SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Since the launch of SoylentNews in February of 2014, there have been 274,870 comment moderations made against the 412,100 comments that our community has posted to our site. Who has posted the most comments? Who garnered the most up-moderations? The most down-moderations?
Such simple questions, but they led to a fun bit of DB querying. The results surprised me, and I thought others might be interested, as well. Most surprising to me was the assessment of comments from Anonymous Cowards.
[Continues...]
Who received the most moderations?
For better or worse, to whom did Soylentils direct their greatest moderation effort?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Mighty Buzzard | 18 | 2260 | 626 | 1634 | 1008 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
The single greatest target of moderation was the "Anonymous Coward" with 78,936 moderations. This was followed by frojack, Runaway1956, VLM, Ethanol-fueled, and Thexalon who garnered over 3000 moderations each.
Who had the most down-moderations?
Here, only the number of down moderations was considered — it mattered not whether it was Flamebait or Troll — they all counted the same.
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| Hairyfeet | 75 | 1620 | 387 | 1233 | 846 |
| MichaelDavidCrawford | 2339 | 1513 | 387 | 1126 | 739 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| The Mighty Buzzard | 18 | 2260 | 626 | 1634 | 1008 |
| jmorris | 4844 | 2144 | 753 | 1391 | 638 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again, our prolific AC topped the list with 13,002 down-mods. Ethanol-fueled was the only other user who topped 1000 down-mods, coming in with 1238. Runaway1956 made a valiant showing with 992 down-mods.
Who had the most up-moderations?
In the eyes of the community, who most often received an up-mod? Again, no consideration was given for the nature of the up-mod — Insightful, Interesting, or Informative — all were considered the same.
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| Phoenix666 | 552 | 2184 | 80 | 2104 | 2024 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again AC reins supreme with 65,934 up-mods. This was followed by frojack with 5,262 and VLM with just over 4000.
Who had the highest net-moderation?
Putting it all together — subtracting the number of down-mods from the number of up-mods — who had the highest net moderation on our site?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wonkey_monkey | 279 | 1754 | 117 | 1637 | 1520 |
| maxwell demon | 1608 | 1786 | 55 | 1731 | 1676 |
| Phoenix666 | 552 | 2184 | 80 | 2104 | 2024 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again, the shy but prolific AC tops the list with a net of 52,932 mod points. Only one other Soylentil was able to surpass 4000: frojack with 4,669. Two other Soylentils exceeded 3000: VLM with 3709 and Thexalon with 3059.
Who hath pointy horns?
Who managed to acquire the most down-mods as a percentage of all moderations on their comments? For a tie, number of moderated comments is the second sort field. Who is the devil in our midst?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | #DOWN | %DOWN | #UP | %UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scarboni888 | 5061 | 1 | 1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -1 |
| MooCow | 6048 | 1 | 1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -1 |
| cybergimli | 436 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| rancidman | 769 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| rmdingler | 1038 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| SoylentsISay | 1331 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| stupid | 2631 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| contrapunctus | 3495 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| killal -9 bash | 2751 | 5 | 5 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -5 |
Pfft, just a few minor imps around here. killal -9 bash topped (bottomed?) the list with 5 down-mods out of 5 moderations.
Who earned a Halo?
Whose comments had the best percentage of up-mods to total-mods? And in the case of ties, received the most up-mods? Who are the angels among us?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | #DOWN | %DOWN | #UP | %UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dx3bydt3 | 82 | 69 | 0 | 0.00 | 69 | 100.00 | 69 |
| romlok | 1241 | 70 | 0 | 0.00 | 70 | 100.00 | 70 |
| Hawkwind | 3531 | 75 | 0 | 0.00 | 75 | 100.00 | 75 |
| jdccdevel | 1329 | 78 | 0 | 0.00 | 78 | 100.00 | 78 |
| rleigh | 4887 | 102 | 0 | 0.00 | 102 | 100.00 | 102 |
| DrMag | 1860 | 103 | 0 | 0.00 | 103 | 100.00 | 103 |
| SrLnclt | 1473 | 117 | 0 | 0.00 | 117 | 100.00 | 117 |
| Joe | 2583 | 126 | 0 | 0.00 | 126 | 100.00 | 126 |
| Aiwendil | 531 | 164 | 0 | 0.00 | 164 | 100.00 | 164 |
Here, it appears we've got a flock of angels, or at least people who know which way the wind blows. All folks listed here scored 100.00% meaning all of their moderations were up-mods. Aiwendil topped our list with 164, and we had 4 others — Joe, SrLnclt, DrMag, and rleigh — who each had over 100 such comment moderations... not even a single down-mod among them!
I must admit I was surprised to see the sheer number of positive moderations of AC comments, and the fact that 83.5% of those mods were positive.
[Update: Added two tables, one each for top percentage of down-mods and of up-mods. -Ed.]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:17AM
Adding-
Especially in today's climate, there are certain unpopular opinions (you know who you are) that get blasted regardless of any validity they might have.
Ending ACs is essentially tyranny of the majority, and I pleased there are venues available to express unpopular ideas.
Hell, the site might be better if it were completely anonymous.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @08:59AM
Ending ACs is essentially tyranny of the majority, and I pleased there are venues available to express unpopular ideas.
That's a specious argument. And I'm pretty sure you know that.
It is not required to provide a national id card and photo id to sign up with a totally made up name.
And even an unpopular idea can be well presented, without risk of it wrecking your career when using a pen-name.
But refusing to be responsible in any way for your postings just makes you a bomb thrower, a wall tagger who won't even sign his monograph, someone who wants his say, but no blowback.
This AC ruse has never been to preserve anonymity, and never been about unpopular ideas. Its always been about reserving the right to judge, while cowering from judgement. If there is tyranny afoot, its the AC.
Its rendered that green site virtually unreadable. Its slowly doing the same here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:32AM
Really?
No one has perfect control over what they reveal and considering how many people have been doxxed with pseudonyms, perhaps your reality field could use some calibration. As the saying goes- the internet is forever, and several people using social media have come up against this unfortunate fact. I'd rather not.
Also, I'm under no obligation to fashion a well presented unpopular idea. Do you work under the same constraints? Then fuck off.
But refusing to be responsible in any way for your postings just makes you a bomb thrower...
Says the gentleman among the most down-voted. Hypocrisy much?
And in that, what difference does it make if it is you or AC making the comment, speaking of specious arguments?
Anonymity serves the the same purpose as it did when the Federalist Papers were published: to keep the raging mob from your door and to consider the argument, not the person.
Anonymity has always been an aspect of free speech, and you are too naive to consider some people may not be living in countries with as expansive free speech protections as the US.
By the way, you think Snowden will ever get to visit his motherland again?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:36PM
No one has perfect control over what they reveal and considering how many people have been doxxed with pseudonyms
People get doxxed mostly because they're Facebook-using suckers and give away their real information elsewhere and use the same pseudonyms in various locations. Only rarely is it anything more complex than that.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:15PM
Says the gentleman among the most down-voted. Hypocrisy much?
I think you meant to say, most UP voted. Oh, wait, you didn't because you are an AC, and only throw insults.
And in that, what difference does it make if it is you or AC making the comment, speaking of specious arguments?
Makes a lot of difference. Some I pointed out. Some other are obvious. You can't carry on discourse with random voices in the wind who throws a bomb into a crowded room and runs away blameless.
Anonymity serves the the same purpose as it did when the Federalist Papers were published: to keep the raging mob from your door and to consider the argument, not the person.
The federalist papers were not anonymous. Even in that day it was widely know who two of the authors were.
"Hamilton, Madison, and Jay did not invoke the pseudonym Publius in order to hide as individuals from being credited with authorship, in order to help their tenure chances, or in order to avoid embarrassment at the Thanksgiving dinner table.
"Rather, their reason was precisely to the contrary: to share authorship, and indeed credit, with all the Framers of the Constitution."
(Wendy Long, author an Law Clerk to Clarence Thomas.).
I've read Publius. He is friends of mine. You sir, are no Publius.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @11:15PM
"At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he had drafted claiming fully two-thirds of the papers for himself became public, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (No. 49–58 and 62–63). The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:39AM
How do you see this opinion of yours squaring with the statistics for moderation on AC posts listed in the article? It seems that AC posters are moderated positively with a ~6:1 ratio. (Granted, it may also be useful to see moderations as a percentage in relation to total number of user posts.)
For the record, I post AC out of laziness and the belief that an idea should be able to stand out on its own merits (and often making use of linked supporting evidence). My account was becoming fairly useless as I could see it starting to clog with the same topic, centered around replies to multitudes of authoritarians with pointed questions designed to provoke the reader into entertaining the idea that US government has limits to its authority and also what those exact limits are.) I also find being AC quite useful in limiting the scope of a discussion, as some past discussions get sidetracked by unrelated tangents in my post history. "Baffle 'em with bullcrap" is still a time-honored evasive approach and not one conducive to weighing the merits of original assertions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:18PM
How do you see this opinion of yours squaring with the statistics for moderation on AC posts listed in the article?
Sheer volume.
How is that so hard to fathom?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:29PM
I also find being AC quite useful in limiting the scope of a discussion, as some past discussions get sidetracked.
Exactly.
Once you've had YOUR say, the discussion should be over, right?
I refer you to to my previous statement: If there is tyranny afoot, its the AC.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:30AM
Perhaps 'sheer volume' indicates a need. I would be very sorry to see AC go away. I rarely use it, but when I do, it's because the alternative is to not post at all (having judged the risk too high).
As to the quality of discourse, it's good enough. Evidence: We're still here.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:59AM
"Sheer volume" of bomb-throwing cowards would generally produce a net negative moderation total. With 6 positive moderations for every negative, it seems on the surface that your assertion is in error.
We make a loss on every unit, but we'll make it up through volume!