The full site update and post is coming up this weekend (barring unforeseen complications) but this is deserving of its own news update being as we had so many weigh in on it alone. While most of you really dug or were neutral on the idea, there were a few criticisms and most of them had some degree of validity. Most specifically the one that said you can see cause and effect more clearly if you change less at once. We absolutely cannot argue with that, so there's been a change to the Experiment.
The Spam moderation and abuse checking mechanism thereof are still going in. The Disagree moderation is still going in and Overrated is still going away. Moderation and posting in the same discussion in any order is still going in. What's not going in is moving all the current downmods to +0 mods. We're going to hold off testing that until we see if this solves most of the problems or not.
Because of another criticism, we'll also be changing how mod points are given out for the duration of the experiment. You may or may not have noticed but we already tested that over Christmas day and the day after by giving everyone who'd been registered a month or more and had "willing to moderate" checked mod points. The dataset is pretty small to infer much from but for the most part the people who said "give us more points and we can self correct" were correct within that two-day span. Not all the bad downmods were corrected by any means but quite a lot of them were. If we can keep this level or better of self-correction-of-jackassery going, I don't see much need for more drastic changes to the moderation system or even for meta-moderation really.
On a personal side note, I dig the fact that basically every comment out of the 150 that the Experiment post got was positive, constructive, or some combination of the two. Calling us bloody idiots is all good from a free speech angle but pretty much every one of our naysayers stepped up and added useful criticism as well. This makes me proud as hell to work for a project with a community that much better than the other site. Hats off to you guys.
Related Stories
I've been hinting around about this for a week or two, so here it is. I circulated this proposal around the staff mailing list before Thanksgiving and got nobody telling me it sucks and to die in a fire, so it falls to you lot to do it if necessary. Let's be clear beforehand though. This is not a complete solution; no meta-mod consideration included for instance. Nor is it a permanent change. What it is is an experiment. Unless you lot are overwhelmingly opposed, we'll run it for a month or two and either keep it, keep parts of it, or trash it entirely based on staff and community feedback. We're not the other site and this isn't Beta; what we as a community want is what's going to happen.
So, here's the deal with the bit that's likely to be most controversial right out front. Bad downmods and mod-bombing both suck hardcore but you can't really get rid of them and still have downmods even with meta-moderation because you still have the same ideologically driven few who think Troll/Flamebait/Overrated means Disagree. To that end, I converted all the downmods to +0 mods and added a proper Disagree +0 mod. They affect neither score of the comment nor karma of the commenter but will show up beside the comment score (and be subject to user adjustment from their comments preferences page) if they hold a majority vote. It'll be entirely possible, for instance, to have a +5 Troll comment and equally possible that the same comment will show as -1 Troll to someone who has Troll set to -6 in their preferences.
Underrated and Overrated are also out. For Underrated, I for one would really like to know why you think it's underrated. For Overrated, it was almost exclusively used as Disagree, which we now have.
Second, everyone who's been registered for a month or more gets five mod points a day. We're not getting enough mods on comments to suit the number of comments; this should have been tweaked a while back but we quite frankly just let it slip through the cracks. Also, the zero-mod system will need the extra points to reliably push comments from +5 insightful to +5 Flamebait if they warrant it. We may end up tweaking this number as necessary to find the right balance during The Experiment.
Third, we're introducing a new Spam mod. As of this writing it's a -1 to comment score and a -10 to the commenter's karma; this may very well change. Sounds easily abused, yeah? Not so much. Every comment with this mod applied to it will have a link out beside the score that any staff with editor or above clearance on the main site (this excludes me by the way) can simply click to undo every aspect of the spam moderation and ban the moderator(s) who said it was from moderating. First time for a month, second time for six months; these also are arbitrary numbers that could easily change. So, what qualifies as spam so you don't inadvertently get mod-banned?
- Proper spam. Anything whose primary purpose is advertisement.
- HOSTS/GNAA/etc... type posts. Recurring, useless annoyances we're all familiar with.
- Posts so offtopic and lacking value to even be a troll that they can't be called anything else. See here for an example.
Caveats about banning aside, if something is really spam, please use the mod. It will make it much, much easier for us to find spam posts and attempt to block the spammers. One SELECT statement period vs one per post level of easier.
Lastly, if I can find it and change it in time for thorough testing on dev, we'll be doing away with mod-then-post in favor of mod-and-post. Without proper downmods, there's really just no point in limiting you on when you can moderate a comment.
Right, that's pretty much it. Flame or agree as the spirit moves you. Suggestions will all be read and considered but getting them debated, coded, and tested before the January release will be a bit tricky for all but the exceedingly simple ones.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:41PM
However, I fail. This is good news. Thank you for being so clear and open about your experiments, your intention and the expectations of an outcome.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3) by jackb_guppy on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:44PM
What is the clear list of changes?? No high level over view. It into the weeds!
Losing OVERRATED is overrated. It very handy since the other categories are not matching the reason to down grade.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:29PM
Clear List of Changes
1. All Insightful mods will now be +3.7
2. Mod points are issued in synch with phases of the moon
3. Still no talking about Fight Club
4. Overrated -1 will be replaced with Your Mom -1
5. Even numbered UIDs will be intelligible for moderation
6. Underrated +1 can only be applied by the judges of Dancin' With the Stars
7. Ultramod Mondays will be replaced with casual day for logged in users
8. Double karma for moderating while drunk
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @07:26AM
Maybe, if you can't explain why you are downmodding a comment, that's a pretty good flag that it shouldn't be downmodded in first place.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @09:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @10:36AM
Disagreement is not a valid cause to downmod. Even if you don't find a comment contributive is not a valid cause to downmod. Unless you show what your "unbroken" logic is, your reply shows utter lack of respect and would deserve the kind of strong words that have no place in civilized discussion.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday December 31 2014, @02:05PM
Disagreement is not a valid cause to downmod.
I agree! Mod parent... uh... sideways?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday December 31 2014, @02:07PM
"Disagreement is not a valid cause to downmod."
For you, perhaps. Maybe that is or could be true on this site. Other sites seem to almost exclusively use disagreement to downvote, so it's clearly not a universal truth. Perhaps you'd care to explain *why* you think a non-contributive comment should not be downvoted here on SN?
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Wednesday December 31 2014, @03:22PM
I ev3en suggested a different method. The "score" does not have to match the "reason", by breaking the two object apart.
To go further allow each person to add or subtract up-to their entire points for the day to one comment (so: -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So if you find one comment really good or bad you can swing that one comment higher. With this we also take off the max of 5 points for comment make it 10 or more. You could even mod yourself, would be logical addition to this change.
The reason would be a form of meta grouping. So you can mark some thing as a troll but not punish the person for trolling. trolling can be used a in good way to, like trying to get a serious conversation started in a comedy thread.
Now reasons are grouped larger classes, example Humour would include funny, sarcasm. LOL and the like. Then with that classing, you can subscribe to meta classes you want to follow. (think V-chip with more channels). So if I want to follow Humour & Trolls, then the comments that mean more to me can be enhanced for my viewing pleasure. If I give/remove points from comment, then the points tallies associated to all meta groups will get the plus/minus.
For me through, I am not wishing to part of the grand experiment without more information about the changes and will logging out. One voice voting by feet and walking away. This feels to me as if BETA at slashdot was back. We are making changes but not telling you full facts. Over Christmas the mod system was broken, ever time use up my 10 and 5 points, another 5 points were added on. Then the mod options willl no show which ones you add modded so modded again. And then we find out by the top post that they were playing with us. Thanks facebookish admins!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @08:17AM
A non-contributive comment (by your opinion, anyway) doesn't mean that it substracts from the discussion, just that you think it doesn't add. Current downmods are oriented towards punishing substracting comments (troll, flamebait, even the projected future spam mod), not just to show disagreement. Hence the logic:
- jackb_guppy "I feel like downmodding this, even if I can't find why. Where's 'overrated'?"
- AC "Maybe you just disagree. It doesn't mean it deserves downmodding"
- Tork "Tork! Tork! Tork Tork Tork! Buahahah! Tork!"
- AC "..."
Once you group all motives to moderate a comment in just one score, downmodding just because you disagree puts the comment in the same land as the obvious trolls, the obvious flamabaits and spam, while some really worn out jokes about sharks, ponies and Natalie Portman get moderated like they were pearls of humor, quite above normal discussion. Do you really feel good with it?
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:01PM
No, that's not necessarily ideal.
I like JackB_guppy's idea (right above your post). The way I see it, anyone could attach "labels" to a post ('troll', 'overrated', 'excellent', 'informative', 'disagree', 'agree'). Moreover, moderators could assign a score (+1, -1, or perhaps even more than just a +/-1) to a post. That score would solely be based on an ephemeral value such as "does this post add value to SN?".
I think a problem with the moderation system is that there are a lot of dimensions (insightful, informative, troll, underrated, ...), but they all are combined into a single number and, possibly, one single label. As if a post couldn't be funny, informative, and trolling at the same time. Heck, we even have some subscribers here on SN who typically shoot for exactly that with their posts!
The extent to which they're successful is less clear... but if each post is just (a la GMail) attributed labels, then we can just balance out the number of "funny" labels vs. the number of "not funny" labels and arrive at one number for funniness - without deciding if it's a troll or not.
Anyway, that would be a vastly different moderation approach. I don't know if this would fit the community, but it would be interesting I think.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 02 2015, @01:31PM
What's hilarious here is that this thread started out by someone asking for detailed information from the editors, and is now a plea for a *lack* of detailed information from the mods!
If you want a disagree option, then ask for a disagree option. Don't ask to keep overrated because it was always used as disagree. That's the whole point of removing it!
But the bigger issue is: Yes, every other site uses -1 as 'disagree'. And every other site has truly awful comments. This isn't CNN; we don't come here for the reporting; we come here for the discussion. You can't have a discussion if you just try to hide and censor everything you disagree with. If it's a troll or spam or whatever, go ahead and downmod it as such. That's why those are still downmods. But 'overrated'? There's really no good use for that. There's only three possible options that I can think of, and all of them have more useful alternatives than an 'overrated' mod.
1) The comment isn't modded yet. This is obviously an abuse of the moderation system, because it can't be 'overrated' if it isn't rated. If it's spam, flag it as spam. If it's just a well-intentioned but slightly shitty comment, leave it at +0 where it belongs.
2) The comment is modded 'informative' or 'insightful' or something. So it's modded that it provides good info, overrated would mean it doesn't. The question you should ask is: Why? Post a reply and explain. Is it factually incorrect? Overrated doesn't tell people that, posting a reply does. Is it just not that insightful? Clearly other people though it was, so maybe leave it alone, or maybe explain why because apparently not everyone is thinking about it the same way you are. If you can't explain, you're either wrong or you're trying to justify using overrated as 'disagree'.
3) The comment is modded 'funny'. Here 'overrated' means 'it's not that funny'. But clearly other people think it is. Modding overrated is just you saying 'I don't think that's funny so nobody else should be allowed to either!' If it's a troll, mod it troll. If it's offensive, call them out. If you don't want to see jokes, change your funny modifier.
Of course, the unstated fourth option is you admit you just disagree and we don't have a disagree option. But again...if you care so much, explain why you disagree, don't just try to censor the comment. That's what makes it a discussion instead of the random noise you see on other comment sections. Moderation is here to prevent abuse, not to silence dissent. Someone posting a comment that you personally disagree with is not abuse.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @11:18PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:58PM
Most specifically the one that said you can see cause and effect more clearly if you change less at once.
Just as important to seeing effect is to have:
(1) A list of the specific effects you intend to achieve
(2) Metrics that capture those effects
(3) Baseline numbers for those metrics in order to see how much change has happened
None of those things seem to be evident. I'm not saying there needs to be a set of full-blown formal requirements and specifications documents. But what we have so far is the polar opposite, vaguely articulated goals and no definition of success. Where is the definition of a "bad downmod?" What was the rate of "bad downmods" before now? How much does that need to improve? Basically anything that doesn't result in utter catastrophe is going to be indistinguishable from having made no changes at all.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:22PM
A small GLaDOS voice was going off while reading TFS. Did the overlords gleefully post anonymous spam and troll posts and then deposit an equal number of moderation points on unknowing test subjects? Where's my cake?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:35PM
You really want the Troll's dick in your anus. Admit it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:38PM
Of course this was an test for new moderation system
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:50PM
Fuck beta. Wait. What?
(Score: 1) by ah.clem on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:50PM
Where is/was this "Agree to moderate" button/checkbox/dodad of which you speak? I contribute a fair amount and have never seen mod points, and we have a fairly small number of users here (but a hell of a lot of anons - that always bothered me - while we're all pretty much anon on these forums, the ability to switch to anon or post as anon really brings out the vitirol in a lot of people, increasing the signal to noise ratio considerably - if I were king, there would be no anon posting - err, sorry for the mini-rant). Anyway, over on Slash, I also contribute (sorry if that offends) and I am offered mod points pretty much weekly, sometimes the same day I used my last point. I never did understand how that whole mod system worked. If I was offered mod points over Cristmas, well, I wasn't glued to my machine as usual, I actually took a break and hung out with friends and drank and ate and generally had a pretty good time, so perhaps I missed them.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:56PM
> Where is/was this "Agree to moderate" button/checkbox/dodad of which you speak?
Click "Preferences" on the left.
In the tabbed page (User | Password | Homepage | Comments | Messages | Subscriptions) that comes up, click "Homepage".
Depending on resolution, either at the bottom of the screen or scroll down a bit.
(Score: 1) by ah.clem on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:44PM
Thanks, got it. It was set to willing so there ya go. Interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:03PM
the ability to switch to anon or post as anon really brings out the vitirol in a lot of people, increasing the signal to noise ratio considerably
Hence the reason anon posts start at +0, logged in posts are +1 and logged in posts from people previously judged to have a high signal level are +2.
It sounds like you think those defaults are insufficient. As someone who prefers to post anonymously, and reads at +0 all the time, I don't think it is a problem.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:33PM
but a hell of a lot of anons - that always bothered me - while we're all pretty much anon on these forums, the ability to switch to anon or post as anon really brings out the vitirol in a lot of people, increasing the signal to noise ratio considerably - if I were king, there would be no anon posting
Hence the reason anon posts start at +0, logged in posts are +1 and logged in posts from people previously judged to have a high signal level are +2.
Well, those are the defaults, anyway.
You can personalize them in Preferences > Comments, the "Anonymous Modifier" in particular. Set it to -6 and never see another anon, Your Majesty :)
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 1) by ah.clem on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:41PM
I understand your position. Over the years I have seen that posting anon allows for a lot of unnecessary snarkiness and generally poor behavior. IMO, it's part of what makes slash a miserable place to be. You can surf at thresholds, but the really shitty crap gets responded to, the reply gets modded up and detracts from the general discourse. Just my experience and opinion.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:39PM
Agreed. The preponderance of AC postings are net-negative to the site. There are just enough good AC posts to make keeping them SEEM worth while. But I submit that allowing ACs induces more bad behavior than it fixes.
Its not that hard to sign in with a posting nom de keyboard, and suffer or enjoy the karma or filtering of your utterances.
Remove the requirement for a valid (even if "throw-away") email on an account, and every reason for posting AC disappears.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:07PM
I would really love to see AC postings limited to no more than 30% of the total comments. While I agree there seems to be some good AC posts, there also seems to be a bunch of garbage in equal proportion. I think the people who really want to add will sign up/in and the trolls will have to wait until there are much more comments and by then no eyeballs to see their lack of contribution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:20PM
I think you overestimate the value of forcing people to log in.
What happens if an account gets a reputation for being snarky? Lets say he gets bad karma and starts posting at 0 or even -1 - and isn't smart enough to just create a new account - do you think that's going to make the people he snarked at any less likely to respond?
Like I said, I read at +0 all the time and maybe I have a thicker skin, but I haven't noticed a significant problem with "bad" posts, and I especially haven't seen much in the way of up-modded responses to AC trolling.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:46PM
Probably.
If an account gets a reputation for being snarky, then they are snarky. If they do start posting at 0, no worries, everyone else like you will still read all their comments. Yes, just like lights and sounds at retail exits deter most people from stealing.
When I've got time to kill, I read a 0/-1, but when discussions get going, it's hard to tell if you're responding to the same person when any random AC keeps responding. If someone is that involved, make the commitment and sign up/in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:33PM
> If they do start posting at 0, no worries,
And how is that different from a snarky AC?
> it's hard to tell if you're responding to the same person when any random AC keeps responding.
> If someone is that involved, make the commitment and sign up/in.
That's a pretty authoritarian position - other people need to conform to what makes your life easier because that's the way it should be. I have a theory that the people who are most concerned with these things here on soylent tend towards the authoritarian side of the spectrum, buzzard may well be the most authoritarian poster on soylent, frojack definitely comes across that way, but I don't recall reading many of your posts.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Wednesday December 31 2014, @03:08PM
That's a pretty authoritarian position - other people need to conform to what makes your life easier because that's the way it should be. I have a theory that the people who are most concerned with these things here on soylent tend towards the authoritarian side of the spectrum
If you knew me in real life, you'd know I am probably the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet. I can see your easy connection between the two though.
but I don't recall reading many of your posts
I recall reading thousands of your posts, Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 31 2014, @07:17PM
OK! Who said that? Was it you, AC #1? Or you, AC#1 as well? Or was it you, as usual, AC#1? This will go on your permanent record!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:05PM
Wait until the post volume gets high enough first. A median of 15 logged-in users per discussion might be a decent number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @03:56PM
I acknowledge that it is difficult to distinguish between multiple people posting as AC, but forcing registered log-in names doesn't solve that. A troll can just get a sock puppet, or ten.
This site still has no privacy policy. Therefore, I have not registered. There are many good reasons to allow posters to remain anonymous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:03PM
srsly... more links to articles on *onions ... please.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:04PM
I often find that I have mod points, but if I sign out and sign back in a few minutes later the mod points are gone...Is this intended behavior?
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by tynin on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:10PM
I assume you are just noticing your mod points expiring. I thought I recalled that they show you for how long they stay good for, but my 5 mod points just vanished before I was able to get to them.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 31 2014, @01:25AM
That's probably right. I'll check next time.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:28PM
The good thing about underrated is that sometimes (often?) it's more wrong to pick just one. Sometimes it's a mixture of insightful, informative, and interesting, and I'm loathe to pick one of them since the other two are just as important.
Perhaps you should be able to spread your one mod point across multiple upmods.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @09:28AM
Originally 'umdereated' and 'overrated' were a way to moderate a comment without fear of being nuked by metamoderation. You could change the score but no descriptive term was attached.
I still maintain that there needs to be official properly-trained moderators leading by example. Principles are all well and good but if I get modded down unfairly because I'm on the wrong side of a popular issue I'm likely to pay it forward. At least that's what my history with Slashdot has taught me.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Thursday January 01 2015, @07:51AM
What you're describing there is essentially meta-moderation - everybody moderates and joins in the discussion, and a smaller group gives the occasional nudge to keep things on the right track.
I'm wary about being more heavy handed than that. Once you start separating the community into groups with different amounts of power, it can lead to a lot of animosity. if somebody mods your comment badly, it's nice if you can write it off as 'some guy on the internet is an idiot' rather than 'the guys with power over me are idiots'.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 01 2015, @10:03PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hubie on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:37PM
If someone who wants to moderate can't be bothered to browse at -1, I don't think they should be allowed to moderate at all. The moderation system is supposed to both promote posts for discussion as well as correct abusive moderation or to keep unpopular positions from being buried. If you're only going to moderate comments that have already been modded up, you're just promoting group-think and burying dissension.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:12PM
That makes a lot of sense, considering you have to check the box to volunteer for moderation. While you still have mod points you should see everything, including the bottom of the barrel.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:30PM
It's certainly something to consider. Perhaps it shouldn't be done on this run of testing for the sake of not adding another variable, but done by itself at some point so its effect can be evaluated.
I normally mod at -1, but scatterbrain that I am, I have been known to not make the change from default 0. I'm sure others do this as well.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:13PM
Conceptually I think it could be done pretty unobtrusively. If you're not browsing at -1, then the moderation drop-down boxes would disappear like they do when you've commented in a thread. On the page where you are notified that you have mod points, perhaps a button to put you into "moderation mode" whereby your browsing level would change to -1. I don't think it would be widely accepted if one's browsing level were automatically changed when they get mod points, and by that same token I suppose it would work better for people if un-selecting "moderation mode" would put you back to your default browsing state.
Not having looked at a lick of slashcode I have no idea what magnitude of change this would be, but looking at it from the outside it appears at least that all the pieces for it functionally exist. I see on the left side of my screen that there is a Bug List, but is there a feature request list maintained anywhere that I can add suggestions like this or provide positive or negative feedback in general?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday December 31 2014, @02:04AM
+1, I think this is a good solution for the mods that don't read at -1 all the time anyway.
PS: TMB++ #keep it up!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:01PM
Informative posts do not suffer from group-think and full points helps those who cannot judge the trustworthiness of the post themselves.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Wednesday December 31 2014, @03:52PM
I disagree. It is easier to see on the "hot button" topics such as politics, religion, anything tangentially related to the NSA, etc., that minority held views can get modded down pretty quickly. If you're only browsing at +1 or above, you're only reinforcing the majority or popular opinion and in my opinion you're not much better off than "conservatives" getting their news from one news network and "liberals" getting their news from a different network.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:25PM
"hot button" topics usually lack informative posts. +5 informative posts are usually limited to more objective topics with a higher signal/noise. Interesting and insightful are used much more often as "I agree".
A moderator that has knowledge on a topic can reinforce correct informative posts and downmod incorrect posts that are improperly upmodded.
Each user can set their Threshold/Breakthrough as they please. I read all the posts in discussions that I am knowledgeable in and post/moderate as needed to improve the discussion and very rarely post/moderate "hot button" topics.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @12:59AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by paulej72 on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:50PM
I thought we had this feature at the bottom of the Messages preferences, but it does not work like that. I think we should be able to add at least the basic no anon messages.
Team Leader for SN Development
(Score: 2) by No.Limit on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:35AM
Just wanted to leave this here: Keep up the good work!
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday December 31 2014, @06:41PM
It might be nice to have a "citation" moderation option, so particularly bad comments can be offset by something that passes for "truth".
"This moderation has been found off track and cited "
I am of course, only talking about scientific things, but the general approach might be useful for other less rigorous discussions...