Attention please. Its important for reguler answerers..?

Question

There is an argument going on forum whether

1) IP address of abusers should be blocked all together forever,

2) Asker should have right to delete any answer he thinks should not be posted

3) Asker should be able to block the answerer from answering his question in the first place.(under assumption that he will do it ti only those who stalk him to abuse!!!)

Here is the URL:
http://messages.next.yahoo.com/next/threadview?bn=SEA-YahooAnswers&tid=45257&mid=45257&tof=1&m=tm&rt=2

I was of the opinion that these options are way more prone to be misused by fanatics, bigots, spammer who try to promote a certain ideology, and those with low tolerance level....and whatever but

What do you guys think?

Its importnt seeing that most of suggestions on YA forum are actually read by the team.

Plese think over it before supporting or opposing it.

But for now who say "welcome it", think. i can block you right now or delete your answer and thus have your opinion disappear.

I posted this question here because this is the section where chances of abusing these options is highest.

gree with what you say seraphim_. But what is your point here?

I am unable to understand if you answered real question involved here.

Please , if you have some good argument about these options post that on forum.

Myself dont agree with any of three suggestions.

IP blocking will affect innocent peoples if the computer is shared with other people like office computers or in cafes. Besides there are software which use different IPs and thus trolls will still manage to disrupt a site.

Deletion or blocking will be even more abused than thumbs down option now.

Hey guys . These ideas are not mine. These are the ideas suggested at the thread (URL above ) at YA forum.

Axel.... for now IP address is not blocked for violation or abuse. Just the account is suspended.

Thank you for your detailed response Spamdham...
I think idea of voting 20 questions and answering 20 questions before one is being able to ask , will defeat the purpose of YA. It wont be that user friendly either.
We will be getting more NBA and IDKs as a short cut.
Too many people ask question here because they do not have time for searching sites on their own or want immediate responses. Many are not net savy and dont understand how to search for answers . Especially from countries where internet use is still not that common.

I have repeated the question here... It seems I could extend time period for my question only once....

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AotVpw12TgRW0Hm7_fQGziuQHQx.?qid=20060918054108AAzdI9d

So if anybody wants can answer it there too...

Answer 1

1. IP bans are ineffective because abusers can simply get another IP and people without static IPs will inevitably be blocked, despite not being a banned user.

2. The asker can rate and report answers just like everyone else, and this is an effective and simple method of dealing with the problem.

3. Abusive askers would take advantage of this sort of system, effectively blocking any meaningful discourse among answerers and selecting only those answerers with whom he/she agrees.

Answer 2

I agree with your first two proposals, but with some reserve.

First, to block the IP of abusers forever is too much. I'd say a month at a time should be enough. Furthermore, to block the IP from yahoo answers means that anyone else who uses the computer can't answer either. I'd just block the account.

I definitely agree with your second proposal. There are a lot of indecent answers going around. However, I would make the asker give a reason for removing the answer, or perhaps subtracting a point per answer deleted to make sure that askers don't just delete any answer. After all, there are topics on yahoo answers that are pure opinion, and if an asker can delete any one he chooses...

As for your third proposal, I rather disagree. If the asker does not want someone answering his question, and if that someone has a history of indecent answering, then based on your first proposal the ones who should deal with it are Yahoo!, once that user is reported. The mechanism should go something like: Some asker reports some answerer for some (valid) reason--> yahoo bans the answerer for some time. Therefore the asker doesn't have to block the answerer himself.

Answer 3

I think the following is the most libertarian means of dealing with the problem:

1. Do not allow activity until the email account has been verified
2. Do not allow a new poster to post any questions or answers until they have first voted on some number of questions (maybe 20 or so)
3. Once they have voted on a sufficient number of questions, don't allow them to ask questions until they have answered some number of questions (again, maybe 20 or so)
4. Once they reach that level, limit the number of questions they can ask during a probationary period of at least a few days
5. Add an 'ignore this user' feature so that anyone can block their own viewing of particular user's questions and answers
6. Do not allow the same user name to be registered in the first place. This stuff is all in databases, it doesn't seem like that would be hard to do. (maybe this was already done with the new format?)

I have to say, I don't like any of the 3 options you listed either, for the same reasons you don't like them. The spammers are an annoyance, not a major problem. It doesn't make sense to implement draconian policies to deal with minor problems. If instead it simply took more of their time to get going in the first place, they would have a dissincentive. Right now it's too easy to create a new account and start spamming, and that's why people do it.

Answer 4

These measures are of little use as I see it.

1- IP blocking only works for static IP and that is pretty easy to get around. Also, just because someone acts like a jerk doesn't mean they always will.

2- Deleting answers is against the whole idea of Yahoo!Answers. Besides who says it's not the questioner that is abusive and needing to be corrected.

3- This is just opening a new avenue of abuse, I think.

some suggestions that I would have are:
- the possibility of "grading" answerers so that a questioner would have "trusted" answerers. An answer from one of your trusted answerers would be indicated somehow, or maybe they would automatically go to the beginning of the list no matter when the answer was given. This could of course also be abused, but maybe a little less so.

Answer 5

1) only on cases of severe abuse, with a real person actually checking the facts.

2) absolutely not, this is an open forum, all answers should be posted.

3) no. If the Asker can show the team that they are being stalked by an answerer, then the team should suspend the account of the answerer. That's sort of their job.

Answer 6

I don't really agree with you, in the name of freedom of speech (insofar as yahooQA-rules are respected)

1) IP address of abusers should be blocked all together forever,

Isn't this already the case?

---

2) Asker should have right to delete any answer he thinks should not be posted.

Well, an asker is not a yahoo-moderator. A citizen is not a professional judge.

You are free to report any deliberate wrong answer as "insulting other participants".

---

3) Asker should be able to block the answerer from answering his question in the first place.

Keep reporting those answers until yahoo-team reacts. Or become one of yahoo-team members.

---

Keep on reporting. Yahoo-team = people PAID for moderating yahooQA (I suppose they don't do this for free). So they are supposed to work and find the solutions that their clients need.

We all are potential clients: look at the advertisements & yahoo-products.

Answer 7

Not really. If someone keeps insulting you, just ignore them. If they don't tire of it eventually, they're truly pathetic and should be pitied more than anything else, really. I mean, don't they have anything better to do?
Deleting questions would usually mean a user isn't really asking a real question. They just want to hear about people who agree with them. What's the point of that? Sure, some people are totally besides the point, but that's why questions are voted on.
So no, personally, I don't see the need for more restrictions.
As for blocking IP addresses, it's clear some posters are a little off their rockers and tend to be nonsensical, but it's part of the forum. They provide comic relief. You have to have a sense of humour about it.

Answer 8

Proposal 3: Asker should be able to block the answerer from answering his question in the first place.(under assumption that he will do it to only those who stalk him to abuse!!!)

I absolutely agree with this idea, in a kind of warning system. One warning, the answerer is notified. Second time, that answer is deleted from that particular question. Three warnings, the answerer cannot respond to that asker's questions or send them direct email. Yahoo already allows this type of feature for IM, exactly to prevent harassment.

Proposal 2: Asker should have right to delete any answer

Yes, because the point is to get useful answers, not clutter up the bandwidth. Not as necessary, given the thumbs-down hide feature, but I certainly considered the delete feature useful.

At the very least, if the asker gives a thumbs-down to any anwer, that should prevent the answer from being able to be voted as best, regardless of community opinion.

Proposal 1: IP address of abusers should be blocked forever

Not entirely necessary, and likely overkill, given the risk of blocking entire households, internet cafes, colleges, etc.

A simpler and just as effective version is to be able to permanently suspend any Yahoo account, or any link handle that links to the same Yahoo 360 page. That gives sufficient identity, which must smaller risk.

Answer 9

Blocking IPs might work in some cases, but if you take a place like a university, or an office, or maybe an internet cafe, where many people share the same IP, it would block out quite a few innocent people too.

Answer 10

Cheers Mitch and Manly4lyf ... these days i've got not been in a position to provide up myself from writing at right here via fact i'm excited with regard to the start of the season ... won't be in a position to attend! NSW halfback would be not person-friendly to %. - relies upon who the coach favors i assume. Wallace would be up there for particular i might say ... Trent Barret has been suggested some circumstances interior the media yet will ought to tutor himself first (and that i think of he's a greater valuable 5/8). might even provide hornby a point out and spot how he is going. yet in all honesty I have no thought! as long as we beat the Maroons I dont care!!!