Thread 5093

How easy is it to make it so that when you go to a thread, all the posts that were reported in the ban queue would show up as grey. This will make tracking replies and understanding the content much easier for everyone.

Also for the report page, is it possible to lump all the reports from 1 thread together. Or just add a sorting criteria (most reports, same thread, etc etc)

>>5093 (OP)
>Also for the report page, is it possible to lump all the reports from 1 thread together.

I would also like this.

>Also for the report page, is it possible to lump all the reports from 1 thread together. Or just add a sorting criteria (most reports, same thread, etc etc)

This would be amazing for /vg/. Alternatively would it be possible to sort the report queue by title/subject of a thread and not just by posts?

/g/ and /h/ here. I like these ideas.

This is not a suggestion regarding the janitor tools themselves, but - when a rangeban or mini-rangeban is dropped, are there any provisions to allow all "existing IPs" (or any sort of whitelist) through the range ban, given that no existing poster is going to be the ban evader?

>>5102
That would imply that the ISP being rangebanned assigns static IPs, which would make a rangeban pointless in the first point.

>>5103
My ISP provides dynamic IP addresses, but I think in my case they issue me a new IP address every time my router connects and I keep that IP for the life of the connection (which for me is usually a few weeks, until something disrupts the connection.)

I was only thinking in the context of the very short range bans designed at halting immediate abuse (which in my case would only hit me if I were unlucky to have my connection reset during that period) but I guess for other people it could be a few days and mobile posters might only hang onto their IPs for 15 minutes at a time.

>>5105
To my knowledge 4chan does not store the IP addresses of its users, so i don't know if that particular filter is a feasible option.

In any case, with that policy people who browse on phones would still be locked out and an evader could just move to another device with internet access and continue evading. These bans are almost always temporary, anyway, so people unlucky enough to live near an evader would only have 4chan down for a little while

>>5106
IP addresses are attached to posts. Otherwise the mods couldn't delete all your posts when you get b&, check for ban evaders, assist law enforcement, etc.

>In any case, with that policy people who browse on phones would still be locked out and an evader could just move to another device with internet access and continue evading.
Most people only have access to their home ISP and their mobile ISP and that's it.

I agree it would suck for mobile users but I think the real goal of the range-type bans is (other than saving moderators time) to to take the fun out of the evading and disrupting 4chan thing so that people will eventually move on. Most people are in it for the laughs and if they're not getting the attention they want it's not fun.

>>5105
>I was only thinking in the context of the very short range bans designed at halting immediate abuse
This is not a possibility. The tl;dr of why is your ISP has wildly different IP blocks for your router to pick up. Range banning could effect users who don't live anywhere near the evader and the evader would not even notice his old IP had a range ban.

>>5109
Sorry, I meant short in terms of length, not in terms of IP range (although would be preferable if if possible... which I guess it's not.)

Quick idea:

Can you set the http://www.4chan.org/bans page to not show bans for spoilers? Not sure if it's necessary, but seems like a fair precaution.

>>5115
/soc/ here with a related note to this: when some posts on /soc/ contact threads end up there, their contact info also remains. This is really only an issue for when we ban underage users posting contact info though, imo.

An automatic "report" feature would be nice. Let me explain:
You have the option to put certain words into a list. Sort of like a blacklist. And when someone creates a thread that contains your "blacklisted" word, you get immediately notified like if the thread was reported.

That way, you can delete/BR certain kinds of threads faster when people are too lazy to report.

>>5162
this could also be used with an Ip based system. A pseudo rangeban that could be temporarily or permanently put in place for the truly problem posters. Done with as tight of a net as possible.

It could even be a combination. A keyword posted from a specific ip range or a specific image hash from a specific ip range. Or even board specific.

What's best is that it doesn't have to be a check during posting like the current system is which can slow down posting and put more work on the servers since every potential post has to be checked with current bans. This new potential system can check the ips of the boards at a timed interval, looking for those who have truly earned a spot on the most wanted evaders.

Those checks can be added to the reports page without constant mod evasion checking requirements. Could be even toggled into a nice filter. Would not be used lightly but when appropriate.

>>5163
This potential tool would not be used lightly, clogging the report que with anything and everything but only on the worst, the ones where it would actually save staff time. It's meant to be a new tool of efficiency, not a worse wordfilter.

It would search new posts from its last sweep ~10-15 minutes ago, checking them against its target perimeters. The target perimeters would hopefully be as tight as possible, being improved as time goes on.

It could search for target keywords, image hashes, phrases, or from a specific IP range. Or search for a specific combination of some or all of them. These target perimeters could be temporarily added by a mod during a period of heavy troublesome posting when necessary. As long as it is simple enough to add or alter, any mod could adjust it to current circumstances.

Then, any janitor or mod would be able to simply trim the report que as always. A filter for only pinged reports could be helpful as well. It would not create many new reports if the target perimeters are set high enough, making posts reported quicker and more thoroughly instead of flooding an already beleaguered global que. It would function more like an automatic evasion check for the worst, but still being seen and judged by human eyes so as to not create false undeserved bans. It could be very helpful at easing burdens on mods.

It'd be nice if janitors were able to permasage threads. Since we're able to delete threads anyway, permasage feature would be a nice alternative sometimes. It's not too much power either, imo.

I have been seeing more and more cases of report form abuse. And the thing is that if I mark that as Global Rule 7 [Submitting false or misclassified reports, or otherwise abusing the reporting system may result in a ban.],
the resulting post gets deleted as well, encouraging the user with his/her behavior.

I don't really mind if the offending post is really of a concern, but little things like those in the accompanying image are annoying and distract from actual issues.

Can the 2 options be separated, where the wrong report one will not delete the reported post.

>>5181
As of now, janitors cannot ban request reporters.

Please do not submit ban requests for global rule 7 on misclassified reports; you are effectively ban requesting and deleting the reported post and not the reporter(s).

If you find yourself in a situation where you see excessive report abuse, please contact moderators instead.

It would be nice if, when you hit someone with a ban evasion ban, if all their posts in the thread could be highlighted.

>>5182
Ok, thanks for the info.

This also makes the point that the [False Report] label for that particular rule is well... misclassified. And it should be separated to another function which directs the BR to the reporter instead.

I've noticed that when threads are moved, they are instantly archived.

Since it seems like the destination board should be the place for such threads in the future, I suggest that there should be an option to simply close the thread (instead of archiving it) so that the kinds of people who would look for such things in the catalog would see the moved thread.

another proposal, maybe would help us find ways to improve

>>5935
I like the idea of having some feedback as to what ban requests were modified or rejected by mods. Should help improve what we submit, hopefully meaning less work for mods.

>>5179
I too would like the ability to permasage. We could be required to select a reason for permasaging and they could be logged just as deletes and ban requests are to ensure the feature is not being abused.

Reasons I would permasage threads:
>Meta Thread
>Duplicate Thread
>Low-Quality/Off-Topic Thread
For the last two, threads could be deleted or OPs could be given bans/warning, but sometimes I find that can be too harsh or anti-fun. For example, when there is a new announcement or reveal in film or television is made, /tv/ can get filled with near identical threads. In the instance of low-quality/off-topic threads, there are often threads about celebrity news that don't exactly pertain to the actor/actresses career and roles, but are interesting nonetheless.

Janitor permasages could even be less stealthy than the ones Mods can apply. "Permasaged: [Reason]" could be displayed next to the thread stats.

Would it be possible to get a 'select-all-replies' button, that would check the boxes of all children. And a 'uncheck-all-replies' button to save worthwhile posts.

It'd make removing severely off-topic posts a lot easier.

>>6302
this is a mod tool that we've been told we won't get

>>6228

I also like janitors being able to Permasage, it's a nice medium, I often ponder over whether i should delete a thread thats off-topic but high traffic, permasage would often be an appropriate response, in my opinion.

>>6302

We'd invariably end up deleting too much with this one, I think.

I don't think janitors should be allowed to permasage threads. it is an extremely powerful tool and can be used to easily and arbitrarily warp the flow of a board. If something is necessary to assist in this regard I would rather there be a "permasage request" moderation feature.

I also don't necessarily think janitors should have a feature that allows them to easily potentially delete dozens of posts without reading them.

>>6302
>>6305
Legitimately too destructive, I agree, but a sage request in the ban request panel would be helpful than trying to track down who is active in IRC.

>>6305
I don't think it would be too destructive, since deleting a thread is more by default, and a permasage can even be reversed. I feel it's too much of a waste of time pinging three mods just to permasage a meta thread when we all know what should be done with it. However, if we do get the ability to, I think there should be strict set limits of what is permasageable to avoid controversy and blowback.

>>6305
>"permasage request"
I too think that's a good idea

>>6305
Thirding the permasage request idea. Only makes sense to streamline something so common that otherwise has to be manually requested.

>>6313
I would like this. Whichever mods that are active, even ones not in the channel can review and accept or deny.

I wish we could "file" somebody for a false illegal report, or tick it as an option on an OP thread.

Commonly, there will be a garbage rule breaking thread that gets falsely reported as an illegal. If you want the guy who misclassified the report to get banned, you have to notify a mod, and that can take a while, or sometimes, it's a dead hour so no mods are on.

So you just have to delete the thread, and the guy who falsely reported it as an illegal goes unpunished.

Why can there not be some kind of accessory add-on option for false illegals? So you can BR the OP and BR the guy who false reported as illegal at the same time?

>>6861
This. More than garbage threads being reported illegal, there's also reporting 'posts I don't like' as illegal or even just as a rule violation. I suppose that isn't easy to BR so that we do not discourage reporting in general in a scenario where a user reports what they think are really really-breaking posts and a janitor thinks they're false reporting.

Word filter the word cunny please. This would significantly improve /v/.

ignore

I don't know how realistic/reasonable this request would be, but maybe there could be a "NWS" section of reports available to janitors. So instead of showing [some board]'s reports at https://reports・4chan・org/#/[some board], you could have a section purely for NWS reports from all (or most all) 4channel boards at https://reports・4chan・org/#/nws. You don't have to be familiar with a board to know whether or not something is NWS. This would hopefully help to balance out the load between janitors with higher and lower traffic boards. Maybe it would be too much work to implement this, though; I'm not sure. It's just an idea.

Also LMAO I'm getting "Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again." on /j/. That can probably be removed, since if someone is spamming on /j/, there are bigger issues than the individual post.

>>6890
would also have to filter cute and funny
and then they'd just find other ways to say it without triggering the filter

I'm a new janitor (came on during this cycle), but I have noticed something that might help with the queue.

It seems that a lot of the time posts that fit the criteria of "announcing reports" seem to float around on the bottom of the queue. While these are very minor infractions, they are always unambiguous WR-worthy posts. If they were sent up to the top, they'd be more apparent instead of floating around in a sea of clearable bickering at the bottom -- they along with other minor infractions that tend to get reported accurately. So, while they are not posts that require immediate attention, they are unambiguous and can be dealt with swiftly if we could see them better.

This is all speculation based on my limited knowledge. I do not know what the actual reports look like. All I know is that I find a lot of obvious posts sitting at the bottom of the queue.

>>7094
I don't think it's (necessarily) the number of reports that is the issue, so much as the content of the posts being reported. If a post is at the top of the queue, then it probably needs to be dealt with more quickly, often for legal reasons (i.e. GRs 1, 2, 4). Stuff of low importance will be handled whenever someone gets around to it. It's fine for them to sit in the queue for however long that takes.
If you haven't downloaded it yet, you should definitely check out Hotpocket Helper >>7036
Imo it makes the sorting of reports so much easier, and it really helps to make having a large number of reports a lot more manageable.

>>7095
It's better then the old system. Used to be sorted by the number of reports.