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
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).
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
if (positiveMods - negativeMods) > 1
if (positiveMods - negativeMods) > 1
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.
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.