Auto-Approve Descriptions

[TCA]

allow us to edit the user's text and save it

Noooooo no no no. Think of what trolls could do with THIS- turn someone's nice happy description into badly-written porn, possibly getting that user's scroll burned.

 

If it saved as a separate thing where they could look over it, maybe, but otherwise NO.

[Fengari]

The problem, though, is what Infinis mentioned--sometimes, descriptions that very much break the rules get high approval from users. Probably because they find it amusing or something, but don't reject it despite it breaking the rules...

That is why I put in the +1 for positive and -3 for negative. I was hoping there would be enough people doing the right thing to blance those that like bad descriptions.

 

Also, though I put 10 approved descriptions and a score of 10, those numbers could be adapted as seems appropriate.

[dragon_mando]

I'm thinking no on this. Like others have said, there are far too many opportunities to abuse this in far too many ways. If there ever happened in any form, I would only support it if it was painfully strict: such as auto-approval only for people who have had say 100+ approved descriptions.

[TJ09]

Well the site already keeps track of an individual user's "voting power."

 

When a user's vote agrees with the mods, they gain voting power, otherwise they lose voting power. This is used to modify how much weight a user's vote carries when approving descriptions, which helps the mods figure out which descriptions are likely to be approved or rejected.

 

That said, if user votes were able to approve a description, there would be no way to increase or decrease voting power since there are no mods to agree with. Unless the system of mod approving is also kept.

[RheaZen]

I did not know about "voting power" and that sounds pretty cool.

 

I for one am just for more mods to help with descriptions.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

When a user's vote agrees with the mods, they gain voting power, otherwise they lose voting power. This is used to modify how much weight a user's vote carries when approving descriptions, which helps the mods figure out which descriptions are likely to be approved or rejected.

But even with voting power, it doesn't matter if a dozen people who have consistently agreed with the mods give their approval on something--that something still has to wait around ages for an overloaded amount of moderators to see it, whether or not it's got powerful votes or new votes on it.

[NixAyum]

Well the site already keeps track of an individual user's "voting power."

 

When a user's vote agrees with the mods, they gain voting power, otherwise they lose voting power. This is used to modify how much weight a user's vote carries when approving descriptions, which helps the mods figure out which descriptions are likely to be approved or rejected.

 

That said, if user votes were able to approve a description, there would be no way to increase or decrease voting power since there are no mods to agree with. Unless the system of mod approving is also kept.

So that's why the numbers are almost never even.

 

Good thing to know, TJ.

 

I'm pretty highly against auto-approval of descriptions, would love a task force able to approve descriptions, iffy on "auto-accept after X approved".

[Renorei]

If it saved as a separate thing where they could look over it, maybe, but otherwise NO.

This is what I'm talking about. I probably should have clarified.

[elynne]

Yes, at this point what really seems to be needed then--given the weighted voting--is more mods able to approve-stamp descriptions. They don't have to be given privs to do -anything- else. If there were a way to sign up for that, I would. Or perhaps, after somebody gets, say, a 95% agreement-with-mods voting record across, say, 200 votes, they get "mod privs" for 5 votes, and those next 5 votes can approve a description as if they were a mod, without ever telling the person voting that they'd made that approval? So that way people can't "abuse" it somehow--they don't even know that they've cast the approving vote. Or make it 1 approval for every 30 mod-agreement votes, with no mod-disagreeing votes.

[HawktalonOfRiverClan]

Yes, at this point what really seems to be needed then--given the weighted voting--is more mods able to approve-stamp descriptions. They don't have to be given privs to do -anything- else. If there were a way to sign up for that, I would. Or perhaps, after somebody gets, say, a 95% agreement-with-mods voting record across, say, 200 votes, they get "mod privs" for 5 votes, and those next 5 votes can approve a description as if they were a mod, without ever telling the person voting that they'd made that approval? So that way people can't "abuse" it somehow--they don't even know that they've cast the approving vote. Or make it 1 approval for every 30 mod-agreement votes, with no mod-disagreeing votes.

Or if more of the mods were able to approve? As of now there are only three doing it, and they probably have a lot on their plates. Or have a new type of mod, who are description-only mods?

[rubyshoes]

All mods can approve. I approve descriptions as well (I'm just not as active in approving as some of the others).

[ThatDeadGirl]

I would be nice if there were mods whose only job was approving descriptions. That way they didn't have to split their work between RL stuff, forum modding AND approving descriptions.

[Nine]

I for one am just for more mods to help with descriptions.

Yes puhlease. I seriously, seriously doubt those review-mods would abuse their power, if that's the worry (srsly).

 

I usually get 2 reviews on each description, so the idea of needing X amount of approves to get officially approved would make my brain melt =p

[spark3210]

But even with voting power, it doesn't matter if a dozen people who have consistently agreed with the mods give their approval on something--that something still has to wait around ages for an overloaded amount of moderators to see it, whether or not it's got powerful votes or new votes on it.

Well, if this doesn't work, why not try some sort of auto-filter, so that the really terrible descriptions are sacked early on? I'm talking about a system that searches for profane and rude words. If the description passes, it can be put in the system. If not, it has no chance. This would also prevent things from getting too much more backed up in the first place.

[NixAyum]

Well, if this doesn't work, why not try some sort of auto-filter, so that the really terrible descriptions are sacked early on? I'm talking about a system that searches for profane and rude words. If the description passes, it can be put in the system. If not, it has no chance. This would also prevent things from getting too much more backed up in the first place.

Profanity is actually much less of a problem than people seem to think.

 

It's descriptions that are inappropriate but still get voted high, ones that (often blatantly) defy breed description, ones with major English mistakes, ones that say "she is green" or "I NEED HELP CLICK ME!" or "my first dragon i will luv it forever xx" that are the most troubling. I see tons more of these than something a simple filter would catch.

[KageSora]

Naturally, the problems Nix mentioned would mean that a word filter would be useless. A phrase-filter would be better, but you can't just block the word, say, 'click' because there are very valid uses for it besides 'click my stuff!' and all...

[Obscure_Trash]

Maybe we could add a tag of "User Written Description:" that showed above the description as well as a "Report this description for not following description guidelines" button?

 

~

 

There is definitely a problem with the description system. I would love description mods, but I think we could still be easily overrun, extra help or no.

I'd really like an overhaul of the system, but I can't think of a good way to do it. So, while auto-approval greatly worries me for things already mentioned, it does seem like the best option right now. If TJ could put in a filter for trigger words (curse words, (Please read the forum rules)/eggs/hatchlings, my first dragon, etc.), that might also help. I dunno if that's possible, though. owo

 

~

 

Yes, I have been against this in the past, but there's just no denying that a fix is needed for the system so that users can enjoy it once more. 3=

Edited September 27, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[elynne]

Auto-deny anything with HTML in it, -and- impose a ban on attempting descriptions--say 1 week for first offense, with a very clear note that if they try it again it'll be permanently removed?

 

Same thing with curse words: don't just block a description that has them in it, have it prevent the user from attempting another description for a week. That will prevent somebody who has a bad word blocked from just immediately resubmitting the same description with the bad word spaced out or asterisked.

 

Have a -very- extensive list of blockable words and phrases--any obvious profanity, any blatant references to sex, ethnic/sexual/religious slurs, obviously inappropriate words (like "rape" or "forced breeding").

 

Have an even more extensive list of secondary "questionable" words and phrases which trigger a description to be pushed into an approval-needed queue, instead of automatically approved.

 

Make it very clear that the user descriptions are NOT part of the breed description, by separating them with a visual cue, like:

 

-blah blah breed description-

 

Additional notes:

(user description)

See anything objectionable? [report button]

 

Again--as Socky said, -something- desperately needs to be done, because as it is the system just plain doesn't work.

 

ETA report button placement, as that would be pretty much essential.

Edited September 27, 2011 by elynne

[Obscure_Trash]

Have an even more extensive list of secondary "questionable" words and phrases which trigger a description to be pushed into an approval-needed queue, instead of automatically approved.

 

Oooh, I like that. Just in case someone has added a filter, but the description is actually okay, they can still have it approved. o3o

 

~

 

Another option would be to show the description and still have it in the queue (if possible).

 

While waiting for mod approval it would show upon the page as something like:

"User pending description:". Once approved, that text would go away. If rejected, the description disappears.

[elynne]

Yes! And somebody hitting the "report" button would immediately bump it into the front of the queue. -nodnod- I am liking these ideas! I hope some of them get used. ^.^

[dragon_mando]

Have a -very- extensive list of blockable words and phrases--any obvious profanity, any blatant references to sex, ethnic/sexual/religious slurs, obviously inappropriate words (like "rape" or "forced breeding").

 

Have an even more extensive list of secondary "questionable" words and phrases which trigger a description to be pushed into an approval-needed queue, instead of automatically approved.

 

Yes! And somebody hitting the "report" button would immediately bump it into the front of the queue. -nodnod- I am liking these ideas! I hope some of them get used. ^.^

 

Now this I'm starting to like. My position might be swayed yet!

[~!~]

How about if descriptions are handled this way, you could have the option to turn off all user-made descriptions when viewing dragons pages? And then there could be a button to show the description if there is one, but the default setting would be to have it hidden.

[KageSora]

Have a -very- extensive list of blockable words and phrases--any obvious profanity, any blatant references to sex, ethnic/sexual/religious slurs, obviously inappropriate words (like "rape" or "forced breeding").

 

Have an even more extensive list of secondary "questionable" words and phrases which trigger a description to be pushed into an approval-needed queue, instead of automatically approved.

The biggest issues I see with these is that they would take a large amount of time, and a good number of people to compile.

 

There's not just words in the English language, there's words in other languages as well--don't want people getting around the filter by putting one or two nasty words in another language.

 

The questionable list would be even more work to come up with than the banned list because of so many words that are context-sensitive. So many words are context-sensitive, especially words that have slang connotations but have otherwise perfectly valid uses. Hell, anything could mean something dirty given the proper context... I mean, even the most innocent of phrases can be used to mean vulgar things if you really work at it.

 

Of course, the 'report description' button would be very useful for those sorts of situations, but still...

 

 

It just seems like a massive amount of work, especially since everything on the questionable list would still need to be approved anyway, and if there's a lot of words on that list it could have a lot that still need approval...

 

 

 

But I like this idea much better than a straight-up auto-approve.

[Nine]

I think hiring some description mods and seeing how that works out would be a much preferable method than an entire system overhaul, at the moment. Never know until you try.

 

And oh god, more filters and blockable words. I have a dragon named 'Dick', would I be given the banhammer if I attempted to write a description for him? Any sort of auto-filtering system would hardly be able to construe that it's his name and not an offensive word.

I believe people who want to write profanity will do so regardless of more strict censorship; a report button for descriptions would be fine, though. Maybe updating the description guidelines to specifically state "No dragon porn plz" so people wouldn't have the excuse of not knowing.

 

Then again, while writing dragon-rape is in bad taste and completely freaky, is it actually against the rules? Or do people just find it tasteless? I'm a bit confused since it's apparently been accepted before and gets high ratings. Maybe things like that need to be clarified a bit more clearly.

[~!~]

If dragon rape is against the guidelines, is it against the rules to have the dragon passively associated with it rather than actively? (Like, "the dragon was raped in the past" versus "this dragon rapes other dragons.")