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

[1714054649]

1714054649

[1714054649]

1714054649

[1714054649]

1714054649

[1714054649]

1714054649

[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?