Hide links in flagged posts?


(Brandon Lamar nicholson) #1

Hello, I’m gamarlamar5 from an other forum called the blockheads, I’m new here so I believe this is the right category to create an topic on, so back to what I’m talking about:

After looking at an Flagged post with an link that lead to a fake virus ad.

I hadded an Idea, here it is


When an post is flagged and if it contains a link with it, the link is still clickable which I may not like,

Can ya add something that removes a link from a reported post if possible

So it’s like if a post had just been reported and if it contains a link, then that link is automatically removed until the post is review, and chosen to be shown or not shown, and if the reported post is so seriously dangerous and threatening then the “show hidden text” would be disabled to prevent looking at the post
Or the post can be deleted( recommended )

hope this helps😇.


(Osha) #2

Yyyyyeeeessss nnnneeeeeddddeeeeeedddd


(Jeff Atwood) #3

The feature you are proposing already exists:

  • if 3 people flag a post, it will be hidden and a PM sent to the user inviting them to edit their post if they want it unhidden.

  • if a post is flagged as spam by a single trust level 3 user, the entire post will be immediately hidden.


(Porky) #4

I think what he is trying to say is that the link posted inside the topic should be unclickable if the topic is hidden. You can still click “unhide” and click the offensive link. :slight_smile:

Edit: not sure of your double posting rules here but here is the thread that was created on the Blockheads forums.


(Osha) #5

@codinghorror he is saying links in flagged posts should not be clickable right noe they are matter of fact some people flagged a post so people wouldnt get a virus from a link but many people still followed the link

im not to good at grammar… i think


(Jeff Atwood) #6

If a trust level 3 person had flagged the post as spam, it would have been immediately hidden.


(Osha) #7

@codinghorror you still dont get it if any person flags a post a person of any trust evel the link should dissapear except for people with the leader rank so the link cannot be clicked at all or viewed unless they are leader or some semi-leaders that are chosen


(Jeff Atwood) #8

That would be an amazing tool for mischief and griefing others – just flag constantly to suppress their links. There is a reason we require 3 flags from 3 people, or a single spam flag from a trust level 3 user. Think this through.

It is possible for the owner to adjust the site settings so only a single flag is required, if the site owner desires this behavior. So I suggest you take it up with the site owner, not us.


(Porky) #9

Respectfully, I believe you misunderstand. A person can still click on the link after it is hidden. Changing how many flags required to hide a post won’t help if they can still click the link to a bad website.

He is suggesting that when a post is flagged, any link in the post becomes unclickable.


(Mittineague) #10

AFAIK, the one-click-away “hidden” post content is the most recent post history.

The only ways I can think of doing this are either to:

  1. change the content of the post
  2. add a modified content post to the posts history to use
  3. some kind of “layer” on top of the post

Totally a dubious gut feeling, but maybe the second would be the most doable?


#11

Yup, understood. That is by design. If the link was rendered useless by flagging, trolls could follow people around flagging all their posts just to remove the content.


(Porky) #12

Slight revision to my previous statement:

When a post is hidden, the link becomes unclickable.

This could ensure that it is not one troll flagging posts to flag them, but a post that really needs to be flagged.


(Mittineague) #13

Maybe a fair compromise between not removing good links from good members and removing dangerous links could be some kind of “at your own risk” modal? Or maybe simply adding something like a more explicit “view at own risk” could be added the the “this post” copy, though to me that seems to be already implied.