|
United States5162 Posts
On November 29 2012 08:16 Plexa wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Myles] +warned 34.44% (186) none 24.44% (132) banned 23.52% (127) closed 17.59% (95) Thanks. I hadn't realized I'd made so many reports.
|
On November 29 2012 08:27 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 08:06 Hondelul wrote:On November 29 2012 07:57 Plexa wrote:On November 29 2012 07:41 Hondelul wrote: Got questions on the stats:
Is "none" --> "doesn´t merrit a mod action" and does it include if for example several posts of one user got reported and one of the first reports lead to a ban? Is "closed" --> he reported a thread to be closed or does it mean the report got closed because of the point above?
Edit: a I think monk answered that already in a way, I should refresh before posting. Closed = closed thread. None = no action was taken. Each post can only have one report associated with it. Yes, was meant if someone has several reported posts in a short time (balance whining in LR threads come to mind) and one of the first reports leads to a ban. As I normally see it no other actions are taken to other reports of the same user which perhaps whould have gotten a warning. But you answered my questions, thank you. If that happens, all of the reports for that person are marked the same. For example, if a user had 10 posts reported in the same thread for the same thing and he got banned, they would all be marked as banned. That being said, even if you're a perfect reporter, it's probably still impossible to go under 10% "none" or no action. Besides the obvious borderline posts where you'll always have some disagreements with some mods, there are some instances where bad posts get marked "no action". For example, in the strategy forums, if a particular thread is particularly bad, I just close it, mark the reported OP "closed" and mark all the other bad posts in it "no action". Wow, thanks for the insight. Always interesting how much thoughts and finetuning goes into a seemingly small part of the website.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 29 2012 08:26 Gene wrote: Can I see what happened with my like, five reports? :D Three, actually. + Show Spoiler [Gene] +none 66.67% (2) banned 33.33% (1)
|
booo terrible stats.
and thank you.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Ya thats like Bronze league.
|
I would like to see my terrible terrible stats as well. I am ready to be mocked as I am almost positive my stats are horrible.
|
Curious so I'll bother you for my stats too, Plexa.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
United States24495 Posts
Keep in mind 'none' includes some situations like when someone reports a thread suggesting it get moved. Even though the report was acted on, 'thread moved' isn't an option so the mod often chooses 'none.' That's why you shouldn't expect 0% nones by any means. Still, the goal should be for all reported posts to need mod attention.
Plexa, what is mine? :p (actually I'm curious)
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
Huh. I generally just reported stuff that seemed questionable and let the mods sort it out.
It seems that I have gotten a lot of "none" from this.
What is the point where you take away the report button? Is it a certain percentage or just a gut-reaction if the reports are annoying?
|
Well that's not great but also no where near as bad as I anticipated. Guess my reporting has improved over time.
On a different note - Do you know how it breaks down for TL as a whole? Or the number of reports that have been submitted over time? "Best" and "Worst" reporters (Obviously names can be withheld) and their stats?
I guess if these numbers are tied directly into a profile you wouldn't know but it would be interesting if they are available.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 29 2012 10:31 StarMoon wrote: Huh. I generally just reported stuff that seemed questionable and let the mods sort it out.
It seems that I have gotten a lot of "none" from this.
What is the point where you take away the report button? Is it a certain percentage or just a gut-reaction if the reports are annoying? At the moment there are no formal criteria, so it's done on gut reaction and history. Normally if we run into active reporters with over 60% none we remove the feature, so there's that as well. We're will work on this and hopefully have something a little more concrete before the end of the year.
On November 29 2012 10:32 BloodNinja wrote:Well that's not great but also no where near as bad as I anticipated. Guess my reporting has improved over time. On a different note - Do you know how it breaks down for TL as a whole? Or the number of reports that have been submitted over time? "Best" and "Worst" reporters (Obviously names can be withheld) and their stats? I guess if these numbers are tied directly into a profile you wouldn't know but it would be interesting if they are available. I don't have the overall stats on me, but they could be brought up if we needed them. There's probably in excess of 15k reports submitted since the report feature was introduced. No formal ranking of best/worst reporters but a good guide for users with more than 50 reports (imo) is 0-20% none - godlike reporter (probably a mod by now) 20-30% none - good reporter 30-40% none - average reporter 40%+ - =/
|
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
|
I must admit I am extremely tickled by those stats
0-20% none - godlike reporter (probably a mod by now)
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
If only you could report yourself, Prae would clean house with all them ban requests.
|
So I shoot worse than mart but more bullets hit!
I'm content with that!
Also, are there stats on # of times a user has been reported?
|
|
|
|