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 Introduce a spam reaction?

Post

Introduce a spam reaction?

+4
−0

It just occurred to me that it would be nice to have a "spam" reaction feature, to mark a post as potentially harmful while waiting for moderators to delete it.

Benefits:

  • Prevent other users from thinking the post is legit and clicking on links posted.
  • Making it easier for other users to spot already detected spam to flag. In case for example we wish to use a consensus system where multiple spam flags by several users lead to auto-deletion.

My proposal is that the reaction should be in red color and simply say "Spam". The text in the reaction-picking dialog could say:

  • Spam. The post is self-promotional and/or abusive. Use this reaction in combination with the appropriate flag.

This can also be used on abusive posts that violate CoC or contain links to harmful or inappropriate content.

But I don't think the reaction should be named "spam or abuse", even though it can be used for both. Or otherwise people might start using it for various drama purposes.

The reaction should be available on all sites in the network.

Optionally, a "nice to have" feature would be if flagging the post as spam automatically adds the reaction to it. Perhaps it should even be the only way to add the reaction, to ensure that users flag and not use the reaction.

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

3 comment threads

Avoiding redundant actions (1 comment)
Disabling links (6 comments)
Perhaps more explicitly dangerous? (1 comment)
Disabling links
trichoplax‭ wrote about 2 months ago

I like the idea of warning users that links may be dangerous, but in addition we could also remove links from a post when it is flagged as spam. If a moderator later decides the flag was incorrect, they can dismiss the flag and the link will be restored.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 2 months ago

Further protection could be provided by preventing new users from posting links. Perhaps it could be an ability that is earned. This way users would be protected from dangerous links even before the post is flagged.

The reaction approach could still be available as an additional measure for any spammers who go to the trouble of gaining the ability before posting.

Lundin‭ wrote about 2 months ago

Disabling links is a sensible idea. Maybe even editing out the link could be a temporary solution, although that means "bumping" the spam so it's not ideal.

Lundin‭ wrote about 2 months ago

As for blocking new users from posting links, that might be a bit too restrictive. There are lots of situations where links are necessary in order to post a good question.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 2 months ago

Yes I'm in 2 minds about blocking links from new users. I'd rather find a way that doesn't restrict anyone it doesn't need to.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 2 months ago

Maybe if the underlying post is not edited, but the interface only displays links from posts that are not flagged as spam, then there would be no bumping.

The interface could possibly leave the link showing, but when clicked it takes the user to an advice page about the dangers of spam...