SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by wjwlsn
I'm seeing a lot of unwarranted (IMO) down-moderation lately, mostly on posts that express a minority opinion or that question a majority opinion (judging minority/majority based on discussion context). As a result, there are many posts ranked -1 or 0 that probably deserve higher scores.
I'd like to remind moderators that you're supposed to "Concentrate more on promoting than demoting". In the meantime, I'm going to spend all my mod points on posts that I think have been modded down unfairly. I encourage others to consider spending some mod points in this fashion as well.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 1, Troll) by fliptop on Friday March 28 2014, @02:28AM
So anyone that disagrees w/ you is an asshole?
I don't see the problem, the down mods are there to be used AFAICT. What's wrong w/ modding something you disagree w/ down? There are times when I don't have a dog in the fight so I don't feel like commenting, but if I read something that seems wrong I don't have a problem w/ modding it down.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Friday March 28 2014, @03:05AM
Alright then, this is the problem in my opinion, and it's why I wrote this journal entry. I don't believe the point of moderating is to vote for what you like or what you don't like, but rather to rate the quality or value of a post to the discussion. Posts that express opposing, alternate, or complementary views are what drive good discussion -- whether you agree with them or not.
Personally, if I wanted to frequent a website where everyone agreed with me, then I wouldn't be here. I come here precisely because I know I will be exposed to viewpoints that differ from my own. That's why I don't vote down posts that I disagree with. I only vote down posts that have no value.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 28 2014, @05:42AM
There is no -1, Disagree mod. Moderation is supposed to be used to rate comments based on how much they contribute to the value of the discussion. I very rarely issue negative mods: there was only one non-anonymous user [soylentnews.org] on whose posts I frequently used them. Not because I disagreed with him, but because a lot of what he's written seems to start off reasonable then go off on an insane off-topic tangent, though occasionally it seems he forgets to go off the deep end and actually writes something worthwhile. Go have a look at that guy's posts. I wonder how that fellow had the energy to write such walls of text that often seem on-topic for a few paragraphs and then go absolutely batshit crazy. The mod system was created to rein in people like him who seem to be here just to lower the SNR of the discussion by writing off-topic and/or blatantly trollish stuff.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Friday March 28 2014, @06:11AM
Agree 100%. Also, I've noticed the same thing about the particular user you mentioned -- occasionally insightful, but usually off-topic and nutty. By the way, thank you for writing "rein in" properly instead of the incorrect, but apparently more common, "reign in". That particular error really gets to me, nearly as much as "for all intensive purposes". Arg.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fliptop on Friday March 28 2014, @11:54AM
Yes, but overrated does mean "assessed too highly." If something is rated +5 and I think it's wrong then it's overrated IMHO.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @07:29AM
'Overrated' should mean that you believe that other moderators who have modded up the post have assessed it too highly. It means you disagree with the moderation it has been given, which is a different question from disagreeing with the post. You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding this very basic idea behind moderation. If you disagree with what was said in the post, then the right thing to do is not to use what mod points you might have been given to mod it down, but to reply and say why you disagree. I've been caught writing something factually wrong more than once on the old site (not yet here: I've not posted too much yet...), and responses pointing this out were more telling than moderation.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 31 2014, @04:18PM
Exactly. I've been too busy to be here much the last week so maybe things have changed, but rather than bad downmoderation I see way too many +5s on comments that should be +3 at most. Also, folks should remember that trying to be funny is dangerous to your karma. If your joke doesn't at least make me grin, I'll mod it overrated. If anyone seems to get modded down every time they try to crack a joke they should consider the possibility that they may just not be funny. Think "Lt. Steve" in Good Morning, Vietnam.
And any factually incorrect comment that isn't funny is obviously overrated.
But I see very few -1s and most of the zeros are ACs. An AC's comment has to be really good before I'll mod it up, I usually don't even moderate ACs.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday March 28 2014, @02:22PM
I have mod points and I was so tempted to mod you down... because I disagree with you and I wanted to make a point. Unfortunately, my name would not be attached. It's not my standard policy to mod down unless the comment is truly trolling. If I think the comment is overrated, I'll mark it as such, but in all the years I've been doing modding here and on Slashdot, I think I've used it twice.
Think twice about your policy. I read your comments here on Soylent News and I agree with about half of them and disagree with about half of them. That would be a lot of troll points coming your way if I had the same policy you did.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday March 28 2014, @03:31PM
So what? The times I've used -1 overrated have been when a comment was rated high but was wrong IMHO and another member had already made the argument I would have made, and I happened to have mod points.
I take what's probably a minority opinion many times here and on /. because I'm a practicing Catholic and a business owner. Those 2 things seem to work against me and my opinions when compared to the opinions of the SN and /. communities. In fact, I just had a slew of -1 overrated comments directed at me, even on topics that were not related to the lively gov't/religion thread. I just shrug, because to me a -1 overrated mod is the community's way of telling me I'm in the minority.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:46AM
To keep people with this mindset happy, and to make it clear what moderation is not, maybe there should be a completely separate system that allows any registered user at any time to click "agree" or "disagree" on any comment.
This could be shown as thumbs up and thumbs down icons with little numbers next to them.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:27PM
Also, there could be a similar system, allowing us to "thank" people for their comments.
Now, this does overlap with the moderation system somewhat, because every +1 moderation is effectively the moderator thanking the commenter for a worthwhile comment. But we could still have both. Unlike moderation, any registered user at any time could click "thank" on any comment.
Of course, it should be possible in a user's preferences to make these 3 fields hidden.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:51PM
These are both good ideas. I prefer the first one though (agree/disagree alongside moderation). It would be very interesting to see a "+5 Insightful" comment that is 90% disagree, for example. Being the kind of person that I am, those are probably the types of comments I would seek out when I'm reading or participating in a discussion. And, I just realized that this is why I'm so against using mod-points to vote down comments based on agreement / disagreement: it penalizes what I would consider to be the most valuable comments of all, the ones that would probably teach me the most.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:09PM
I agree, this is a great idea. It can provide a way to vote down w/o actually voting down, which seems to be quite taboo. You're right, sometimes comments that are voted down and subsequently buried can be valuable (which is why I usually browse at -1 raw, uncut).
Now the question is, what are the chances NCommander can front-burner code to do this?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 1) by Open4D on Friday October 03 2014, @09:07AM
And it should be very clearly explained why the "agree"/"disagree" system is completely separate from the moderation system.
And the very first time you are allocated mod points, you should be forced to click that you understand the moderation guidelines.