Scoring toxicity levels of posts w/ machine learning - Useful feature for interaction

Scoring toxicity levels of posts w/ machine learning - Useful feature for interaction - Printable Version

+- Hack Forums (https://hackforums.net)
+-- Forum: Hack Forums Official Information (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Site News (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Forum: Suggestions and Ideas (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=134)
+---- Thread: Scoring toxicity levels of posts w/ machine learning - Useful feature for interaction (/showthread.php?tid=5653494)

Pages: Pages 1 2 3

Scoring toxicity levels of posts w/ machine learning - Useful feature for interaction - Wαlrυѕ - Jun 22, 2017

I believe that this would be very useful to Hackforums, since I often see people who post things attacking or being negative to each other. I found an API a few weeks ago that basically scores the "potential impact of your writing" with 0% being not toxic and 100% being toxic.

Check it out here: https://www.perspectiveapi.com

From my testing, it is right basically every time. It would be cool if the API worked with this site and under every post it had a score saying the % score.

Examples
[Image: tnhTQXw.png]

* - Vitani - Jun 23, 2017

While the perspectiveapi project itself is a pretty cool thing, I don't think this is necessary as the report system gets most if not all posts who violate HF policy already.
Aside from that, It's also not allowed to make moderator or moderation suggestions. Reference: Suggestions That Will NOT Be Accepted

* - Wαlrυѕ - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 12:08 AM)Vitani Wrote: While the perspectiveapi project itself is a pretty cool thing, I don't think this is necessary as the report system gets most if not all posts who violate HF policy already.
Aside from that, It's also not allowed to make moderator or moderation suggestions. Reference: Suggestions That Will NOT Be Accepted

Merely the intention of it could be for cosmetic use and for those who post something to re-think before posting something that can be interpreted as toxic. It does have some moderation benefits, but as the rules have stated, that would not be useful from the perspective of a regular user, so I can not make suggestions for that aspect.

I think it's one more step forward in technology and something that forums will have in the future. With Hackforums being a tech forum, I see it being a great part of interacting and posting throughout the forum.

* - Vitani - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 12:13 AM)Wαlrυѕ Wrote: Merely the intention of it could be for cosmetic use and for those who post something to re-think before posting something that can be interpreted as toxic. It does have some moderation benefits, but as the rules have stated, that would not be useful from the perspective of a regular user, so I can not make suggestions for that aspect.

I think it's one more step forward in technology and something that forums will have in the future. With Hackforums being a tech forum, I see it being a great part of interacting and posting throughout the forum.

It's definitely not a bad idea and all in all it's a pretty cool project. I am not sure if this will actually make the LQ posters rethink their posts but if possible it's worth a try.
I do think that this system could be fooled and people could bypass it by posting random words. I'll look into it more to be sure of this though.
As for moderation, I still think it's not necessary but as you said, for users itself it could have some benefits.

Going to look into perspectiveAPI more to actually see how it works and post back here.

* - Wαlrυѕ - Jun 23, 2017

The biggest issue that I've seen is that it is very sensitive. It works well for formal writing but I am not quite sure how well it would work in informal writing. Whenever I use vulgar language, it immediately increases it by a lot.

Check this example. Under Hackforums rules, this would technically be allowed. However, it triggers it to 100% because this a very low quality post when writing formally. This isn't an issue because it helps keep the forums clean and high quality, even though technically this message isn't against the rules. If this user were to explain what he means more reasonably, then it would have not triggered a toxic warning.

[Image: tX8uP37.png]

* - Omniscient - Jun 23, 2017

I don't think I'd do this in the phase it's currently at. I'll look more into it though.

* - Picturesque - Jun 23, 2017

[Image: 514c65c3ab6dd4cdc9c76dba2302e65f.png]

Not the best system.

* - Jendo - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 01:03 AM)SellingForums Wrote:

Not the best system.

lmafooo
the system is not smart to understand the meaning of the sentences
it just has a list of toxic words, it checks if the sentence has any of them.

* - Picturesque - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 01:07 AM)Jendo Wrote: lmafooo
the system is not smart to understand the meaning of the sentences
it just has a list of toxic words, it checks if the sentence has any of them.

Exactly. Throw a few of the words "please", "like", and use correct grammar and it doesn't flag it as being toxic.

It marked "I'm planning on shooting up my school tomorrow morning." as only 19% toxicity.

* - Vitani - Jun 23, 2017

Just looked into it a bit more, the system is largely based of grammar and a few specific "lq" words.
It has potential but for now I don't think it would have enough benefits to add this.

Good suggestion though!

* - TB12 - Jun 23, 2017

Once it's more developed I think this would be a cool feature. Shouldn't be added for now though

* - vaiperboy - Jun 23, 2017

so what if someone's toxic? who tf cares :|

* - Lil Uzi Vert- - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 03:15 AM)vaiperboy Wrote: so what if someone's toxic? who tf cares :|

I do

I don’t want my feelings to be hurt :(

* - Mαxim - Jun 23, 2017

In your example, that is pretty much just an opinion on the government. Doesn't make it toxic...
Really no need for this lol.

* - Wαlrυѕ - Jun 23, 2017

(Jun 23, 2017 08:46 AM)Maxim Wrote: In your example, that is pretty much just an opinion on the government. Doesn't make it toxic...
Really no need for this lol.

Toxic levels are mainly measured by how they impact the conversation. A toxic level of 0%-10% is likely to be very beneficial and resourceful while a toxic level of 70%-100% means it is not contributing a valuable point to the conversation and possibly being negative to the conversation.

Your message got 34% likely to be perceived as "toxic" because it is not beneficial to the conversation. You are not displaying powerful points in your message. The message almost ridicules those who have a different opinion. This is something that you could debate, however generally people read comments like those as "arrogant sounding". The "..." and "lol" establish the message that:

- You believe the idea is stupid and that the example I posted was not measuring toxicity levels
- You believe that anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is stupid and ridiculous.