The current method of dealing with Spam messages and their authors is somewhat labour intensive. The discoverer has to create a new message in the forum with a link to the spam message, and the spammer's account. It also has the drawback that spam messages disappear quicker than the spammers. This means we mostly have to take it on trust that our fellow spam hunters have correctly identified the perp.
This is probably too much to ask but ... how about something along the lines of:
When a message is flagged as spam, it is immediately moved to the Spam and Abuse forum.
Any message in this forum can be flagged as not-spam, and returned whence it came.
Every additional spam flag following the initial one gets added to a (weighted) count.
When the message count reaches a sufficient level, both message and spammer are removed.
I'm not sure how QA messages could fit into such a system, but the forums seem to be the main target of spammers these days.
I like your thinking. How about something cleaner:
Whenever someone marks a message as spam it goes into the same spam moderation queue that all automatically marked spam goes into. That way we have a single system, and a single point of reference for spam.
That's fine as far as it goes, but it still means we have to add a message somewhere to identify the account that posted it. Getting rid of the messages is easy, getting rid of the spammers is somewhat less so. But I'm sure you experts will come up with something brilliant.
We already have the ability to auto-nuke member accounts when message reports hit a certain threshold. Unfortunately there were too many accounts getting nuked because of trigger fingers so we've backed away from allowing auto-nuking.
It makes it more work for sure, but it protects members from unintended consequences.
What would be useful is for auto notification when marking spam in moderation. So, you say that something is spam, then a message is automatically created in the spam forum, including links to the messages/answers/comments for the account being moderated. This is the manual part that we end up doing anyway, so cutting this out would be a huge time saver, and doesn't have the effect that auto-nuke has - members are still required to vote. I would be tempted to make this option a separate one from just marking something as spam - make it explicit that the moderator wants to take this action.
I like the idea. If possible, this seems quite clean and still saves time and keystrockes
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
This is the current stalemate over use of comment box versus answer box. To do the math on the gambit (one point for a comment or possibly minus six for a bad answer) and come up with a formal method to win at all rolls of that die precludes me from venturing into QA.
Yes, that is totally normal because if you post a helpful post, same user (with a weight of 8) would provide you with +40.
That is the voting system on CodeProject. The reputation system on CodeProject[^] has a lot of features, which are used to ensure that good content comes on top and bad content goes down. The weight is gained by users for being helpful to the community. +10 is just to add the answer post, for taking the pain to answer the user. -16 if you did not answer it well or helpful. That also depends on the user down-voting. Please look into the weights on that page.
I would suggest that you do not post answers to questions you have no idea about. Ignoring a question is best to avoid downvotes. A downvote of -16 is usually because your answer wasn't helpful.
I hope you understand.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~