Beta
×

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!

Time to Fix the Moderation System, Davey

illuminata (668963) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 10

Lately, every post that I have made that ends up getting a score of five has been moderated down with the qualifier of overrated. I've felt this way for a while, but the overrated qualifier should be done away with.

In fairness, the underrated qualifier should go to. I think that if you are going to moderate a post, you should have a good reason.Lately, every post that I have made that ends up getting a score of five has been moderated down with the qualifier of overrated. I've felt this way for a while, but the overrated qualifier should be done away with.

In fairness, the underrated qualifier should go to. I think that if you are going to moderate a post, you should have a good reason.

If you want to see an odd "overrated" moderation, read my comment But of Course! in reply to the story Ban on Internet Access Tax Dies in Senate. 50% interesting + 20% informative + 20% overrated doesn't quite add up.

Also, the funny qualifier is still fucked. They won't give you any positive karma for it, but as soon as you get modded down, even if it is from a five to a four, you can end up with a worse karma rating. I've stated my disdain for the rules on being funny before, but it's getting damn annoying, so I figured that I'd show my disapproval again.

Well, what does CmdrTaco think about being funny? Here's a quote from the Slashdot FAQ under Comments and Moderation. "You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass." Well, first off, you don't seem to have a problem being a smart ass, CmdrTaco. But, don't you have to be smart to be a smart-ass? Just as you have to be stupid to be a stupid-ass? Being funny shouldn't be such a bad thing.

The overrated and funny qualifier problems aren't the only problems with the system. here's the biggest change that I want to see to the moderation system. How about the powers that be quit letting these damn moderators hide behind this veil of secrecy by showing who gives us what score? Personally, I would like to see if whoever has been giving me out overrated scores is just a single prick with an agenda or multiple people whom I still wouldn't think too much of. If I think the moderators fucked up, I would like to at least know who they are and maybe even tell them that they fucked up. It should come with the territory of being a moderator to be able to defend your choices.

Well, that's all I have to comment on for now. Thanks go out to mirko and his journal post on the same subject for reminding me to say something about the moderation problems. Let me know what you people think.

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

Some more evidence (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7473942)

Some very good points. Not only is the moderation system kinda screwed up, but the people doing the moderating are even more screwed up [slashdot.org] .

BTW, I may be a leftist bastard but I completely agree with your comments in your journal. It's easy to get "good karma" by regurgigating the same mantra ad naseum. Like I do. And look at me now. Karma: Excellent. I should spend my time more productively.

Unfortunately, the mods (and perhaps editors) do not like opposing views. So while I personally may not agree with some of your (strongly-worded at times) posts, they have the same right to viewed, replied, and modded up by other readers. Hypocrisy is rampant here at /.; they speak so highly of keeping their rights to express themselves and criticize, and as soon as someone comes with a differering opinion from the herd, he's labeled as "flamebait" or "troll". Sad.

Post what you think, and rest assured that I'll be seeing your posts even if they're modded down, as I read at -1.

Cheers.

Re:Some more evidence (0)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7474145)

Wow, nice experiment. It's scary that many people with mod points believe the unbelievable and talk out of their asses, yet they are the ones who facilitate the discussions around here.

I can respect left wing and right wing opinion equally. I'm not on either side, I'm wherever a Libertarian falls. When I use strong words, it's generally when I get fed up with the other strongly worded opinions from the other sides. Many seem to be able to dish out their strong opinions but cannot take others. I use strong words when I want to hit hard, other than that, I don't whip out the more powerful stuff much. But, it's the hurrah hurrah stories and posts that really get to me, though.

Thanks for reading, and I won't cave in to their karma system, no matter how bad it is. I'm just glad that more people are browsing at -1 because of their mistakes, even though it sucks having to sift through the truly bad posts.

anti-slash lamers + unpopular viewpoints (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7477902)

I don't have a problem with overated/underated modding, but I think it should be subject to meta-modding (it isn't currently, unless I'm mistaken). I also don't have a problem with Funny not giving karma, but I do have a problem with losing karma when they mod you overrated on a Funny post. My objection to that would go away if overated was subject to M2.

I've also noticed that my recent +5 posts (insightful or funny) get modded "overated". Part me wonders if this is the efforts of those assholes over at Anti-slash [anti-slash.org] . That in of itself is reason enough for us to be able to see who is doing the moderation AND for over/underated to be subject to M2.

I would also agree with your beef about being modded down for having rightish views. While I happen to be a left-wing ACLU card-carrying liberal, I don't think that you should be modded down purely for political views. I recently started an argument [slashdot.org] over the rampent Anti-Americanism that I've seen on /. (see, us democrats can be patriots too!) I was modded up several times -- and modded down several times. My hunch says the Americans with mod points were arguing with the Europeans with mod points :) I don't see any solution to this problem (getting modded down over unpopular viewpoints), but at least if over/underated was subject to M2 the idiots doing the moddowns would have something to worry about...

Just my two cents on these issues. Feel free to toss it at the powers who be :)

Re:anti-slash lamers + unpopular viewpoints (0)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7478886)

I'm not sure how far left or right I am. I pretty much stick to the Libertarian Party's positions, found here [lp.org] . It's weird, I haven't really found one issue that I haven't disagreed with them on yet other than the death penalty, although I don't believe the party has taken an official stance on it nor are there all too many within the party who support it.

Anyways, the only thing that I'm unsure about as far as overrated and underrated comments being subject to M2s is that you have the vast majority of people on Slashdot sharing the same political views. Now, of course, there are people like you who don't want to see people get modded down because of their political views, but with the makeup of the Slashdot crowd I can't help but to think that the M2s would go the same way as the M1s. Also, it's hard to M2 when you can't get out of the lower karma ratings. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be too many people like yourself. As long as the mods hold people like me down, I'm not sure if there will be that many people who would be willing to give those mods a bad M2 and get them to stop.

Yet, anything is worth a shot. I just wish that people would try to argue their viewpoints rather than try their best to take someone out of a discussion.

Re:anti-slash lamers + unpopular viewpoints (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7479727)

I'm not sure how far left or right I am. I pretty much stick to the Libertarian Party's positions, found here

There's much to admire about the Libertarian platform (Govt should stay out of our business, end the worthless Drug War, etc etc), but personally I find them a little too harsh on some matters (Social Security/etc). At heart I am a bleeding-heart liberal so I usually vote Democrat. However I don't limit my votes to a straight-party line, and I could envision myself voting for the right Libertarian candidate (or Libertarian-lite). In any case, I don't think people should be modded down for political views -- of course I'm only one person and the majority of /. disagrees with me it seems.

I'm not sure if there will be that many people who would be willing to give those mods a bad M2 and get them to stop.

You might have a point there. I do try and make it a point to read /. at -1, but it's hard sometimes because of the genuine flamebait "first post" crap. If I don't read at -1 then I read at 0 so I'll at least be able to catch the AC's that haven't been modded down.

I haven't had my account long enough to M2, but once I begin M2'ing I will rate as bad moddowns that appear to be

Re:anti-slash lamers + unpopular viewpoints (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7479732)

I haven't had my account long enough to M2, but once I begin M2'ing I will rate as bad moddowns that appear to be

Oops.. cut that off. Meant to say that once I begin M2'ing I will rate as bad moddowns that appear to be solely politically based. Not sure how much impact I will have but it's the least (most?) I can do.

Re:anti-slash lamers + unpopular viewpoints (0)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7480351)

Well, I've had my account for months, but only had the opportunity to M2 twice. Each time, there was a large amount of poorly modded posts. I can't remember the exact breakdown as it was a few days ago. I got to rate ten moderations each time and the majority of the politcally-based moddowns were marked as flamebait.

As far as the Libertarian platform goes, the Social Security issue seems to be one of the larger sticking points for many people, especially the Democrats. Most new Libertarian supporters are former Republicans who are sick of how intertwined religious and moral issues have become with their former party. It's harder to get votes and support from the Democrats since the religious issues aren't as prevalent, thus making them less likely to want to switch. There's less to argue about with a non-Christian former Republican.

ye're right... (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7531216)

I agree with you except on the anonymity point...
Here's my idea [slashdot.org] .

Re:ye're right... (-1)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7544169)

Your idea reminded me that I should write this idea. No worries though, I gave you credit for that in my last paragraph.

I still would like to see who is moderating me though, because it looks like some prick with modpoints is trying to nail a bunch of my posts when he can. I'm sure more than one person has modded me down due to the different political views, but now it seems like some of the moderations are just totally out there rather than the usual moderation by someone with an agenda.

Re:ye're right... (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7545887)

No problem.
And, BTW, I finally went back to the metamod system and every day, I am afraid to remark that around 45% of the messages I meta moderate are unfairly modded.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?