[Pulp-dev] Spam on plan.io

[Robin Chan]

Removing incentive seems like a good tactic to try. And perhaps we can take
a look at some metrics to see if it's helping after trying for a bit.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:57 PM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:23 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe the first comment / issue posted by an account would need to be
>>> approved, but once approved they could post subsequent comments / issues
>>> without delay?
>>>
>>>
>> @dalley, sounds right to me. I think this could be implemented using
>> bmbouters b) option, with 1 difference. If the user can't even file until
>> approved, I think we shouldn't do it. If the user can file an invisible
>> issue, I'm ok with this.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> b) create a "trusted users" group and have that allow users to either
>>> post comments, post issues, or both and then disable those permissions for
>>> "other accounts". This would prevent a new user from filing a bug in a
>>> self-service way though.
>>>
>>
>> b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is not
>> visible until approved. When issue is approved, user is moved to "trusted
>> user" group. Further issues are not delayed.
>>
>> This would fix the problem at the cost of delaying response to new
>> contributors at a critical time, right after their first contribution.
>> Using "trusted users" would allow us to filter out most issues,
>> significantly reducing the workload to review for spam.
>>
>
> Nothing has changed except my patience. Ugh.
>
> IMO we need to remove the incentive, which means hiding the first
> issue/comment of new users.
>
> Unless anyone is strongly against this, I'll file an issue and we can
> discuss the technical details there.
>
>
>> However, we could also users "trusted users" as an invisible flag that
>> makes no difference to the user. This would be the exact same amount of
>> work as b) for us, but new contributor issues are always visible. So after
>> all this, I'm leaning toward a) + 1/2 b)
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a) manage the spam better
>>>
>>
>> a) Story >>> A new user is created they file an issue. Issue is visible
>> immediately. Spam review must review every new issue from every user.
>>
>> a) + 1/2 b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is
>> visible immediately. Issue is flagged internally for spam review, if not
>> spam, user is added to trusted group. Further issues would skip this
>> process.
>>
>> I have one last thought that might make b) more attractive, but its a
>> shot in the dark. Since the spam is coming from humans, someone is paying
>> them. If we never show the spam, we remove the incentive, and hopefully
>> someone will notice and stop it. If y'all think this is how things woud go
>> down, we could always do b) until the problem stops and switch to a) + 1/2
>> b).
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20181207/8003df7b/attachment.htm>