[Pulp-dev] Spam on plan.io

[Austin Macdonald]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:57 PM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:23 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe the first comment / issue posted by an account would need to be
>> approved, but once approved they could post subsequent comments / issues
>> without delay?
>>
>>
> @dalley, sounds right to me. I think this could be implemented using
> bmbouters b) option, with 1 difference. If the user can't even file until
> approved, I think we shouldn't do it. If the user can file an invisible
> issue, I'm ok with this.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> b) create a "trusted users" group and have that allow users to either
>> post comments, post issues, or both and then disable those permissions for
>> "other accounts". This would prevent a new user from filing a bug in a
>> self-service way though.
>>
>
> b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is not
> visible until approved. When issue is approved, user is moved to "trusted
> user" group. Further issues are not delayed.
>
> This would fix the problem at the cost of delaying response to new
> contributors at a critical time, right after their first contribution.
> Using "trusted users" would allow us to filter out most issues,
> significantly reducing the workload to review for spam.
>

Nothing has changed except my patience. Ugh.

IMO we need to remove the incentive, which means hiding the first
issue/comment of new users.

Unless anyone is strongly against this, I'll file an issue and we can
discuss the technical details there.


> However, we could also users "trusted users" as an invisible flag that
> makes no difference to the user. This would be the exact same amount of
> work as b) for us, but new contributor issues are always visible. So after
> all this, I'm leaning toward a) + 1/2 b)
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> a) manage the spam better
>>
>
> a) Story >>> A new user is created they file an issue. Issue is visible
> immediately. Spam review must review every new issue from every user.
>
> a) + 1/2 b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is
> visible immediately. Issue is flagged internally for spam review, if not
> spam, user is added to trusted group. Further issues would skip this
> process.
>
> I have one last thought that might make b) more attractive, but its a shot
> in the dark. Since the spam is coming from humans, someone is paying them.
> If we never show the spam, we remove the incentive, and hopefully someone
> will notice and stop it. If y'all think this is how things woud go down, we
> could always do b) until the problem stops and switch to a) + 1/2 b).
>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20181207/da0a846b/attachment.htm>