reports" list after a month or so.

Were those all 700 reported within a month?
I sort of know when my report is going to get unhandled status - It's mostly the posts from reputed members which are borderline trolling/off-topic/harassment or move -> section request that I had reported. The decision of the mods can be argued upon and called sort of biased and are definitely controversial. For example, you can argue if one post belongs in Meta or Reputation and both sections are right depending on the argument presented. Makes it hard for mods to decide and hence, unhandled.

Are they still there?

Yes, you should be able to view them in your report lists no?

[Lafu]

You are not going to be notified if a mod is not sure if action should be taken or not.

I was talking for my reporting as i have started , thats where i have my few unhandled reports !
At some stage hilariousandco or mprep have written to me as i should be stop reporting very old posts and threads .
As they good as they are and nobody will look after them.

[Timelord2067]

Are they still there?

Yes, you should be able to view them in your report lists no?

No, this is all I can see:



my reports were in other sections and after about a month, like a conveyor belt, the oldest will disappear from the bottom of the list as the new ones appear at the top.  I don't report very often as you can see by the screen shot, this has been ongoing for quite a while.

[UserU]

my reports were in other sections and after about a month, like a conveyor belt, the oldest will disappear from the bottom of the list as the new ones appear at the top.  I don't report very often as you can see by the screen shot, this has been ongoing for quite a while.

Shame, it would be nice if we get to access all our reports.

So if we stopped actively reporting for a year for instance, the list would be blank I assume?

[Lucius]

So if we stopped actively reporting for a year for instance, the list would be blank I assume?

That's right, I already wrote this in my previous post - every user who has access to this option only sees what they have reported in the past 30 days. This is designed to give us insight only into recent reports, and not into the overall report history which becomes irrelevant over time. It also makes sense, because if something is not handled in the first 30 days after the report, it is almost certain that it will remain unhandled forever, the same as reports marked as bad.

[UserU]

That's right, I already wrote this in my previous post - every user who has access to this option only sees what they have reported in the past 30 days. This is designed to give us insight only into recent reports, and not into the overall report history which becomes irrelevant over time. It also makes sense, because if something is not handled in the first 30 days after the report, it is almost certain that it will remain unhandled forever, the same as reports marked as bad.

Understood. Still better than other forums which we don't even gain access to them.

[hilariousandco]

You are not going to be notified if a mod is not sure if action should be taken or not.

I was talking for my reporting as i have started , thats where i have my few unhandled reports !
At some stage hilariousandco or mprep have written to me as i should be stop reporting very old posts and threads .
As they good as they are and nobody will look after them.

You're free to report anything you like, but personally I feel like handling posts from a very long time ago is overkill, unless it's something serious. I won't mark them as bad but they're more likely to go unhandled. Not every mod will have the same opinion though.

You've got to wonder what the admin/mods are doing to let over seven hundred reports go "unhandled" especially when reports tend to disappear from the "your reports" list after a month or so.

Are they still there?  Why are admin/mods so undecided?

We're dammed if we do dammed if we don't. Let me ask you this, would you rather have them marked as bad? I often leave reports because I'm on the fence about them so I just leave them rather than penalise the person or user who's reported them.

Sometimes people go on reporting sprees and oftentimes it might be for things like spam or low-quality but that is completely subjective to all parties involved. You might look at the post and think it's ok, or maybe lazy but not enough to be removed and in those instances it's better to just leave them. Sometimes I just can't be bothered reading them all to make a decision but if they do go unhandled then that likely means every mod who has viewed them has come to the same conclusion.

[Timelord2067]

... and just like that three of my posts have been removed.  Not via an Admin/Mod deleting them and then I received a PM stating they have been removed, just the whole thread they were in has been removed (and no one in that thread gets notification, so it goes mostly unnoticed).

Being in a SigCamp my posts are tallied every week.  It says I've done 7,228 posts as at last Saturday.  My post count (including this post is 7,247 posts i.e. 19 posts.  However, a look back at my post history shows I've actually done 22 posts this week so far.

Isn't it funny how whenever I raise the issue of my posts being deleted by an Admin/Mod, or there being over seven hundred of my reports to admin/mods being left "unhandled" yet more of my posts get deleted.

As if...

Right...

On...

Cue...

...

@theymos

[Timelord2067]

... and wouldn't you know it, the out of control temper tantrum of the admin mods is at it again deleting a post from a month ago that was responded to in the thread...

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

hey i happen to own the sun , will sell for 0.5 Bitcoin , great for Spas, sauna's , vacation homes hotels in a hot climate or a giant cigarette lighter!!

Do you give out samples? 

I've got this project that's underway - nothing too serious mind you and I need some energy to recharge this small cannon.  Nothing too big mind you, it's the size of a continent, only been fired a few times already.  The previous owner is a little cash strapped after a misunderstanding with some Rebel Scum (one of whom it turned out was his Grand-daughter...).

@theymos

[hilariousandco]

I didn't remove it and can't see any reports on it either but it's obvious that zebedee's shitpost was removed and therefore yours was as well.

[Insanerman]

I didn't remove it and can't see any reports on it either but it's obvious that zebedee's shitpost was removed and therefore yours was as well.

Actually, this is my first time knowing that even you reply with sense and related to the main topic's idea yet what you quote is pretty straightforward off-topic. I thought that all deleted posts were mainly because a person's off-topic reply. Thanks for the idea hilarious, as always.

With regards to the OP, AFAIK it was already there the time that you gained either any of the criteria of reports. If I reported one bad, then i could see that I had one, then the rest follows. Definitely not a new feature as for what I can remember, yet a feature that must also be optimized. If ever that admin could see this, I guess it is also a good feature to let other people know how good and accurate a user's report is. Trust defines how a person can be trusted, and I guess Report Accuracy would define how a user helps maintain the good posting of the forum.

[RickDeckard]

Me reading this thread :



On-topic : While I still have no recollection on my mind of the concept posted on my original post in this thread, I have to accept as more than valid the arguments of all the community members who participated in my thread to state that my eye sight surely could be better - I don't know how or why did I missed that information of reports until now. As I said before, I manually did all the calculations just to see how good/bad I was in reporting threads, just to let you guys know how "blind" I was to this feature. Could we consider this as a blind spot[1]?

Off topic? - I'm sorry for creating such cleavage between users / opinions, that was not the purpose of my thread. However, regarding the other topics of discussion that have been going around, albeit this is no matter where I should be introducing myself in, I would really like to know, or at least have a general idea of some of the topics that are considered "so so" for them to be left out as "unhandled" to the point of summing up a total of 704 reports in Timelord2067 case. Bear in mind that I am in no way saying that this is a slack by the mods or anything like that. I just consider that having so much reports "unhandled" could be a reason, perhaps, to redefine better the rules of a report? I mean, to have such a large number of unhandled cases in a user (which I'm sure most happen in other users, albeit in a low/higher number) perhaps it's a way of telling us (the community) that the rules should be revised?

Or am I way overthinking due to the fact that the people that make the rules (I assume theymos with the help of staff and perhaps some feedback of mods) already take in consideration every bit and cranny while analyzing a report and still don't come to the conclusion of it being good / bad ?

Also, in your case @Timelord2067, what would you prefer? to see those numbers of reports decrease (either being classified as good/bad) albeit already knowing that they are far too old to be considered valid to today's standard? Or do you think that in these specific cases the rules shouldn't leave traces of doubt when classifying a post "worth" or not?

[1] "The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgment of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one's own judgment." - Pronin, E.; Lin, D. Y.; Ross, L. (2002). "The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (3): 369–381.

[Timelord2067]

Multiple threads have covered this topic from different angles in the past. The only consensus that can be gleaned is the current admins (for want of a better description) do their own thing and contradict each other when one choses not to handle a report then another marks it good or even bad if it's against one of their "gang".

There needs to be actual defined (and posted in a thread by @theymos, not just someone else's opinion) guidelines and the biased admin/mods replaced by Veted users who are unbiased.

Gang members need not reply.

[hilariousandco]

Multiple threads have covered this topic from different angles in the past. The only consensus that can be gleaned is the current admins (for want of a better description) do their own thing and contradict each other when one choses not to handle a report then another marks it good or even bad if it's against one of their "gang".

Again, damned if we do damned if we don't. Just for reference, would you prefer for staff to mark them as bad in future rather than be left unhandled? Theymos himself I believe has referenced to unhandled reports as essentially considered 'soft bad' or something, but we can mark them as properly bad if this is what you would prefer? I can certainly start doing that if you want some consistency. Of course I can't guarantee what other mods think of every other post hence why we take them on a case by case basis. Things like low-quality posts are subjective though. How the hell can you reach a consensus on that? Do you think mods are one big hive-mind or should hold a committee with all mods where we vote on whether each and every post should be deleted or not? Mods do their best to follow the rules but not everything is set in stone. Someone may create a thread that merely requires a yes or no answer, so would a person who replies 'yes' or 'no' be low quality? No, not if that's all the op is looking for or needs. If the op requires more than a yes or no answer then it's probably pointless or unsubstantial. Just posting an image may be spam. Someone just posting an image of a cartoon poop is probably unsubstantial and could or should be removed, but not if someone either posts or creates a meme that is relevant or funny, or posts a very helpful picturegram that explains a lot. Sometimes pictures are worth a thousand words so we shouldn't just be removing every solitary image that someone posts just because. Also, what would you define as trolling? Well, you might think this post is trolling. Someone might find a joke that is made at their expense as trolling, but where does it cross the line? Some people have skins thin or thicker than others and some people can't take jokes. Some people suffer barrages of attacks and don't complain about it or let it effect them and then other times people take 'jokes' way too far or develop into vitriolic grudges that clearly effect their mental well-being, but of course we as mods have to try decide what crosses the line as there is no official rule or law set in stone on what constitutes trolling.

There needs to be actual defined (and posted in a thread by @theymos, not just someone else's opinion) guidelines and the biased admin/mods replaced by Veted users who are unbiased.

Gang members need not reply.

Why don't you have a go at writing these 'defined' guidelines and propose them to theymos? I'd really like to see what you could come up with at least. If they're logical maybe even theymos will implement them. I doubt you can some up with anything actually workable or better than the current 'rules' but please feel free to prove me wrong. All humans are biased. It's impossible not to be. Let's take yourself for example. I've lost count of how many times I've seen you accuse me whether directly or indirectly of having something to do with one of your posts being removed or whatnot and it never has anything to do with me. You often can't seem to grasp the concept of off topic posts. Your posts in here are off topic. So, by the rules they should or could be removed. Should staff remove them to keep some sort of consistency that you require? If someone else does remove them then you will cry about it and likely assume it was me because of your biases or paranoia, but you'd be wrong.

And who are these gang members? An imaginary group of mods that are fowling the rules correctly or just don't have the same opinion as you? This wouldn't be your biased mind conjuring up conspiracies would it? Obviously you think there's some cabal of mods that are against you but what is likely happening is you've made a post that is against the rules or is liable to be removed like the one you complained about above and some other mod has done what they should and removed it, but because of your biases you think you're being attacked and cannot look at this objectively.

[RickDeckard]

This is speculation: Maybe the admins don't want someone who has not shown they know how to effectively report posts trying to question unhandled and bad reports.

I wonder, wouldn't it be beneficial to the amount of work that moderators have classifying the reports, to have (right from the beginning) the ability to see which reports were deemed as "bad reports"? I think that being able to see them would allow us to learn right from the start and avoid "sending" threads over to mods to evaluate that will end up being as "bad reports". Or it doesn't make sense at all and we all should follow the line of "Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports." ?

Also, is it really proved that this "Perk" that becomes unlocked past 300 good reports actually increases the amount of reports that users generate? My feeling is that users that don't want to do that, or don't feel compelled to do it as in they just want to browse and take part in the discussion, won't ever have an incentive to report threads/posts. On the other hand, users that actually want to go to the other step and actually help the moderators in screening posts/threads would find this tool as a awesome ally throughout the lifespan of their activity here. Am I wrong in my assumptions or missing some point of view that is damaging my assessment of the situation?

[actmyname]

Things like low-quality posts are subjective though. How the hell can you reach a consensus on that?

Whatever the case is, the day we find a way to quantitatively measure the degree of spam and impose absolute thresholds for users, we would probably be living in a time where such a process would be irrelevant for curbing spam.

The rules are already wrapped with the moderator discretion clause to allow for the discretion concerning grey, fuzzy definitions. If someone has a better wrapper for such a system of rules then they should be working on much greater and grander designs than arguing about something related to administrating a Bitcoin forum.