Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Hobbling of users who consistently post low-quality content

Parent

Hobbling of users who consistently post low-quality content

+17
−3

There are, unfortunately, a few users on Codidact who relatively consistently make low-quality contributions. These posts often come in bursts and tend to be downvoted fairly quickly, but that doesn't slow them down.

I propose that Codidact should implement some manner in which to slow down such users. They shouldn't be prevented entirely from posting, but there should be limits in place to ensure that their posts don't drown out other content.

I am posting a self-answer with a suggestion for how this can be done, but alternative suggestions (or arguments why this is a bad idea) are certainly welcome!

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

4 comment threads

It's not possible to meaningfully hobble bad users. You can only hobble new users. (1 comment)
Like the idea. Added some extra steps to your basic proposal to allow for "strictness configuration";... (2 comments)
Perfect is the enemy of good (3 comments)
Downvote!!! it's not because my answers/questions are poorly written (2 comments)
Post
+4
−6

Maybe I am the one who got downvotes (talking about the CD Meta) rather than anyone else. So do I have some idea what a downvote represents? Even sometimes I ignore the person who had downvoted (but not his texts).

In your answer:

First, look at their most recent post of the same type (question, answer, article, ...). If that post has a score >0.5 (that is, is positively received by the community), then allow the new post. (Note that this means that if their most recent post has not yet been voted on at all, the user does not get a free pass.)

Look, everyone has their opinion. And you can't understand a person by his/her past. I may write bad posts yesterday and today I may write good posts.

A person isn't always same. Earlier Stack Overflow was directly blocking people from asking without any warning. But nowadays they are showing a warning message above the question field.


I know what had gone up to me.

Someone said,"another person can never realize what had happened to a person until they are in their place".

There's several reason of downvoting.

  1. bad English (too hard to read) (this answer might be harder to read also :P (but I don't care of downvote :D))
  2. no research effort.
  3. don't have idea of basic things but doing advance things.
  4. Suggestion isn't good (talking about Meta posts)

Actually, when I was completely new to the community a user (I am not mentioning his name) had told me, "It's very hard to read your answer, and that's why I think other had downvoted". But that doesn't mean the post is bad. My English might be bad, but sometimes I may write good content also. bring me back


Actually, the suggestion may not good to you, but it may be good to some others. But if you judge a person by voting then it won't be good. As I said earlier, the last suggestion was bad, but you can't say future suggestion is bad also. bring me back


Some people may not have idea of everything. If you go to learn something new then there will be a lot of things that you don't know. But before asking a question, they should search on the Internet if there's something relevant. That represents a bad post. And I remark them as bad post either. We should restrict them. My suggestion or communities suggestion


Someone had mentioned in a post that, there's participate everywhere ability in your profile. New users don't get the ability. But since we are small right now, that's why we are giving that ability to every user. I had asked on Discord once, "when we remove the 'participate everywhere' ability. I had shown them that some was writing questions too poorly and their reputation is negative (>50). I got no reply, so I didn't bring that question again".

If anyone think that we should discuss about that then create a new question. I don't have time to do that now.

I care of the question when you say that a single user has written a lot of poor questions. But I don't want someone to be permanently banned. Because if you ban a user then they will go to create another account and he/she will keep doing it. So permanently banning isn't a good idea. My suggestion is to deal with a user's ability.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

5 comment threads

Another user with name Istiak is my account (1 comment)
If you refer to me anywhere, I think you should say it clearly (2 comments)
Not sure what you're saying (2 comments)
You make some good points, if we want people to improve we need to post a comment saying why we think... (2 comments)
My suggestion is specifically NOT about permanently banning a user (1 comment)
My suggestion is specifically NOT about permanently banning a user
Canina‭ wrote over 2 years ago · edited over 2 years ago

Near the end of your answer, you write that

But I don't want someone to permanently ban. Cause if you ban an user than they will go to create another account and he will keep doing it. So permanently banning isn't good idea.

That's why, in my proposal, in particular the final "escape hatch" of an interim post count cap is there: to allow users to redeem themselves in a reasonable amount of time. They just have to wait a while between each post, such that their posts actually get interspersed with other users' posts instead of being dumped on the community in rapid succession. With a cap, everyone gets a chance to redeem themselves and start working their way back up; if they post well-received content, then the first criteria lets them bypass the hobbling because their most recent post meets the post score threshold (which is already pretty close to if not the definition of "well-received" in other places on Codidact; I don't recall off hand if score=0.5 counts as well-received).