×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Interview Tonight

sllort (442574) writes | more than 11 years ago

Slashdot.org 3

There's an IRC interview with Taco & Hemos tonight. I won't be there, I have plans tonight. There are millions of things that could be asked: why are messages now batched so we can't tell when we've been mass moderated, why are the moderation totals hidden so we can't tell when a comment has been mass moderated, why are comment numbers randomized instead of starting at 1, what percentage of editor moderation is "Over

There's an IRC interview with Taco & Hemos tonight. I won't be there, I have plans tonight. There are millions of things that could be asked: why are messages now batched so we can't tell when we've been mass moderated, why are the moderation totals hidden so we can't tell when a comment has been mass moderated, why are comment numbers randomized instead of starting at 1, what percentage of editor moderation is "Over/Underrated" (we've been handed the editor's aggregate M2 stats forever, why not document the loophole?)

The way they run these interviews is usually that you submit to a question bot, but can't talk, and they pick questions off the bot. In short, none of the above has any chance of getting asked. Neither do the following three questions, though they are probably the three questions to which the answer is the most interesting:

  1. Why doesn't a Moderation Results message include the name of the Moderator?
  2. Why aren't we told when an editor moderates our posts?
  3. Why is the W3C HTML Validator at www.w3c.org IP banned from Slashdot?

Have fun folks, and remember, Never disturb a man.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I love the last one. (1)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6185081)

While the other two are questions which need to be answered, the last one...must..be..asked..

MUAHAHAHAHA!

yay (-1)

AnimeFreak (223792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6185482)

I will be there, and I will be asking a few questions myself.

A) Why should anonymous posting be disabled when your karma is at a certain level?
B) If karma doesn't matter on this site, then why do I get limited to the amount of posts I can make in day if I have a low amount of karma?
C) Why did you guys go from a decimal system to a percentage system when it comes to moderation scoring?

I very much doubt they'll listen to me, though. They probably have a group of people who they have selected ahead of time, and will have them ask questions and nobody else.

The Answers (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 11 years ago | (#6198368)

You and I know the answers... it is just that the truth hurts.
1. Why doesn't a Moderation Results message include the name of the Moderator?
There are several possible answers. If you've ever been the victim of 360 reviews, you already know one of the answers: the "theory" that people will give honest feedback if they know their victim will never know who they are. This is a BS answer, because it doesn't allow improvement, because there is no way to tie the action to an event--it is essentially a node with no vertices.

The other answer is that the editors don't want you to know what they are doing.

2. Why aren't we told when an editor moderates our posts?
Often, when an editor moderates, it is to mod-bomb the offending post down to hell (i.e., -1). The reason why there's no way to know when (forget about the why*) an editor does this is the editors don't want you to know what they are doing.
3. Why is the W3C HTML Validator at www.w3c.org IP banned from Slashdot?
Hmmm. This one is a puzzler. Perhaps they are embarrassed at the quality of their HTML. Or perhaps the editors don't want you to know what they are doing. Well, not really on the last one.

In a lot of ways, the editors are much like our government: both want to carry out their work in secret. No oversight = can do whatever they want without fear of losing the next election or in this case, losing members.

---t-h-o-u-g-h-t--b-r-e-a-k---

* Imagine this if you will: suppose that in addition to assigning a moderation "category" to a post, the moderator had to write a short reason why she moderated . This would do some things that would help clean up the broken moderation system here.

  1. It would reduce the number of stupid moderations---those that are frivolous or not well-thought out. It takes time to write out anything. If one must provide a reason for a particular action, then lazy people won't do it, and those who really care will---hopefully---take time to do it right.
  2. It would provide feedback to the poster, hopefully for improvement.
  3. It would help the metamoderator. Perhaps there is some reason why someone rated something "troll" that I can agree with, rather than applying my own judgement of the post in light of the moderation.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?