Topic: ㅤ - page 2. (Read 391 times)

I processed a lot of the reports, and removed the threads, not just from this user though there was several others reported at the time, and not just this user. Probably handled 100-200 of the reports. However, I only removed those that did not have any replies at all, had not trust references directed towards the thread itself, i.e one's which basically offered no value whatsoever. I left some in the queue towards the end of the night, due to needing to attend to some real life things as well as further investigation on a few which had trust ratings which I would've looked at later if they were still in the queue.

Having said that, I wasn't the one to mark any of the reports bad. In fact, I left the one's which did have replies as a soft bad, by just leaving them unhandled, because I can see it from both points of view. The global moderator who handled these reports, must have thought they could've been significant to the history of the user, in some way I imagine.

Generally, we don't allow users to remove their own threads, and I guess this could potentially be abused, and whoever marked them bad could be thinking along those lines. However for me, since there was no replies or any trust references/flags left on the one's I handled, I thought they were insignificant enough to be removed. Maybe, whoever handled them had a different point of view to that, however it depends since the examples you've given all that activity from other users.  

Also, the user in question has clearly tried to hide his post history. Now, there's nothing stopping users from doing that I suppose, but they can't remove the threads themselves. I usually, weigh this up, and generally if the threads don't have any replies, and they've been inactive for years, and has no scam accusations or trust references left, I usually remove them.

These are the exact one's I was thinking about leaving as unhandled, as a soft bad. Since, technically many would agree they're spam, insignificant, but because other users have posted, there is some significance there. I imagine the moderator who handled these after me, thought along the same sort of line. Even though, an argument could be made that the posts that have replied themselves, are pretty bad quality in certain circumstances.

Here's some examples where keeping these around might be a good idea:
1. Users that want to research old projects that they had interest in
2. Scam report, multiple years after
3. Users who've asked substantial posts, when at a time the thread itself was substantial enough getting punished by the thread being removed. Since, technically most users wouldn't be bothered by this thread since they'll never stumble upon it, I think it feels a little harsh on the users losing posts because of it
4. Anything with replies from users generally isn't removed.

If you've always had perfect statistics of good reports then it means the system is working as it should. No system can be perfect or appease everyone at all times. The mods also do their best with what is available.

Human error. You factor it into anything that people act based on their discretion.
This error could be from the person handling the reports or the person making it.

It looks like a straight forward action to delete these posts. You didn't share the threads that were moved, but this should have been acted on.

Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports.

Adequately handled reports are a motivation to report more, but we would try to focus on the action and not the result.
If in thousands of reports you've only had a handful of issues, doesn't seem like a reason to quite sending out reports.

Was it to keep some historical record of these topics?

Either way, these topics don't bring anything to the forum, they might as well be deleted.

ㅤ