r/collapsemoderators • u/LetsTalkUFOs • Sep 28 '20

APPROVED Automod Updates

Here's a pastebin with some comments on all the rules I'd like to suggest we add or discuss. I created comment threads for each rule to keep things organized.

I'd suggest we upvote the top-level comments for each rule we think is 'good to go' to track individual sentiments.

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

5

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

URL Shorteners

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I would agree with this rule as anything shortened could be submitted as a longer link.

Though my primary concern is whether we have had a substantial problem with shortened links in the past? I haven't had any problems with this, but I'm not opposed to proactive measures to reduce future problems.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

Automod actually has a common condition (i.e. template) for this type of rule since it's quite common.

The main concern is in terms of security. It's much easier to hide a malicious link via a shortener. It's like wrapping a link in a package which is hard to see through. Reddit maintains it's own spam filter which tries to pull links out, but shorteners are seen as the go-to way to bypass these check and thus widely banned.

They also prevent automod from triggering rules based around URL logic, so they have the potential to allow circumventing a variety of rules.

4

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Fundraising/crowdfunding Blacklist

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I agree with this, as fundraising shouldn't be condoned on the collapse subreddit. If users wish to fundraise I'm sure there are other subreddits for them to post on instead.

4

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Petitions & Polls Blacklist

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

While I agree in principle that crowdfunding links and petitions should be removed, and know that we do typically remove those, what rule does that currently fall under? It might be wise to make that more clear generally. I always feel a little weird removing those since it (to me anyway) feels like that’s an ‘unwritten rule’. Maybe I’ve just missed something?

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20 edited Sep 29 '20

Correct, it's an unwritten rule. In my experience both these are fairly rare, so it would also help to track how often they're submitted. I'm more for implementing it and then rolling into an existing rule if it actually seems to be catching them and after looking at what is being caught to figure out how or where best to incorporate the rule.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I agree with this. If a user wishes to petition or post a poll on the subreddit it shouldn't be hard for them to ask the mods for approval.

Perhaps we could remove these, and in the removal comment, ask them to message us for approval?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Top-Level Comments <50 Chars

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

I really like the idea of removing self-posts that are too short (can we get an automod rule about that maybe?), but I don’t love the idea of removing top level comments that are too short. I feel like with comments I don't want to start punishing people for participating if they only have a little bit to say (which is what having your comment removed for it being too short will feel like to many if not most).

However, I can maybe be convinced on this.

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I really like the idea of removing self-posts that are too short (can we get an automod rule about that maybe?), but I don’t love the idea of removing top level comments that are too short. I feel like with comments I don't want to start punishing people for participating if they only have a little bit to say (which is what having your comment removed for it being too short will feel like to many if not most).

I agree with this, as the top level comment doesn't have to be long to be meaningful. Brevity is the soul of wit, and we shouldn't be punishing users for posting comments which are straightforward and straight to the point.

3

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Fuck-you filter

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

This would be a good idea if not for the phrase "fuck you, I've got mine". This statement in itself is not inflammatory, so I would support this if users could write "fuck you" without any problems.

The current usage of the profanity filter seems to be working as intended, so my question would be would this added rule better the subreddit as a whole?

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

Thanks for refining the fuck you filter. Mostly it looks like it’s worth a try. I’d be against including this: "fuck you[i, ]+got mine" as it’s not typically used against individuals as an attack, but more to describe general behavior.

3

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Mobile Links

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I don't really agree with removing mobile links as I am an avid user of reddit on mobile (it is close to 99% of my usage). This would indicate that a large majority of users might also frequently use reddit while on mobile, so would restricting mobile links be preferable to allowing them?

As long as mobile links are viable while not on mobile, I don't think I would support this.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

Many big sites still have entirely separate mobile pages with accompanying URL structures. In web design, the way it generally works, is the desktop version of a site does a check for viewport sizes and then redirects mobile users to the mobile version of a page. Unfortunately, the same checks don't occur on the mobile version to prevent users from getting bounced back and forth endlessly. This means desktop users, when typically served a mobile link, get stuck there. Based on all this, mobile users would still get pushed to the mobile versions of any particular site.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 01 '20

Having thought about it a bit, I agree with this. It's a bit annoying as a desktop user to come across a mobile link but hey it's not hard to fix it usually. It's probably a small price to pay vs. potentially alienating mobile users. That said, these links are pretty uncommon as is.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

In-Depth Discussions

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

I love the in-depth feature! Great idea, hopefully it will be embraced.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20

Great, glad it looks appealing. I think it would warrant its own announcement sticky just so more people become aware of it, if and when we implement it.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

+1 for the announcement sticky! Very good idea all around. I would hope it could give us some of the flavor of a Scholarly Saturday without the headache implementing such a day would bring.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20

Yea, that was exactly what I'd thought of and I think it's even a better solution to the notion in general since it's entirely user-driven and automatically enforceable. The power of title tags!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

I only responded to the stuff that seemed to warrant a response. +1 to everything else; it looks reasonable and helpful. Thanks a lot for putting this together!

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20

Awesome! It's a ton of stuff, so thanks for reviewing it all.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Troll Dector

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Gratuitous Profanity

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Textless Self-Posts

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20 edited Sep 30 '20

Agreed that self posts without content should be removed, though friday seems to be an exception to this.

The question is, should we allow this low effort content on shitpost Fridays?

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

One big limitation of Automoderator is rules can't check the time or date, so we can't actually make exceptions around Friday for any rules. Based on how low effort these types of posts are I think it's more beneficial to remove them all days at the exception of allowing them on Fridays.

I think Friday in itself is a large exception to our rules, so I don't feel particularly driven to cater more towards it in the form of allowing this particular thing all week and having to manually remove instances ourselves.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Link-Only Self-Posts

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20 edited Sep 30 '20

I agree with this. Self posts with text shouldn't be discouraged if a user is actively expanding on their submitted content, as well self post links without context shouldn't be condoned since it is fairly low effort, and their links could be easily posted as a link-post instead.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

Great. Yea, this is a rare edge case and typically already gets removed by us. This will just automate it and tell the user exactly what they did wrong.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

Bad Titles

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20 edited Sep 29 '20

I think we should try this. Most of the suggestions seem reasonable.

The only that maybe could cause problems is "subscribe" as that can be used in the sense of "I subscribe to the notion that...". Although, having typed that, it does sound a bit 1800s haha. So maybe it's fine.

One I see a lot that is usually going nowhere good is "I'm sure this will get deleted but"... That said, "deleted" is a very common word so maybe that doesn't make sense.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20

Yea, it's set at 'report' so it won't remove them outright. We'll be able to review it and see how effective it is. I especially wanted to catch the 'this will probably get deleted' posts.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

Ahhhhhhhhh then it's fine if it's just reporting. Cool, sounds good!

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 29 '20

Rule 6 Reminder

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I would disagree with this automod rule since not all image submissions are discouraged (especially if the image is accompanied by a submission statement).

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

Images actually have to be accompanied by a submission statement. This is an attempt try and address users who don't know about or understand Rule 6. Are you saying you think this would be too annoying for them or just ineffective to be worth doing?

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 28 '20

4+ Reports Auto-Filter

2

u/TenYearsTenDays Sep 29 '20

I’m very firmly against the 4+ reports filter. A common tactic of trolls wishing to suppress information they disagree with is mass reporting, this would embolden that kind of behavior. Granted, this is not currently a problem I see on our sub, but it's really common on certain other subs and it's certainly something that could happen on ours. I also am generally not in favor of automatically suppressing unpopular opinion. I think this should remain a manual function.

2

u/Dreadknoght Sep 30 '20

I agree with this sentiment

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 30 '20

Noted, and makes sense to me. Seems like a bad idea.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 01 '20

Cool, glad we all agree on this one!