Being Tested
Community moderation for reported comments and links
Testing requested: This was recently implemented. Please test it and let us know your feedback in the comments section.
We are considering creating a new page to make moderation more community-driven and give users a way to earn trusted/top contributor status faster. The idea is to replace our admin-only report review with a community voting queue on a new page.
This is an alternative to the comments blocking proposal.
- Reported comments and links will be listed on this new "Contribute" page.
- The reporter automatically casts the first Remove vote.
- All users can vote. Everyone has the same voting power.
- Voting "Remove" counts positive (+2), voting "Keep" counts negative (-2). Voting neutral counts as slightly negative (-1). It indicates the user doesn’t fully agree with the removal proposal.
- Outcomes:
-- Score >= +10: content removed
-- Score <= -10: content kept and closed
This is an alternative to the comments blocking proposal.
- Reported comments and links will be listed on this new "Contribute" page.
- The reporter automatically casts the first Remove vote.
- All users can vote. Everyone has the same voting power.
- Voting "Remove" counts positive (+2), voting "Keep" counts negative (-2). Voting neutral counts as slightly negative (-1). It indicates the user doesn’t fully agree with the removal proposal.
- Outcomes:
-- Score >= +10: content removed
-- Score <= -10: content kept and closed
Comments (80)
Minimum age requirement is probably a good idea, but I may be biased, being in my sixties. 🙂
I dont think anyones vote should weigh in more.
I dont want to insult anyone but there are some Top and Trusted contributors who only have the title beacuse they just simply edit a lot, sometimes with solid info sometimes with easily disprovable false info.
I just had to report 5 pics on a babes profile where 4 was AI created and the 5th was not even her. And The fact that the image number could exceed the normal 20 means it was done by a Top Contributor.
Also so many babes were put and being put as carrer ended/inacitve beacuse they transitioned from mainstream porn to OF mostly by the same Top contributor where most times a simple click to their OF or quick search with their name and the word "retired" would bring up a tweet from them where the performer said "no i am not retiring i just don't want to work for a big company anymore".
All in all Top and Trusted contributors aren't infallible and if it get easier to get it it would be more so.
A simple majority should be enough to determine wheter or not something is over the line.
3.
Maybe some minimum account age and also some activity should be needed to vote. Like for example say you need a month old active account to vote and if you have been inactive for a month your voting is disabled until you have been active for a month.
I also think when a comment is geting removed the person who wrote it should get a notification and maybe a chance for appeal. Its not hard to imagine a user saying: "oh x person is so over rated" or "those new fake tits look awful" under a top babes profie and quicly getting 10 votes for removal whilst what they said is not crossing any line. Some comments might be unpopular and deserve a lot of thumbs down but that doesn't mean they should be removed. Free speech means everyone has the right to say any controversial/negative thing they want until they start calling people slurs or spreading misinformation.
The idea here is to make a system that lets the community decide which comments should be removed. Requiring 4 to 10 more "I agree" votes than "I disagree" should ensure this system only takes down those comments that are not ok, such as personal attacks, derogatory comments, or outright spam.
The link evaluation version of this is more straightforward: broken links and links posted in the wrong section should be removed.
Believing some people will not try remove any criticism of their favorites is wishful thinking.
Most people are way more emotional than logical.
I thnik if its not something we try to prevent beforehand its only gonna be a problem later on.
When voting on removing someones comment is just as easy as giving it a dislike most people who would have previously just given it a dislike will vote for its removal.
Which i think then would lead to either a lot of users complaining to mods or just straight up leaving the site without a word.
We'd monitor things and intervene if needed. Or bin it completely if it fails to deliver.
Derogatory, racist and personal attacks should be blocked without having to go through a voting session pr comment.
To me it seems easier to let each user hide comments from users. For me it's mostly to not have to see the "wanker crowd" comments all over the site. That way the wankers can keep posting to their hearts content. And users who want to read about their wanking can.
Let us know what you think. We'll be monitoring usage closely. If we feel that the decisions coming out of this are different from what we think, we'll make the necessary changes.
So, humm yeah! I have serious concerns about this approach to community moderation.
I understand the reasoning behind it. If the purpose is to reduce the amount of time administrators spend dealing with reports, allowing experienced members of the community to help identify problematic comments and links could be useful. I just don't think there's enough explanation about how this is actually supposed to work in practice, and I think it creates several problems that could ultimately make moderation more complicated rather than less.
My first concern is who is actually going to be making these decisions. Is this system intended for all members, or only those who have been given the titles “Trusted Contributor” and “Top Contributor”? Because if “Trusted Contributor” and “Top Contributor” are going to have greater voting weight, then there needs to be a very clear explanation of who can actually be trusted, how those privileges are awarded, how they are monitored, and what happens when someone with those privileges abuses them. This is especially important because there are already concerns about Trusted and Top Contributors abusing the privileges they have been given, as well as concerns about favouritism and complaints either not being addressed or being ignored altogether. Those are existing problems, whether the administrators want to acknowledge them or not. I am not saying this to make the feedback personal, and I am deliberately not naming individuals, but I also don't think it would be helpful to pretend these problems don't exist. If anything, they make it even more important to have clear safeguards in place before giving certain members additional influence over moderation decisions.
Being a prolific contributor does not automatically mean someone is qualified to make moderation decisions, and giving someone more voting power does not make their judgment inherently more reliable.
A moderation system cannot be designed around the assumption that the people doing the moderating will always behave responsibly. That's precisely why safeguards and accountable moderators exist.
There’s also a potential conflict of interest here. Babepedia is a relatively small community, and members regularly interact with the same people, or at least that is what I have observed. If two members already have disagreements with each other, a reported comment could easily become a dispute between individuals rather than an objective assessment of whether the comment actually violates the rules. Once voting is involved, it becomes possible for people to vote based on WHO made the comment rather than WHAT the comment actually says. That raises another concern: this could become a popularity contest or a system of factions. If several members routinely agree with one another, they could have a significant influence over the outcome of reports. Someone who is unpopular could then find themselves repeatedly outvoted, regardless of whether their interpretation of the rules is actually correct.
I am also concerned about the proposed "mismatch" system. If someone's vote disagrees with the eventual outcome, they receive a negative score impact. I understand the intention, but this could discourage legitimate disagreement. People should be able to vote according to their honest interpretation of the rules without being effectively punished because the majority ultimately disagreed with them. Otherwise, there is an incentive to vote according to what someone thinks the community will decide RATHER than what they actually believe is correct.
The proposed +/-10 threshold also needs considerably more explanation. What happens when only a few people vote? What happens when a report concerns something serious but doesn't receive enough votes to reach either threshold? Does the report simply remain unresolved? And what happens when a large number of people vote on something controversial? A high number of votes does not necessarily mean that the decision is correct.
There is also a very important difference between something that is objectively identifiable and something that requires judgment. A broken link is relatively straightforward. Harassment, personal attacks, derogatory comments, threats, racism, and similar conduct are much more complicated. Those situations require someone to look at the context and apply the site's rules consistently.
For example, if someone responds to another member with something as serious as "go kill yourself," I don't think that should become a community popularity contest where members vote on whether it is serious enough to remove. That is precisely the kind of situation where responsible moderation is necessary. There are people on the internet who will say things from behind a screen that they would never have the courage to say directly to another person. The fact that something happens online doesn't make it less serious, and the community should not have to hold an election before clearly abusive conduct is addressed.
I also think the proposal needs to explain what safeguards exist against people coordinating their votes, retaliation, personal disputes, or people deliberately reporting comments simply because they dislike the person who made them.
Another issue is transparency. The explanation currently leaves me with more questions than answers. How exactly are votes weighted? How are Trusted and Top Contributor statuses determined? Can contributors see who voted? Can users vote on reports involving themselves or people with whom they have an ongoing dispute? Can votes be changed? How long does a case remain open? What happens when there is insufficient
participation? Is there an appeal process? Can an administrator override a community decision? And if so, under what circumstances?
Most importantly, who remains accountable when the community gets it wrong?
I don't think the solution to an overworked moderation system is to simply transfer the responsibility to the community and hope the community makes the right decision. Community input can be useful, but it should assist moderation rather than replace it.
There are some things that could potentially be handled through community voting, particularly more objective issues such as broken links or obvious spam. But serious harassment, threats, personal attacks, discriminatory comments, and other potentially harmful conduct should remain subject to actual moderator review.
Otherwise, there is a real risk of creating a system where the people with the most status, the most influence, or the largest group of supporters effectively become the moderators.
That isn't necessarily moderation. It's voting.
And voting does not automatically produce a fair or correct result.
I would strongly recommend that Babepedia clarify the safeguards, eligibility requirements, conflict-of-interest rules, appeal process, administrator oversight, and protections against coordinated or retaliatory voting before implementing or expanding this system.
I don't think community involvement is necessarily a bad idea. I think giving the community unchecked responsibility for moderation is the part that needs much more consideration.
At the moment, this feels less like adding another layer of moderation and more like moving the responsibility for moderation onto the users without adequately explaining what happens when the users themselves become the problem.
Cases remain open until a majority is reached (which is a score of -10 or 10). An admin can always step in and make the final call, or even reverse the decision.
There are also no more links to or consequences to contributor status. We scratched that part.
We are aware this system could generate undesirable results or end up being abused, so we are monitoring things closely. Especially in the beginning, we evaluate every case and leave the door open to review and change course if we think it’s necessary. People can complain if they disagree.
So far, it’s looking pretty good.
I get that moderation is needed, but that is a different issue, and in that regard I agree with most of what @Teagan wrote.
This comment reporting feature is aimed at those comments that cross the line, not the ones someone disagrees with. That’s why we have the voting process.
For example, there is a pro-COVID vaccine comment that has been approved to stay up, and there's one that's mildly against the vaccine that has been shut down. All this is doing is opening up opportunities to create narratives and letting the inmates run the prison.
The topic of user is leaving the site has come up a lot, and it's stuff like this that's going to really get people to leave. In short, left-leaning people's tend to be more into the moderation and censorship, teacher's pet lifestyle so they're going to end up downvoting every, that doesn't fit there narrative.
There's actually a good article that covers a scientific study on the topic at hand, should anyone want to read it:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2210666120
And yes, I totally get that you're looking to free up time. My rejection of this idea has basically nothing to do with administration at all, but rather what things like this always lead to.
Also, I know several of us have suggested adding some more moderators or people to help you out... Is that even a possibility? If so, maybe it should be a new topic to discuss?
The comment praising Dolly Parton can stay. Saying that she helped fund COVID vaccine research is a factual statement about something she did. We don't consider that political. The other comment says that because of this, "she should be in prison". We consider that disrespectful and would have removed it ourselves.
So from our perspective, this particular example is actually another encouraging sign that the system is working as intended. The community independently arrived at the same moderation decisions we would have made ourselves.
I also read the study you linked, and I don't think it supports the conclusion you're drawing from it. It does find a partisan difference: Republicans in the US were consistently less willing than Democrats or independents to remove misinformation. But it also clearly says the political affiliation of the person making the post had little or no effect on moderation decisions. So the claim that "left-leaning people are going to downvote everything that doesn't fit their narrative" isn't backed up by this study.
I have three more thoughts on this that I hope will give you more trust in this comment-voting system:
1) Our site has an international userbase. While the US is #1 in terms of visitors, it accounts for less than 30%, so a US Democrat-vs-Republican divide isn't a very good model of our community.
2) We continuously monitor things and will keep doing so. If we see a small group coordinating or otherwise trying to influence voting outcomes, we will step in and take action. This is not a "set and forget" system. Every report and every vote is logged.
3) It's easy to tweak the system. If experience shows that too few people can decide a case, or that the voting pattern creates other problems, we can increase the thresholds or add other safeguards.
To address your 2nd message: We are considering moderator roles, yes, but that's for later. They'll probably be used for biography editing in the first place. And maybe comment moderation in a later phase, if we think it's necessary.
Someone wrote a negative opinion and they can't handle it.
For reference (for the others), comment cases 111 and 112 were both on Nata Lee's profile page:
"Fake and overrated - Fake blonde, fake tits, ugly tattoo and big pussy lips"
"Shitty tattoo, fake breast, bad face, coloured hair - 1/10"
It's ok to respectfully voice your opinion, but using terms like shitty, ugly, horrible, ... crosses the line. If a comment is only negative and has nothing positive to add, we also believe it's better to remove it.
"Someone wrote a negative opinion and they can't handle it."
What if the "they" is the actual model?
As the site has grown, more and more models are checking their own profile pages on our site. If they see several comments that are as negative as the above examples, they're much more likely to demand the complete removal of their profile page. We have seen multiple cases in recent months where a model requested to be removed (which we obviously do), after seeing just a few negative comments.
What's more important?
Keeping every negative shitpost up and risking removal? Or keeping the models happy and their pages up?
But neither of these comments called the model anything directly. They pointed out from their perspective the models negative physical attributes. Whether you agree with them or not i think they should be able to freely express themselves which means if the majority disagrees they can dislike the comment or even express their disagreement in a reply. There are countless examples of this on this and other sites.
Complete removal when all they did was express their subjective opinion is just overly controlling not mention it just creates a bubble where everyone in it thinks that everyone agrees with them.
Anybody who can't take a negative comment about themselves or someone they like should leave the internet now and only come back when they mature enough to take it.
Btw Pryda could you give a few examples of these modles who "after seeing just a few negative comments" demanded the complete removal of their profile page?
1 ) You need to allow the person(s) reporting a comment to have the ability to write their reasoning or why they're reporting it. Otherwise, every vote is one-sided.
2 ) The person(s) who are reporting a comment and who have voted should not be hidden.
3 ) This post, "Community moderation for reported comments and links," should be left at the top of Feedback & Ideas.
The happy birthday comments are completely harmless.
I don't make them myself but I really don't see the problem with them.
@Teagan: The reason is shown. It's right there after the label: "Reason for reporting". There are some prefilled options, but the user can also specify something else.
We may show the person doing the reporting, as well as the votes, if more people want this. Just wondering, why is it important for you?
I don't see a good reason to have this idea at the top of the ideas page. People who want to leave feedback will find it or email us.
@Oppaidaisuki: I suppose people are annoyed by them. They are harmless but also useless and they waste space. People have been reporting these regularly, so it's no surprise.
Edit:
This clearly isn't working, and the way you are manipulating it to make it look like it is working is incredibly arrogant of you!
It is not the responsibility of a member to police your platform for you.
I don't want to know who did the reporting as it will most likely cause retaliation. Especially considering in some cases it's obvious of who sent it in
Also I did notice a problem there is nothing to stop someone from seeing their comments in the contribute tag and delete.
I do like the idea were the reporter would have to state the reasoning behind the report and have that be given during the report.
Also I think before someone votes they have to read the context because I have a feeling ppl are just voting without the context for the comment
I'm actually responsible for reporting many birthday comments, since I see them as parasocial and something that will never be read by the addressed person.
On the other side I think some "disrespectful" reports are removed too lightly and shouldn't be removed just because an opinion is (sometimes obviously) shit or controversial.
If someone wants to make a fool of themselves, the downvotes will make an example of them.
Maybe a system of sorting comments by rating or at least putting the negative rated ones down at the bottom or into a spoiler would allow for different opinions without tainting the atmosphere on the site.
@skyrt99: Disrespectful is quite subjective. I see many people vote "keep" on comments that say the model is dumb, disgusting, repulsive, ... The list goes on and on. As much as we are for free speech, I find it really hard to defend such comments. Why should we keep such negative comments if they add nothing but negativity, the majority doesn't want to see them, and if keeping them risks pissing off the model, resulting in the complete removal of the profile page?
Perhaps we should add an account option for those who want the uncensored, unfiltered version, where all removed comments remain visible?
Sorting comments by rating is not a bad idea. Please submit it as a new idea here.
The voting on pictures is working great. I would just suggest that important things like reporting underage pictures is still manually moderated.
pryda I’ll certainly watch for examples where I think the comment was removed unjustly.
@Pryda I’ll certainly watch for examples where I think the comment was removed unjustly.
These are obvious things, obvious violations of the platform. They shouldn't need a committee to decide whether they're inappropriate or violate the site's rules. If something is clearly a personal attack, racist remark, or body-shaming comment, why isn't it simply being dealt with by the administrators or moderators?
That's what I think this test is actually exposing. It's not showing that the community needs to decide whether these comments are acceptable. It's showing that the moderation system is relying on the community to make decisions that should already be within the responsibility of moderation.
Community voting might make sense for borderline cases where there is a legitimate question about how something should be interpreted. But if we're talking about the obvious categories of unacceptable comments, a personal attack, racism, body-shaming, or similar conduct, why are we voting on it at all?
The system also helps us achieve two other things:
1) For a long time, users have been asking how they can help out. This system is an answer to that.
2) It frees up admin time for content, growth, and new features, which is what most people actually want us working on.
So far, we're very satisfied with how it's working: abusive comments are coming down faster than before, and the decisions have lined up with what we'd have made ourselves.
Like yesterday there was someone who reported the comment "The definition of okay" as a personal attack on HIM when the comment was made in refernce to one of the babes on this site and even than i don't know how much milder a critique can get.
Or the other countless cases where normal negative comments or asking if a model is AI get reported "disrespectful". Not to mention the personaly targeted reporting some user do.
Like some of my comments were reported as "spam" beacuse they contained a link as proof to back up what i am saying whilst one them was a reply to comment that also had a link yet that comment interstingly wasn't reported.
@Pryda — Where are the actual full rules and guidelines for this test?
I don't mean the short description explaining how the voting works. I mean the actual rules for people participating in the test.
I was specifically asked to test this system and provide feedback, so I think it's reasonable to ask what the rules are for the people who are actually testing it.
What are the rules for participants? When were those rules established, and where were they published?
I've gone back through this entire discussion, from the original post on June 14 through the more recent comments, and I don't see anything explaining the reporting restrictions that are now being applied to me.
For example, I don't see anything saying:
• You can only make a certain number of reports about the same member.
• Three reports about the same member being kept or restored will prevent you from reporting that member again.
• That restriction lasts for 90 days.
• The restriction is calculated separately for individual members.
• Participating in the test can result in losing the ability to report certain members.
• There is a distinction between legitimate reporting and “over-reporting.”
• Previous reports that were kept or restored can be used to restrict future reporting.
• There is an appeal process if you believe the restriction was applied incorrectly.
None of that appears in the discussion explaining the test.
In fact, on August 24, @GeekBoy3 specifically said that there were “no more links to or consequences to contributor status” and that part had been scratched.
So I'm trying to understand where this current system came from.
I logged in and was told:
1) “You cannot report comments from [Are Little Friend] : 3 of your reports about them were kept or restored in the last 90 days, and the limit is 3.”
2) "You have used all 10 comment reports allowed in 24 hours (10 filed). Each one frees up again 24 hours after you filed it."
That's a pretty significant restriction, especially considering that I was encouraged to participate in this test.
Where was this rule explained to the people testing the system?
And more importantly, when was it introduced?
I only started participating in this test about two weeks ago. My first post about it was on August 24. I wasn't sitting here for months knowingly testing a system while ignoring a published rule that said, “Be careful how many times you report the same person, because eventually you won't be allowed to report them anymore.” I wasn't aware of any such rule.
I also have another question.
What exactly does “3 of your reports about them were kept or restored” mean?
Does that mean three reports I made were reviewed by an administrator and deliberately rejected? Does it mean community votes resulted in “Keep”? Does “restored” mean an administrator later reversed a community decision? Are those all treated the same way?
And how is that supposed to distinguish between bad-faith reporting and someone legitimately reporting a large number of comments from the same person?
Because I know I've reported far more than three comments from [ Are Little Friend ] in the last 30 days alone. That doesn't automatically mean every report was correct, of course. But it does mean there needs to be a clear explanation of how this system determines that someone has “over-reported” another member.
Are the number of reports themselves being treated as evidence that someone is abusing the reporting system, or are the individual reports actually being evaluated?
Those are two very different things.
And this is especially important because the whole purpose of this test, as originally explained, was to move reported comments and links into a community voting system so that users could help with moderation. The original post specifically asked people to “test it and let us know your feedback.”
So I find it rather strange that people are encouraged to participate in testing the system, but there doesn't appear to be any clearly published explanation of what happens when the system decides you've reported too many things.
There's another part of this that bothers me.
The administrators have repeatedly said that the system is being monitored and that changes can be made if problems are discovered. You've also said that every report and every vote is logged, that administrators can step in, and that the system can be changed if necessary.
That's fine.
But if rules and safeguards are being added or changed after the test has already started, shouldn't the people participating in the test be told about those changes?
Otherwise, how are we supposed to know what we're actually testing?
I don't have a problem with the system evolving during a test. That's the whole point of testing something. I have a problem with participants apparently being subject to rules that aren't clearly explained to them.
And if this reporting restriction was always part of the system, then I'd like to know where it was documented.
If it wasn't part of the original system and was added later, I'd like to know when and why it was added.
And there's one more thing I'd like clarified.
Earlier in the discussion, you said the system was intended to help free up administrative time, and the administrators have repeatedly said they would monitor the results and intervene when necessary.
That's understandable.
But if the system is now automatically restricting a participant from reporting a particular member for 75 more days, that's no longer just a voting mechanism. That's an additional moderation rule being applied to the person doing the reporting.
Who decided that this should be part of the system?
Was it an administrator decision? Was it programmed into the test from the beginning? Was it added after the test started? And if it was added later, why wasn't it announced?
Those are pretty basic questions for a test that we're being asked to participate in.
I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for the rules of the test to be clear and available to the people who are testing it.
And honestly, after everything I've already raised about transparency, safeguards, accountability and administrator oversight, I think this is exactly the kind of thing that should have been explained from the beginning.
Oh, and Pryda, one last thing. Please don't deviate from the subject matter when you respond. I've noticed that our conversations have a tendency to drift into other issues that weren't actually part of the question I was asking. I'd really appreciate it if we could keep the response focused on the questions above and address those directly. 👍🏼
@REDLILI: I agree with you on most, but I think we disagree on what kind of negativity is acceptable. About the AI comments: I think merely suggesting that a girl is AI can be quite damaging to her rating. We've seen this happen more than once. A single comment is posted, and then multiple 1/10 ratings follow. It's even worse when it's a claim and not just a suggestion.
A simple question, without drawing conclusions, is fine. It opens the door to the discussion, and that's good. What is not okay is making unfounded suggestions or claims.
As AI is getting better, it's becoming a bigger problem. So is the need to be stricter about AI-related comments. We want to allow as much as possible, but want to draw a line when it hurts the site.
Those spam reports were handled (kept/restored), and the user can temporarily no longer report your comments, due to too many rejected comment reports.
@Oppaidaisuki: Yes, we're aware of this and are working on it. The recently introduced comment reporting limits (see below) are helping here.
@Teagan: This is a test, and we've said so from the start. The system is being built and adjusted as we go, based on what we see and on feedback, and there will be more changes before it's final. That's the nature of testing something live rather than designing it on paper.
Three comment reporting limits are currently active for everyone:
- A maximum of 10 comment reports per 24 hours.
- A per-member cooldown: after three of your reports about the same person are judged 'keep' by the community or restored by an admin within 90 days, you can't report that member for the rest of the 90 days.
- A general pause: if five of your last ten reports are kept or restored, comment reporting is paused for 14 days.
'Kept' and 'restored' are treated the same; both mean the report didn't hold up.
These limits were added last week after we saw members repeatedly report each other's comments, and the community rejected most of those reports. That was turning the feature into a tool for personal disputes, which it was never meant to be.
The FAQ page documents the rules, limits, and thresholds as the system develops, and it's where to look for how things currently work. We've added a link to this on the Contribute page.
*I strongly suggest that you get your facts straight before making assumptions about what you read in the contributor-reported comment sections at the bottom of the reported comments, or about the profile comment that was reported!
What you think you saw was actually a cowardly member seeking retaliation. I had reported their comment just 24 hours earlier, but that comment was in the comment section of a completely separate profile.
On this particular profile, the same member made several mocking and disrespectful comments about the fact that the person had died by suicide.* I also reported several other comments that were written in a similar manner.
When reporting there is an option called irrelevant.
I am pretty sure irrelevant supposed to mean that a comment has seemingly nothing to do with the babe whose profile it was commented under.
Like if i commented under Dua Lipa that "Last nights footbal match was great!" that would be completely irrelevant to the topic of Dua Lipa.
Not reporting comments that any other user don't care about personally.(The way almost all "irrelevant" reports from what i saw were reported and mostly removed)
Also, I don’t think it makes much sense for voting “Neutral / I don’t care” to subtract 1 point from the vote. In my opinion, it would be better if the points accumulated by users who choose that option were added to whichever side is currently winning the vote.
For example, if a poll has 5 positive votes, 3 neutral votes, and 2 negative votes, the neutral votes could be added to the positive votes.
Edit: This message was originally intended for the changes to the photos, but it also applies to this topic.
@REDLILI: This tweak is partly implemented to handle those cases where the user misuses "irrelevant". We'll keep monitoring how it goes.
@pawe: We only want to apply good changes. Our reasoning behind these votes is as follows:
Approve (+3): “This change is worth making.”
Neutral (−1): “I’m not convinced it’s worth making.”
Reject (−3): “I actively oppose this change.”
But we will continue monitoring and consider your idea during our next evaluation round. Or maybe we'll change the label.
@Oldsocalpunk: I understand you feel like you're being targeted, but I want to highlight that since launching, you've only had 50 out of your 21k+ comments targeted. It seems it's mostly your older comments that are being reported. From before you cleaned up your act ;)
We'll add an appeal function soon, plus if you're feeling targeted, you can already hide comments from your personal profile page through the account options.
1) The required number of "remove" votes has been increased. It now takes 15 remove votes (assuming no keep/neutral votes).
2) We're disabling the reporting of comments older than 90 days, with two exceptions: the comment has more than 20 downvotes, or the user doing the reporting has top contributor status.
At first, I liked the idea of introducing a reporting system because some truly vile stuff shows up here. But then I grew more skeptical, because hateful comments can often be quite popular when It's agains someone like, let's say Greta or Whoopi Goldberg. Same goes for right wing figures too. The hateful comments can often get some backing and not get taken down. And then there are cases where even mild criticism gets reported as disrespectful or a personal attack... Usually, the reason is the girl's fanbase.
Adding the appeal option @Pryda mentioned might work to solve this, so... awesome!
It’s strange how omnipresent politics is on this site. But framing it as an exclusively or predominantly left-wing or right-wing issue—like someone did here recently—is just ridiculous.
I agree with @LeLoyon71 when he said "This is a recipe for disaster, as so many various users have parasocial attachments to some of these women and will, and already have, obsessively downvote for anything that's not their own edit or link." And Left-wing can certainly tend to "keep up on moderation and narrative creating" but Right makes up for this with its pushing back tenfolds. I hear lot more of people sayng "libtards this and libtards that."
And yes, I'd be afraid for my comment if I said something like "Sidney doens't deserve number one spot." But shhh, I didn't say that.
I can't help but mention one funny conversation with @DagDrollet at Whoopi Goldberg's that I had today. It already got taken down, but I made my screenshots! I considered making a post about it, but it wouldn't be feedback or an idea. So, here it goes (I wish you nice reading @Pryda ):
I can't wait to read her obituary.
Posted by DagDrollet 2026-10-11 5:55 p.m
Can't we just end your presence here altogether, instead of just reporting this comment?
Posted by GoodOneMatt 2026-10-11 18:01
Kiss my butt, whiner. I don't care if you report me, kid.
Posted by DagDrollet 2026-10-11 18:06
Bye then! And don't come back.
Posted by GoodOneMatt 2026-10-11 18:13
Keep crying, Adolf. You can't force me to agree with your nonsense. You have zero power. You're pathetic.
Posted by DagDrollet 2026-10-11 18:13
😘
Posted by GoodOneMatt 2026-10-11 18:18
I win.
Posted by DagDrollet 2026-10-11 18:??
(Before the original comment got taken down each one of my comments got reported by "who knows who" as personal attack and in the Contribute section I got pretty ratioed. He also went through my Favorites and left nice comment at Mona Huygelen's that's still there.)