安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
solution: don't elevate/promote/upvote garbage that breaks rules and is likely to get removed.
something else you wanna know?
Tell it to the Valve employee who came up with the boilerplate e-mail text. In fact, tell it to the Support guy who used the exact phrase "your account is now unlocked" in his reply.
While you're at it you can tell him off for specifically sending me here, to raise this exact issue, with him stating that Valve staff routinely check on this forum for feedback.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: The delay on this moderation seems to have been at least a year if not longer. You could be identified as a repeat offender for maybe as few as three individual upvotes conducted over the course of *years* - with these upvotes cast *before* you ever receive your first notification that you have inadvertently been upvoting malicious content.
Hence, in the absence of changing the policy, the need for an "opt out" button to retroactively remove community interaction.
I gave an example of why this simply doesn't apply here.
But I'll reiterate it for the hard-of-thinking:
Imagine a diligent user spends time creating thoughtful, insightful, informative, professional quality Steam reviews. Imagine they include a link to their legitimate blog that collates and expands upon their reviewing.
Now imagine - months, if not YEARS later something happens - we'll say the reviewer is preoccupied with other stuff and can't be bothered to pay for hosting or whatever. The former content is now replaced by a phishing page, or whatever.
Whether automatically, or by a diligent user reporting the review - the Content Moderation system becomes aware of the problem and blocks the content - so far so good.
But it ALSO locks the accounts of all the people who historically upvoted this valuable content before this content broke a single rule.
So your solution actually leads to the hyperbolic point I was making: You can't elevate/promote/upvote *anything at all* that contains an external link - because any 3rd party site is vulnerable to being hijacked, hacked, sold off, etc, etc.
If, as seems possible, the content moderation isn't even checking to see if upvotes occurred before a review (or any other upvoteable Steam Community object, potentially) was edited - even a review not including a link at all could be problematic - as it can always be edited to insert a malicious link or other problematic content at a later date.
Yeah, there is something. Why didn't it occur to you that the best bait for a scam would actually be high-value content that actually gives a user reason to follow a link in it?
Why would you assume someone going to the trouble of generating malicious content, content which is reliant on not getting down-voted for its prominence, would bother telegraphing the fact with disengaging "garbage" reviews?
Don't answer, I'm not interested in your half-baked knee-jerk hot-takes.
It's indeed your choice to assume all the risk that Valve piles on your account by partaking in the features of the platform that Valve designed.
You either use the features like Valve really wants you; because they want long player retention and they want users to engage with the community features to make that happen, or you discard those features. At which point one has to conclude that the features themselves are a failure.
The suggestion here is reasonable: Valve has nothing to lose in updating the platform to mitigate some of that risk, because some - if not most - of what the platform is doing in regards to upvote botting & fraud is really; really freakin' asinine. It's a system that is literally broken by design.
(This isn't the first time most of this stuff has been discussed either.)
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/04/14/175246/valve-restricts-accounts-of-2500-users-who-marked-a-negative-game-review-useful
A feature which doesn't work to achieve this, and actually opens up more methods of abuse.
As you said, disposable / hacked accounts getting temporarily restricted from voting doesn't undo the votes; and the system is delayed enough for them to boost visibility for literally a year on countless reviews before it takes effect.
And then it runs into the dichotomy of: Any legit review can be edited once it has garnered up-votes, to make it malicious.
So either Valve have to ban people who upvoted a legitimate review; or else their system breaks because any co-ordinated attempt to grief the system could make a legitimate review, get the upvotes from all the hacked accounts, and then edit it knowing all of those spambots won't actually get banned because they voted before the review was objectionable.
Someone producing shovelware and trying to manipulate reviews could simply make their own negative review from a sock-puppet, garner all the upvotes, edit the view to something malicious, and thus get all the people critical of their shovelware banned from upvoting negative reviews on their game in one big go.
They've then got a full month to churn out other shovelware titles, knowing that most of their critics have been silenced and that negative reviews will have less prominence.