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!

Unread: Ranking (Moderation)

FortKnox (169099) writes | more than 10 years ago

Politics 39

I'm tempted to turn off journal messaging for this doozy.

Moderation (but I prefer the term 'ranking' myself).

I wanna keep it simple, not complex. I want it to be all upmods if possible, no downmods. I want every moderation tracked so you can see who moderated what on every post if you want.I'm tempted to turn off journal messaging for this doozy.

Moderation (but I prefer the term 'ranking' myself).

I wanna keep it simple, not complex. I want it to be all upmods if possible, no downmods. I want every moderation tracked so you can see who moderated what on every post if you want.

Here's the kicker:
I think that 'all users can rank posts' should only affect front page articles. Anything inside a personal journal entry/article should be ranked by the author and whoever the author gives permissions to rank.

Ok, now with that stuff outta the way, here's my opinion:
There are 5 levels of ranking (sorry about the cheesy explanations, but I want words, not numbers):
Normal Post
Good Post
Good Point
Great Points
I wish everyone would read this post!

Of course, each one would be associated with a number (normal = 0, good = 1, good point = 2, etc...)
The posts are ranked by averaging the rankings (I'd mode it, as one person suggested, but how do you rank a bunch of '3' ranked posts?). No numbers are given, you don't know how close one comment is to another, they are just organized.

Highly trusted users (and admins, only) will get one more ranking option, "Inappropriate." If one post is given X number of inappropriate ranks, it is placed in an area that default users will not see (though any logged in user can turn off this default to see anything).

Its a combo of the kuro5hin system in moderation, and the threshold limit in slashdot.

I am not going to fool myself. There is no way this site will generate the sheer number of responses that slashdot does, so there is no point in really adding a complex system. I think we should go with something simple, and work on something scalable if the site takes off.
Just keep in mind, most ranking will happen inside personal articles and entries. In that instance, the author and anyone the author assigns only get ranking priviledges, so this isn't something you'll have to worry about inside your own journal entries.

Oh, and one last thing. I don't have any 'karma' system thought out, but the way your posts are ranked won't have any effect on it. It will be based on your activity, and if you abuse the system (yes, I'll give out a definition of abuse, but it will be subject to change).

Ok, lemmie have it, now.

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

everything in moderation (2, Informative)

turg (19864) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016283)

Moderation (but I prefer the term 'ranking' myself).

"Ranking" would suggest that one post is ranked as the best or "first place" and another is second, and another is third, etc., etc. How about "scoring" instead?

Re:everything in moderation (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016328)

sure, whatever. I just hate the word 'moderation' in this particular sense. We'll be 'moderating' anonymous posting... meaning the general populous won't see it until trusted folk deem its worthy of posting.

Re:everything in moderation (1)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#10019130)

Perhaps Mediation? Moderate means to soften, to lessen the intensity. Mediate means to intervene, to convey.

Wham! (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016327)

I like your upmod catagorization, but I'm a little unclear what you mean by "good post" ...

Sounds reasonable to me (2, Informative)

btlzu2 (99039) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016330)

I agree with Turg though. I keep thinking first, second, and third place. We're not comparing one post with another. Are you thinking of "Rating"? That might be a better term, or "Score". Just my $.02.

I think a distributed responsibility with some ability given to an administrator is ok; however, it should be a checks and balances thing. I don't think the administrator should be able to wipe a post off the face of the earth just because *he/she* thinks it's inappropriate. (Of course, we all know that the administrator could just delete the post in the database, but you know what I mean...)

i dig (1)

blinder (153117) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016338)

i completely dig the accountability in the "moderation" system. Tracking that, I think, is a good idea. Right there is a big deterrent from "abusing" the system (i.e. modbombing)

Also, if I read this right... the system would have no need for a "M2" system because, in theory, the system would be balanced by the majority... right?

Now, as far as "karma"... I think someone mentioned it a while ago where you build "trust" through your activity. So, basically your "trust" starts at 0 (unless you are invited -- right?) and it could go up to 100 (or whatever) and thus creating a threshold of capabilities for those that are trusted more.

Re:i dig (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016693)

M2 - I'm going to see how it works out without it, but since you'll be able to see when people moderate you, its bound to get a 'BLINDER ALWAYS MODS MY POST "GOOD" SO I CAN'T GET HIGH SCORED POSTS! WHAAAAA!' email from time to time. We'll see how it goes.

K5 lives. Sort of. (1)

andfarm (534655) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016355)

Congratulations, you've just come up with an exact clone of the old K5 moderation system, except with different meanings assigned to the levels. (K5 used 3 as neutral.) So, taking a hint from what K5 has learned, make sure there's a per-total-moderations limit on how many times a user can moderate a particular user's comments. And, taking a hint from Slashdot, make sure it's easy to mass-moderate comments - moderating each comment should NOT require a page reload. See K5 for how this works - essentially, the entire comment view is a form with lots and lots of inputs (one for each comment) and lots of identical submit buttons (one at each comment).

Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016431)

Unless I'm mistaken, Slashdot supports mass-moderation. (Choose your moderations, click submit. All mods applied)

It's been well over a year since I had mod points, though.

Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017078)

Yep.. . . at least that is how it was yesterday when I had my 5 points to throw to the wind...

jason

Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (1)

andfarm (534655) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017531)

Ah - assumed that each moderation was an independent form for some reason.

"matched" mods? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016485)

I posted this in the old discussion and didn't want it to get lost, since it now looks like we have "moved on" :-)

What about letting people mod however they like, and after I mod, I get "matched" with people who modded much like my mods? Then later I have a "show me like minded drones" button :-) that lets me view later stories modded up by these people (and maybe their list of like-minded drones)? The meta-mod crap on slashdot would make more sense if it worked this way I think.

I like the idea of only one kind of downmod by the way. I also like the idea of being able to mod posts with multiple labels. Something can be flamebait and yet still be funny IMHO.

Re:"matched" mods? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016712)

Its a nice idea, but I think it'd be far too complex to code, honestly. The system would constantly have to 'track' who moderates similar to you, and search on a select group of moderations, and only show those moderations... it sounds like it'd slow the entire sight to a crawl.

I hate 'shooting down' ideas, cause I don't want to discourage anyone, I just feel this is a little too complex for the site.

Re:"matched" mods? (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016962)

Yep. FK, KISS and this site could do well. Violate the KISS and you will have too much work to do for what may or may not turn into a wildly popular site.

jason

Re:"matched" mods? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017131)

It doesn't have to be all that complex. So long as you're tracking a user's moderation history, you only need to examine those comments for identical moderations. I think you could do it in a single DB query.

Granted, that's still more complex than "nothing at all." :)

Re:"matched" mods? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#10018286)

It could be a job that ran once a night maybe? I agree it might be a pain in the ass to code tho.

Re:"matched" mods? (1)

dead sun (104217) | more than 10 years ago | (#10075671)

The person you just replied to posted an idea very similar to one I posed a number of journal articles back. I think it is the best possible option, for reasons I can explain but don't really have time to tonight. I'll come back to it shortly though, I promise.

Basically, I'd like to see a recommender style system like Amazon has in place, where everybody has an unlimited number of "moderations" good and bad. They don't directly affect anybody else, but people who label posts like you do have posts they have not moderated affected by your labels and vice versa. Thus a post gets recommended based on past moderation similarity data.

The real reason is this system isn't breakable. You can ruin it for yourself, but you'd have a hell of a time ruining it for others, if it can be done.

There would be challenges to be sure, but it is acheivable. As I've posted in my journal just recently I'd be willing to donate some time (because I'm sick of some /. stupidity). You're also talking to somebody who's very nearly finished their MS in CS for AI, it's something I'd be interested in doing and doing well.

Again, I'll post more about it later, possibly in my journal, possibly here, but I think that it could be done and that there are reasons for doing so. I'm just too tired to go in depth right now.

what about (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016649)

a this was probably written by Em -2 moderation?

that way everyone can weed out the trolls :)

is there a need? (2, Informative)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016718)

Call me silly, but do you really need it? Even if there are only a few thousand users in the system, that is more than enough to dig through most of the normal posting - few threads will go so nuts as to require 'filtering'. As long as the threads have some basic system moderation to keep the ass hats from crap flooding things, is there any need to even deal with user applied moderation?

Re:is there a need? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016740)

I'm toying with the idea of only opening up moderation when the article has over 50 comments, so only use it when necessary type of thing.

Re:is there a need? (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 10 years ago | (#10016878)

I like that idea. Doing a 'lite' mode? I tend to do most of my surfing from a blackberry...

Re:is there a need? (1)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#10022325)

But the Inappropriate mod should still be available. Trolls often aim for early in the conversation.

The 50-comment limit would only be for "front-page" stuff, or journals as well.

Additionally, what about Inappropriate use in journals. Should there be some tiny hit for being heavy-handed, even in your own journal? Maybe it's not where you want the discussion to go, but you asked the question. You want the journal owner to have control, but...

Re:is there a need? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10022522)

Don't back off on the questions. It needs to be discussed, so if its moderation/scoring/ranking/wahtever, lets talk about it.

There needs to be some 'hit' for someone getting inappropriate comments in the journal, but since the author has supreme control of scoring, it shouldn't be anything major.

Heck, if chamcham creates an account and you curse in a reply, he could deem it inappropriate. But if I make it no hit, then a troll can make an account and only post innappropriate comments in journals...

Then again, the author will be able to make it so that certain people can't comment in their journals... but then trolls can just wait for new users to pop up to annoy...

Ugh, neverending loop, eh? ;-)

Re:is there a need? (1)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#10024267)

I think there should be some hit for an Inappropriate hit. Front page/sectional inappropriate should hit more than journal innappropriate. I'll ponder this more...

Re:is there a need? (1)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 10 years ago | (#10018448)

Already addressed - but this is exactly what I'm thinking. This will in essence be like a grand old Forum - but everyone who posts gets to essentially be a moderator OR an Administrator from time to time. If that's the case, why don't we just switch over to a phpBB or similar powered site?

Will points be distributed, ala /. (1)

insanecarbonbasedlif (623558) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017004)

to keep the volume of moderation per user low?

Re:Will points be distributed, ala /. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017181)

If it were me, I'd probably allow unlimited moderation, but only one mod to a given comment per user.

It's more of an issue of whether or not moderations are tracked. If they're not tracked, people go crazy with the mod points, no matter how many they have.

If they're tracked (i.e. public), then you could give a troll unlimited mod points, and he'll be careful in using them so as to not get kicked off.

Re:Will points be distributed, ala /. (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10022094)

Nah, I'd prefer everyone within a certain trust level gains moderation (only one mod per comment, though).

I don't like the K5 system... (2, Informative)

loucura! (247834) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017135)

Posts only get 5's or 1's, and it enforces the same sort of idiot group-think that the k5bots accuse slashdotters of encouraging.

Re:I don't like the K5 system... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017222)

Any global scoring system will do that. The only way I can think of to avoid it would be to allow people to change the effect of another person's scoring based on their position in his own buddy list.

For example, User2 votes +1 to User1's comment.

User3 likes User2, so he see's User1's comment as scored "+1"
User4 is neutral to User2, so he see's User1's comment scored as "+1"
User5 dislikes User2, so he see's User1's comment as "-1"

It would make more sense on a per-moderation basis, though. I might have "Good/Great Point" as +1 regardless of friend or foe, but have "I wish everyone would read this" as -2 if the mod was by a foe.

Simplify it further (1)

limpdawg (77844) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017306)

I think that ranking should only have one value and that it should be additive. This way if 50 people like a post it has a rank of 50, if 10 people like a post it has a rank of 10. This is simple and accomplishes the task of only seeing posts that people like. If someone posts an opinion that disagrees with the majority then all the majority can do is ignore it and not vote for it or reply.

Re:Simplify it further (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10022136)

Interesting... Simply a '+' and '-' button by a post. You like it, you get it a point, you don't, it loses a point? Should there even be a '-'??

Re:Simplify it further (1)

Keith Russell (4440) | more than 10 years ago | (#10028009)

I think you'd need a (-) vote. With only (+) votes, there's really no difference between demotion and mere apathy. The number and ratio of votes would also reveal how significant a post is. Hot-button issues would garner a large number of votes, positive and negative. (Think "Score: +4, Flamebait"). Well-received posts will get a lot of plusses, and floodcrap will be smacked down with many minuses.

Filtering could be done based on +/- ratios at the ends of the bell curve (yeah, yeah, I know). There would have to be some slack for low vote counts, to give new posts some visibility. I imagine that, as unread.org matures, we could find other filterable voting patterns.

And if anyone so much as mentions "Overrated" and "Underrated" without cursing them to the ends of the Earth with many Daoine Approved(TM) adjectives, I'll personally kick your ass.

Re:Simplify it further (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#10023831)

I rethought this. This would give an advantage to those who post first and a huge disadvantage to those who post late. Plus you are more tempted to bump up something you see first rather than something you see after a while.

I loved the simplicity, but it may end up just like the dot.

i like that just as it is (2, Informative)

SolemnDragon (593956) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017320)

i vote yes.

-1 For Self Moderations (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 10 years ago | (#10017321)

If it is private, we should be able to mod our posts down so that we don't waste the time of others. Others can still read them & mod them up, but we should be able to indicate that there is nothing worth reading here for most people.

Re:-1 For Self Moderations (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10019348)

It'd be more convenient if we could simply retract a post. That may or may not entail deleting it.

had you gone with mode it could be bad (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 10 years ago | (#10019471)

I imagine a minority all voting 1 while the majority votes are split among 2,3,4,5. That and the reverse doesn't represent the views well. Good idea not to use mode.

Alright, my expanded thoughts on the topic (1)

dead sun (104217) | more than 10 years ago | (#10082970)

I've posted how I think I'd do it given the option to start the moderation system over in my journal at http://slashdot.org/~dead%20sun/journal/81690 [slashdot.org] . It is, of course, just a suggestion and I'll not feel badly if nobody thinks it is appropriate. Just my two cents.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?