SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
*cough*
Ok, I meant to have an open forum about moderation *way* before this point. I did read the various feedback and comments left on my journal and the last moderation, and have made some changes to the moderation system.
First, mod points now expire after eight hours. I'm willing to extend this to 12 or 16 hours after I'm sure comments will still reach +5 fairly regularly. With luck, we'll get to the point we can extend mod-points to last a full 24 hours which I suspect will end most of the complaining on them vanishing too soon.
Second, I'd like to open the floor to making a more fundamental change to the moderation system. Specifically, allowing people to post AND moderate in the same discussion. We've seen plenty of posts get up to +5, which means 3-4 people gave up their right to post to keep our comments high quality. This was brought up during our last plea for stories, and I wanted to solicit more feedback before unleashing this upon the site.
I've floated the idea on IRC, and it seems there's a fair bit of support for removing the post/moderate split, though we'd need to make some changes to prevent rampant abuse. Here's what was suggested to keep things sane:
Ok, I meant to have an open forum about moderation *way* before this point. I did read the various feedback and comments left on my journal and the last moderation, and have made some changes to the moderation system.
First, mod points now expire after eight hours. I'm willing to extend this to 12 or 16 hours after I'm sure comments will still reach +5 fairly regularly. With luck, we'll get to the point we can extend mod-points to last a full 24 hours which I suspect will end most of the complaining on them vanishing too soon.
Second, I'd like to open the floor to making a more fundamental change to the moderation system. Specifically, allowing people to post AND moderate in the same discussion. We've seen plenty of posts get up to +5, which means 3-4 people gave up their right to post to keep our comments high quality. This was brought up during our last plea for stories, and I wanted to solicit more feedback before unleashing this upon the site.
I've floated the idea on IRC, and it seems there's a fair bit of support for removing the post/moderate split, though we'd need to make some changes to prevent rampant abuse. Here's what was suggested to keep things sane:
- Mod points won't roll back after a post
- Moderators can post in the same discussion (either before or after moderating), but can not moderate replies to their posts.
I've heard various ideas such as limiting it only after mods have expended their points (this will require implementing a cooldown to prevent a user from getting points again too soon). I want to hear your feedback, and I'll roll together something for the next major update of the site. Leave your comments
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Moderation: Discussing !(post^moderate)
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 137 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I think we are in Rats' Alley where the dead men lost their bones.
-- T.S. Eliot
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bitweeder on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:50AM
Since karma is a proxy for reputation, I like the idea of it bleeding away without active maintenance. I also like the idea that only high-karma types are trusted to comment and moderate; it doesn't have to get more complicated than that. Of course, I only like this idea if it's in conjunction with implementing karma deflation.
FWIW, I don't post. Ever. I just don't have much to say most of the time. But I do mod pretty actively. It would be nice to have a metamoderation system incarnate here, especially if it granted karma to good moderators - to tie back into that whole "reputation proxy" thing...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:02AM
We *do* have the metamoderation code, but its somewhat knackered; I could probably fix it if I put my mind to it. I always got the opinion *very* few people metamodded, and even then, due to the way the old algo worked, I'm not sure it was ever effective. It might be worth enabling it and letting values build up in the database, though I was considered scrapping the feature for something a bit more automated (i.e., if a post had +4 upmods, and one downmod, that would be the equivelent of a negative metamoderation).
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by Roo_Boy on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:16AM
When ever I had the opportunity to metamod "over there" I usually did but one of the failings I often noticed was that it could be hard to determine if the moderation was justified without seeing the thread in more context.
It would be possible to click on the parent and then read the whole thread but it seemed like a bit of a chore for something that should be reasonably quick to do.
Of course I also wouldn't want to see all bajillion threads in some monster topic either, again a bit of a chore, so perhaps just the parent and grandparent of the comment in question?
--- The S.I. prototype "Average Punter" is kept in a tube of inert gas in Geneva.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:18AM
Once you became elligable for metamod, you could always metamod on the other site, there was no limit; and while its been ages since I metamodded, I remember it being much the same.
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:48AM
Automatic meta-moderation: I've thought about that as well, but...lemmings. You don't want to encourage group-think.
- Sometimes at the other site I've seen a thought-provoking post buried with "flamebait" and "troll". I've spent the odd mod-point trying to get it back up where people might see it.
- The flip-side isn't really any prettier: Someone espouses an easy, PC point and collects an easy +5. I have been known to be a grouch and and give a "-1 overrated".
Mind, I'd still do both of these things even if I get a penalty for it - but I won't be able to do many of them - and there would be that extra psychological barrier.
Do we really need metamoderation? Especially if you gamify the karma a bit. It shouldn't age *too* fast - sometimes life happens and someone is away for a couple of weeks - but over the course of months, I think this is a stunningly good idea.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:53AM
I've come to the conclusion that moderation was brilliant only in the fact that it was a solid concept. I felt much of the underlying math and assumptions using to underpin the system simple are fundamentally wrong.
I've written pretty heavily about why I think slashdot's old moderation algo is busted and have gone through a lot of lengths to justify the changes I made here. I *do* read every comment, email, and post on articles I post, and I frequently comment on all of them. I've already got a LOT of good feedback on this, including another thing to poll the community about (which I'm going to write up for Thursday or Friday).
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:07AM
Would it be a good idea to figure out what needs metamoderation first? I often get the impression that "Overrated" mods (or the downmods in general) are used when someone disagrees with something, but can't refute it in a comment (and don't want to add a comment repudiating it lest they look silly), so "punish" the poster with a downmod.
If this is the case then metamoderation would just be showing a list of comments that got a downmod (including what the previous score was) to see whether it was correct to downmod or not.
Someone would have to look over what moderations are actually happening to determine whether this or something else actually needs focus, however.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:11PM
I've never really liked overrated/underrated, especially because they ARE immune to metamoderate (metamoddable is set to 0 in the DB). I realize they serve a purpose, but I feel like its something that can be handled in a better way ...
I'm open to ideas on this.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:35PM
I don't think I've ever used underrated, so I would be in favour of just removing it. I would say that overrated should only be enabled if a post has had 1 or 2 positive mods already*. If a moderator wants to use a downmod on a post with no other mods, they have to have a reason for it (and the other downmods are easier to see if someone is abusing the moderation system)
*maybe something like
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday April 03 2014, @02:41AM
Unlike the other poster, I have used 'underrated' often enough. Its meaning to me is kinda "none of these other upmods really fits, but it deserves to be seen, so... 'underrated' it is."
'Overrated' seems most often used to mean 'I disagree' but I'm still not sure it should go away.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday April 03 2014, @02:38AM
I don't think you can automate it, as all four +1 might be full of shit, while the single -1 might have a clue. You just can't know.
I tried metamodding for a while, and could not see the point of it. A 'peer review' system where peer means 'anyone who wanders past often enough' will be by its nature unfair, and since the 'fix' (metamod) didn't seem to actively do anything... why bother? so I quit doing it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.