I have followed this topic but are not sure about the actual settings. I have read “What happens when you flag a post” linked above but that does only show options, not settings. I would be interested in how many users of each TL have to flag a post to “hide” it (until further action by a mod). Any place to find this info?
The threshold might be different depending on user trust level and something like a “internal reputation score” that the system calculates, this is the only thing I’ve found:
I had several posts marked as spam on this thread Overturemaps.org - big-businesses OSMF alternative. They were restored by moderators, but it was pretty confusing for me. This doesn’t really seem to be working as intended. This is way too easy way for someone to abuse their “trust”. If someone is found to abuse functions like this on discourse, does that affect their reputation score?
did you read the link one post above yours? I think it answers your question.
I have no idea what posts where flagged previously (and was not involved) but I’ve just flagged a load of posts now. Small things that looked innocent at first end up turning that thread into one in which we spent as much time criticising each other as we did discussing OvertureMaps. Once again, OSM proves that it’s community channels can be unpleasant places
My response to SteveA’s clearly inappropriate message was flagged and hidden as spam for being an overly promotional advertisement. I don’t care if the message is hidden for being inappropriate, but it clearly wasn’t promotional spam Although if my message is hidden SteveA’s should be to since it’s clearly abusive.
FWIW I don’t think that “just hiding some posts” will actually help. There’s at least one known bad actor in that thread and just hiding some of their posts while leaving others will actually give a false impression of their behaviour and general reasonableness.
Part of the problem is Discourse’s lack of threading (Even when you’re reading it by email, which supports threading natively). Long threads inevitably descend into sub-threads. The moderators here have sometimes split those out manually into completely new threads, which is confusing in a different way. I don’t know what the solution is in “out of the box” Discourse; my personal answer is to read everything by email and move messages from people and about things that I know I don’t want to read straight away into a separate bucket.
Jut to add one more (probably pointless) data point to this. In mapping-activities-in-active-war-zones-in-ukraine several people made a series of off-topic comments, which where never hidden despite me flagging them. Whereas my second to last comment was apparently flagged and hidden as off-topic.
I assume that’s because I was the only person on my “side” of the discussion and I just don’t have enough clout to get comments hidden on my own. Whereas, other people discussion had it and people on their side. Which, if I’m being honest, really seems like a bad way to handle flagging/hiding messages.
Really It should 100% be based on if the post is actually problematic or not, instead of favoring whomever is lucky enough to get other people to join them mass-flagging dissenting opinions as some type of censorship play or whatever. Same goes for the “clout” based thing to some degree. Just because someone has more contributions then someone else in a discussion doesn’t mean they should be able to censor that persons views about a topic.
At the end of the day all reports should be treated equally by going to an administrator and being reviewed based on the merits of the report. Not who reported or how many mass-flaggers they can muster up to report someone with them. As it is, the current system really isn’t fair to new contributors, people who don’t post much, and “loners” (for lack of a better word).
At the end of the day, all flags are reviewed by moderator teams, so even if some replies were not initially hidden and others were, moderators will be able to bring the right balance and hide (or un-hide) what’s needed.
Cool. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the clarification