3 ms·

Do you think 99% of users are too stupid to click 'report spam' when they get a spam email?

SimonPStevens 16y ago
Not "too stupid" no. I think 99% of email users have not been adequately trained in why or how they should report spam, and even if they were I think most of them would still not care enough to actually do it with any regularity. When pushed many may acknowledge that they know it exists, they will probably even be able to find the button when asked if given a chance. But they won't remember to do it when they see spam, they'll just ignore it and move on to the messages from people they know.
- seabee 16y ago
  Do you think this could be improved by alternate wording? Instead of reporting 'spam', ask the user 'was this useful?' or 'did you want this?'. After all, the real goal is giving people a better, more relevant experience, detecting and removing spam is just one facet of that. Whether it's email or search.
  - SimonPStevens 16y ago
    In general yes, I think improved UI can guide user behaviour to more desirable outcomes. However I don't think it's as simple as changing the button text. Even a process driven UI, like a wizard style interface where you have to click next to progress through each step might work, but users very quickly become immune to dialogs. They don't read them, they just evolve the actions that get them to their goal the fastest, and the users goal does not include reporting their spam.
    - patd 16y ago
      Maybe something more automatic : a user makes a search, clicks on a link, if it is spam, he'll probably hit the back button within a couple of seconds. The average time spent by a user on a result before going back to Google could be used a as metric of quality.
      - mthoms 16y ago
        I'd be very surprised if Google does not already implement this in some form.
  - troutwine 16y ago
    I don't think changing the wording will solve the problem entirely. On the rare occasion that my wife receives spam via gmail she'll simply archive it. The action to hide an email you never did or no longer do care about is so common and so easily accessed by a well-learned key cut that it doesn't occur to her to do otherwise until after the fact; she is well aware that marking spam improve spam filtering, of course.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      I just told my wife: think of that button as being "Report Abuse". She's been applying it ever since quite efficiently.
      - troutwine 16y ago
        Oh, for sure. My wife knows what the button _does_ down into the very statistical application of it. I think in her case the issue is a UX problem: it is much easier to archive than it is to report spam. Gmail also makes it far more common to archive, as well. Shift+e for "report spam" would be perfect. Same key, just a bit chorded.
- aubergene 16y ago
  People would always be trying to game such a system. If you worked at company A, and search for keyword shared with company B, lots of people would be tempted to down vote company B in results
matthiaswh 16y ago
Not all spam is so obvious, both in email and search results. These are all assumptions, but I think it's safe to say the average person identifies the email 'Grow your Pe Nis like a Woman' (true story) as spam. However, the less obvious 'Enter to win a trip to Hawaii' still fools many people. Think about how effective the 'I am a Nigerian Prince that needs help out of my country and then I will give you 1.2 million dollars' scam has been over the years. With search results, the spam is more often than not Made for AdSense sites that the average user doesn't realize are pure garbage. Then there are the mass-produced content sites like eHow that most technical people realize are worthless, but the average user loves. It isn't often you see Viagra sites popping up in searches for woodworking. It does happen occasionally though. So no, I am pretty confident a majority of users would not utilize effectively a feature like that.
- nervechannel 16y ago
  Frankly, I'm not fussed whether the majority of users would use it right. I posted this as an entirely self-serving request for a way to make my results cleaner. Also: If the majority of users do like eHow, then that's a sign it's not spam. But a lot of 'power users' consider it spam. This is an argument FOR personalised blacklists, not against them.
  - SimonPStevens 16y ago
    That's the point. It might make your results clearer, but it doesn't solve the problem for good original content producers which is the real issue here, not the individual.
  - bambax 16y ago
    Exactly. The point is that users who consider eHow useful, don't filter it, and users who do, do. Let the user decide instead of doing it for them.
kingsidharth 16y ago
You report spam when you know it's spam. And when it's about search result. People are browsing and clicking through adsense filled "landing page sites". Most of them think that it's their fault that they couldn't find the thing they were searching for.

Not "too stupid" no. I think 99% of email users have not been adequately trained in why or how they should report spam, and even if they were I think most of them would still not care enough to actually do it with any regularity. When pushed many may acknowledge that they know it exists, they will probably even be able to find the button when asked if given a chance. But they won't remember to do it when they see spam, they'll just ignore it and move on to the messages from people they know.

seabee 16y ago
Do you think this could be improved by alternate wording? Instead of reporting 'spam', ask the user 'was this useful?' or 'did you want this?'. After all, the real goal is giving people a better, more relevant experience, detecting and removing spam is just one facet of that. Whether it's email or search.
- SimonPStevens 16y ago
  In general yes, I think improved UI can guide user behaviour to more desirable outcomes. However I don't think it's as simple as changing the button text. Even a process driven UI, like a wizard style interface where you have to click next to progress through each step might work, but users very quickly become immune to dialogs. They don't read them, they just evolve the actions that get them to their goal the fastest, and the users goal does not include reporting their spam.
  - patd 16y ago
    Maybe something more automatic : a user makes a search, clicks on a link, if it is spam, he'll probably hit the back button within a couple of seconds. The average time spent by a user on a result before going back to Google could be used a as metric of quality.
    - mthoms 16y ago
      I'd be very surprised if Google does not already implement this in some form.
- troutwine 16y ago
  I don't think changing the wording will solve the problem entirely. On the rare occasion that my wife receives spam via gmail she'll simply archive it. The action to hide an email you never did or no longer do care about is so common and so easily accessed by a well-learned key cut that it doesn't occur to her to do otherwise until after the fact; she is well aware that marking spam improve spam filtering, of course.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    I just told my wife: think of that button as being "Report Abuse". She's been applying it ever since quite efficiently.
    - troutwine 16y ago
      Oh, for sure. My wife knows what the button _does_ down into the very statistical application of it. I think in her case the issue is a UX problem: it is much easier to archive than it is to report spam. Gmail also makes it far more common to archive, as well. Shift+e for "report spam" would be perfect. Same key, just a bit chorded.
aubergene 16y ago
People would always be trying to game such a system. If you worked at company A, and search for keyword shared with company B, lots of people would be tempted to down vote company B in results

matthiaswh 16y ago

Not all spam is so obvious, both in email and search results. These are all assumptions, but I think it's safe to say the average person identifies the email 'Grow your Pe Nis like a Woman' (true story) as spam. However, the less obvious 'Enter to win a trip to Hawaii' still fools many people. Think about how effective the 'I am a Nigerian Prince that needs help out of my country and then I will give you 1.2 million dollars' scam has been over the years. With search results, the spam is more often than not Made for AdSense sites that the average user doesn't realize are pure garbage. Then there are the mass-produced content sites like eHow that most technical people realize are worthless, but the average user loves. It isn't often you see Viagra sites popping up in searches for woodworking. It does happen occasionally though. So no, I am pretty confident a majority of users would not utilize effectively a feature like that.

nervechannel 16y ago
Frankly, I'm not fussed whether the majority of users would use it right. I posted this as an entirely self-serving request for a way to make my results cleaner. Also: If the majority of users do like eHow, then that's a sign it's not spam. But a lot of 'power users' consider it spam. This is an argument FOR personalised blacklists, not against them.
- SimonPStevens 16y ago
  That's the point. It might make your results clearer, but it doesn't solve the problem for good original content producers which is the real issue here, not the individual.
- bambax 16y ago
  Exactly. The point is that users who consider eHow useful, don't filter it, and users who do, do. Let the user decide instead of doing it for them.

kingsidharth 16y ago

You report spam when you know it's spam. And when it's about search result. People are browsing and clicking through adsense filled "landing page sites". Most of them think that it's their fault that they couldn't find the thing they were searching for.