Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:50:41 GMT
Ian Jackson wrote on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:17:57 +0000:
>>And make the process even less transparent?
>
> That was one objection that was made by my colleagues. Personally I
> think transparency would be well served by publishing substantive things
> like the texts of rejected messages (and I'm hoping we'll hav ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:20:04 +0000
In message <1q8hzavj3b8is$.69vgo2a96qps$.dlg@40tude.net>, rob
<leandr42@googlemail.com> writes
>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:12:14 +0000, Chris French wrote:
>
>> In message <QIr*0LL2s@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
>> <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>>>
>>>I suggested to my co-moderators that we ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:19:01 +0000
On 2010-02-03, kat wrote:
>
> Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon@googlemail.co.uk> said
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. Getting onto the white-list is not big, it's not clever,
>>> and nobody is impressed ;-)
>>
>> Except that some people do seem to obsess over it, as if for them it's
>> their only focus ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:12:14 +0000
In message <QIr*0LL2s@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>
>I suggested to my co-moderators that we could reduce the resolution of
>the timestamps shown in the logs, for example by showing only the tens
>of minutes and not the units of minutes or seconds.
>
Why ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:10:28 GMT
Ian Jackson wrote on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:02:26 +0000:
> I suggested to my co-moderators that we could reduce the resolution of
> the timestamps shown in the logs, for example by showing only the tens
> of minutes and not the units of minutes or seconds.
And make the process even less transparent?
--
Regar ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:57:43 +0000
Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon@googlemail.co.uk> writes:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Getting onto the white-list is not big, it's not clever,
>> and nobody is impressed ;-)
>
> Except that some people do seem to obsess over it, as if for them it's
> their only focus in life.
I don't know webstump, ...
|
Re: The future of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:36:12 +0000
In message <7srdukFf6pU1@mid.individual.net>, kat
<littlelionne@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> said
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:10:17 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Quote 1: "The argument is /whether/ we need to comply with all laws."
>>> Quote 2: "The question though is whet ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
On 2010-02-02, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> Correct. There is an extensive list of words and phrases which prevent
>> a post from being auto-approved even if sent from a white-listed
>> poster. They don't cause the post to be rejected, they just mean it
>> goes for manual moderation as if they were ...
|
Re: The future of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:22:42 +0000
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:51:40 +0000
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Having read many of your posts, I still believe that my interpretation
> of your intent was accurate. Any humility you may have observed in my
> previous message was unintentional, it was intended to be quite direct
> and abrupt, almost t ...
|
Re: manual and automatic moderation
Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:06:28 +0000
On 2010-02-02, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:16:07 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Thanks; that's what I thought. I assume that this list of "bad words"
>>is not publicly available.
>
> Finding out the list of "bad words" could make an entertaining project
> for someone.
...
|
