Can no longer give a reason text when marking a post as abusive RRS feed

  • Question

  • It used to be that you clicked on "mark as abusive" and then wrote a text explaining why this was abusive. This text was useful to Moderators wondering whether in fact the abusive mark was accurate - in particular when the text was indicating that the post was off-topic.

    When there later became different types of abusive posts, this didn't change. You first selected the *group* reason for the abusive mark (such as inappropriate) and then give a text reason.

    So far so good.

    Today, however, I have marked two posts as abusive; selected one of the dropdown groups but was NOT given any opportunity to provide any text explaining why this post was abusive. (In this case it was because it was a number of spam posts from the same poster within the same time period - however the group spam wasn't enough explanation because the posts I marked as abusive had what seemed to be a reasonable title and then nonsense in the text - others from the poster were more clear cut with nonsense titles AND nonsense texts).

    Please bring back the option of an additional text. Your groupings in the drop down are NOT enough !  (For instance when I need to know a post in a pre-SP 2010 forum is actually a SP 2010 question - none of your group options tell me that.)

    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links):
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links)
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters
    Saturday, June 11, 2011 7:24 AM


All replies

  • We'll bring this back later, we pulled the old javascript dialogs on purpose. Try to put this back in for the next release but we'll see. Out of curiosity, who relies on the 'reason' text you put in?
    Community Forums Program Manager
    Sunday, June 12, 2011 6:47 AM
  • > Out of curiosity, who relies on the 'reason' text you put in?

     *I* often rely on the message someone else put in for an abusive post. Clearly if the post says SharePoint 2010 in the title or the text, I can see that it's off-topic even without someone giving that as a reason, but I have a very limited awareness of which programming functions are available in SharePoint 2010 and yet are not in the earlier products, so in the case that someone is asking about Function X, I need a text that tells me that Function X is SP 2010 only and is therefore is in the wrong set of forums when posted to a pre-SharePoint 2010 forum. (I don't need a full sentence - just "SP  2010 only" is enough.)

    As far as text I have written goes, there are some posters who never post anything but adverts for their own products and typically hide the fact that they are suggesting their own products by either not montioning "my product" or even worse by using some text such as "I did a search and found this product". When it's the same poster who always finds the same product it's clear this is illegal advertising but this is identifiable only by looking at the total pattern of that poster's posts and not just a single post. Thus when marking as abusive a (perhaps single) post in a different forum set (to "mine" - where I have identified the problem) it is necessary to explain that this single post is part of a pattern of posts from this poster.

    There are more examples but those two will do for now. I don't mind if people can click past a text box without writing an explanatory text but the option of specifying a text must be there.




    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links):
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links)
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters
    Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:11 AM
  • This thread is a perfect example

    the first post was marked as abusive / off-topic.


    I wasted several minutes working out that it was thus marked because SharePoint 2007 doesn't have a ribbon and so therefore this must be a SP 2010 question.

    In fact I'm still not 100% convinced that that is the reason as there is no mention of SharePoint in the post (or title) at all so maybe the guy was talking about Office. That would still be off-topic but I would then be wrong to move the thread to a SP 2010 forum.

    So I needed to make 100% sure by asking the OP if he was asking about SharePoint 2010.


    Previously the same marker of abusive had given me "SP 2010" as the reason (if indeed that is what it is)




    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links):
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links)
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters
    Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:48 PM
  • I find that 4 possible reasons are often not enough to chose from and none of the reasons may apply. I think we can have an 'other' option at least with the ability to provide a reason.
    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Becker's Law

    My blog

    Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:18 AM
  • We'll put reason back as soon as we can, not sure when, maybe for July but we'll see. Pretty busy with recognition stuff.... 
    Community Forums Program Manager
    Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:17 AM