On 23/11/05, Ilya N. <ilyanep(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Consider a bot (or many humans) going into the
validation system and sending
totally bogus (or even offensive) entries into it.
My understanding of the validation feature was that it was a
"0,1,2,3,4,5 - pick one" type system, rather than a "Please leave
comments" one, meaning that whilst you could game it with a bot - and
no doubt that'll be attempted by a rather cunning linkspammer or three
- you couldn't fill it with offensive entries. (Or will there be a
comments field? My connection seems to be a bit unfriendly with meta.
this morning, and I haven't been checking lately...)
But that's what the testing phase is for. We _want_ people to try and
spam it, try to vandalise it, do all this stuff. Then we can figure
out what's good in the validation system and what's bad - perhaps we
could only make comments visible to logged-in users, or to admins, if
there's a problem with junk filling them up, or implement a filter to
only show "useful" comments.
(How do we define "useful"? I don't know. Maybe we have a problem with
people spamming links in comments fields, so only make anything
without a URL publicly visible. Maybe we have a problem with people
just writing "fucking crap", so we put in a seven-words filter. We
don't know yet, but it doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to solve
what results...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk