Spam and Abuse Watch

19-Nov-14 9:01

gone

M.D.V.

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.

Spam in QA

Thanks787219-Nov-14 0:06

19-Nov-14 0:06

Question : how to use ******[^]

"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad

modified 19-Nov-14 6:34am.

Tom Deketelaere19-Nov-14 0:25

Tom Deketelaere

19-Nov-14 0:25

I'm not sure if this is spam.

He is asking about an api and how to code against that api.

Looking at his profile, he has asked several valid questions before and some of them are about mp3 manipulation, so...

The question could use some clarification but to qualify it as spam, I don't know.

Therefor I haven't reported it and I leave it up to the 'protectors' to decide.

Jochen Arndt19-Nov-14 0:28

Jochen Arndt

19-Nov-14 0:28

I don't think it is spam or even site driving. He just want to know how to use that non commercial API.

Thanks787219-Nov-14 0:32

19-Nov-14 0:32

Are you sure all links he mentioned are legal?

"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad

Jochen Arndt19-Nov-14 0:42

Jochen Arndt

19-Nov-14 0:42

Rohan Leuva wrote:
Are you sure all links he mentioned are legal?

No. I did not check that. If so, the question should be closed but not by reporting as spam.

Thanks787219-Nov-14 0:49

19-Nov-14 0:49

Jochen Arndt wrote:
If so, the question should be closed but not by reporting as spam

Then how to close it?

"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad

Jochen Arndt19-Nov-14 1:02

Jochen Arndt

19-Nov-14 1:02

Rohan Leuva wrote:
Then how to close it?

By reporting it. But not as spam.

The problem here is that you posted a message 'Spam in QA' which usually leads to the message being closed and the user kicked off very fast. The user may still be kicked off because the closed message can be opened and one click later you are on the profile page of the user.

In this special case there may be legal issues with one link. So an adequate subject would be something like 'QA question contains link to problematic site' and a reporting option would be Off-Topic or Spam/abusive with a comment.

Nelek19-Nov-14 0:32

19-Nov-14 0:32

I agree with the other opinions above.

Question is already closed, but I would say the user should not be reported. Maybe striking the link?

M.D.V.

Thanks787219-Nov-14 0:34

19-Nov-14 0:34

Nelek wrote:
user should not be reported

I have no issue giving him a chance. Done.

"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad

Nelek19-Nov-14 1:03

The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

19-Nov-14 1:03

M.D.V.

BillWoodruff18-Nov-14 22:33

BillWoodruff

18-Nov-14 22:33

This may be related to the recent post here by den2k88, "Q&A Abuse."

Today I came across this question: [^] by Member 11046620.

While I am pretty sure this is a question about using a ComboBox in WinForms and persisting its contents using Application.Settings, and it's a question I could easily answer (if it is WinForms), I took a look at the history of the OP's questions [^], and what I see is a clear pattern of never voting on any response, not responding to any question/comment except to restate what's they want in the most terse terms possible, and, apparently, no vote on any response given.

Assuming my perceptions of this OP's history are correct, I am reluctant to take the trouble to post code that will answer the (probable) question, and show a possible efficient way to improve the use of Application.Settings.

My perception of this OP's behavior over time corresponds with my hypothesis that there are a relatively small number of people who really abuse CP QA, asking a lot, giving back nothing, ignoring suggestions, posting frequent questions where the content remains virtually the same.

Further, I think allowing this to go on is one factor (among many) contributing to the high degree of "static" on QA. Whether this factor is as important as other factors like the egregious behavior of some frequent-solution-posters, apparently in a state of reputation-lust, or the structural problems in CP's handling of QA in general ... other issues, other cans of worms, there.

What facility could be created to somehow deal with frequent QA posters who fit the hypothetical profile I describe here ?

I deliberately do not state my ideas about what might be done, because I am more interested in your ideas, and knowing your reaction to my hypothesis; also, I've already posted many specific ideas to improve QA on Suggs&Buggs in the past.

thanks, Bill

«If you search in Google for 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM:' the top-hit is the Wikipedia article on 'Fear, uncertainty and doubt'» What does that tell you about sanity in these times?

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

Nelek18-Nov-14 23:30

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

18-Nov-14 23:30

In my case, I would have reported it as "unclear/incomplete" or "not a question". But considering the debates in B&S in last time about scaring new users and being agree with the arguments pointed out there, I have drastically reduced my reporting in such cases.

On the other hand, regarding your comment to my answer in one of his questions[^]. I still think it is not a bad approach. I usually give links to start from and try to educate them saying what is being done wrong and why aren't they getting better answers.

Coming back to your points:

BillWoodruff wrote:
what I see is a clear pattern of never voting on any response, not responding to any question/comment except to restate what's they want in the most terse terms possible, and, apparently, no vote on any response given

The more they stay in that behaviour, the more I get tempted to start reporting his questions as "unclear" or "not a question". Opportunities have been given to improve the questions, ignoring that opportunities makes them lose the status "they are new and don't know how it works".

BillWoodruff wrote:
Whether this factor is as important as other factors like the egregious behavior of some frequent-solution-posters,

I don't really understand what you mean with this.

BillWoodruff wrote:
Assuming my perceptions of this OP's history are correct, I am reluctant to take the trouble to post code that will answer the (probable) question
...
What facility could be created to somehow deal with frequent QA posters who fit the hypothetical profile I describe here ?

A possible solution (I know it would not increase the quality of QA, but I think at least could reduce the grade of frustration on users trying to help and getting no feedback at all) could be to give the possiblity of a black list in our profile. I mean, something similar to a "ignore user" function.
Another possibility would be the suggested "limbo" in B&S where such users, having a certain (high) number of special reports by a (possibly limited) number of users get a different cathegory. Once there, their questions would not be fully public (reducing the "noise" in the public QA), other users willing to answer / educate them might choose voluntary to see that kind of "limbo" questions in their profile settings.

About the "non voting, not accepting solutions" I think the suggested idea (time ago) of giving the possibility to set a "solved" flag by consens of other users (high number of clicks again) in solutions that would be good enough to solve the "described" problem of the "question". But as I say in my signature, "voting an answer can be nice, saying thanks is even nicer". And this (or the lack of it) is something related to the education of the people, being thankful for the effords of anonym helpers in the internet and giving feedback. And this... this is something that can not be automated Frown | :(

.

But the problem I see is, there is no magic formula to solve such issues, there is always going to be people giving requirements and trying to get their job done here, criptic or very low quality questions and similars. IMO the only way to manage this is the implemented one with the reporting tools. But every person is a "different world" so there is always going to be differences in opinions, criteria, reactions and so on, what lead to a certain degree of polemics.

EDIT: Another possible suggestion posted in my message below.

M.D.V.

modified 19-Nov-14 7:02am.

Thanks787219-Nov-14 0:15

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

19-Nov-14 0:15

We have made QA a place where OP will dump the code and don't even ask question. Its our task to ask question Laugh | :laugh:

(Atleast i have seen since last couple of days).

Long story short, without reporting mechanism, we can not handle QA in any any way.

"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad

BillWoodruff19-Nov-14 0:21

BillWoodruff

19-Nov-14 0:21

I appreciate your thoughtful response, Nelek !

"Whether this factor is as important as other factors like the egregious behavior of some frequent-solution-posters," If you don't know what I mean by this, you may be better off; I feel I've already said enough, multiple times, over years, on Suggs&Buggs on this Smile | :)

You are so right, there is no "magic solution" that will prevent new users of CP QA from doing whatever they want to do, but I believe there can some solutions worked out for "repeat offenders."

However, I feel that structural changes that can only be implemented by changing the way people use QA (how they are even able to enter a question) can do much more ... if ... the Hamsters are willing.

cheers, Bill

«If you search in Google for 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM:' the top-hit is the Wikipedia article on 'Fear, uncertainty and doubt'» What does that tell you about sanity in these times?

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

Nelek19-Nov-14 0:59

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

19-Nov-14 0:59

BillWoodruff wrote:
If you don't know what I mean by this, you may be better off; I feel I've already said enough, multiple times, over years, on Suggs&Buggs on this

I can imagine, but I wanted to be sure I don't missunderstand it. You and me already had our intern speech triggered by missunderstandings and preferred to clear it before assuming something that could be wrong.

BillWoodruff wrote:
I feel that structural changes that can only be implemented by changing the way people use QA

Not specially, I know it would be a effort or some work. But I think some kind of template in the question posting could help.

I mean, something like...:

1) Brief description 1-2 lines (mandatory):
2) Extended description (Input box as it now is):
3) Number of code snippets needed: [] None, []1, []2, []3...
4a) If needed, place for Code Snippet 1 (language selection mandatory?):
4b) If needed, place for Code Snippet 2 (language selection mandatory?):
...
n) Closing text:

Example (valid / "qualitative" asker):
1) Problem with function to save data in the database
2) Hi all, I am trying to do XXX with a function that get the user input from an edit box (see code snippet 1) in the "user's settings" of my site but I am not able to save the settings in the database. Database is XXXX with configuration YYYY. Once saved I try to get the data back with the query (see code snippet 2) but the retrieved data doesn't match what the user input in the site. After searching the web I think my error could be ZZZ but after debugging I didn't really find anything relevant.
3) [X]2
4a) Snippet 1 (lang c#)

function XXXX
{
   // blah blah blah
}

function YYYY
{
   // blah blah blah
}

4b)Snippet 2 (lang SQL)

SQL

SELECT XXX from YYY
  where ZZZ and
  blah blah blah

n) I was thinking about to try a different approach using blah blah blah blah...
If someone has any different advice or can spot what I am doing wrong. I will thank any help.
----------

Of course the x) points could be ignored so that the question text gains in continuity.

I know it can be very costy to implement such a structure change, but valid / "qualified" askers would be able to manage it (if I had to ask, I would write my question offline first, then copy from there into the different fields).
Lazy users would have more work and maybe learn / get used how to use a "better structure".
Spam bots should have some more difficulties, since there are more inputs and some mandatory clicks (i.e. number of snippets)

M.D.V.

den2k8819-Nov-14 2:04

den2k88

19-Nov-14 2:04

This could be a good way to improve readability of the questions, stated that most of the trash-producers will simply posta a non-meaningful text as description, ask "I can not made diz wrk plz hlp" and dump their entire codebase in the snippets.

Been there ~~done~~ saw that.

So a way of limboing people is much better since the problem does not rely on the format of the question as much as on the brain of the OP Hmmm | :|

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

BillWoodruff19-Nov-14 2:23

BillWoodruff

19-Nov-14 2:23

Nelek wrote:
You and me already had our intern speech triggered by missunderstandings

Oh, I have no memory of this; I don't know if that's a good thing or not Smile | :)

But, please, if you ever feel you want me to clarify anything I post, just ask, and if you feel I have mis-interpreted anything you posted, let me know, so I can carefully consider your opinion on what I did not understand.

Nelek wrote:
I think some kind of template in the question posting could help

Yes, that's exactly the type of thing that I mean by " structural changes that can only be implemented by changing the way people use QA," and only CP staff thing can implement such functionality. And, I have proposed that in great detail more than once over the years in Suggs*Buggs.

«If you search in Google for 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM:' the top-hit is the Wikipedia article on 'Fear, uncertainty and doubt'» What does that tell you about sanity in these times?

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

den2k8819-Nov-14 0:52

den2k88

19-Nov-14 0:52

Well, IMHO to address the problem of those who don't mark a question as solved nor upvote the solution (if any) I would implement a timing mechanism, such that if after some time a question that has pending answers and no further interventions from the OP the question become automatically answered (I would introduce the concept of "temporarily answered") and the users who answered get rewarded something like a half-accepted-answer. That would be enough I think.

Also, I'd be much less tolerant to those who don't state any question and continue to do so after several users ask to improve the question. If you post a code dump, on several posts and ignore any attempt made by the users to ask a question properly then you deserve some hammering.

It would be interesting to add a weight of the OP based on negative reports and time of subscription. To say, if you subscribed 5 minutes ago your question gets a low priority by default. And if you have several reports stating "Not a question", "Do your own homework" and such then your next answers will have lower weight, possibly ending in a subsection of the Q&A. Of course this "questioner-reputation" should be reversible, in the sense that if OP posts garbage, is scolded and reported and then he apologizes and corrects there should be a counter-report so that he will not have low-priority questions frol life just for one mistake.

Finally, while all of us understand that English is not everybody first language this shouldn't mean "ppl cn wrte ths way cn u hlp me plz????", because it is not due to English being a foreign language. And if the language barrier is too strong then it is better to point it out since there are a lot of questions where the grammar is totally not understandable. This adds difficulties for non-english potential answerers.

Re: The problem of non-responding, non-improving, non-voting QA posters

Nelek19-Nov-14 1:06