SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the to-do list of tasks continues to be whittled bit by bit towards launch, one large item remains: distribution of moderation points. While I wish I could reuse the existing Slash code, the fact is that this code is completely inappropriate for a site smaller than Slashdot. So, I've been working with a couple of users in chat to rework the underlying math so that mod point distribution actually works in a reasonable way. If you're interested in the potential algorithm behind this, read on. Be warned, it is a bit dry and technical.The current thoughts are that slash should enforce that a specific number of mod points must ALWAYS be in circulation, and in the hands of our potential moderators. Without going into too much detail, we're running off the assumption that the total number of moderations applied in an article should approximately equal the number of comments. To account for inactive users and for the constant flow of new articles/comments, twice as many mod points will be distributed.
Have I lost you yet? To reiterate, two mod points must exist for every comment in active articles. As far as problems go, having too many mod points in circulation is far preferable too little. If you don't understand why, I recommend trying to find +5 posts on other slash sites like Slashdot Japan or BarraPunto.
Here's an example:
Assuming that we have two articles with approximately 200 comments each, that means we need to have 800 points in circulation. However, if we stuck with the old Slashdot method of 5 points to a user, we'd end up needing to have 80 people read an article and not comment on it. Obviously, that's not going to work, and as we have more articles/comments, that number will only increase.
Instead, we'll limit the number of moderators to approximately 30% of active accounts who haven't moderated relatively recently. In this context, active means that you have logged in within the last 5 days. The process_moderators script will calculate how many mod points are currently in circulation, how many need to be in circulation, and how many, if any, it needs to add to the pool. It then looks at the list of eligible moderators, selects 30% of them, and hands them out. To prevent moderation fatigue, we'll cap the maximum number of points a user can receive, and by the same logic, also set a minimum. I don't know about you, but I'd be a little annoyed if I found I had gotten a whopping 1 whole mod point.
This should allow a relatively fluid system, and I hope, allow us to have something very similar to the moderation system we've all grown to love. I'm open to suggestions or even radically different ideas on how to improve this below.
Have I lost you yet? To reiterate, two mod points must exist for every comment in active articles. As far as problems go, having too many mod points in circulation is far preferable too little. If you don't understand why, I recommend trying to find +5 posts on other slash sites like Slashdot Japan or BarraPunto.
Here's an example:
Assuming that we have two articles with approximately 200 comments each, that means we need to have 800 points in circulation. However, if we stuck with the old Slashdot method of 5 points to a user, we'd end up needing to have 80 people read an article and not comment on it. Obviously, that's not going to work, and as we have more articles/comments, that number will only increase.
Instead, we'll limit the number of moderators to approximately 30% of active accounts who haven't moderated relatively recently. In this context, active means that you have logged in within the last 5 days. The process_moderators script will calculate how many mod points are currently in circulation, how many need to be in circulation, and how many, if any, it needs to add to the pool. It then looks at the list of eligible moderators, selects 30% of them, and hands them out. To prevent moderation fatigue, we'll cap the maximum number of points a user can receive, and by the same logic, also set a minimum. I don't know about you, but I'd be a little annoyed if I found I had gotten a whopping 1 whole mod point.
This should allow a relatively fluid system, and I hope, allow us to have something very similar to the moderation system we've all grown to love. I'm open to suggestions or even radically different ideas on how to improve this below.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Besides, REAL computers have a rename() system call. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <7937@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
(Score: 2, Interesting) by AudioGuy on Friday February 14 2014, @04:45AM
I am having trouble seeing how you can tune ANY moderation system with so few people as we are likely to have at first.
One possible short term idea - give the submitter of the article a fairly massive number of mod points. They may have at least an interest in keeping things on topic. There is also an easy hook or identifier of them since they are the submitter.
Pick a few of the best moderators and just let them moderate constantly for a while?
When you are speaking of moderation 'not working' you means these coefficients etc, right? Not actual buggy code?
I wonder how Malda handled this originally. I imagine it started with just him, then adding a few people, then a few more, etc.
Might be interesting to find an 0.9 version or similar and see what its moderation was like.
This problem needs more heads applied to it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by unitron on Sunday February 16 2014, @06:42AM
Malda started with the people running the site moderating, as I recall, and then added more and more privately invited users to help and then moved on to rotating through the list of registered users with halfway decent karma.
But he was racing to catch up with the growing number of both comments and users, adding on the moderation and karma system after the site had been up and running for a while.
Here, the situation isn't quite the same.
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Monday February 17 2014, @11:46PM
I'm of the view that the people with the strongest opinions on a topic are most likely to abuse power. Random passing samaritans are more likely to do good deeds, albeit with some random but mostly harmless counterproductive mods done for amusement.
I remember reading that minor edits by unregistered wikipedia users are primarily positive. I take from this that people will typically make a positive contribution if: there aren't major barriers to action and there isn't much at stake.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.