Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Math Returns!

sllort (442574) writes | more than 11 years ago

Slashdot.org 14

Update (5/28/03): The information in this journal is outdated and no longer reflects the state of Slashcode; this journal is a historical record but no longer accurate. --

Remember everybody's favorite signature? Slashdot Math: 50+1-1 = 49. Taco was so incensed about that he decided to hide Karma from everyone so they couldn't criticize his math skills. This was a good idea, and one he should have stuck with.

Update (5/28/03): The information in this journal is outdated and no longer reflects the state of Slashcode; this journal is a historical record but no longer accurate. --

Remember everybody's favorite signature? Slashdot Math: 50+1-1 = 49. Taco was so incensed about that he decided to hide Karma from everyone so they couldn't criticize his math skills. This was a good idea, and one he should have stuck with.

Recently, Slashteam decided that printing moderation totals was a bad idea. It's part of a continuing development trend of hiding the Slash backend from the users (not a bad idea). Maybe Krow has been playing an audio version of Chromatic's O'Reilly article to Taco while he sleeps. Maybe Taco's pride has finally yielded enough that he's willing to listen to someone else. Who knows. For whatever reason, someone's trying to make it harder to game the Slash system by removing anything that could be construed as "points" (I'm wondering how they plan to make it impossible to count your friends, but that's another story).

Personally, I like to think that Trollback was responsible. But that's just ego talking.

In any event, moderation totals are now shown as percentages in an attempt to hide the number of times a post has been moderated. While it's pretty simple to reverse-engineer this number, you now need a calculator, which raises the bar a bit.

The funny thing, however, is that Taco has once again exposed his math skills to the world. So, once again, we get to put "Slashdot Math" in our .sigs. Are you ready?

Slashdot Math: 30+40+10 = 100

Enjoy,

-s.

Update: As many have pointed out in the comments, it is true that this change has a few side affects. One is that editors can now disguise their modbombing activity a little easier. The second is that by activating a division-based mod system, SlashTeam has proven that all its protestations about K5's moderation not scaling are a bogus. Of course, if you haven't accepted the fact that modbombing and handwaving are a way of life around here, you're blind, and you don't read my journal.

cancel ×

14 comments

tr00lback == teh shiznit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5146060)

bring it back

Re:tr00lback == teh shiznit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5146444)

and how do you propose we do that? we're not allowed to score posts by their mod count now. we could reverse engineer the algorithm, but it's already slightly nondeterministic, and i'm sure that jamie has the gerbils running madly in their wheels trying to make it less so. what do you propose?

Re:tr00lback == teh shiznit (-1)

Blacklist Blacklist (629645) | more than 11 years ago | (#5159151)

continue to use # of direct and total replies.

users get messages on moderations. perhaps there is a way to use this?

another choice as noted above is diversity of moderation. 50% Troll, 50% Funny is not as interesting as 10% for of each of ten choices. perhaps this can be used for a new-voodoo.

i agree, though, lack of total mods makes trollback voodoo harder to calculate.

Re:tr00lback == teh shiznit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5181145)

Only the highest three mods are displayed. It's pretty much impossible to use mod totals as a meaningful metric anymore. Not that it was all that useful before.

-tp

Here's a thought how trollback might use this (1)

Captain Pedantic (531610) | more than 11 years ago | (#5146653)

OK, so you can't know how much karma a troll uses up, how about recording how much "Confusion" it creates?

A simple "Just heard on talk radio....." might just pick up the rating of troll, earning say 1 confusion point, whereas a treatise on why sci-fi is only written for gay nerds (if that isn't an oxymoron) might pickup troll, offtopic, funny, insightful, and interesting for a total of 5 confusion points.

The theory being that the more subtle a troll, the less a moderator is going to be able to choose the right mod option.

You could also have a multiplier based on the relative percentage of troll to other ratings, for example where 10% troll is better than 50% troll (because a smaller proportion of moderators spot it).

Anything would be better than no Trollback.

Re:Here's a thought how trollback might use this (1)

Xeger (20906) | more than 11 years ago | (#5147273)

I assure you, "gay nerds" isn't an oxymoron. It's just that a nerd who happens to be gay, will more likely than not suppress his sexuality and live in the comfortable ambiguity of asexual nerd-dom...same as all the straight nerds.

(I figure comments in reply to comments that originally referred to a journal entry are so off topic, that they can hardly become any MORE off topic.)

Clearly it is to cover up modbombing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5147410)

Expect an increase in modbombs, but we won't be able to find them any longer. They'll be covered in a little mathematical slight of hand. Now, how does this scale? You're adding in a few computations every query. I thought 'how does it scale' was always the grand question. I'm sure it does an okay job at scaling, but what has been achieved? What have the users gained? Nothing. What have the editorial members gained? Ability to squash discussion undetected.

Re:Clearly it is to cover up modbombing. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 11 years ago | (#5147477)

Expect an increase in modbombs, but we won't be able to find them any longer. They'll be covered in a little mathematical slight of hand. Now, how does this scale? You're adding in a few computations every query. I thought 'how does it scale' was always the grand question. I'm sure it does an okay job at scaling, but what has been achieved? What have the users gained? Nothing. What have the editorial members gained? Ability to squash discussion undetected.
Damn, wish I had thought of that. [slashdot.org]

Re:Clearly it is to cover up modbombing. (1)

user no. 590291 (590291) | more than 11 years ago | (#5154370)

Actually, if the percentages are carried to the units digit, mass-moderation will be pretty obvious. Consider, for example:

47% Troll, 49% Insightful, 1% Underrated.

The degree of precision would imply 100 moderations. Since the total number of moderations must be an integer, and each moderation is worth one point, my non-mathematical mind suspects that one can reliably count the moderations from the percentages given in many cases.

Re:Clearly it is to cover up modbombing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5168563)

the method you describe is the reason that a complicated rounding procedure is applied which keeps the precision from being revealed and therefore hides the moderatin total. this same rounding algorithm is the reason the percentages don't add up.

Re:Clearly it is to cover up modbombing. (1)

user no. 590291 (590291) | more than 11 years ago | (#5169263)

D'oh! Guess the only thing to do is to turn on email notification, and post a followup to the original message with a count. (From a proxy, I guess, if the editors just mod-bombed you :).)

No credit for me... (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 11 years ago | (#5147813)

Rob has been saying that making the karma number public was a mistake for far longer than I have. It'd be nice if he'd agree post regular meta-discussions, though. I'll happily take some credit for that, if it ever happens.

Re:No credit for me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5150894)

i was referring to your commentary that in general a system should not be designed with any kind of metric which can be "gamed", from fan count to mod count to mod score to karma. i felt it was a very insightful thing to say.

I don't believe it (1)

mirabilos (219607) | more than 11 years ago | (#5150388)

... that I still keep staying on /. - OTOH, it's
been providing me with kinda good news all the
days. I just don't go read comments that often any
more (especially since -1 can be hard to parse on
my lynx).
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...