Setting a minimum week of being open delays bad edits from being voted out.
2008-04-21 11258, 2008
BrianFreud
Setting some higher # of votes needed or setting some minimum age both still can be easily gamed.
2008-04-21 11219, 2008
BrianFreud has quit
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
BrianFreud joined the channel
2008-04-21 11241, 2008
yllona
BrianFreud: i'm not denying your knowledge (and frustration) with the existing system -- i'm just saying -- give it some more thought
2008-04-21 11253, 2008
BrianFreud
Oh, I agree, there is a possibility for a misperception.
2008-04-21 11216, 2008
nikki
I just think that giving a 'no' vote is the wrong way to do what you're wanting to do
2008-04-21 11233, 2008
BrianFreud
But perceptions can be altered. Text on the edit screen "Note: This edit type will have an immediate no voted by the system to prevent system abuse" does that
2008-04-21 11240, 2008
nikki
haha
2008-04-21 11254, 2008
nikki
we have plenty of notes but I'm not sure people read them
2008-04-21 11219, 2008
BrianFreud
ok, if you don't read the guidelines, and you don't read the notes... aren't you exactly the person we're trying to prevent from mucking things up?
2008-04-21 11203, 2008
yllona
i'd rather channel them to the guidelines, i wish there were some way to automate that
2008-04-21 11245, 2008
nikki
what's wrong with simply making it so they stay open for a week unless there's enough unanimous 'no' votes? why does it have to be implemented by giving everyone a 'no' vote?
2008-04-21 11255, 2008
yllona
that pre-supposes we have an easier-to-read set of guidelines
2008-04-21 11255, 2008
srotta
Coming in in the middle of the conversation, I agree with nikki here.
2008-04-21 11210, 2008
srotta
"No" vote is a "No", no amount of noting will make it less.
2008-04-21 11215, 2008
BrianFreud
nikki: you didn't say that before - you said only "require it open for a week"
2008-04-21 11218, 2008
yllona
the current set is to self-referential
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
yllona
*too
2008-04-21 11226, 2008
srotta
And it's even worse if "No" means different things in different edits.
2008-04-21 11249, 2008
nikki
BrianFreud: well, you can add all sorts of various checks, the idea is the same
2008-04-21 11202, 2008
BrianFreud
if it was minimum time of a week no matter the yes count, but could still be voted down in a shorter period, that seems fine to me
2008-04-21 11211, 2008
nikki
could make it so that it only keeps them open if the editor joined in march or october if you fancied :P
2008-04-21 11228, 2008
BrianFreud
I just really think the minimum age to vote or higher yes count required ideas are far too easy to game
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
FauxFaux
Morning. :'(
2008-04-21 11202, 2008
nikki
hey faux
2008-04-21 11204, 2008
BrianFreud
moin moin faux faux
2008-04-21 11244, 2008
FauxFaux
:) /me reads BrianFreud craaaazy ideas in the scrollback, starting a merge with no, ouch. :/
2008-04-21 11232, 2008
BrianFreud
[02:38] <nikki> what's wrong with simply making it so they stay open for a week unless there's enough unanimous 'no' votes? <-- that's the best solution I've seen suggested so far
2008-04-21 11217, 2008
FauxFaux
From my experience of not voting on anything, unanononnonoimus no is incredibly rude? Why even allow it?
2008-04-21 11243, 2008
FauxFaux
Unless you want an emergency way to hide bad data, or something.. if only we had some trusty auto-editors.
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
FauxFaux -> shower.
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
srotta
Huh?
2008-04-21 11258, 2008
srotta
8)
2008-04-21 11208, 2008
BrianFreud
well, most people cancel once they realize why people are voting no makes sense
2008-04-21 11202, 2008
BrianFreud
but if you leave it open a week without regards to the no count, it's easier to game
2008-04-21 11215, 2008
srotta
What's wrong with the current system?
2008-04-21 11244, 2008
BrianFreud
destructive edits can be pushed through before anyone can see them simply by creating 4 accounts
2008-04-21 11255, 2008
srotta
How often does that happen?
2008-04-21 11228, 2008
BrianFreud
7 times that I've seen this year, and I think we've been lucky so far - a 4chan group could easily make chaos if they decided to
2008-04-21 11246, 2008
srotta
They could make chaos with add edits as well.
2008-04-21 11219, 2008
BrianFreud
Yes, but add edits create new data, and can be cleaned out simply by our identifying the editors and searching their edits.
2008-04-21 11235, 2008
BrianFreud
But imagine, say, if someone forced a merge of Mozart into JS Bach.
2008-04-21 11257, 2008
BrianFreud
There's simply too much data - we'd have to revert (and lose any data since that last dump)
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
Tengo joined the channel
2008-04-21 11231, 2008
nikki runs off to the dentist
2008-04-21 11241, 2008
BrianFreud
to me, it just seems very risky to leave that the db open to serious data mangling or deletion, when all it takes to pull it off is 4 accounts and a spare 10 minutes
2008-04-21 11245, 2008
petros
I'm like sorta kinda agreeing with srotta agreeing with nikki here. A 'no' is percieved as such. And they are devastating at that lousy desperate pickup-bar where everybody is so drunk that they are seeing triple, it's 5 minutes to closing late sunday morning, she's like making the ugly tree looking beautiful as a magnolia, and still you're getting a no.
2008-04-21 11204, 2008
petros
.. or so Ive heard
2008-04-21 11245, 2008
BrianFreud
petros: lol, what about I'm busy tonight, but here's my number, call me in a week? :D
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
srotta
BrianFreud: I agree, but the no vote system gets a no vote from me. 8)
2008-04-21 11206, 2008
BrianFreud
If we make it a week, but allow it to still be voted down, then there's still plenty of time for it to be noticed and voted down. But if it simply stays open a week, it still becomes the yes votes vs the no votes, and
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
BrianFreud
thus can still be gamed by just creating more accounts to vote yes than no votes get cast
2008-04-21 11229, 2008
srotta
Eh?
2008-04-21 11211, 2008
outsidecontext joined the channel
2008-04-21 11213, 2008
BrianFreud
An edit is created. a day later, drsaunde sees it and votes no. He tells us about it, 2 of us vote no as well.
2008-04-21 11233, 2008
BrianFreud
If it can be voted down by 3 nos in a week, all is good. Data didn't change.
2008-04-21 11239, 2008
srotta
I don't like it, I think the problem, if there is one, should be solved in other ways, not making more complex voting rules.
2008-04-21 11240, 2008
BrianFreud
But if it has to stay open a week no matter what, and the current yes-or-no-whichever-is-higher still applies, then all the prankster has to do is cast a ton of yes votes, to outbalance any nos.
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
petros
how about minimum edits before you get to vote. Say 50 non-auto?
2008-04-21 11227, 2008
BrianFreud
How is it complex? Destructive edits stay open a week before they can pass, and if any gets 3 nos, it immediately fails.
2008-04-21 11247, 2008
BrianFreud
worst case, if the nos were wrong, we're still at status quo.
2008-04-21 11200, 2008
srotta
So there's a basic rule, an exception to that rule, and an exception to that exception.
2008-04-21 11203, 2008
srotta
Yeah.
2008-04-21 11205, 2008
srotta
8)
2008-04-21 11234, 2008
BrianFreud
[02:58] <srotta> So there's a basic rule, an exception to that rule, and an exception to that exception. <-- sounds a lot like our current DQ vote count policies :P
2008-04-21 11206, 2008
srotta
I'd rather make sure on the backend side that the destructive edits can be reverted, if it's necessary.
2008-04-21 11228, 2008
BrianFreud
well, we have the data dumps, we can always restore from them.
2008-04-21 11258, 2008
BrianFreud
But we'd lose any edits made in the meantime, and the server would have to go offline while it was reverted
2008-04-21 11229, 2008
BrianFreud
I know I'd be rather annoyed if I just had done all the ARs for 10 CDs, and that was all lost in a revert because someone decided to have some fun...
2008-04-21 11249, 2008
BrianFreud
I'd understand, but I'd still not be happy about it
2008-04-21 11216, 2008
petros
I think we can agree that a restore is a last measure and should be avoided.
2008-04-21 11256, 2008
BrianFreud
yes - that's why I think we do need at least some bare minimum of higher protection on destructive edits than we have now
2008-04-21 11234, 2008
petros
I think the best way to avoid destructive edits is to "limit" "new" accounts.
2008-04-21 11251, 2008
BrianFreud
how would you do it? If Rapidshare can
2008-04-21 11258, 2008
petros
BrianFreud: That
2008-04-21 11205, 2008
petros
he question :)
2008-04-21 11210, 2008
petros
is the
2008-04-21 11215, 2008
petros
Damn keyboard
2008-04-21 11221, 2008
BrianFreud
lol, is late, accidentally hit enter :P
2008-04-21 11242, 2008
BrianFreud
If Rapidshare can't block people powercycling a modem, is tracking ips really going to be effective?
2008-04-21 11200, 2008
petros
But baically I would award voting after a new user had 'proven' himself through viable edits
2008-04-21 11235, 2008
petros
You can edit away, but voting has to be 'earned'
2008-04-21 11214, 2008
BrianFreud
I'm not against that idea either - I would worry that it would even further discourage overall voting, but then, it might perhaps raise voting by making it seem "special" that you have reached a point where you're being allowed to vote...
2008-04-21 11243, 2008
BrianFreud
question then would be how many edits before we trust someone to vote intelligently, and not to try and game the server?
2008-04-21 11232, 2008
petros
50 non-edits could be a starting suggestion. I doubt you'd do 200 edits just to have 4 accounts to game with.
2008-04-21 11246, 2008
petros
'earned' Voting shouldn't be 'special'. Just a mean to discourage vandalism
2008-04-21 11220, 2008
BrianFreud
perhaps lower, like 25? My concern would be that editors can learn from voting semi-badly, but seeing the notes from others. -- exactly. we want to block vandalism, and perhaps block totally uninformed brand new voting, but we don't want to cut off that important training we can do via example either
2008-04-21 11208, 2008
petros
25 is also fine with me. I'm more curious what as to how the idea would be received by new users.
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
petros
And the other editors :)
2008-04-21 11231, 2008
petros
I'm open to all kinds of suggestions and ideas ... like a drunk virgin on prom night
2008-04-21 11238, 2008
srotta
BrianFreud: Yeah, as I said, I'd like to resolve the problem in backend. Restoring backups is not resolving it 8)
2008-04-21 11248, 2008
BrianFreud
:)
2008-04-21 11252, 2008
BrianFreud
argh, someone's being really sloppy and making all sorts of bogus Marley family & foo collabs :(
2008-04-21 11200, 2008
creature
If I cancel an edit, do I lose all the comments made on that edit?
2008-04-21 11208, 2008
BrianFreud
no
2008-04-21 11237, 2008
BrianFreud
edits and edit notes last pretty much forever, unless the artist or release they're tied to is removed or merged away
2008-04-21 11227, 2008
BrianFreud
natta mb :)
2008-04-21 11224, 2008
slaad joined the channel
2008-04-21 11240, 2008
yllona has quit
2008-04-21 11216, 2008
BrianG joined the channel
2008-04-21 11243, 2008
stochasticism has quit
2008-04-21 11218, 2008
nikki returns
2008-04-21 11240, 2008
nikki
BrianFreud: while I do think we should change the current system, I really do think you're trying to find a solution for problems we don't really have, I still haven't seen any edit pushed through by sock puppets which weren't newly created, and I certainly haven't seen any sock puppetry used to vote down edits
2008-04-21 11202, 2008
nikki
I did ask you for a link to the edit you were talking about, but I still haven't received it :P
drsaunde: one suggestion was to make it so new accounts can't vote for a week, but BrianFreud claims he came across one where the accounts weren't brand new
2008-04-21 11211, 2008
nikki
drsaunde: but I'm still waiting for a link to it :)
2008-04-21 11210, 2008
CatCat
?lookup artist 2c3a60f7-ebea-4001-888c-fe953ed87212.html
2008-04-21 11210, 2008
omgponies
Please enter an MBID
2008-04-21 11216, 2008
CatCat
?lookup artist 2c3a60f7-ebea-4001-888c-fe953ed87212
nikki: sorry bout that..i had no idea the full story, i though you meant the edit starting the discussion, so i found and posted that
2008-04-21 11202, 2008
HairMetalAddict has quit
2008-04-21 11214, 2008
HairMetalAddict joined the channel
2008-04-21 11209, 2008
mikemorr
What if new users had to be "sponsored/mentored" by an established editor or autoeditor who would have to vouch for them before they could vote? </brainstorming>
2008-04-21 11241, 2008
petros
You'd run out of mentors pretty fast.
2008-04-21 11243, 2008
MClemo
too many new editors, too few autoeditors
2008-04-21 11207, 2008
petros
And we have low tolerance for suffering fools ;)
2008-04-21 11228, 2008
mikemorr
MClemo: BrianFreud is taking care of that problem ;)
2008-04-21 11257, 2008
srotta
And any of those things will cause that there will be even less people voting.
2008-04-21 11246, 2008
MClemo
mikemorr: hehe. Very tiresome to vote on this many elections though :)
2008-04-21 11251, 2008
mikemorr
What if new/unsponsored/etc. editors could only vote on certain (i.e. less potentially destructive) edit types?
2008-04-21 11244, 2008
petros
Then I (big surprise) like my idea better
2008-04-21 11217, 2008
petros
To only letting them vote after having done a certain amount of viable edit.
2008-04-21 11223, 2008
petros
edits
2008-04-21 11205, 2008
drtroll joined the channel
2008-04-21 11230, 2008
mikemorr
It could be graduated: No voting at all until you've done this and this, then you can vote on the more minor edits for a while, then eventually you can vote on the big edits.
2008-04-21 11206, 2008
petros
Sounds like an idea.
2008-04-21 11203, 2008
srotta
I still see it more as a problem that could be resolved by making sure destructive edits can be reverted, not by creating elaborate schemes to make the voting/editing system more complex.
2008-04-21 11204, 2008
MClemo
would sure be better than the current system. And as it's not touching editing, new users wouldn't complain too much as they tend to edit more than vote
2008-04-21 11223, 2008
MClemo
reverting would be cool too ;)
2008-04-21 11225, 2008
tedrock has quit
2008-04-21 11259, 2008
aCiD2 joined the channel
2008-04-21 11222, 2008
HairMetalAddict
Potential idea, luks will probably wanna shoot me due to the work involved implementing, heh: Destructive edits go through vote as normal. When it's approved by vote, the people who Yes the edit are checked that they're "active" moderators (have some approved edits of their own) before the edit is actually committed. If none do, it goes to a page only AutoEditors can access. Any AutoEditor would then approve or reject the
2008-04-21 11223, 2008
HairMetalAddict
edit. ... This keeps the current voting system, just adds a "final step" for destructive edits with no active-editor votes.
