On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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 agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there.
> 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.
Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it,
this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It
won't work.
I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current
ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go.
--Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
