Andrew Gray wrote:
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...)
There's a comment space too.
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.
Yep. This is why we haven't fixed the rules of this game of Calvinball.
- d.