[Fwd: Re: Engage / ArtifactView / Comments]

Mon Dec 7 20:02:15 UTC 2009

There is also the issue of bots triggering the report abuse link. Out of 
175 abuses reported in comments on our web site, all but a few were 
false alerts.

Hugues

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Engage / ArtifactView / Comments
Date: 	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:45:48 -0500
From: 	James William Yoon <james.yoon at utoronto.ca>
To: 	Hugues Boily <hugues.boily at mccord.mcgill.ca>, "mackrauss at gmail.com" 
<mackrauss at gmail.com>
CC: 	Fluid Work <fluid-work at fluidproject.org>
References: 	<30137311.362731259597492454.JavaMail.root at canet> 
<C14D1F38-13A2-424C-BD36-5B67D5735F2E at utoronto.ca> 
<6f0314650912070701t7a726a8ew95f9028dbbeebb95 at mail.gmail.com> 
<bb7b4f790912070833m3f1ec169ta0312345baab408f at mail.gmail.com> 
<4B1D3128.1000600 at mccord.mcgill.ca>

Hullo,

I have some thoughts on this. To avoid accidental input of a "report abuse" button it would be good
to ask the user for confirmation via a dialog/pop-up.

This is a great idea, though it does come down to a question of balancing between: a) attaining further confirmation to avoid accidental input, and b) forcing an additional step on the user to report abuse. I imagine it'll come down to: 1) how likely accidental input would be (e.g., how near the button is placed to other inputs, how big the button is, where the button is placed in relation to the rest of the screen, etc.), and 2) how harmful accidental input would be (e.g., is it destructive?), especially if we already have other measures in place to distinguish between accidental and intentional input

Regarding the reset of the function I think that there should be no reset for a user-comment combination.
This means if a user flags a comment as abuse this should only be possible once. If no user management is done (sign in without authentication or with pseudonym) any user can abuse the system and flag a comment multiple times by login out and in again.

Another great point, though if I understand your suggestion correctly, it would mean that a comment flagged by one person as "abuse" would either appear as "abuse" on all users' screens without giving them the ability to report as abuse as well (i.e., definitively declaring that the comment is "abuse"), or not appearing at all. The problem with this solution, which prevents multiple count abuse, actually makes it easier to abuse the system--consider a user who marks all comments as abuse. His/her mark would be considered definitive until the moderator reviews all the comments.

On the other hand, multiple count abuse (logging in and out again multiple times and reporting abuse) would be a tedious task for the offender--he or she would need to have quite the personal vendetta against that one comment!

The user comment section of the CBC News site uses a similar approach. For example, see :
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/07/building-permits-october.html

Indeed--CBC does have an additional confirmation via a dialog for report abuse. Interestingly enough though, when you reload the page, you can report abuse to the same comment again (I tried it on a suitably offensive looking comment).

Cheers,
James

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hugues Boily <hugues.boily at mccord.mcgill.ca<mailto:hugues.boily at mccord.mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Hi guys,

The user comment section of the CBC News site uses a similar approach. For example, see :
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/07/building-permits-october.html

Hugues

Armin Krauss wrote:
Hi James,

I have some thoughts on this. To avoid accidental input of a "report abuse" button it would be good
to ask the user for confirmation via a dialog/pop-up.
Regarding the reset of the function I think that there should be no reset for a user-comment combination.
This means if a user flags a comment as abuse this should only be possible once. If no user management
is done (sign in without authentication or with pseudonym) any user can abuse the system and flag
a comment multiple times by login out and in again.

Armin

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:01, James William Yoon <james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca><mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca>>> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this question to list!

Let's actually keep a count of the abuses (i.e., use integer instead of boolean).

Doing so would afford us the following benefits:
a) Accidental, unintentional tapping of the "report abuse" button would have a less significant effect (lower count)
b) Individuals abusing the "report abuse" button (e.g., users who maliciously attempt to have other people's legitimate comments removed) would have a less significant effect (lower count)
c) Crowd sourcing: if many people find something offensive, there's a good chance it's offensive (although the flip side of this democratic morality is that marginal users who genuinely find something offensive would have a less significant effect on the abuse count)

The upshot of all of this is that the moderator can prioritize which comments to look at first and delete, instead of wading through a potentially long list of not-necessarily-offensive comments.

Also, I imagine you've already taken this into consideration, but the report abuse functionality should probably be reset for each session or login, and not by IP since it's quite possible that multiple users will have the same IP when in the museum, especially if they're using a museum device.

Cheers,
James

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Michelle <michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca><mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca>>> wrote:
Forwarding to the list because I accidentally took this off list.

Michelle

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joan Garcia Vila <jgarciavila at uoc.edu<mailto:jgarciavila at uoc.edu><mailto:jgarciavila at uoc.edu<mailto:jgarciavila at uoc.edu>>>

Date: November 30, 2009 11:11:30 AM EST
To: "michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca><mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca>>" <michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca><mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca>>>

Subject: RE: Re: Engage / ArtifactView / Comments

Hi michelle,

A boolean is good for me.

Cheers,
Joan.

--> Missatge original de Michelle (michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca><mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca<mailto:michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca>>) per a Joan García Vila enviat el 30/11/2009 17:04:49

Hi Joan,

One question about the abuse attribute. Are you using it as a boolean or are you planning to keep a count of the number of times abuse has been reported? If it's a boolean I would suggest that you use a boolean instead of an integer.

Michelle

On 2009-11-30, at 6:22 AM, Joan Garcia Vila wrote:

Hi James.

Many thanks for your quick response.

Only one more question/suggestion:

- ... when user clicks "report abuse" , the comment is marked (attribute abuse=1) and becomes out off the view. In this way, user who reports sees the comment disappear which is good ("Something happened in the UI after a click it done").  That is, the comments lists is filtered (comment.abuse != 1).

When the moderator decides that the comment is "abuse" hi can delete it. But, if he decides the opposite, the abuse attribute is set to 0 so it will become visible again.

Makes sense?

many thanks in advance,

cheers,

joan.

--> Missatge original de James William Yoon (james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca><mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca>>) per a Joan García Vila enviat el 26/11/2009 20:16:22

Woah, that was weird. Copying and pasting from the Jira comment somehow copied both raw text and the marked up text. Apologies for the redundancy.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM, James William Yoon <james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca><mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca<mailto:james.yoon at utoronto.ca>>> wrote:

Hey Joan,

Great question. I've posted a comment to the Jira. Here's a copy:

"Report abuse" functionality hasn't been fully fleshed out, but the idea scaffold is as follows:

- User taps "Report abuse" for a comment

- List of reported comments abuse on museum moderator/administrator's side would update to include said comment

- At this list, moderator should be able to see all the abuse-flagged comments, and delete/hide comments as necessary

_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org><mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org>>

To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

------------------------------------------------------
Michelle D'Souza
Software Developer, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto

_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org><mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org>>

To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org><mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org<mailto:fluid-work at fluidproject.org>>

To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20091207/a18ac78c/attachment.html>