Re: [tdf-test] Deletion request for attachments

[Christoph Noack <christoph@dogmatux.com>]

Hi Friedrich, hi Alex!

Quick reply ...

Am Dienstag, den 27.09.2011, 00:16 +0200 schrieb Friedrich Strohmaier:
> Hi Alexander, *,
> 
> 
> Am 26.09.2011 10:49 schrieb Alexander Werner:
> > Am 22.09.2011 23:52, schrieb Christoph Noack:
> 
> [..]
> 
> >> If a number (e.g. 5) community members report this file as problematic,
> >> then the content will get unpublished automatically
> 
> [..]
> 
> >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/a/a4/2011-03-05_Attachments_for_Mailing_Lists_-_Receiving_Mails.png
> 
> >> In my opinion, the "Report Problem" might either directly report spam
> >> (then it should get another name), or lead to another more detailed menu
> >> covering detailed feedback options.
> 
> > I have seen the "Report Problem" button more as a way to generally
> > contact the Mods so far, leading to a contact form.

Ah, okay. So then it's one of the "no premature refinement before the
idea got some friends" issue ;-) Sure, a contact form or anything could
be a solution.

> Which would make sense from my point of view..

Well, "makes sense" depends on the requirements and constraints. If we
think it would be good to have users to be able to disable questionable
content, then we'll find a solution for that.

For example, if the LibO Attachment Service is used among all mailing
lists, then it might be helpful for the moderators to achieve some
self-regulation (although I'm a mod for the Design list, it usually
takes some hours until I can check the mails to be moderated).


> > Flagging content will be also possible, but automatic unpublishing of
> > files requires a lot of work (logging IP, cookie, captcha) to prevent
> > abuse. OTOH, there are files that (any)one should be able to unpublish
> > instantly, so I'll think of a lightweight solution.
> 
> As long, as there are few requests only (which I'd assume) deleting
> manually should be sufficient.
> 
> An automatic solution would also require more learning efforts by the
> requester to understand how to do. This in consequence generates more
> admin action to answer questions.

Why? Because we propose a solution that's intended to be bad right from
the start? ;-) I think we can do better - if there is a need to do so.

Cheers,
Christoph


--
This mail was parsed by pymime,
and was sent from Christoph Noack <christoph@dogmatux.com> to test@documentfoundation.org.