Ths user did the triggering action
[username] action: Removed for reporting msg #nnnnm as spam time: [timestamp] [via system]
- mea culpa. There’s no point parse this into a custom entry for each and every type logged action - that’s unreasonable and inappropriate (I didn’t realize initially that the [via xxxxx] was merely appended.)
- it should be @ the end for ease of understanding/scanning log entries.
- log-speak is very appropriate (as one alternative.)
- the modified entry example surely serves its purpose well.
- the Log *should* be accurate and list ALL actions - by user email, by user web, AND by the system.
- use Log-Speak, not try to construct full sentences (which contributed to this confusion) because one fitz-all doesn’t ever, ever fit all (the thread *proves* that.)
- the automated spam mechanism is dumb. If a user validly reports a “valid spam", who gets *punished*? The originator of the spammed message or the innocent who reported the offender?
The member doesn’t want to be removed from his/her group, s/he merely wants unwanted (potentially nefarious) messages to stop coming to his/her inbox. Imagine the confusion generated and directed at octogenarians and nonagenarians who can barely hang on to the concept of the web and email and messages and spam and junk folders and contact lists. Why are we trying to make it even more confusing to them?
- “The system *should* send an email to the reporting, e.g.:
You reported a message posted by <mmm> [append other identifying info as appropriate] as SPAM.
* Click this link if you want to be muted from receiving future messages posted by <mmm>. *
* Click this link to report <mmm> for posting spam. *
* If you reported that message as Spam in error, click this link for tips how to avoid this happening in the future.*
(obviously, the prose is subject to whatever appropriate tuning)
- The current auto-mechanism accomplishes zero to prevent the same “valid spams" from occurring again and again from the same offender.
I’ve been thru this with recurring unwanted (seemed to be nefarious) messages from offenders — the offending messages/offender had to be addressed manually by reporting them to @support.
- i.e., the system misses the mark by a wide mile as to appropriate handling of spam messages, spammers, and unintended spam reporting.
Just my 0.02