Accuracy down to 98%

[BitCoinDream]

Just 4 days ago my reporting accuracy was standing at 100%. In last 4 days I have reported 3-4 posts for referral spam and post in wrong forum. One or a few of them has not been accepted and my accuracy has come down to 98%, though I have not received any message for bad report. I would like to know which post/posts were reported wrong by me ?

p.s. Is it the case that one can not start a self-moderated topic in Meta ?

[1714874862]

1714874862

[1714874862]

1714874862

[hilariousandco]

Just 4 days ago my reporting accuracy was standing at 100%. In last 4 days I have reported 3-4 posts for referral spam and post in wrong forum. One or a few of them has not been accepted and my accuracy has come down to 98%, though I have not received any message for bad report. I would like to know which post/posts were reported wrong by me ?

p.s. Is it the case that one can not start a self-moderated topic in Meta ?

You don't receive a message for a bad report, though I think it'd be beneficial if we could see them or our report history. I believe they're kept on the system for two weeks. Maybe a mod will let you know which one was bad.

[Cryptopher]

What if these bad reports came from previous reports that you had filed but had remained unanswered? It's reasonable, but not so likely.

I still believe that there should be more information in the stats that are presented. I wouldn't worry too much about bad reports, as you are doing a service to the forums in reporting suspect topics and posts anyway. With that said, I understand your frustrating in receiving a bad report for something that you clearly believed to be a good report.

[Pobre]

Just 4 days ago my reporting accuracy was standing at 100%. In last 4 days I have reported 3-4 posts for referral spam and post in wrong forum. One or a few of them has not been accepted and my accuracy has come down to 98%, though I have not received any message for bad report. I would like to know which post/posts were reported wrong by me ?

p.s. Is it the case that one can not start a self-moderated topic in Meta ?

You dont get a message for a "bad report". And I guess maybe the reports that you sent for "post in the wrong forum" would not have been accepted because its not a criteria for removing posts, it generally leads to moving of the topic.

[theymos]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623429.msg6915010#msg6915010

Ref links are allowed if they're on-topic, which this is.

[rhino34567]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623429.msg6915010#msg6915010

Ref links are allowed if they're on-topic, which this is.

Wouldn't it be better if there was a way to check on invalid reports for us? This way, we would know not to keep reporting something thinking it is against the rules. For example, the OP in this case would've kept reporting all referral links if it weren't for you taking the time to tell him what it was.

[hilariousandco]

That's exactly my reasoning and I made that same suggestion here. Guess someone should suggest it for the new forum.

[Cryptopher]

That's exactly my reasoning and I made that same suggestion here. Guess someone should suggest it for the new forum.

Hell, I think that we should have it on the existing forum, who knows when the new forum will land. It doesn't have to be a massive report with the ability to drill down to particular reports or anything, just the ability to see how many of our reports have been acted upon and how many were flagged as incorrect would be a good start.

Of course, the ability to view the incorrect ones would be nice.

[BitCoinDream]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623429.msg6915010#msg6915010

Ref links are allowed if they're on-topic, which this is.

OOPS !!! My bad... Got your point. Thank you for taking your time to provide me the exact link. Cheers \m/

[kuusj98]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623429.msg6915010#msg6915010

Ref links are allowed if they're on-topic, which this is.

OOPS !!! My bad... Got your point. Thank you for taking your time to provide me the exact link. Cheers \m/

Bro, does it even matter how accurate you are in reporting? I don't even recall more than 20 people on this forum reporting so good job

[umair127]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623429.msg6915010#msg6915010

Ref links are allowed if they're on-topic, which this is.

OOPS !!! My bad... Got your point. Thank you for taking your time to provide me the exact link. Cheers \m/

Bro, does it even matter how accurate you are in reporting? I don't even recall more than 20 people on this forum reporting so good job

seems like the Op takes spam really seriously and wants to have a perfect score, he possible a perfectionist, but accuracy should not effect u that much with ur score.  you cant be perfect

[rohnearner]

I have reported 17 posts with 89% accuracy , and yeah I got to know about few posts that i reported incorrectly about Ponzi's etc [posting ponzi's is ok doesn't matter how silly it is :p] but few I don't understand , so the feature most of members talking about where we can see Bad reports would be really helpful thanks .
one more question can having a Low accuracy rate while reporting can backfire and if it does what are the consequences, what is good accuracy rate 50+% ,75%+ , 80%+ ,90%+ or it should be upto 95-100% .?

[hilariousandco]

I don't think it could backfire unless you had a minus score  or was just spamming the report feature with crap all the time or something. And I've read a couple of times by mods that 60% is considered a good score and it's more about volume of posts reprted than 100% accuracy.

[BadBear]

If it would be incorrect for a moderator to do anything in response to a report at the time when the report was made, then the report is considered inaccurate. Reports are explicitly marked as incorrect by moderators. It's also possible (though rare) for a report to be marked as neither good nor bad -- such reports don't count toward your accuracy percentage.

Average accuracy is 56%, so 60% (66% now) isn't bad. Unless you're only reporting really obvious stuff, very few people will have accuracies above 90%. Even if you have the correct mindset for moderation, you won't know the policies well enough until you've been a moderator for a while.

[theymos]

Here are some updated stats:

Membergroup	Average accuracy
(all)	60%
Newbie	51%
Jr. Member	52%
Member	54%
Full Member	59%
Sr. Member	63%
Hero Member	73%
Staff	88%

In all, there have been 27,689 good reports, 8129 bad reports, and 1067 unhandled reports.

I think that this is all pretty good! Any accuracy percentage above ~25% is probably fine.

[rohnearner]

If it would be incorrect for a moderator to do anything in response to a report at the time when the report was made, then the report is considered inaccurate. Reports are explicitly marked as incorrect by moderators. It's also possible (though rare) for a report to be marked as neither good nor bad -- such reports don't count toward your accuracy percentage.

Average accuracy is 56%, so 60% (66% now) isn't bad. Unless you're only reporting really obvious stuff, very few people will have accuracies above 90%. Even if you have the correct mindset for moderation, you won't know the policies well enough until you've been a moderator for a while.

I think that this is all pretty good! Any accuracy percentage above ~25% is probably fine.

Thanks for the update so Reporting is like a duty and helping Mods. 

[ranlo]

Just 4 days ago my reporting accuracy was standing at 100%. In last 4 days I have reported 3-4 posts for referral spam and post in wrong forum. One or a few of them has not been accepted and my accuracy has come down to 98%, though I have not received any message for bad report. I would like to know which post/posts were reported wrong by me ?

p.s. Is it the case that one can not start a self-moderated topic in Meta ?

You don't receive a message for a bad report, though I think it'd be beneficial if we could see them or our report history. I believe they're kept on the system for two weeks. Maybe a mod will let you know which one was bad.

I'd like it if they could add history as well, with a notice as to which ones were accepted/denied. I've reported people making threats to one another in the past and stuff and they were denied.

[umair127]

I have reported 3 with 100 percent but serious, it seems like you guys love doing this, just remember this what goes around come around thats what people say.  Thanks theymos for also confirming accuracy nice to see you care.

[ranlo]

I have reported 3 with 100 percent but serious, it seems like you guys love doing this, just remember this what goes around come around thats what people say.  Thanks theymos for also confirming accuracy nice to see you care.

I've only reported a few posts the entire time I've been around, and that's just because people start threatening to blackmail others or follow them from thread to thread harassing them constantly everywhere they go. Those situations suck. Past that, I don't report people.

[hilariousandco]

If it would be incorrect for a moderator to do anything in response to a report at the time when the report was made, then the report is considered inaccurate. Reports are explicitly marked as incorrect by moderators. It's also possible (though rare) for a report to be marked as neither good nor bad -- such reports don't count toward your accuracy percentage.

Average accuracy is 56%, so 60% (66% now) isn't bad. Unless you're only reporting really obvious stuff, very few people will have accuracies above 90%. Even if you have the correct mindset for moderation, you won't know the policies well enough until you've been a moderator for a while.

I think that this is all pretty good! Any accuracy percentage above ~25% is probably fine.

Thanks for the update so Reporting is like a duty and helping Mods.  

I imagine users reporting posts are largely what the mods rely on, so yeah it probably helps out a great deal. Most mods probably won't have the time to patrol the entire forum of their respective sub and can only handle stuff via reports and whatever they happen to come across themselves.

If it would be incorrect for a moderator to do anything in response to a report at the time when the report was made, then the report is considered inaccurate. Reports are explicitly marked as incorrect by moderators. It's also possible (though rare) for a report to be marked as neither good nor bad -- such reports don't count toward your accuracy percentage.

Average accuracy is 56%, so 60% (66% now) isn't bad. Unless you're only reporting really obvious stuff, very few people will have accuracies above 90%. Even if you have the correct mindset for moderation, you won't know the policies well enough until you've been a moderator for a while.

What does the first sentence mean? I can't wrap my head around it  .

And would a very high percentage of accurate reports ever actually count against you? I'd like to keep mine as high as possible just for my own personal achievement/entertainment (as lame as that might sound  ), but I don't think I just report 'obvious' stuff, but obviously can only report things I'm aware of, but I'd like to think I've learnt and know generally what most things should and shouldn't be reported by now (though I'm not claiming I know everything as there's bound to be things I'd miss or aren't aware that should be reported as of yet). I wish there was an extensive thread somewhere of what stuff should and shouldn't be reported though. I think that would help a lot of users out (and also consequently the forum).