Forum:GEMW-correcting bot

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > GEMW-correcting bot
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 August 2009 by Azaz129.

I'd like to request the bot flag for User:SnackBot. When completed, I plan for this bot to revert incorrect updates to the Grand Exchange Market Watch (thus its name relation to User:SmackBot, which updates prices). Incorrect updates would include:

  • Price was updated, but not date
  • Either date is in the future

And so on. Of course generally these updates would be from an IP who doesn't know how to update the Market Watch, or from a malfunctioning bot. My goal is to do no harm to either. It would only revert incorrect updates from the past 24 hours.

I just thought it would save us time, as I recently have reverted 4 or 5 incorrect GEMW updates recently.

I will try to answer all questions asked. ShinyUnown T | C | E 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The functions the bot would do will undo most, if not all, incorrect GEMW updates. Just what is needed here. Just an idea, is it possible to "inform" SmackBot of reverted pages? dictature 22:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot's coding would have to be updated and go through testing again, but yes, there can be SnackBot-SmackBot interaction. ShinyUnown T | C | E 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is, if the Bot flag doesn't intervene. ShinyUnown T | C | E 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion - The bot could also automatically leave a {{gemw1}} notice on the talk page of the user who had to be reverted. --Quarenon  Talk 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I honestly do not know which users are allowed to use that template. But, I'll try. ShinyUnown T | C | E 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Dr5ag2on1 just gave the green light. ShinyUnown T | C | E 23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I know have a small list of things SnackBot would consider incorrect here, please list additions to it. ShinyUnown T | C | E 23:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I added an item to the list for non-numeric prices (contains letters or symbols). --Quarenon  Talk 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Support, sounds like a great idea Serenity1137 07:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually though, it'd be nice if it also corrected an impossible rise in price i.e. yesterday I found water runes at 1000x their actual price --Serenity1137 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I cannot allow it to do that, glitches may let the price be 2,147,483,647 (highest number for 4 bytes). For all that I know, glitched prices are included in the GEMW. ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Will this run continuously, or at a certain time in the 24-hour period?
  2. And how does it determine the IP incorrectly updated the Exchange page?

If an IP updates the price without updating the date, and another IP updates the dates, will the bot be able to detect this? I have a feeling that the bot will be unable to tell which edits are wrong, and which ones are acceptable. Besides, we have had instances where edits are incorrectly reverted by a human user. Bots should not be used for reverting good faith edits, and should only be used for vandalism.   az talk   10:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It would run continously.
2. Generally, that doesn't happen.
3. How would bots detect vandalism? ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Errors in edits can be immediately corrected by another user, and by the same IP. Having a bot running continuously will complicate things, especially when there are a number of users who are patrolling the RecentChanges. I don't think running a bot continuously, especially for reverting good faith edits, is necessary. I believe that the policy Assume good faith applies here.

For an example of an anti-vandal bot, see AntiAbuseBot.   az talk   11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It would still remove the need for anyone to undo them, which I, myself, do all too often. It does assume good faith in that SnackBot will not take any action against the wrongly updating user, other than possibly putting the {{gemw1}} template on their talk page. ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be reverting good faith edits, when you are supposed to be correcting them. If you're using the bot to correct the edits, then that's fine. But if the bot undos the edits, then I'll have to oppose. The intention to update the price (even incorrectly) is important. Simply undoing these edits, especially with a bot, is against assume good faith.  az talk   11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I will try to make the bot correct the edits that can be corrected. ShinyUnown T | C | E 12:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have considered the feedback Az gave me and updated this list. I would like more feedback and constructive criticism from the community if possible! ShinyUnown T | C | E 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - We don't need a bot for this. Users can do this almost as quickly as a bot can, and can actually modify the edit to make it work. And of course RS:AGF. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 07:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree we don't need a bot, what makes you think it can't make the edit work? ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact artificial intelligence doesn't exist and and most if not all situations this bot is going to be deisgned to handle requires human decision? --— Enigma 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The human decision won't have to be made for years to come. ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)