Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by Odder
Odder  ·  1136 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Overenthusiastic tagging of #spam in #rpg

I am the one who tagged both of the above users as spam. tacocat's explanation describes exactly why I did so. There are other users who mostly post links to one website, but with only one exception, I haven't marked any of those posts as spam.

When I'm bored, I go to global feed and mark things as spam. Here's my rationale:

1. If a user has commented, or shared posts from any other user, I do not mark their posts as spam.

2. If a user comments on their own posts when someone responds, I also don't mark their posts as spam.

3. If a user has self-promoted several posts in a row that have no shares or comments, I mark their posts as spam. If someone continuously posts things that no one in this community has interest in, it's spam.

4. If someone posts a new post every day, from the same website, then they're posting far more than most other people in the community. This is a good indicator, but not a guarantee, of spam. Most quality posts are not released on a daily basis, because good writing takes longer to read than it does to write.

I have no real problem with self-promotion. A fair amount of our regular uses do it. But I do have a problem with users who are not at all otherwise engaged with the community self-promoting. I have a rather low toleration for "blogspam" as it's commonly called on reddit, and I don't like people using online communities that they are not members of as an advertising platform. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this.

If 6d6rpg and rangergames want to comment on this, I'd be glad to hear their opinions. Assuming they are people, and not bots. If most people would prefer me to block these users rather than mark them as spam, I'll do so, but I marked those posts as spam assuming that most hubskians did not want to see those posts, either. As klein mentioned, if you follow #rpg and block #spam, you should still see those posts, so Devac, I know I'm not inconveniencing you directly.

Also, I'd like to point out that hubski does not work like reddit. #rpg isn't a subreddit, and the content posted with that tag isn't only visible to people who follow that tag. As such, it isn't like reddit, where I can safely ignore posts that don't interest me by not subscribing to #rpg. I would have to block #rpg, which I don't want to do, because several posts using that tag do interest me, just not those posted in excess by a few users. Any post, no matter the tags shows up to everyone who doesn't filter them. It's how Hubski is designed. This is a very small site, so the design works well.

goobster  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I do the same thing, Odder. I flip over to Global, and block probably 60% of the posters that appear there.

Since I learned of the use of the #spam tag, I had intended to start tagging those posts, too.

Devac makes a good case, and I will be sure to use my power wisely. :-)

kleinbl00  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

hubski -

Here's a real-world case where I'm curious about the algebra. Let's take radio_24, who only posts stuff from, probably because they really liked the bump they got from this:

I found over on /r/credibledefense, back when it was worth following, and really appreciate having their stuff in my feed. radio_24 has one comment but by and large, they mostly post stuff as part of their linking strategy (I think). It's a defense site. They cover satellite photos and geopolitics. By and large, the vast swaths of content within Hubski aren't going to suit them:


1) I follow

2) multiple people tag as spam.

3) I see an link, that has been tagged as spam, and I share it (without un-tagging it).

QUESTION 1) Do people who follow me, but filter spam, see the post?

QUESTION 2) Do people who don't follow me, but filter spam, see the post?

QUESTION 3) Is there (or should there be) a mechanism such that filtering people who share "spammed" content erase the "spam" label?

radio_24  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I post only stuff from, because that's my site. On reddit, they demand that I have to post other articles from other sites -- but why should I do that. So I stopped to post my stuff on reddit and moved to Hubski. I don't see why that should be tagged as spam. All articles on are free, it isn't a commercial site, you don't have to got there ... If Hubski would tag my site as spam, I would stop immediate to post anything here. I don't know if a overenthusiastic tagging of spam really serves the community in sharing their content.

kleinbl00  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

And I appreciate it. And in case you aren't following along on this page, there's a lot of discussion at the moment as to how we, as a bottom-up, leaderless community, handle spam.

To be clear - I appreciate your content, and follow it. I'm asking for clarification from the coders on how that content would be shared if someone decided to tag your content as spam. We're all figuring this stuff out; now is a great time to chime in (as you did).

mk  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    QUESTION 1) Do people who follow me, but filter spam, see the post?

    QUESTION 2) Do people who don't follow me, but filter spam, see the post?

    QUESTION 3) Is there (or should there be) a mechanism such that filtering people who share "spammed" content erase the "spam" label?

This is a tough nut. As it stands, filters trump follows. The reasoning is that if you don't want to see something or someone, you really mean it. I don't want a filtered user showing up in my feed due to a tag they use, and I don't want #thebeatles showing up in my feed because someone I follow happens to have poor taste in music (ducks).

The real issue here is the community tag. The upside of the community tag is to put posts where they ought to be, whether it is #writebetterdammit or #spam. The downside is that people can disagree on where things ought to be.

I've been thinking a bit on this. Perhaps giving #spam special treatment was not the best approach. It pushes the balance towards the notion that we need people tagging things that are bad more than we need people tagging things as good.

I am thinking that a different approach to the community tag, and/or a better display of global might produce better results.

kleinbl00  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So I'm not particularly interested in beating you about the head and shoulders on this, but as it's one of the few splendid examples where you're actually exploring the utility of tags, I feel I oughtta make an effort.

I think filters should trump follows, but I think that the fact that they're binary always means you end up with boolean bad acting.

I think "spam" has to get special treatment because it's the most divisive trivial issue faced by people on the Internet. Some people freak out about one bad message; some people get 400 spam messages a day, buy software to deal with it and move on. Considering I've been pushing a more refined taxonomy for years and you've been resistant, let's try spam as a special case.

Let me set my spam "tolerance" and let spam messages get wiped away when more than one person tags them as spam. So for example, if I have my spam tolerance set at 3, it would take 3 people tagging something as spam before I stop seeing it. Likewise, since I have given 3x the strength to spam than anything else, that filter no longer trumps the follow... unless something has been tagged 3 times.

Set everybody's spam tolerance at more than 1 - maybe it's 2, maybe it's more - and let's see what happens. That gives you one tag with an affinity fader, like I've been hammering on about for like three years now, without you having to completely reorganize the site hierarchy.

What do you think?

mk  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's not a bad idea.

We are going to discuss this tonight. I'd love if there could be symmetry behavior with all other tags, but I'm not sure what use it would be.

kleinbl00  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    but I'm not sure what use it would be.


mk  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  


I'll be bak.

flagamuffin  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    3. If a user has self-promoted several posts in a row that have no shares or comments, I mark their posts as spam. If someone continuously posts things that no one in this community has interest in, it's spam.

And, uh, now we have a moderator. Who I've never heard of.

mk, I will go ahead and register my dissent one more time and then shut up about it.

mk  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, only if you filter #spam, which I assume is the intent for people to filter it (so they can take advantage of community moderation), but even so, point taken.

We are going to discuss this. I've been thinking on it.

flagamuffin  ·  1132 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, a community tag of objective spam would be great -- i.e. the pseudo-Russian gibberish stuff that shows up every once in a while. I'd use that. This isn't that. And further there's simply no point to this weird effort to tag a bunch of SEO stuff spam, even if the success rate were 100 percent, which it isn't. That's what filtering users is for.

    I've been thinking on it.

I trust ya.

While we're here, have you considered knocking the second | off of quotes markup? Only the first one is really necessary, and the second one adds a significant amount of annoyance to type.

Devac  ·  1136 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I did not write this because it inconveniences me, but because I have seen it (in my opinion) misapplied. I am using both tag #rpg and filter #spam. I did send message, wanted to provoke response from the two blogs that I do know about and in a way invite them to join conversations. If not, then again as stated above, I have explained that I do not see the point in defending it and no-participating people who go here for promotion are missing the point.

Thanks for explanation. And thanks for explaining tags, although I do know how it works and don't treat it as a subreddit. Judging from the direction of responses I might have conducted it badly but I do think that it was a subject worth sharing, as important to me.

After all, you can just filter me if you are not interested ;P.

Odder  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't want to filter you, though, because the posts you make are interesting. If you've gotten responses from those two blogs, I'd also love to hear about them. If they are just folks who want people to read what they have to say, and they're just shy and haven't posted anywhere else on hubski as a result, then I'll apologize to them, assuming they are interested in participating in the community.

I can understand that it probably sucks that posts that you found interesting were marked by someone as spam. I can also sympathize with anyone else who shared (or, especially badged) something that was then marked as spam*. If someone tags something as spam, it does effectively say "this should not have been posted" and that isn't fair to someone who does find value from that post. So, I'll stop marking what I consider "blogspam" as #spam for now, until there is more discussion from the community on the subject.

*I did not mark anything as spam that was shared by any active user. I don't know who would do this, especially to posts that have been badged. This is clear abuse of the #spam tag. Maybe it should be that posts that have been badged cannot be marked as spam, and badging posts removes a spam tag? Or, maybe give posters with some amount of hubwheels (20? 50?) the ability to remove tags?

Devac  ·  1135 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Thank you for both consideration and measured response. That's pretty much everything what I would like to see and get out of all that.

As of marking their posts as 'shared', that's a good point but on less popular tags it could get tricky. For example, I'm not a particularly slow reader but usually do a lot of other stuff (example: I'm writing a paper as we speak) and simply forget to mark it afterwards. Although I'm just bellyaching at this point, so feel free to disregard it.

user-inactivated  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, if the "community" is made up of as self-important, self-appointed guardians of community-interest as Odder. I'm OUT.

thenewgreen  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I have a sincere question, this is legitimately to gather information so if you could please answer honestly, that would be awesome.

What is your intent when posting to Hubski? Is it to get traction for your website, is it to try and garner discussion around your content? Is Hubski a place you spend any time at beyond posting your content? How many other aggregators do you post your content on? Do you follow anyone or any tags on Hubski? If you were an active member of the Hubski community would you assume that a user that only posts to one site that has the same name as his/hers and has never commented is a spammer?

I think anyone should be allowed to post content so long as it's not overtly offensive. I also think the community has done a pretty good job of dilineating between what is an is not spam. They seem to have perhaps gotten it wrong here though.

Good luck with your site. I know it takes a lot of work.

user-inactivated  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Both (and frankly, DUH!).

Browse through the global feed but only after posting.

As many as I can.


Of course not, that's idiotic.

Passively adding in the "overtly offensive" caveat is very disingenuous btw when it wasn't a part of the discussion to begin with.

thenewgreen  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Passively adding in the "overtly offensive" caveat is very disingenuous btw when it wasn't a part of the discussion to begin with.
What are you talking about? I believe that no content should be dissaloud on Hubski unless it is overtly offensive, which yours clearly is not. How is that disingenuous? I think if you spent any time in this, very real community, you'd know that I'm a lot of things but disingenuous isn't one of them.

Given your description of how you use Hubski, I find it comical that you posted that you are "OUT" in a way that assumes it's our loss.

Still, best of luck to you. Maintaining a site with original content is a helluva lot of work.

user-inactivated  ·  1132 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes it would be your loss as would the loss of any other member. If it gets made to hard to stick around then its simply better to leave.

mk  ·  1133 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hang in there. Your posts are hardly offensive, and I don't think marking them #spam makes for a good solution.