Hey, you guys know what would be a small but really helpful addition whenever it's next time to update the Janny system and interface? If when a reported post in the queue has the date of when the post itself was made on it, maybe not necessarily in full detail as that's probably not important, but if that post was made today, or if the post was made say, 47 days ago.This would help slightly whenever someone goes and reports posts in very old and even archived threads.Optionally, that posts in archived threads can only be reported for GR1, or anything else where deleting an archived post would still be useful and necessary, like for NSFW images on blue boards, spam links, or dox.Another feature would be for fraudulent reports. Now, if mods got a warn/ban request for every single fake report that would just be swamping you guys with needless shit. Instead, for when a post exhibits no obvious reason as to why it would break any rules, you click a button for that which clears that report and then adds a number to a counter for the guy who reported it (the janny wouldn't know this number).Thus, if a janny suspects someone is making a bunch of fake reports, a mod can go and check and either see a counter reflecting the number of times recent reports by them have been rebuked. Optionally they look in the user's report history and see if a lot of the recent ones are rebuked.Obvious exception for making a fake GR1 report, where perhaps that's sent as a request towards a mod's queue about making a fake illegal report, and it's up to them if there's any action to take.I'm thinking maybe this could save both jannies and mods some time in certain situations.
>>8941The date a post was made and maybe when it was reported would be very nice to have. I'd also find it useful if there was a notice if a user has been banned or warned recently.
>>8941I don't know if archived posts murdered your family but you have HPH for that useless bit of info, or you know, you can just open the post.As for false reports that wouldn't work because it's deliberately designed to throw away the reporter's IP once something is cleared (same thing as archived posts). Other solutions have been proposed before.Anime website, please understand.
>>8942It could help with a bit of context, yeah.>>8943>I don't know if archived posts murdered your family Can you read? Fake reporters did, as in some fag goes into an archived thread on a slow board and reports a post from months ago which frequently doesn't break any rules.Maybe it's just a problem in my neck of the boards.>As for false reports that wouldn't work because it's deliberately designed to throw away the reporter's IP once something is clearedWell what if it makes a record or raises an integer before discarding the IP itself? That would still tell a mod if that poster has recently made a lot of reports which jannies can't find any reason for being rulebreaking.
>>8945>as in some fag goes into an archived thread on a slow board and reports a post from months ago which frequently doesn't break any rulesIt's called gaslighting and that "fag" is actually me. No, I will not stop, yes you will have to explain the situation to a mod and ask that I be punished at which point the mod will call you a schizo.>before discarding the IP itselfAnd change the way that 4chan operates?!?! Preposterous, Moot would turn on his wagie cagie at googlie! Either way most users will still get some reports wrong and if they report a lot then they'll get a lot of reports wrong, is someone who has an accuracy of 80% worth warning or banning if in a day they report 100 posts? It's a two edged sword and unless mods regularly do something about it janitors can't really do anything besides request that the most flagrant offenders get punished (you know, besides clearing until people realize that we simply won't do anything about things they don't like).
I don't know if this is the right thread for this but when wr'ing a thread for "Duplicate thread" it'd be nice to be able to link the user or perhaps the whole thread to the first thread made about the topic on the same board somehow
>>9004"Duplicate thread" is only a template on /soc/ as far as I know and most people just wouldn't care. Namely discord servers, egotrippers that need their ASL on the OP of a general or the myriad of phoneposting normies that don't bother to read anything. The search function has been available for years yet people still don't use it, society.
>>9005it's on /mu/ toonot a big deal just a little quality of life thing
>>8941"User was recently warned for..." would be really helpful. Maybe within a 7 day period.
I know this is almost sacrilegious to suggest this, but has anyone considered making a report bot? one that detects nsfw posts on sfw boards and just reports them so it's easier for the jannies to see
>>9094Is AI at that level yet? How about making NSFW reports global so all janitors can handle them?
>>9095I googled around and found a couple ai services that can do it, most are paid howeverI might try to get a free one working but I'm not too good with computer
>>9094>>9095>>9097How about one which highlights and reports posts with key words, phrases, and common images?
>>9110discord has straight up just launched or announced intent to launch this as an AI automod feature.I have seen globally negative responses to it as an idea.
how about "sage doesn't work if you reply with an image"
>>9124
4bans was a useful site because it could often give me an idea on recent bans and warnings by others on the board, occasionally stuff I missed.With the site seemingly dead, does there exist any other resource like it?
>>9128It's still up, there's just issues with the domain so you have to use the IP address http://185.10.68.107:1776/If you use 4chanX you can put this in your custom board navigation to have a link that leads to the bans page for whatever board you're on:external-text:"4bans","javascript:void%28%20open%28%20%22http://185.10.68.107:1776%2F%3Fboard%3D%2F%22%2Bwindow.location.pathname.split%28%27%2F%27%29%5B1%5D%2B%22%2F%22%20%29%20%29"If you don't have it you can use the javascript portion as a bookmarklet.
>>9129Alright, that's helpful, thank you jannybro!
>>9128>>9129>>9133how do they get that data? I would assume that ban info is not public-facing. Post deletion, sure, but bans, reason and length?
>>9134https://4chan.org/bans
>>9134>>9135the bans page is just a sample though, 4bans seems to capture more...
>>9137it refreshes periodically
>>9137that's all it gets. it cycles through new bans every 30 or 60 minutes or so
Honestly I don't know why janitors don't get access to a ban history, it doesn't need much info, just what kind of content is being deleted on the board and why, which would improve consistency a lot.
>>9140This would have helped me a ton starting out
>>9140>>9142While it probably would improve consistency and help out new janitors it introduces the same problem that comes with janitors being able to see accepted/rejected BRs, which is that janitors would get the results of the ban history too personally.>I checked the ban history and I notice most of my BRs are being rejected. Looks like some mod has a gripe against me?Basically, almost any action taken has a potential to turn into a personal argument of who's wrong who's right.In general, it's better to be proactive and ask "Does this post break any rules?" than retroactive "Why did/didn't this break any rules?" as the focus should be on live posts, not deleted ones.
>>9145as a fairly new jannie, I considered asking for this sort of info, but I agree that it'd probably lead to one or both of two bad things>People obsessing over their stats, which could impact HOW they do their jannying>People trying to work out why specific things got rejected, backseat modding, etc.As it is, the system is opaque, but so long as 4chan continues to be a functional and enjoyable website, the system works. I don't want this to be like an office job where there's a KPI chart on the wall.
>>9146>>9145>>9142>>91404bans.tk:1776 is a thing but it's down, it scrapped all the bans on 4chan.org/bans and you could filter them by board and rule. Literally only useful to see a portion of what gets banned and doesn't even include all rules so it's virtually useless on some boards.As for GOOD consistency it wouldn't help at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_ProblemCommunicating to me what you're doing on a board through a bans history page does not mean that I'm going to go to it or even that I can understand any nuance about your actions, and therefore there's no guarantee that I'll coordinate my actions so that I also file my ban requests incorrectly like you're doing (a mod hasn't contacted you yet about it so you keep doing it wrong).If you want consistency just use the official channels and ask people or tag boards. You should be doing this whenever you're not sure or don't know.
>>9110I have a better idea, how about a basic browser plugin which highlights words and phrases you've defined in a list, in which case you can just plain scroll through a thread slowly to see if there''s anything which might be up.
>>9128>>9129>>9138>https://www.4chan.org/bansVery useful site, even for jannies. Can't believe it's not mentioned more.
add image macros to the irrelevant catchphrases ban reason
feature request: see pending BRs on a post/in the queue without opening the BR window. even if I have to refresh to see them appear it'd make things so much easier
>>9308I feel like the limitation of only being able to see pendings when we open the BR window is intentional.If we could see pending BRs floating on posts, we could BR someone once, F5, and then see every post they've made, including non rulebreaking ones. That'd be close to Mod-Vision in terms of how much oversight of a thread or board it would give us.We're not meant to hunt down users, we're meant to remove clear rule breaking and mop up shit that doesn't belong.Some jannies would definitely start a pattern of trying to identify users more actively, which would be an abuse of that power and a detriment to us doing what we signed on to do.Only being able to see pendings once we open the BR interface, whether on boards or in the queue, means that in theory we should only ever be abandoning a BR because it has a pending, not using a pending to give weight to whether to deal with another post. Posts should largely be judged on their own unless they're part of a flood.
>>9192I do like that idea. Would help if you want to go through a thread with a lot of posts quickly
>>91924chanX can do this with filters/roody-poo|candy-ass/;highlight
>>9192>>9316cryptobin.co/q1s9f1a4Password:ChDRNF0eQqNaQup+EBs3Fw2G2j+bGauyzhFd5vhop3LCkqcnc8xELnZQPfmlvHm7I wrote this script this evening. Picrel is what it looks like.It uses tampermonkey, it probably won't work in greasemonkey. It's pretty simple, all it does is bold the words you want to highlight. I don't use 4chanX, so I didn't test to see if it works with that.There's at least one bug - if you have "linkify URLs" turned on, if the URL has one of your search terms included it gets a little weird. There are probably many more besides that.Check the "settings" menu and you can use it kinda like the filters settings. You can either add bare words, or regexes /between slashes/. Regexes *NOT* support flags, because it's pain in the ass to parse. Maybe I'll add them later. Everything is just treated as case-insensitive.I want to add a way to select a highlight color, but that is more work and wanted to get a proof of concept out there.If you want to change the highlight color, you can do so by adding custom CSS for now, for example setting a red background and black foreground:.hys-highlight { color: #000000 !important; background-color: #ff0000 !important;}Let me know if it's helpful or not - if it is, I may work on it more.
>>9318IS THIS A BITCOIN MINER
>>9318
>>9317>4chanx
>>9319among other things>>9320your loss.
>>9320I'm just releasing this in the way that HPH is released. There isn't anything SUPER SEKRIT (TM) about it, but since it originated here, I'd say it's better safe than sorry.
Is some sort of secondary thread watcher, or a means of splitting/segregating the thread watcher possible, either as part of HPH or otherwise?Occasionally I feel like a thread needs a close eye, and having a way to differentiate it in the thread watcher would be nice.By no means is this a major or important thing, it's purely a minor janny QoL request. Being able to have one watcher for threads I am interested in as a user and one for threads I'm keeping an eye on because they might misbehave and I want a one-click check-in would just be nice.
I would like to have the report timer negated the same way the post timer is. It's tedious to have to wait between reports when I see a whole passel of stuff on a board I don't janny
>>9393yes not having a report timer would be great
>>9393Thirding this, I've been reporting way more since becoming a janny but it's frustrating to get rate-limited after reporting three posts.
>>9393fourthing, but also noting that it'd actually be a feature I'd use. I know we have practically no post timer, but I leave 4chanX's post cooldown on because if someone autistically checks timestamps and notices I've made both halves of a long post too close together, that'd lead to thread derailment about how I did it.
>>9397brevity is the soul of wit
>>9393I was thinking about something similar but came to the conclusion that if it's -that- bad you can just ping a mod/the board role in d*scord or have faith in your fellow coworkers and their ability to delete things that break the rules in a timely manner
OP's image makes me smile every time I'm on /j/Thanks OP
I like the little quick BR thing with the three vertical dots but can we get some indication if the poster has outstanding BRs already? I know mods have complained about stacking BRs in the past but I think I do that a lot unknowingly with the quick BR function since it doesn't show they've already been BR'd and I hit that instead of delete
>>9414to actually be quick it would need to be calling that info before opening it, and we're not meant to have the ability to check people in advance of opening a BR. The fact that we can't even see what a post was reported for reinforces that we're supposed to treat individual posts separately, and if we think something is all one or two anons we ask a mod to check if we want a shortcut.
>>9415if we aren't supposed to know in advance why even show pending BRs? just have the system silently filter out stacked BRs (of the same offense) on its own if we're supposed to judge each post by its own individual merit. or better yet just add a delete button to the BR popup so that I don't have to open then close then open the delete prompt. it'd save me time when soft wiping a handful of rule breaking posts by one IP in a thread
>>9398poopoo peepee
>>9417>brevity1,2
>>9418bitch
>>9399Somehow it'd feel rude to go into Moderation and be all "Hey, faggot, YOU MISSED SOMETHING, CLEAN THIS UP, I'D DO A BETTER JOB THAN YOU, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE STATE OF YOUR BOARD." ... or at least that's what it'd feel like.>>9402I'm glad I made you smile.
>>9422We aren't constantly using index-view sorted by last-reply and following every active thread for signs of a shitstorm. Even if you have someone looking at the board, refreshing every five minutes in index-mode and sorting by newest replies, they can miss shit if nobody involved is reporting it.
Not exactly a janny feature, but I feel like this would be a decent add to the /lit/ report options
with the high volume of posts/images being uploaded to >>>/g/ in AI image generation threads, I suggest that a "Duplicate Thread" warn request template be added, similar to >>>/mu/
>>9549As long as we're on the topic of AI, my opinion is that /g/ isn't the place for dozens of AI threads anyway. Going to bing and typing in some words and then posting the image in a thread doesn't really seem like technology discussion/content to me.Idk what kind of analytics the mods perform before deciding to create a new board but I think it's worth looking into making one just for AI content. Of course if there's a discussion on AI development that would fit right in on /g/, but that's a tiny fraction of what happens in those threads.
>>9549>>9550I'd suggest a temporarily raised image limit per thread on boards currently having this issue, and then autosaging threads that hit the expanded image limit.But I am not a web tech sort and I do not know if this is smart.
>>8941i have taken certain steps to ensure the security of my login, such as:>using two-factor authentification>using a complex password>not autosaving my credentials (i.e, manually inputting for each login)>always logging in on a private browser window
>>9561this has highlighted to me just how excessive the amount of login prompts are when accessing reports domains.here is my current login process:>access reports login>close unnecessary credentials popup prompt>input login credentials on page prompt>input 2fa code>reinput login credentials on popup (cancelling gives error 401)>reinput login credentials on page prompt>input 2fa code>close unnecessary credentials popup prompt>access reports home>send first BR/WR>reinput login credentials on popup prompt (cancelling gives error 401)
>>9562i strongly suggest this process be streamlined, as the amount of logins and superfluous popups between accessing the login page and sending an initial request irritates and discourages habitual use of the reports system.(posted in multiple blocks due to spam filters)
>>9561>autogenerated autofill password>passwords synced across all my devices>no 2fayep, it's gaming time.
>>9562hardcore agree it gets infuriating sometimes. all it does is encourage saving password through browser which is unsafe.
>>9575I save my password in my OS clipboard.
>>9561If you're interested in your personal digital security then:>get an offline password manager>create a strong master password (look up how to make a proper seed phrase)>generate passwords with as many character types as possible>length should be superior to 20 and the higher the betterWhat you're doing isn't secure because if you're manually typing a password on these annoying popups then it's likely not complex enough and likely not unique. Private browsing is not a security feature btw, it offers no security, it offers privacy from people trying to figure out which porn sites you use by typing them in your address bar.I do use a really really strong password (now, lol) but its stored on my browser which isn't the most secure even if I am probably impervious to 99% of digital STDs. Why? Because of the popups. I simply automate their filling with a browser extension so I literally don't even get or see them except on mobile. Those popups are not worth unlocking my password manager for, even on mobile where I can unlock it with biometrics. Janitor account security isn't that big of deal anyways. It's easier for a threat actor to apply to /g/ than for them to steal your login credentials. Let's suppose that they did apply to /g/ instead of phishing you, what did they actually get? At best they could delete an entire board, get spotted almost immediately and have the catalog be restored. It's disruptive, easily fixable and hasn't happened in years. So as long as your password isn't 1234567890 on a post it on your monitor it's fine. But fuck those popups though fr fr no cap.
>>9583>get an offline password manager>no not like that!!!how else am I gonna store my stuff offline...
>>9584
>>9583>Private browsing is not a security feature btw, it offers no security,it does in the sense that if someone is targeting you (or a group of people), it makes intelligence gathering on you more difficult - and as such they are more likely to target someone else.
>>9592Not quite. As far as cookies and tracking via cookies goes it will generate a new session with fresh cookies but it won't isolate cookies between tabs, so everything that you're doing can still be traced if you go into anything Big Tech. If you want to compartmentalize cookies every time you can set up your browser to do that as well as have it wipe cookies automatically, effectively making it private browsing mode but way more flexible as far as what you want to be tracked. Private browsing does not offer privacy in that your ISP can still see everything that you do, it does not stop tracking if you open multiple tabs, prevent them from collecting geo-data based on your IP that can help them correlate your traffic via what they know you used with their trackers, does not stop fingerprinting of your machine or screen size from having you browser maximized and it does not offer any real security against malware or any other sort of attack. Basically, if you do everything in the same private browsing window you're not really any more private or secure, the only saving grace is that you wouldn't start a life-time collection of trackers since you'd be purging them each time.Firefox has an official extension that let's you create cookie containers so that you can compartmentalize those without needing several private browsing instances open. As for automatic cookie clearing there's several extensions out there that do that and are far more customizable in regards to what they delete and when. You can also block trackers with most adblock extensions but that wouldn't affect cookies.
>>9596interested to see the discussion that has generated from my post! i would like to point out that very little of it has to do with my actual complaint, however - excessive login popups while logging in/using the report system.
>>9599I just found out that people don't automate HTTP requests using an extension on their favorite browser of choice... damn that shit sucks manhttps://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/autoauth/https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/multipass-for-http-basic/enhldmjbphoeibbpdhmjkchohnidgnah
>>9600BROwhy are you posting my dox
I would like a little colored dot that shows when a post's attached file is a gif/webm. Oftentimes it's easy to tell a post isn't rulebreaking and hit clear but sometimes malicious anons have a gif that doesn't animate for a few seconds then swaps to porn or something. Rather than have to read the file extension while hovering it'd be nice to have a quicker indication that the file is (or may be) animated.
>>9618Not a bad idea. Consider this a vague raising of a glass to it. We have the red dot over spoilered images, this could be useful in the report queue. If the site had sound enabled on webms on most boards I'd add an icon to indicate if it has sound metadata or not.Heck, now I think about it, metadata is stuff you can pull from an image but the average janny doesn't think about often - some kind of gif info rundown is probably out of scope but something to think about anyway.
>>9618You should always check the files you are reviewing for clearing or ban requesting anyways
Add the option to spoiler images on all boards.I don't even understand why it's on a board like /vt/, but if you're going to give users the option there then why not everywhere?
>>9667I assumed the spoiler stuff was on /vt/ if people wanted to talk about a game a vtuber is playing without spoiling each other or something? Otherwise yeah I dunno.
>>9667>>9669[spoiler]Speaking of which I wonder if I can spoiler text on here...[/spoiler]
>>9670look at this fool
>>9669there are spoilers on /r9k/ lol
a secondary thread watcher for jannying purposes would be nice, for bookmarking threads I wanna keep an occasional eye on. I forget shit like "this looks like a request thread, I'll come back to it in a few hours to see if OP's come back with images"Even just a way to add an extra, differently colored flag on the regular watcher, so I can differentiate threads I'm watching for my own use as a user and threads I'm watching with mop and bukket in hand.
>>9677If you use Firefox, look into the Tree Style Tab extension. It's not quite the same as what you're looking for but it lets you organize tabs.
>>9679hadn't heard of this, will take a look. I try to not keep a billion tabs open and I have the browser set to wipe tabs on window close, but it might still be useful thanks.
>>9679>>9680I also use that add-on, it's really nice.I'll add that if you like it you should look into hiding the tabs at the top of your screen to save space. You can see how to do that here https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-for-custom-style-rules#hide-horizontal-tabs-at-the-top-of-the-window-1349-1672-2147
>>8941add catalog for /j/
>>9618seconding this; also, despite the fact that this has likely already been posted (probably in hph thread) GR#1 reports should show up with red border outside of queue, in case someone BR's it from catalogue/index/thread for the wrong template, or misses that the report was not made in good faith.Moreover, hph should be merged with baseline janitor functions. Having what is essentially two branches of development makes feature requests (and use of janitor tools overall) overly convoluted.
There absolutely MUST be a good reason for this, but why do most boards not support webms with audio? There's clearly demand for it with the popularity of the catbox script.And while I'm asking this, is there a reason we don't let people upload other file formats like mp4, webp, etc?
>>9734it would be annoying to have to listen to audio ("have to" meaning that you're missing out if you don't) on the boards that aren't for sound. i personally much prefer the image portion of imageboardwebp is shit and full of vulnerabilities. there's literally no reason to support uploading mp4 here. it's not a file-sharing site
>>9680for me, it's the onetab browser extension
>>9735I guess I can also see situations arising where people would troll putting certain sounds in (knowing a lot of people won't check the extension when they hover over) to jumpscare people or whatever. At least with the sound extension it's reasonably obvious when an image contains a sound (from the filename) and the user has also chosen to opt into that kind of content.
>>9735This just sounds like you want to keep the status quo for the sake of keeping it.There are boards that aren't for video either but you can post webms there. Why can't I say "it would be annoying to have to watch clips on the boards that aren't for video"?
>>9738we also have time limits on webm, largely 2 minutes, you can check on the boards.json, which means as the filesize limit increases users can't post longer clips by lowering quality. That means you can't get 10 minute videos being posted in webm format or anything, it's just "more efficient reaction gifs">meanwhile I have seen efficiently constructed gifs using long frame delay actually last a long time, like the girls frontline concentration camp yuri one.
/mu/ should have sound webms who's with me
>>9740you vill enjoy the 1 minute 20 second silent videos
>>9741/kpop/ general certainly do
>>9739>like the girls frontline concentration camp yuri one.oh man oh man oh man,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>9740You don't understand, it is an imageboard.
>>9741>>9745but think of the gusic webms
since janitors have no post cooldown i think no report cooldown would be nice as well. can't really be obviously abused since any janitor spamming false reports would get slapped upside the head by a mod
wait shit this was already suggested by someone else earlier in the thread and i even made a response saying why i think it's not important enough to implementman i need some sleep...
>>9748all me btw
>>9745imageboards are so 2003, why hasn't someone invented the videoboard yet>>9747replying again to say that i would love this, i get rate limited after making one or two reports but usually it's nothing bad enough to go pinging people over
>>9747>>9750I asked about this years ago in #moderation and I was told that there have been instances of jannies spamming false reports in the past (surprisingly not me this time).
>>9747I..... agree!!! Though I find if I am making a lot of reports on a board then I consider it time to ask GA if I can have it lel.>>9740I wonder if it doesn't largely just for DMCA fears.
>>9747the answer is no.
>>9753what was the question?
>>9755who are you
>>9756I didn't know Kosh was a janny, but it makes sense.
>>9740>what is soundcloud?
can you BR posts from the catalog? can that be a feature?
>>9761Nope. And I think I recall a mod in discord saying something along the lines of "jannies have no need for that kind of powa, BITCH!" also >>4697
>>9762I was thinking for threads with no replies like the video games butt threads on /v/ that pop up I get why it wouldn't be a good idea if the thread has posts and replies because something worse could be lurking within, but if it's literally just a spam OP and nothing else a quick ban request option would be nice
>>9763It honestly doesn't take that long to bop, though I have a fast internet.
>>9762>mootwho?
>>9761>>9763It's too easy to accidentally misclick on the wrong post.But more importantly, it's too easy to lose your last remaining spark of 4chan shitposter spirit, too easy to casually and indifferently delete everything that irritates you even mildly, too easy to forget that you're supposed to look the other way and tolerate the presence of threads that only just barely skirt the line, too easy to lose the last remaining vestiges of your soul when you have that much power thrown at you in the catalog.
>>9766Wise.
>>9766That's a pretty dumb take when janitors can already delete everything and anything. That's why one should stick close to the templates at all times, I don't think the BR from catalog is that needed but your reasoning while pretty, is quite absurd since we are already given huge powers.
>>9768You have the huge powers but it takes you slightly more effort to remove a thread. The point of it taking slightly more effort is that you get lazy and end up sparing more threads (and that's a good thing).
>>9768>>9769Agreed, they should make us manually (disable autofill/ctrl+v) enter our password every time we want to take any action just in the off chance we will spare more posts.
>>9770actually no i think the devs should go one step further and implement some kind of script that deactivates your mouse inbetween actions so you have to keep replugging it back in. that way we would be *really really* sure.
Why the FUCK do I have to enter my credentials into a popup instead of having a form on the site? My password manager extension cannot automatically find the popup field to populate my password this way. Fix it.
>>9824it's called "basicauth" and that's the only way to do it I think. copy/paste it you virgin
>>9825>only way to do itHow come I don't have to do that for Google, Amazon, Steam, my bank, credit card websites, Netflix, Spotify, etc.?
>>9824Works on my machine with KeePass/Kee. I sometimes had issues back when the domain was split but nowadays it always just gives me a simple one-click thingy to authenticate myself.
can we get an "anon is typing..." like discord
>>9828april fools thread is down the hall and to the left
>>9826this is just speculation with how 4chan works. I obviously don't have access to the source code.tl;dr I'm mostly sure that 4chan operates off of static HTML pages and javascript instead of e.g. PHP on every pageI believe 4chan operates off of static HTML pages that get regenerated every time a post/thread is made. when you want to load janitor pages, you have to send your login information in the HTTP request every time (via basicauth) rather than having a session cookie. these are probably only checked when you're accessing janitor tools, and the janitor UI elements are placed on the page with javascript, rather than on the backend.and the reason why it asks for your username and password so frequently, I think, has to do with web browsers trying to load a page without sending credentials, getting an 'auth required' response code back, and then asking you for them. not sure why the browser isn't smart enough to use your saved creds for 4chan.org/4channel.org, but I'm sure there's some good UX reason for it.
>>9831yeah I can confirm this
sad but true
maybe add a feature to see how many IPs are in a thread? could be cool
>>9850Given what we've got speculated about how the janitool works, it'd be hard for this info to be fed through the tools we have in realtime in a useful way (ie, checking when a new IP enters a thread) without giving us some form of after-the-fact IP vision.I don't think it'd be feasible without increasing the amount of data the tools pass us AND giving us more info than we had before. I would bet one (1) shiny 4chan pass, good for a year, that it won't happen.
>>9851What if the non-janny users could see how many IPs a thread has too? I bet many of the users would find that useful.
>>9850>>9851>>9855lads I miss it too, but truthfully it served zero functional purpose for janitors so I don't think there is a good argument to get it back
>>9856Yeah, I don't think I ever really used it for jannying to be honest. If they took the pending BR indicator away then yeah that would be a much bigger inconvenience but the IP count isn't a big deal
>>9850>>9855Interesting theory. How would you sell that to the dev team though?>>9857Taking away the BR pending indicator would also result in huge hassle for the mods having to deal with loads of stacked BRs so thankfully this will never happen.
>>9865>for the mods having to deal with loads of stacked BRslol do you think the BR indicator stops me from doing this? They @ us several times a day when reports pile up, it's only fair the same is done to them with the BR queue.
>>9873holy lmao chad jannyim pretty sure you can just delete ones if they have the same pending BR. you only need to stack if its like CP or something or if they have a weaker BR/WR pending and you are giving a stronger one.At least thats how I have been doing it but what the fuck do i know. Don't think it benefits anyone to stack the same BR.
>>9873>mfw I'm about to BR a troll post and someone else has already stacked 10 BRs on him
>>9874Yeah memes aside I only stack if I'm requesting something different from what's already been submitted or if I'm hitting someone for spam.
>>9874Sometimes I wish I had an undo button. BR something mildly dumb, go to BR something of the same rule but much more blatant, see it's pending, wish I'd BR'd the dumb one first.
>>9877Sometimes I'll stack in a case like this though I assume mods will often take a look at other posts by the same IP anyway
>>9877ugh i know what you mean. i sitll dont stack in these cases though, unless its going from a WR to a BR or something.>>9878>assume mods will often take a look at other posts by the same IP anywayI don't think they do this in most cases. there is probably a lot in the BR queue and it would take all day if they inspected each and every one in detail.
>>9879Yeah I guess that's fair, though maybe more likely if the BR seems like an edge case or something and they want more context to make a decision.
>>9877I actually kind of like not having an undo button. tou really, really have to think about what you're doing. and if you make a mistake, and you realize it, it kind of snaps you back into reality. also, with an undo button, that implies that threads are staying around after they've been 404'd, which means we'd be tracking IP addresses after a post is no longer alive. not great for anonymity
>>9882Yeah, overall I think the way things work is a) good enough and b) probably the best way for how things work legally. No editing, no saving beyond the need, keeps 4chan free of certain legal issues of responsibility.Honestly undo button wasn't a great way to phrase it, but just sometimes I wish I'd BR'd something in one order over another.
>>9884Yeah, those occasional "oh shit" moments make for a good learning experience anyway.
>>9884I'm pretty sure RA told me that (legal stuff) was why there was no undo in my briefing, but that was a long time ago.
>>9886section 230 is a harsh mistress
Told this to my overlord but it was suggested for me to post this here so other /vrpg/ janitors may share their thoughts.Would it be okay to reduce /vrpg/'s reply bump limit? It's a slow board, and only a few threads (select few new releases, SEQUEL, Black Souls and CYOA games) get constant and regular discussion to the point of reaching the current reply bump limit of 500. I think the usual 300 would get healthier but shorter threads and fewer month old threads with 1 or 2 anons doing a bump every few days and so on when conversation has already mostly died.
>>9895Not completely opposed to the idea - as a slower board it does make sense. My main worry would be it could encourage people creating generals if they saw their thread talking about x game was reaching bump limit too soon and falling to page 10 or whatever.
>>8941Here's a feature request. Every time we get pinged about high reports, we get the usual reminder from the Great Simian about how we need to prioritize obvious rule breaks and not look for bannable offenses and to mash clear. Is it possible, similar to how GR1 reports are fronted to the top of the list, GR5 on blue could be put at top of the queue (but under GR1, obviously)? This would have the added advantage that seemingly innocuous GIFs that turn into a Nikocado, etc. would be sure to be looked at in their entirety and not missed in a frenzy of mashing clear. I know by design that janitors aren't shown the report type so as to leave them unprejudiced, but the specific case of GR5 reports has more benefit than cost when made obvious *and easier to access* in the RQ11. Unless you're one of those weirdos who addresses the queue from the bottom up
I'd like to request another check box, similar to the warn check box, that allows you to request a wipe. So that it's simple and easy to request a wipe of all of that user's posts, which is particularly useful for spammers or ban evaders who might have many posts up.I often see threads where certain ban evaders will make a bunch of posts and only one of them gets deleted, probably due to a ban request being submitted by a janny, and then the mod doesn't wipe the evader's posts when approving the ban request leaving the rest of the posts up, or I request a wipe and no mod is around to enact it.I understand that it's probably bad practice to get into the habit of automatically wiping a user's posts, so I don't want to suggest it's checked by default for any templates or that mods habitually wipe ban evaders, because it's not always appropriate.But especially in certain cases, e.g. if there are no mods around at the time, it's not always easy to request a wipe on spam/evaders because I could post it in Discord and then a mod might not see that before processing the ban request. Attaching the wipe request to the actual ban request itself would mean that it's going to be seen by a mod when processing the ban request, as an indication by us that this user has a lot of posts up and it's easier if the mod can wipe them all.Of course this doesn't mean we can't still ping mods for urgent requests or manually request wipes if we aren't sure about the number of posts, but at least on certain boards there are habitual spammers/evaders who just need to be wiped frequently, so having the ability to more easily request that and make sure the mod processing the ban request sees you want the posts wiped would make janooming a bit easier.
>>10017I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I do feel that maybe that might encourage wipes to be overused compared to the current system. Maybe an extra confirmation could be added similar to the GR1 templates to make sure you're really really sure they deserve it or something
>>10018NTJ but I think that's a reasonable thing to add. It should be fairly obvious from what someone's posting that they need a wipe, unless you've already taken care of most of the shit they posted.
>>10018It's possible, but that's the point of a mod reviewing the ban request, that's not to say that we should just flippantly submit ban requests and expect mods to sort it out, but rather we aren't perfect and sometimes a second set of eyes or the mod vision they have is reason to deny them. They know more than us, and that's by design, of course we can't know if a wipe is needed or not in every case but if our judgement is too frequently off the mark a mod can just let us know, which they already do if we're under or over utilising the janny tools. If a ban request comes with a wipe request too then I would hope that a mod would verify it's warranted before just pressing the mass delete button, and from what I've seen mods never do it willy nilly and won't hesitate to say no if it's not necessary.My thinking was that we would be told to use it in a similar way to how we're told to treat the ban evasion template, in that jannies can never be sure and just to focus on the rule being broken because it's rarely ever worth the time to investigate if a user is evading, except in cases where we are specifically told to use the ban evasion template for specific images or posting styles for persistent spammers and evaders. The same logic could apply to wipe requests, do not use it except for specific circumstances, and maybe even only make it available as an option for spamming/flooding or ban evasion templates because those are most often the cases where it's warranted.This is just meant to be a flag to mods to say "please check if there's a lot more posts like this you can delete all at once". It's to make everyone's lives easier and hopefully not mean that janitors overuse it and give the mods a load of extra work for nothing.
>>10020>or the mod vision they have
Not sure how much of a pain it would be to implement but I've been thinking lately that being able to see a quick digest of bans associated with an image MD5 in the report queue (similar to the current pending BR view) could be helpful for a lot of cases. The obvious example would be NSFW edge cases, though other stuff like doxx or serial spammers or something could also be potentially spotted more easily this way.
This isn't actually helpful for the jannies (but might be for mods looking at board-wide stats), but I would appreciate a stat page saying how many posts I cleared and BR'd by rule.Just kind of curious about how much I've actually helped over the years.I could see some concern with people gamifying it, but I don't really know how relevant that is.
>>10149Somehow the idea makes me slightly anxious, can't I just live in blissful ignorance...
>>10149would be interested in the global clear rate for jannies at least
>>10149I'm pretty sure we'll never get that
>>10149Pretty sure we will never get that, and the people who do get to see stuff like that almost certainly already have it. It would be nice to see though, I agree.
>>10149This would stoke a slightly more competitive feeling particularly if there was a jannie leaderboard
>>10163>he can't see the leaderboard
>>10149Think I asked about this shortly after I joined and I was told that if you are incorrectly applying rules a mod will reach out to you to clarify, but that's the only indication you'll ever receive.
>>10199and even then it's pretty infrequent. all these layers of obfuscation every which way can get a little annoying sometimes, but mods will always appreciate the help we're putting in.
>>10202Felt the same at first but I’ve come to appreciate the mystery. Silent moderation is a wise choice. The user base wouldn’t be what it is if we had Reddit style power trip janitors.
Make an official app.
>>10206this would be nice but unfortunately I do not think 4chan has the resources for that. the best I can see 4chan doing is giving an official endorsement for a well-known app.
>>10206Apple would probably classify it as porn and disallow it on the App Store
>>10212so don't distribute it on the app/play stores>>10211all of the current well known apps either have built in captcha solvers or the developer has abandoned their project because of things breaking frequently.
Have you guys ever experienced that awkward situation where you enter a thread and see someone act like a bit of a dick, e.g. greentexting a bunch of replies that annoyed him with basedjak images attached or whatever? You don't really want to BR the guy because it's not really that big of a deal, but you'd like to give him a warning request for BR6 - ironic shitposting, so he'd calm down.So, you warning request one of his posts and delete all the others and he just... keeps going. Now, there's a pretty decent chance he simply did not notice the posts were deleted, because who the hell keeps scrolling up and refreshing the page to see the posts gone?So, I've been thinking, you know how when you BR someone, they get a15 minute timeout? No such thing happens with a warning request. Which makes sense, it's a warning request, no a ban request. So how about instead, when you send a warning request for someone's post, next time they try to post, before they can post, they get a notification that a warning has been requested for their behavior, the way you get a notification that you were banned for already expired bans?While there's certainly a risk that some people, upon seeing that, would start shitposting even harder, it feels to me that most people would go "Well, the janny didn't try to ban me, he only told me to calm down, so I guess I'll calm down."
>>10239I dunno, it feels like if they're gonna do that might as well just cut the middleman and give them the warning right then and there. Seeing that they have a pending warning isn't really that different from seeing the warning itself. Not necessarily advocating for that, but just feels a bit more logical than telling someone that they might get warned soon.
>>10239Warnings are handled the way that they are because it's not disruptive enough to warrant forcing the user to stop posting for 15 minutes. You could have easily issued a GR10 BR for something like that since the total sum of the posts would have constituted spamming even if individually they're just GR6.Besides there aren't that many rules that you can repeatedly break without it raising to a BR version of the template that was being used or eventually GR10 if it's being spammed.
>>10240 (Me) though now that I think of it this is actually a pretty awful idea too since it would just lead to jannies potentially stacking tons of warnings on the same guy since they can't tell one was already given
>>10239>Have you guys ever experienced that awkward situation where you enter a thread and see someone act like a bit of a dick, e.g. greentexting a bunch of replies that annoyed him with basedjak images attached or whatever? You don't really want to BR the guy because it's not really that big of a deal, but you'd like to give him a warning request for BR6 - ironic shitposting, so he'd calm down.No? Just BR rulebreaking content, if he's being a hindrance to the thread and actively derailing use the appropiate template. Greentexting with a basedjak without contributing to the thread is GR6 but actively using them several times through a thread to derail and force a reponse out of the other users is textbook trolling.
I would find the option to toggle (sound) notifications for red reports really useful. Sometimes they sit in the queue for longer than necessary, including global reds. I would feel calmer knowing I'm not missing anything that's really bad when I do other things like posting or watching something etc.
>>10244If we get this, there need to be three options for the sound.>Basic-ass beep or chirp>Klaxon that you can't miss>Fuckin' slaves, get your ass back here.mp3
>>10245I think this could be good as a HPH feature maybe, desktop alerts like 4chan X has could be helpful too.
>>10246Speaking of HPH, is there a reason those features haven't been baked into the official extension for janitors?
>>10248My assumption is just that it's much easier and less risk of breaking stuff to just stick that stuff in a userscript, allows it to be more rapidly changed as well as needed. There's probably some level of bureaucracy involved in changing the site itself, checks that need to be done, people that need to sign off on it, etc, whereas just maintaining a simple userscript that can be run on the client side is easy, less risky, and doesn't have the same hoops needed to jump through.
Not sure how difficult this would be to implement or how many jannies would want/use it, but I would appreciate a customization option for the report queue quick BRs, and possibly adding a bit of information/functionality as well.I like them a lot and appreciate that they were added, but sometimes would like to have another option added. For example, being able to add the BR for dubs/get posts would be nice for me, and in general customizing which rules/reasons show up would be great. I'm sure they were decided based on frequency and the vast majority of my BRs do use them, so this is certainly a small QoL thing at best.A couple of things I feel might be a bit more impactful is adding a bit more information to them, and adding a way to change it to a WR. With regard to the information, I know in the past jannies have been asked not to stack BRs on a single user, particularly for the same violation. This typically happens with porn posting on blue boards, but since we can't tell if two posts are from the same poster or not, it often feels safer to just BR all of the porn rather than doing a single post and deleting the rest, in case there are multiple users. This might not be an issue anymore with the global reduction in reports following the anti-spam system though.With regards to WRs, I feel many times a WR would be more appropriate for some posts, but since it's so much easier to just use the quick BR function instead (and the checkbox already slows down WRs with the normal dropdown menu) I feel disincentivized from using them. I know mods already sometimes downgrade BRs to warnings, but an additional quick WR menu would be nice I think.
>>10283In the past I've wondered if some hotkey could be used to toggle between quick BR and quick WR, but that seems like too much room for something to go wrong and adds more complexity and extra keypresses to what's meant to be *quick*.I agree that sometimes it's annoying to have to go into the full BR window to warn someone, which feels like doing extra work to be nice to the user.As almost every board shares off-topic as a template, I think it'd be worth adding "/z/ 1 - Off-Topic, Bees Only (Warn)" as a quick WR to the boards that have an off-topic ban template is sensible. The issue of fat-fingering from WR to BR or BR to WR would exist, but it's only as big an issue as fat-fingering quick BRs anyway, and if I do that I take it as a sign to slow down.
>>9735>there's literally no reason to support uploading mp4 here.lmao
>>10306I see his logic, none of my .MP4s are small enough to post on 4Chan, or they have an audio channel (whether there IS sound or not), and they get blocked from being posted.I guess it's nice that there's somewhat wider compatibility now, but I have no real use for it, and I see .MP4s rather seldom.
>>10314I'm sure we'll get audio support on all boards at some point, it'll just take another decade or so.
>>10316But I don't want to get ear raped if I mouse over some random image when I'm not paying attention...
>>10316sadly I think to avoid dmca its likely /mu/ and /tv/ will never allow sound
I would like support for .mp4 thumbnail hover in the janny queue.
>>10364I 2nd this
I am once again humbly requesting that an AI board be made. /g/ has seen an explosion in AI related threads after the media has started covering deepseek and I would assume this pattern will continue into the future.My suggestion:>create /ai/ - Artificial Intelligence>all AI related discussions are allowed both here and on /g/>Generals that only serve as AI content dumps are allowed on /ai/ but NOT on /g/
>>10369seconded, this is a good idea - i think as a red board. On the porn boards, AI content is mostly covered by the antiquated rules originally intended to cover photoshops, but with the explosion of AI content, and with it becoming more and more difficult to differentiate AI content from real content, it would be a good idea to give people a place to post it away from the red boards. However, deepfake porn would be an issue - there would have to be very proactive moderation to stomp out deepfake posting fast because it can quickly become a legal issue.
>>10369>>10370that'd mean jannies would have to be able to tell the difference between AI and non-AI images, which means jannies have to keep up with all the current techniques and subtle tells of AI slop. Anyone on a board with a rule against it would have to spend a lot more time inspecting each reported image to check if it's AI or not, and users would jump at AI shadows.What might be useful for some of the porn boards is implementing autosage-at-image-limit or having a more robust way for the "full" ai image dump threads to be archived, since used-up AI imagedumps make up a large amount of /h/, cutting the catalog size.
>>10371>jannies would have to be able to tell the difference between AI and non-AI imagesNo, I do not think AI content should be banned from other boards, I just think that AI content dump threads in particular should not be allowed on /g/, but they would probably be fine on boards primarily focused on media like /wsg/, /gif/, /h/, etc.
>>10372Ah, yeah I see what you mean now, I misunderstood before.There would be teething issues with this because a lot of the AI content dump threads are also relatively small user-base generals where they all know each other, and they'd resist moving. If this happened, I predict you'd see "how much content is content dump?" questions, users testing the limits and trying to find a hard line where one doesn't exist.
>>10373>AI content dump threads are also relatively small user-base generals where they all know each other, and they'd resist moving.I don't remember /qst/ resisting too much although it's been a while. I also admit while I used to occasionally partake in those thread when they were on /tg/ I haven't since the move so it can be a population killer.That's not to say it was perfectly smooth and people weren't angry, there was a transition period for sure. But users adjust.
You know how when you open a BR window, you can see if the IP already has pending BRs?Would it be possible to expand on that and either state how long ago the BR was requested, or at least whether the IP is currently timed out from posting?I janitor a blue board, and the board has a lot of porn spammers. Sometimes these porn spammers wait out the BR timeout and resume spamming, and since there's a BR already up it can trick janitors into thinking they're already timed out and only delete the posts, allowing them to keep doing it.
>>8941does anyone else NOT use the dark mode option when in queue?i don't and it can make posts reported as illegal a little more difficult to see.if this could be made redder so my fucked up eyes can more easily distinguish, i would be very appreciative and stuff
>>10408You can enter custom CSS for the queue by clicking the cog thing at the top.I do not know enough CSS or how the queue tells you what's reported illegal, but you may be able to give illegal reports a different color or a huge glow or a jpg of a lion going >(:3) from your hard drive that way.
>>10408.report-cat-prio { background-color: #ffb5b5;}Try this
>>10385GR9 would ideally mute for longer imo.Its a strict template that needs mod approval for regular use. In the landscape of extremist evasion I've also seen offenders try to be 'economical' by waiting the mute and going full throttle
