> without resorting to the usual low-effort solutions, such as using some sort of algorithm that bans automatically based on keywords or number of reports.
Or you prioritize reports from accounts with a proven track record. If I consistently report posts that clearly violate the rules why shouldn't my report count more than an account that just got created?
If you consistently report nonsense then you should accumulate negative karma until at some point you can safely ignore whatever they report in the future.
The baseline model is reddit. You start at 0, and if you get negative you're timegated from replying. HN has a karma system as well. You need 500 karma to downvote (or something to that effect).
Honestly, I think something like a StackExchange lite reputation system could work well here. But as more for a credibility system than an authority one. Someone with a good reputation (by the users and the site itself) is probably making more credible reports than a newer person or a troll.
Or you prioritize reports from accounts with a proven track record. If I consistently report posts that clearly violate the rules why shouldn't my report count more than an account that just got created?
If you consistently report nonsense then you should accumulate negative karma until at some point you can safely ignore whatever they report in the future.