In an effort to simplify things, the reactions have been changed. “Like”, “Off Topic”, and “Vote Down” have been removed and “Abuse” has been added. Our hope is that this will streamline things.
Posts with at least 5 Abuse tags will be placed in the moderation queue.
How about “Posts containing http:// or https:// will be placed in the moderation queue,” since those are dead givaways of somebody just dumbly pasting in an URL?
Will Typedrawers ever solve its actual problems?
I understand and respect your concern since I follow your accessibility stuff from the 90's when I was doing web development, information architecture, usability, etc... but nobody else cares if people use the full url. Some people actually prefer to see it.
You are a pioneer in all things accessibility.. but now a days, tablet and phones, they don't have the "rollhover" thingy to see where the link will take you, so its a bit of guesswork if the url is not vissible
BTW Joe "an URL" is wrong to me.
I hope the moderators are serious about implementing consequences for abusive flagging.
...and you never hear "why did you agree with my post?"
I've also used off-topic on posts which are complaints about the management of this site. People should be allowed to complain but bitching about moderators in the middle of a thread about another topic is rude. "HEY EVERYONE! I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THINGS WORK AROUND HERE AND I WANT EVERYONE TO HEAR ABOUT IT!" There's a section called Suggestions and Bug reports.
Do you think the abuse flag is appropriate for these types of posts? Now that we have a different set of buttons, is it more a disagree thing? Off-topic was a softer version of abuse. But the abuse tag seems kind of hard-core for tagging posts that are merely annoying and rude.
Want to thank someone for making you smarter? Click "Insightful" instead of writing "That was very interesting, Bob".
Want to indicate your agreement? Click "Agree", instead of writing "I agree with Bob's comments".
Want to indicate your disagreement? You wouldn't write "With all due respect, Bob, you're wrong" and stop there. So this reaction is not really needed; if you disagree you can write a proper reply. It could remain only to show the net reaction of the community at a glance.
Want to bring the discussion back on track? Click "Off-topic" instead of saying "Bob, I'm not sure what persecution of Nahuatl people by the Spanish Crown has to do with slab serifs".
We don't get spam accounts here, so the flagging should be reserved only for personal attacks, which are thankfully rare. I don't think it should be visible to all the users, it's not there to shame the abuser into sumbission, but to alert the moderators.
But then I suppose you could get a better result by posting, "I've started a new thread in the X section so we can continue this."
I hope you can also figure out a way to keep track of who is consistently marking posts... Veiled personal attacks from the safety of flagging versus actually posting is something that can quietly amplify resentment.
As noted in Rule #4, people should flag responsibly.
If removing some of the flags means people will have to be more communicative, then, maybe it's time for that. Designers are communicators, after all.
Case in point: check out the two Abuse flags on me that just kicked in (retroactively) and judge for yourself whether they're warranted.
I hope the moderators are sensitive to this.
It is unfortunate that we can't rename the Abuse flag to something more intuitive.
“Like” has been awarded a lot to posts which are supposed to be funny, but don’t help the discussion very much. I think there can be enough fun between the lines of serious posts. No need for “funny posts”, and the “Like” flag which rewards such posts.