Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases
> >> > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there.
> >>
> >> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs".
> >>
> >> > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to
> >> > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours
> >> > seems like a reasonable time for this.
> >>
> >> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving?
> >
> > So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague.
>
> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable
> thing would be a rejection.
... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then
the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which
submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets
approved.
I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious
spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not
worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
