"Mark As Abusive" button needed on All Search Results

Ugh, the recent bad TV press in the German media raises the need to make it super easy to mark any search result as "abusive". So, to provide teeth to the requirement that things like in-world child prostituition not be advertised, nor be in people's profiles...the feature I'd like to see is adding a link or checkbox to every row returned in search...so any user can easily single-click to mark a particular entry as abusive.

This would apply to any search result...profiles, advertisements, events, groups, land names/descriptions....

Any item receiving a certain "x" number of abusive votes would automatically become excluded from all search results, until moderated back in by a Linden or a Linden designee. Optionally, an IM could be auto-generated to tell the person their (posting, profile, advert, whatever) has been flagged...

To prevent abuse...a Linden could "certify" a particular entry as being "immune"...(add in a hash so immunity applies only to a the entry until it's changed/updated).
Accounts that repeated get modded with abusive activity could then be sent to the cornfield, with a mandatory counseling session prior to re-entry in the world...or get perma-banned.

This would provide real evidence that LL is taking the matter seriously, and it would provide "The Community" the tools they need to help keep our world free of child avatar prostitution. It would also help provide real metrics to demonstrating what is "broadly offensive" and against even mature community standards. It's not a perfect solution, but it goes a long ways towards removing the ability of this particular in-world sexploitation that puts our entire SL world at risk.

PS: See Prop: 3277 http://secondlife.com/vote/ or http://secondlife.com/vote/get_feature.php?get_id=3277

Im not sure I like this idea.

Whats to prevent somoene with an agenda to mark every place they dont like without even visiting?

Whats to prevent a group with an agenda griefing whole segments of the business community?

And finally what do you mean by "Abusive"?

So could we mark ads that proclaim L$1 land abusive?

What about people who spam us with unwanted notecards?

Who open giant group-chats to advertise their club event?

People who use gestures left and right?

People who run 16 x 16 meter ad-spaces or who try to place such spots in the middle of your land and overprice them?

Exactly.

I imagine this working very much like how it works on CraigsList.org, and other similar Web 2.0 sites that encourage meaningful user participation in moderating their content. A thoughtful implementation would provide management tools for the admin to track griefers misusing the system. Well-intended persons that don't understand the system would change their behavior when it's brought to their attention.

Yes, this could be a powerful tool...but with the correct implementation it would "tune-able" so that it would minimize false hits....

As to what I think is abusive...that doesn't really matter too much...it's what "the community" thinks is abusive, as represented by votes applied to particular items.

Yes, this would require a certain amount of management...but it would be a real tool where right now we have few (ok, I'll say it, none). And with the Lindens being generally too unavailable, we need to put some tools into the hands of the residents that help the current situation.

It works on craigslist, eBay, and other world-class sites...it could work for us here too.

Dispute:

I once posted an add for a cook on Craigslist (actually, I've done it several times). At one point, my add was "pulled down" by the community because I requested that my cook be female (I'm simply less comfortable with another male having keys to my home or cooking for me...call it a fondness for mother's cooking, not father's). I had to re-post the add about 5 times before it stayed up even long enough to get replies.

I had not mentioned any specific look, any specific age, nor even implied any intent other than having a female COOK.

On E-Bay...I sold an old Porsche to a gentleman on E-Bay auto. He had good ratings (later found 'gamed') and tried to screw me out of 1/2 of the price. He even hired a lawyer when he found I wasn't going to give him the vehicle half price and was keeping the first 1/2 price payment. The lawyer talked to me personally for about 5 minutes, told his client that he was S.O.L., and I sold the car to another buyer later down the line...

----

These experiences...and others shared by many people I talk to...lead me to dispute the idea that 'community standards' can be reliably placed on anything.

Just as an aside, it has been noted on Craigslist repeatedly that employment posts that violate federal or state law will be removed. Specifying in a job add that you are "only" looking for a female employee is a violation of federal employment law - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, SEX, or national origin.

In other words, you can't just say you'll only hire a woman in a job posting - and you can't hire a woman for a job instead of a man just BECAUSE she is a woman. Whether you are comfortable or not.

But, regardless, I agree with you. There is far too much probability of abuse in asking the community to regulate what does or does not get posted.

I like the idea behind this - but think that it would be better, once an item receives enough abusive votes, that it goes to the top of a queue for a Linden to review and manually exclude if found to be inappropriate. It would be too easy to abuse if it was automatic.

There have been tons of times I've been searching WITHOUT mature content checked and been greeted with ads containing pictures of a large prim penis or the like. I would really like to have a feature where I could conveniently report this from the search results window.

Or, maybe after there are a (tunable) number of negative votes, the item is automatically excluded, AND it goes to the top of a queue for a Linden (or designee) to review, and if THEY don't get to it with a (tunable--say 24 hours?) timeframe, then the item is no longer excluded (but maybe visable flagged somehow?).

That way, even if someone is abusing the abuse system (ironic, isn't it!), the Admins would be still need to be actively involved...

As i say, despite the occasional abuse that occurs in systems like this, the majority of cases these thoughfully designed systems work well and as designed. And i bet we could even get Craig to consult on implimentation, for a small fee.

PS: See Prop: 3277 http://secondlife.com/vote/ or http://secondlife.com/vote/get_feature.php?get_id=3277

remind me the negative group ratings when a group of peoples would mass negrate some poor slob for the sake of griefing...

It's a great idea. It can be called the "I'm a puritanical narc" button.

Now THAT is a great name for the button!

Can we also have a variation somewhere that is the "my morals are now your morals" button?

Careful giving that to me.

I've also posted this to feature request at jira at https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-745. I am grateful for any votes or comments in support!

Thanks!

Can we get a button to abuse report Feature requests we don't like?

I think it's a good idea, as long as the Lindens can tell who reported the abuse. The button should also pop up a window where you have to explain why you think something is abusive. Both those things should cut down on silly or malicious reports.

I agree with Colette.

While this might seam like a good idea, keep in mind that in the past LL has offered services that have been used as griefing tools built into the interface. The original plan for the Rating system allowed you to negatively rate people. Griefers did it to everyone they met, and even hired people to stealth neg rate people. Being able to mark anything as inappropriate will do the same thing.

Clearly there aren't enough Lindens to keep up with the asshats who insist on NOT flagging their adult content as adult so they can get more search hits. This is why I think it's necessary that residents have a tool to report these things. Just go into classifieds and do a search for skins - without the mature content button checked - and tell me what you think of the ad priced at $21112. I can't even repeat what that ad says in a PG forum, not to mention the picture on the ad.

If marking an item from the search window as inappropriate would flag it for Linden review rather than cause an automatic removal, I will support this proposal.

does the button autoban you from sl if you abuse of it? kind of abusing the abuse tool ?

Yeah something should be done, I searched for "Kitten" with mature OFF and the results were shocking.

I like the idea but there are bad things about it, I would change it a bit so no one can abuse the feature. For one I like checkbox Idea to mark something abusive but I don’t like that a certain amount of checks in this category would get the item automatically removed I can just see the abuse of this taken place. I would like to see the checkbox system work in a way that if a box is checked a certain amount of times by different users it would trigger a red flag on a linden side notification system. This way the lindens are made aware of a potential abusive item which would allow them to take action by killing the item and sending a warning to its creator. If it is not abusive the lindens can clear the reports and leave the item alone and perhaps take action against the people who made the false claims of abuse. This would be a win win situation for everyone. Of course the lindens can also make a script that would scan the classifieds, etc and look for keywords that would be related to abuse and TOS violations.

Cool, thanks for the tip.