Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nerd_light 1729 days ago
I think they meant (and I am interested in hearing about) appealing a "block" decision that was made by your automation.

If I'm a real human and trying to post a "good" post, but the model classifies it as bad and automatically blocks it, how do I appeal that decision? Can I? Or is my post totally blocked with no recourse?

1 comments

Oh got it.

Thanks for clarification.

When a post gets published, it will be send to machine learning image via REST.

If bad, the post will be kept as Draft.

A new record gets created in another database table to keep track them, the accuracy rate was recorded as well.

This was made to make sure no irreversible action was done on the good content.

Blogs with more than 1 year of history would not go through moderation but no action was being taken, just recording the accuracy for future reference.

Later, someone from our team (me usually) would check them by eye and pull trigger on them, they would go into make the training better.

If something would pass the moderation but it was indeed spam, would go into another iteration.

We had to do this for over a month, through the time, the success was around 99%, no blogs would be wiped by machine classification from our database unless confirmed by someone.

That time the whole model was trained for that specific content. Later it get into other type of spams. Which we trained different models.

Overall, the the machine actions were logged, content/users/blogs would get labeled and bad marks on them.

They would be displayed in a report page, until someone make the final decision, through the whole time, the user would be shadow banned (shadow banning didn't help though) and their content would not be published.

Thanks for the detailed response! And nice to hear how much you've managed to keep humans involved in the process. I used to work on a content review automation system for a big company, so it's always fun to hear about how others handle similar cases.

And there's a lot of overlap between how that system acted and what you're describing. It makes we wonder if there's space for a company that offers this sort of model training + content tagging + review tooling capability as a service, or if there's too many variation on what "good" and "bad" input is to make it generalizable.