![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
If the script can automatically block any user whose post it suppresses, it would be awesome.
It does! I’ve reworded the OP to hopefully make that clearer. After using this approach for a few days, my blocklist (generated entirely programmatically) is ten pages long, and there is nary a bad post in sight. I’m expanding the filters on a daily basis.
I think the auto report function is severely needed; it’s happening everywhere.
The idea is that it takes the burden off of myriad (N) users having to manually do this themselves, and lets a single user (the KES custodian) prepare the filters, which then propagate out to any user of KES. Instead of 1,000 people manually blocking, one person builds the heuristics, and everyone benefits.
Preventing this issue doesn’t seem like a userscript issue…but I think the issue is that we need to get support top-down on this.
I understand, but the stated goal of KES is addressing issues that can’t, or won’t (due to some design conflict), be addressed, or which fall through the cracks. At the moment I’m seeing a lot of people voicing frustration, but due to the skeleton crew situation with administration of the site, it seems like screaming into the void. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and hopefully it gets some traction. But my job with KES is just to provide fixes for the end-user, albeit of a third-party nature.
Using this approach, I am seeing none of those posts on /science. I updated the filters a bit today. The top post is a legitimate article from 2024-04-13 and is by HeartyBeast.
Now, I understand that this is seen as an unnecessary step (too fancy) for some. People want zero ads out of the box without anything extra. So I’m thinking about the next approach here.
Framing the problem:
The third point and fourth points are important here, since that’s currently intractable. You can’t reconcile zero additional setup with that.
But let’s suppose becoming moderator of a defunct magazine (point 4) were possible while point 3 remained unresolved. In other words, at least moderators can try to pick up the pieces. Something being underestimated here is how annoying it would be for the moderator to manually cull posts every single day. I think you would have instant turnover after a couple of weeks once the tedium sets in. Manual solution is not good. Clearly, automation is needed on the moderation side.
So assuming you could actually inherit a magazine, but with no guarantee of upstream development, what about restructuring the tool above so that it’s for moderators, instead of end-users? That’s pretty easy, and I could make it something the moderator clicks once and it’s done, auto-banning the posts. This is a pretty good method.
But you can’t inherit moderation right now, so that’s back to square one.
Realistically, that leaves these options at the moment:
Third approach is the path of least resistance and is best for most casual users. Second is for diehards who cannot move instances due to some personal or technical reason. First approach is the most annoying and eventually leads to the third approach after frustration sets in.
Pick your poison, I guess. I can’t think of any other prophylactic approach at the moment, maybe this comment triggers some idea.