Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit
-
@PeterJones said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
Option 1
Option 1 makes perfect sense.
-
@Coises said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
Option 1 makes perfect sense.
Reply
agree.
-
@PeterJones said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
Option 1
That’s my vote. It seems the simplest (temporary) solution. And if we do it and it turns out bad, well then we just downvote to turn them off again, or better, get them banned!
Terry
-
@PeterJones,
Option 1 for me also. I think any first time poster, as you folks did to me, is to direct them to the FAQ’s that help them in this forum, and wait to see if they follow the advice, or try to rephrase their questions. There are far to many 1 time posters that never return, which to me, means they aren’t really interested or patient, when they are not immediately accomodated. This isn’t, as you point out, a 24/7 manned paid hotline for tech support.
Many times, I’ve been amazed by the speed of responses and breadth of your answers, but I’ll be the first to say that this should not be expected to be an on demand answer service. If the asker is impatient, tough. They need to either learn patience, further research by going through the FAQ’s we point them to, to do their own learning first, or just move on.
The recent poster that was here to get an answer for a “client” is a perfect example of the abuse of your good graces. I like the 1st Option, because it makes them take the time to research and at least learn a little more before coming here. Granted, sometimes the FAQ and forum formatting instructions aren’t always clear, which is some of the problems I originally had here…but I did read and did try, and you saw that and straightened me out…but I did read, whether I understood them correctly or not…and I expect others to respect your efforts as much as I did…and meet you half way. We don’t need spam, so let people with real questions that you want to be long time users of the forum and expanding the possible users that can help other users to expand and that won’t happen by burning yourselves out by abusive users…from this side or the other side. Sorry…just been locked up too long lately doing peronal labor intensive work and unable to spend much time on here to help, and have been intolerant of the “instant answer generation”. ;-) -
Hi @peterjones,
Like the main posters, I think that the
option 1is the sensible choice !@terry-r opinion summarize very well all the situation !
Best Regards,
guy038
-
@PeterJones
Possibly a silly question but is the level adjustable?If so would a value of -1 work? That way the posters very first posts works every time.
It does somewhat open it up to abuse but the first down vote will (hopefully) turn it off.Terry
-
@Terry-R said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
… is the level adjustable?
Yes, the level is adjustable.
If so would a value of -1 work? That way the posters very first posts works every time.
It’s a “greater-than-or-equal-to” threshold, so
-1would actually allow someone with one downvote to still post links, which we don’t want.Setting it to
0would allow a user to post a link in their very first post – which is actually the way that Option 3 is implemented. -
@PeterJones Would it be possible to have
- That the flag user and flag post features are only available to those with a reputation of 20 or more.
- That flagging a post or user instantly moves that post or all of a user’s posts into a purgatory that moderators would need to review. Flagged post(s) are no longer visible.
That would allow for use of option 3, so that people with a reputation of zero can post links but that anyone with sufficient reputation can at least get the offender yanked off the publicly visible parts of the forum.
While I used “reputation of 20 or more” in my example an idea would be that you would be allowed to flag anyone with a reputation that is lower than yours. That way, someone with at least reputation 1 can flag spammers but can’t flag comments by more established users.
NodeBB can restrict up and down voting based on your reputation but have not thought through if and how that may be best used or abused for what we are trying to deal with here.
-
@mkupper said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
@PeterJones Would it be possible to have
- That the flag user and flag post features are only available to those with a reputation of 20 or more.
The active threshold on that is 5. I don’t think we’ve seen any abuse of “flagging” by those in the 5-20 range, so I don’t think it’s necessary to change the threshold. And there isn’t a feature in NodeBB for “relative reputation” to gate flagging.
- That flagging a post or user instantly moves that post or all of a user’s posts into a purgatory that moderators would need to review. Flagged post(s) are no longer visible.
There is no option for “instantly moves” after a flag. Flags always require moderator involvement to resolve, and flagged posts remain visible until the flag is resolved.
-
@PeterJones said in Request for Comment from Regulars: Forum Reputation Limit:
Also, don’t berate first time posters for not including a screenshot, because pasted images count as a link, too. :-(
I thought they did, but this first-time post disagrees.
-
@PeterJones I think option 1 makes a lot of sense to be honest. Not being able to post a reply to a reply to your post is irksome when it happens when you join a new board.
-
I’m team Option1 as well :-D
