SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-response-from-the-director-of-project-freelancer dept.
After laying out my longer-term plans for the site two weeks ago, I've sat down, read the feedback, and started looking at writing a response. Under normal circumstances, I generally reply to comments as they're posted, but in this case, a more public and general dialog appears to be necessary. If you haven't read the previous post, I recommend doing so now.
Now, with that introduction out of the way... I have unfortunately been unavailable to write a more detailed response, due to real life issues. So please excuse my only responding to two of the major points brought up. I do wish to have a follow-up to address the remainder, but I can not make a promise as to when that may be.
UI issues
I did a really bad job explaining what I meant here, given this by far was the most commented on item! I'm not planning to beta, or Web 2.0 SoylentNews; what I want to do is clean up the interface, as well as add some dynamic aspects for those who use JavaScript, while, and I stress this, without compromising the functionality of the site as it stands now for the non-JS crowd.
For example, one thing is having the ability to perform an in-line reply; if you've got JavaScript enabled, it should simply create a reply box directly below the comment you're responding to without having to load an entire new page. For non-JS users, it should simply go to the current reply form we're all familiar with. This would help improve usability for the JS using majority while keeping us safely away from the evils of beta. Another example is re-doing the entirety of the preferences panel. As of right now, individual users can customize their site experience quite heavily, but said options are scattered across multiple pages, and are frequently buried in places one might not expect. For instance, if you wanted "Funny" comments to show higher than others, how many folks can really find that part of the UI without difficulty?
What I want to do here is a massive pipe-cleaning of our interface so that the site is easy-to-use, while not adding flashy or unnecessary chrome. While we might someday give the site a larger face-lift, it will be done with the feedback of the community, and with plenty of notice (and with every effort to preserve the old interface made for those who simply do not wish to change). For the immediate future though, everyone should expect to see the slow, but steady improvements we've been making since day 1.
Quality of Discussion
A large part of the comments focused on the issues with the moderation system. For those of you here since April, you might remember a discussion on reworking the mod system and know this has been something of a long-term goal that we simply haven't gotten to. One major problem is doing it is something of an all-or-nothing, and we can't have individual users opt-in/opt-out of a new system. That being said, this is something we do need to do relatively soon; we (the staff) have already seen issues with abusive moderation, and have fired off warning emails. As of right now, we haven't banned anyone from moderation, mostly on account we can't (the old moderation ban system was tied into metamod, which remains hosed), and that it also opens a real slippery slope.
Many folks complained that on the other site quite a few people reported that they were apparently blacklisted from moderation. Furthermore, a lot of the time, what is or isn't acceptable can be an extremely relative thing. The fact is, the moment the staff intervene on anything that isn't flat-out abuse, we create a precedent that is better left avoided. The correct method here is to tie the entire system to metamod (M2), and that as long as a user does a semi-decent job of moderation (i.e., 75-80% of mods get ACKed), they keep getting mod points, while those who moderate poorly or abuse the system don't.
The downside of this system though is that M2 is basically work with very little reward, at least as it is currently implemented. My current thoughts here involve reworking karma, as well as perhaps allowing badges and ranking, to hopefully provide benefits for some of the more tedious aspects of peer review.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 01 2014, @09:18PM
I don't agree. I just got into a spat with an AC about GitHub in an article about journalists passing their stories to the CIA for permission to post them. There were no moderation repercussions for that conversation, but there should have been. Why? For starters, that had to be annoying for everybody who was in that discussion to talk about the CIA. Secondly, the AC was in the wrong place to voice is complaint. Now the second is related to the first in terms of noise level, but it also means if he was heard by the people who need to hear him, it was only coincidental.
Personally I think my remarks there, both posted at +2 and that I had posted anonymously, should have been modded down for visibility reasons and to teach me to keep the discussions from getting derailed. Unless, of course, you'd like this to turn into Slashdot where for quite a while *every* article ended up in a flame war between Android and iOS fanboys.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @10:18PM
I just found the discussion you're referring to. Why did you keep engaging that AC if you didn't like the discussion? Why did you keep contributing the problem?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 01 2014, @10:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:34PM
Maybe for things like that, there should be a way to continue the discussion elsewhere.
Maybe an extra option when posting, "hide this as disgression" which would make that post, and replies to it, not show up by default, but only a link saying "there are hidden disgression replies to this post" which, when clicked, would lead to a separate page dedicated to this disgression discussion. Since you would have to activate it on your own post nobody could claim it to be censorship. And of course the author of the replied-to post would get a notification as usual.
Such a feature would allow a poster to add off-topic replies to a post without forcing it in the view of everyone.
Maybe in parallel, users should be given the additional option "show disgressions" to have those disgressions shown by default (with a label "(disgression)" attached to the title), in case they like to see them as part of the main discussion. Also, probably posts in disgressions should not be able to be moderated down as off-topic, since that would be the whole point of them being marked as disgression.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 02 2014, @03:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday October 03 2014, @09:21AM
Interesting idea. I already exhibit that mentality when I select "No Karma Bonus" when I'm digressing, so I would probably use your idea if it was implemented.
The biggest downside I can see is the added complexity. Perhaps we can just make do with the recently added feature that lets you collapse whole sub-threads all at once? (Does that feature work for everyone?)