MBS-9352: Disable public collections for limited users
2017-05-23 14320, 2017
Gentlecat
?
2017-05-23 14327, 2017
Gentlecat
ah, no
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
Gentlecat
unless OAuth on MB requires that
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
ruaok
ok, we should change that as well.
2017-05-23 14356, 2017
drsaunders joined the channel
2017-05-23 14315, 2017
ruaok
I don't think so.
2017-05-23 14334, 2017
bitmap
well, we can join with editor_oauth_token to see if they've authorized anything
2017-05-23 14346, 2017
ruaok
I think we need to be a bit more drastic in our actions, then wait and see.
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
ruaok
if they worked, we can consider easing up again.
2017-05-23 14335, 2017
ruaok
with that in mind, I would really like to see two things: 1) now show /user and /collection to not logged in users. 2) Do not allow limited users to set website/bio.
2017-05-23 14354, 2017
ruaok
yvanzo suggested that we could not even show link/bio until they are no longer limited users.
2017-05-23 14359, 2017
ruaok
thoughts?
2017-05-23 14356, 2017
CatQuest
but implement it like a "you've leveled up" gamification
2017-05-23 14303, 2017
CatQuest
that's kidna important
2017-05-23 14312, 2017
CatQuest
to not discurage legit users
2017-05-23 14331, 2017
bitmap
is the idea just to reduce spammer motivation, or reducing lookups on those pages?
2017-05-23 14334, 2017
CatQuest
for now just make the wording like that
2017-05-23 14337, 2017
zas
I agree, and restrictions need to be explained during account creation process
2017-05-23 14347, 2017
Freso
I thought the not-showing-until-no-longer-limited was how it already worked. +1 from me.
2017-05-23 14353, 2017
ruaok
bitmap: it is both.
2017-05-23 14315, 2017
ruaok
the only thing known to reduce spammers is to kill their motivation.
2017-05-23 14323, 2017
ruaok
but it may not work right away.
2017-05-23 14334, 2017
CatQuest
and not shoing is not enough. not actually letting thmeadd it is important
2017-05-23 14334, 2017
ruaok
for instance, spammers may still set bio/link even if we don't show them.
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
ruaok
that still pollutes our DB, even though they've become useless.
2017-05-23 14351, 2017
zas
About that, how is handled the "limited user" status for now ? a bool ? it could be useful to have more levels if we go the way to restrict features depending on user "experience" (levels!)
2017-05-23 14304, 2017
CatQuest
+1
2017-05-23 14313, 2017
ruaok
zas: it would be, but lets focus on that a little later on.
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
zas
k
2017-05-23 14336, 2017
CatQuest
this would make it much easier also to reward long standing users both auto and not who work hard on edits
2017-05-23 14352, 2017
CatQuest
righ
2017-05-23 14354, 2017
ruaok
yes, but that isn't our current goal.
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
ruaok
our current goal is to get rid of that useless traffic that we're working so hard to serve.
2017-05-23 14311, 2017
CatQuest
yea i know, i jsut am typing slow becasue i am trying to not typo ;)
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
CatQuest
sorry
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
ruaok
no worries. just trying to keep focus.
2017-05-23 14356, 2017
CatQuest
i agree we need to focus on this *first*
2017-05-23 14331, 2017
bitmap
I only see /collection/create in the top URLs, which you have to be logged in to see anyway
2017-05-23 14301, 2017
Freso
bitmap: The /collection/ is mostly to prevent DMCA notices, I think.
2017-05-23 14305, 2017
CatQuest
imho it's important to explain restrictions on account creating, but I also thing it's important to do it in the "you have levels and for now oyu're a newbie account and when you do good edits you'll get more abilities!" sort of way
2017-05-23 14323, 2017
Freso
We've had a few DMCA takedown requests on user collections in the last couple of weeks.
2017-05-23 14331, 2017
ruaok
Freso: yes, but via discouraging spammers in the first place.
we still have a TON of collections and profiles with spam in them.
2017-05-23 14317, 2017
ruaok
I'm totally open for opening things back up after we've cleaned up.
2017-05-23 14331, 2017
ruaok
but for now I want to really shut things down might tightly and then clean up.
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
CatQuest
however. it might be an idea to allow bio entering for new accoutns. *provided* it goes through a fettering process and if certain key (secret!) phrases or words are in it, just make it completely invisible and notify account editors right away
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
CatQuest
.. after the clean up
2017-05-23 14347, 2017
ruaok
ok, any objections with the current immediate proposed bits? (Disallow setting bio/link for limited users, require login for /collection /user, add /collection /user to robots.txt)
2017-05-23 14328, 2017
Freso
+1
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
CatQuest
we should write *why* in these places too though
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
ruaok
any other comments?
2017-05-23 14349, 2017
CatQuest
else e are going to get loads of questions about why so and such
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
bitmap
I don't like it, but fine with doing it for now
2017-05-23 14301, 2017
CatQuest
+1 to the banner idea reo had
2017-05-23 14319, 2017
ruaok
which part do you not like? all of it?
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
CatQuest
i'm ok as long as its deff not permanent
2017-05-23 14302, 2017
Freso
I don't like /user and /collection requiring login. But I'm okay with it as a temp. measure.
2017-05-23 14309, 2017
CatQuest
to stop this happening right now so we cna clean up the mess witouth new mess showeling inn all the time
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
CatQuest
+1
2017-05-23 14347, 2017
bitmap
what Freso said, plus not indexing collections, but I'm okay with not indexing users
2017-05-23 14308, 2017
CatQuest
i don't see a reason to index collections
2017-05-23 14320, 2017
ruaok
> Actions to review after a period of time
2017-05-23 14326, 2017
CatQuest
+1
2017-05-23 14327, 2017
ruaok
is a new section in the doc.
2017-05-23 14300, 2017
ruaok
ideally collections should be publicly viewable, I totally agree.
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
CatQuest
yea ut why does google have to index them?
2017-05-23 14322, 2017
ruaok
ok, I'll enter tickets for these items.
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
UmkaDK has quit
2017-05-23 14336, 2017
ruaok
now, onward to automatic removal.
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
CatQuest
despite the serious amount of junk i am a littel bit sceptical to this
2017-05-23 14359, 2017
ruaok
each of the three proposed points should have a check for edits and votes.
2017-05-23 14311, 2017
ruaok
if a user has an edit or a vote, they should NOT be removed.
2017-05-23 14344, 2017
ruaok
I've reordered the list in that section, so it is roughly in order of priority
2017-05-23 14355, 2017
CatQuest
what about also querying for certain words/phrases and if they do include them they SHOULD be deleted? on top of the other checks
2017-05-23 14303, 2017
bitmap
I think the discourse one should just be "accounts with no oauth tokens", maybe
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
CatQuest
yes
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
lazka joined the channel
2017-05-23 14319, 2017
ruaok
oh, interesting. yes.
2017-05-23 14331, 2017
CatQuest
I also thing we should double check with critiquebrainz
