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!

Interesting Moderation Proposal

michael posted about 14 years ago | from the NP-hard dept.

News 263

Kuro5hin is running a story with some interesting ideas for "the perfect moderation system". I'm not sure I care for the overall system but the idea behind it (of 'balancing' out parts of the site with strategic bonuses/penalties) is intriguing.

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

Re:Kuro5hin? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 14 years ago | (#740883)

The fact that you post with a 2 and can't follow a couple links to the kuro5hin FAQ is the best evidence I've seen that Slashdot's moderation system has utterly and completely failed.

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 14 years ago | (#740884)

Or atleast a good slashdot poll question: guess his TOTAL karma today.

libDemocracy (1)

cyanide (5741) | about 14 years ago | (#740892)

I haven't looked at the moderation system suggested yet, but I've been developing a similar concept of my own for WorldForge (the MMORPG project... you know you want it).

Basically the idea is to grant privilages according to one's reputation in the world. For instance, programmatically it is very simple to have a spell that raises a mountain out of the ocean. However, given into the wrong hands, all our oceans would be dripping from mountain tops. :-)

We really only want very wise players/characters to have the use of such spells. The idea is that the gaming community could decide who is wise, through a similar process of moderation. Meta moderation is quite a good idea. In another example, someone who comes into an Oriental style game ranting about Australian Rules Football might have the privilage to speak in the world revoked but a mage of great (moderation) power. The player would have to conduct an act that would bring him back into good repute, perhaps by performing a task for the mage. (details details...)

Anyway, there is no reason to make this system for WorldForge only, I think the principle can be applied to any number of environments... perhaps a mailing list community might grant the privilage for someone to post an attatchment to the mailing list. Again, a person with such a reputation probably wouldn't use it very often, just as a wise mage may be wise enough never to raise a mountain from the ocean.

Message boards are annother obvious application. What about Gnutella? The network is falling appart because people aren't sharing thier files. Why not moderate music sharers? I may choose only to share files with people who only share legal MP3s. Slowly people will start to be rewarded for doing the right thing.

IRC, CVS... the possibilities are intriguing. I've started a sourceforge project to develop a generic library for moderation. Anyone who would like to come help is welcome to:

(There's no mailing list there... but check back in a few hours when the sourceforge cron kicks in.)

People have rights (1)

yosemite (6592) | about 14 years ago | (#740894)

Why cant people just say what ever they want? I dont have a problem with moderation...but I do think people should have the right to say whatever they want.

Maybe a separate forum, like "read more unmoderated". Its seems to me that simply cutting off others toughts and ideas and not giving them an alternate forum to express them is stupid. See evan here I am starting to ramble, But I like to Ramble, I like to say the word fuck, I like to express myself.

People will probably say what the hell is he talking about? I guess I am trying to say that forums like this are more like a bathroom stall covered in grafiti then they are hallow and sacred.

I know people have concerns about ideas drowning in a sea of noise. hey thats fine then they should stick to the moderated slashdot forum. People who dont give a shit should be able to use an unmoderated forum.

People might say well adjust your +- filter thingie. I have a theory that those people are patronizing fucks. "hey open up the sewers and take a look, if you dare". Maybe I am a little vehement in my opinions but I would like not to have to deal with a rarified anal "comment aristocracy" that dictates anything to me.

Instead of seperate and unequal as it is now, I would like to see seperate and equal.

sig as follows:from now on its "Anonymous Heros"

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#740897)

Signal 11, you're a pretty intelligent person.

Whups, first mistake. :)

What do you do for a living?

Between slashdot posts? Web design, tech support, sysadminning. Alittle programming. Sometime in the near future I'll probably be helping out a friend with a contract position or two to do ethernet wiring for small businesses. Oh, and I'm trying to take over the world.

I don't suppose you are looking for a new job..

If you're serious, hit my e-mail address (above) and we can talk outside of slashdot.


Re:Sheesh (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#740898)

Countless innocent bits have been mercilessly slaughtered

... Atleast it happened quickly. They did their work and were then quickly buried in the GND. Probably for the best... the impedance would have gotten to them eventually anyway. It's a pity though.. they had so much potential....


Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#740899)

. I have frequently seen them abused by people who mark comments out of spite in order to dodge the retribution from meta.

*cough* Yeah.


Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#740900)

Contact shoeboy about the "spectator sport". They're doing a "karma whore fantasy moderation" thingie.. betting on who gets the most mods in a week.


Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#740901)

Actually, that's a quote from The Mythical Man Month, by, um, Burns, isn't it?

That does ring a bell. Keep in mind it's 11:47 local time here.. I should have been in bed hours ago...


Whatever moderation system you use, (1)

PD (9577) | about 14 years ago | (#740903)

Be sure to use it excessively.

This is silly. (1)

RJ11 (17321) | about 14 years ago | (#740908)

No matter what you do, you're always going to have stupid immature people trying to ruin it for everyone else. I say give it up while you're ahead.

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Rombuu (22914) | about 14 years ago | (#740912)

It'll need to be tweaked, updated, maybe even entirely thrown out for a new system. Trust the wisdom of Strousoup(sp?) on this one - design the first implimentation to throw it away, you're going to do it atleast once anyway.

Actually, that's a quote from The Mythical Man Month, by, um, Burns, isn't it?

Finally on Topic! (1)

Rommel (33210) | about 14 years ago | (#740919)

This is a story where discussion about moderation is on topic! An all new Slashdot first!

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | about 14 years ago | (#740926)

I think its true that there exists a less than perfect system here, yet I'm impressed with the overall moderation I've seen. I assume that there is a +/- 1 error built into the system. Its rare to read a 3,4,5 that isn't above average. Likewise, browsing at -1 is for the most part painful. Sure some -1 deserve to be 0, some 3 should be a 2...the question thus becomes 1)what signal/noise ratio can you tollerate, 2)whats the probability of finding an undervalued "nugget", 3)whats the average value of said nugget, 4) assign your filter level accordingly.

Obviously I come back because I like it here...the thing is it seems much more fairly rated to me than perhaps it does to others.

Perhaps a weighted average of Kuro5hin's new plan and our current system would improve our error to +/- 1/2...
(ahh but how to weight that average?)

Re:Self-sustaining (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | about 14 years ago | (#740927)

moderated by performance of your economic weath and incorporation
Just don't expect us graduate assistants to participate. We have no economic wealth. I hear some postdocs make decent I guess it would be a filter.

Re:I have it (1)

Coward, Anonymous (55185) | about 14 years ago | (#740929)

it's not a dumber idea than letting advertisers influence hits on search engines, and there are already clueless investors funding that []

I find very useful when I am searching for a vendor. If I am looking for someone who sells crawfish, is much more useful than a search engine which makes me weed out the crawfish recipe pages, and if I'm looking to buy socks, I don't want to go through a bunch of SOCKS protocol hits.

boring (1)

kirwin (71594) | about 14 years ago | (#740932)

I have a narrow attention span when it comes to moderation HOW-TO's.

Here is my Moderation HOW-TO:

Nevermind, I am reading the next post.

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

kirwin (71594) | about 14 years ago | (#740933)

Here is the answer:

Have you Meta Moderated [] Today?

It's at the top of the page. Use it.

May I have some karma? Please? (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 14 years ago | (#740934)

Perfection, like the highest countable number, is impossible...

Capt. Ron

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | about 14 years ago | (#740936)

> Articles that follow the groupthink of the cult get good moderation.

This is going to be true in any self-moderating community, regardless of the actual mechanism of the moderation... it's something akin to the social contract, karma eventually gravitates and stays near the denser ideological center of the group, and away from the fringe. Thank goodness that, on /. at least, you can, as I do, always browse at -1 if you want to hear the minority's voice as well.

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | about 14 years ago | (#740937)

Indeed. I think the system that's in place now is probably going to be the one that ends up sucking the least when it's all said and done... as long as it isn't adulterated with things like the infamous bitchslap, that is. But, I still think it's important to take the ratings with a grain of salt, and browse at -1 whenever possible.

Re:What does this do to.... (1)

Empty_One (90408) | about 14 years ago | (#740941)

Can I be a Karma whore too??? PPPPPPlease????

Re:I have it (1)

fhwang (90412) | about 14 years ago | (#740942)

The sad thing is, if you found the right venture capitalist you could probably convince him/her to give you funding for this. I mean, it's not a dumber idea than letting advertisers influence hits on search engines, and there are already clueless investors funding that [] ...

Francis Hwang

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

The_Messenger (110966) | about 14 years ago | (#740951)


All generalizations are false.

Re:I have it (1)

Nastard (124180) | about 14 years ago | (#740956)

Why, so Bill Gates can mod down the anti-ms posts and mod up that guy who keeps posting the windows logo ASCII? No thank you.

A closed (to the poor) moderation system defeats the purpose of a pro-OSS site. Not to mention that the trolls obviously have more money than anyone else here. Why else would they be home all day long to claim "f1rst p0st fuxxxxerz!!!JH(*)&# eye 0wn jew" and talk about naked and petrified actresses?

El Nastardo

Re:Is perfection in perfect moderation possible? (1)

Nastard (124180) | about 14 years ago | (#740957)

Meta-Moderation (to me) is a joke. I only metamoderate so that I can claim 'unfair' on any downward moderation, and 'fair' for any upward moderation.

I like to think of it as my way of protesting downward moderation.

Re:Well it seems sufficently complex.... (1)

Nastard (124180) | about 14 years ago | (#740958)

^-anyone else see these as smiley faces, or am I on crack?

I know this is WAY OT, but I have to know.

Re:This is silly. (1)

coasterfreak (131657) | about 14 years ago | (#740967)

I also agree, after reading the article, it seems like their new rating system is based on a simple form of gambling. It makes no sense.

What does this do to.... (1)

Ruthless_Advisorette (137347) | about 14 years ago | (#740973)

my karma whoring ways?

Re:Whatever moderation system you use, (1)

Swede2048 (139617) | about 14 years ago | (#740974)

This user should be kicked off, whipped, beaten, dragged behind a horse, then whipped some more.. If you're going to post something, have some content. Or just be hypocritical like this comment.

Re:I have it (1)

phwiffo (139975) | about 14 years ago | (#740975)

Good idea but it sounds like too much logistical work in the long run to be self-sufficient being completely charity based.

Perhaps a hybrid banner/pay-to-play sort of arrangement? Any suggestions?

Re:Wow.. (1)

phwiffo (139975) | about 14 years ago | (#740976)

I think a plug for the site isn't really that much of an exchange that would benefit VA.. I mean, they really donated the hardware for good PR

Faith in humanity is just like being a node on a network, once everyone is online it functions for everyone.

only allow upwards moderation (1)

radar bunny (140304) | about 14 years ago | (#740977)

the problem is in moderating down. I have to browse at zero because a lot of good post get moderated down because of someone's personal views conflicted with those of the poster. SO... only let people moderate up.
all the AC post that are lame dont get moderated up or down and stay at zero.
most of the ac post that are worth a damned get moderated up to a one.
Now we can browse at +1 or even +2 and trust that we're reading the best posts. I mean some of the most interesting post i've read here on /. have sat at 0. Besides, isn't the number one complaint that the moderators are modding down good posts.

games and rankings (1)

ruin (141833) | about 14 years ago | (#740978)

If you've played enough of any online game, you've already noticed the problem with any kind of rating system. It doesn't matter if the game is chess, Quake, or karma whoring on Slashdot. When you institute some sort of ongoing rating to measure the skill of the participants, the following things always happen.

First, people start attaching way too much significance to the ratings. Something in human nature, I guess, that gets gratified by watching one's statistics grow. (Anyone who's played Diablo or any of the better rogue-like games knows all about this.) Then, people start figuring out ways they can increase their rating that don't involve increasing ones skill at the game. On Slashdot, this analogizes to people ignoring the goal of posting informative and interesting stuff, and instead carefully choosing their posts to increase their karma.

Lastly, veteran players split into two types of people. The first type are the insecures who continue to play the game of gaining rating instead of playing the game that the ratings were instituted to rate. If enough people in a particular locale do this, then it significantly downgrades the level of sportsmanship and the quality of the games.

The second type of person realizes that she cares more about the game than about the rating, and goes back to playing as if there were no rating system, which in my humble opinion is the way things should be.

Unfortunately, only people who play the game for a while seem to be able to do this. Something about being a newbie makes one focus on the rating. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking down to newbies here, I remember quite well how thrilling it's been to gain rating points in various games, karma-hoarding included.

So how does this relate to Slashdot? The moderation system perhaps does create a game out of aquiring karma, but in my opinion this has not degraded Slashdot much. If you take a more relaxed attitude towards it, it's actually a nice way of trimming down the comments so that you don't spend all day reading one page. All the people who like to complain extensively about Slashdot policy need to take a break and go play some other online game until they realize that playing the game for fun is much better than playing it for ratings.

Interesting but... (1)

OO7david (159677) | about 14 years ago | (#740987)

I like the idea of being given a certain number of points to mod, etc., etc., but the problem, I belive, is that I will mod to my mentality.

There's been more than one occation of /. that I've read something given a +5 funny, and I thought it was quite lame. Or times something would be given a +2 interesting, and I honestly belived it should have gotten a >+2 informative/funny/whatever.

Therefore, I belive that the best moderating system is something realtivly AI based. Maybe a form of radio buttons that give a general idea of what I think is funny, interesting, informative, offtopic, troll, etc. I understand that personalized server generated moderating won't come out the best (or will take much work to implement), but /.er's will be much happier to read comments that apply to them and the topic.


Tairan (167707) | about 14 years ago | (#740990)

I provide mirroring service (as well as free, spamless, advertisingless web hosting / services ) if you are interested in getting some. Send me an email~

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

Tairan (167707) | about 14 years ago | (#740991)

Signal 11, you're a pretty intelligent person. What do you do for a living? I don't suppose you are looking for a new job.. Going IPO - get yours now!

Slashdot going downhill? (1)

DragonMagic (170846) | about 14 years ago | (#740994)

Well, I know this will probably hurt my karma, but it needs to be said. Not only has Slashdot been rejecting many stories by different people that is News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. (sm), but they are also reposting stories and posting news articles that are old.

Kuro5hin had this up last week at the least, when I posted like #128 in response to their request. Why is it now reaching /.'s front board?

Unfortunately, if /. keeps this up, will people continue to read it in the numbers they do? And will it hurt the advertising revenue Andover expects to keep /. moving?

I'm definitely not trying to put down /., but just hope that they become more impartial, check for multiple posts or at least check when the news is from, and making sure the news is definitely news, and not something that's been elsewhere for weeks. For the sake of everyone, just please?

(again, not hoping to bash /., merely being up front about /. improving its news...)

Dragon Magic []

Re:Kuro5hin? (1)

tang (179356) | about 14 years ago | (#740996)

from the kuro5hin faq:
What's up with the name? What is a "kuro5hin"? Is that 'l337 Sp33k?

No, it is most decidedly not 'l337. It's a pun on my name. Kuro5hin == corrosion == rust == Rusty. The gratuitous '5' in the middle in an homage to the character "Da5id" in Neal Stephenson's excellent Snow Crash. It started out as just an amusing thought that popped into my head, and became an online alias. It stuck around as an online alias since it wasn't ever registered or used anywhere, being a word that I made up AFAIK. And it became my domain name cause all the other short snappy names were taken (well, "" is not taken, but hey -- it's too late to change now :-)).

Update: John Prevost informs me that while "kuroshin" doesn't appear to be a valid Japanese compound, the roots "kuro" and "shin", smushed together, could be interpeted roughly as "dark devotion" or "black heart," among other variants of that basic (gothicly depressing) theme. I thought that was pretty cool. For the record, I don't know any Japanese, and the name wasn't supposed to be Japanese anyway. At least it didn't turn out to mean "lustful ferret" or something. :-) (or "Demon fetus" :))

"NP-hard dept." ?!? (1)

Trevor Goodchild (187368) | about 14 years ago | (#740999)

Does that mean what I think it means?

michael, you dirty little devil...

My thoughts on moderation changes (1)

faeryman (191366) | about 14 years ago | (#741000)

Taco, do what you will to change the moderation on /. but don't even think about removing -1, Troll.

I've spent so much time with her I cannot deny she is my soulmate, and to remove her would be the final blow against my wretched trolling life.

With love,

Restricting the right to post might go a bit far (1)

Cerlyn (202990) | about 14 years ago | (#741005)

Unfortunately, it would seem that restricting the right to post might be going a bit far. In fact, I would call this censorship. While someone may have unpopular viewpoints, they may actually contribute to other discussions better than the one they are losing points over. Systems such as this would quiet those that cry "Wolf!" when there was none, but it would also quiet them when there really was one.

On one hand, this might eliminate trolls who can not bulk generate email accounts, on the other hand, this is censorship. I do not know which is the lesser of the two evils. If one managed to get in the thick of a discussion and moderated down, yet contributed well to a discussion but too late for moderators to pay much attention, do they stand the risk of losing their right to post?

We all flame those who say DeCSS is bad. One has to look at the logic behind someones view before wildly handing out moderation. Such logic might be hard to deterimine from a single post. Jumpy logic like this makes poor posts, but fun examples. I would be never published this like. Do not moderate up this, it would be too kind if you did. :)

Sheesh (1)

stubob (204064) | about 14 years ago | (#741006)

In honor of this guy and those like him, I propose a new category (Humor-Impared or Didn't-Get-The-Joke). Rate +- as you like. This would have saved the Seinfeld flamewar on Friday from happening. Countless innocent bits have been mercilessly slaughtered in these flamewars and it must end.

Inquiring minds want to know. (1)

stubob (204064) | about 14 years ago | (#741007)

OK, Mr. 11, the question most of us (ok, me) want to know is: why have you acted in the way you have (enoch root, etc.)? Is it to show flaws in the slashdot system as you point out in your arguement? Were you abused as a child? Just because you can? I know I'm just a lowly >200,000'er, but since this discussion isn't totally offtopic for once, fill us in. Oh, and I believe the "Design the first system to be thrown away" is from "Mythical Man Month."

BattleBits (1)

stubob (204064) | about 14 years ago | (#741008)

they had so much potential.
Not once I got a hold of them. They would spend their days (miliseconds?) in a Java semi-brute force RSA key cracking program. That's probably in violation of the Electronic Geneva convention or something. Oh, and in case anyone cares, it works like a champ for any values that can be calculated natively (>64 bits), but will hit a huge wall when using the BigInteger class, as would be expected.

well... (1)

gtx (204552) | about 14 years ago | (#741009)

if slashdot were to implement something complicated like this, it crash within a week trying to compute signal 11's karma.

with apologies

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (1)

gtx (204552) | about 14 years ago | (#741010)

that's a pretty good idea too!

doesn't quite have the staying power though. i want something i can watch day in, day out. maybe if it was a seperate poll, or even a karma pool, where you bet karma on a daily basis on who's closest to his actual karma at the end of the day. the winner(s) split up the karma pool.

anyone think this is feasible?

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 14 years ago | (#741012)


Often articles that don't follow the groupthink are often flamebait, and deserve the moderation they get.

But what troubles me is that I've seen articles sometimes that clearly aren't in sync with groupthink, and make a really good point, clear, logical, etc.; but they get a bad moderation because the cabal is offended.

I've never personally felt to be a victim of this. I've just seen it done.

I've also seen articles moderated up that clearly shouldn't have been. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Thoughts on a new moderation system (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 14 years ago | (#741013)

One thing that is wrong with the present system is that all of the moderation ends up resulting in a single filter.

You can select to browse at -1 or 0, basically unfiltered. Or at a higher level -- thus limiting yourself to the influence of whatever the moderators were smoking (today).

What if different moderator's contributed to different filters?

What if I could say I want to brose at 3, but using a filter made from only the "smart" moderators, as opposed to the "smartass" ones?

Others with different tastes could browse at, say 6, using a filter which only allows them to see articles about goat sex.

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 14 years ago | (#741014)

This wouldn't solve the problem of highly opinionated mis-moderation.

I love KDE, and I hate GNOME (or vice versa, or with distributions, etc.). So I'm going to be sure to join the pro-KDE moderation group.

Now I can go on my personal rampage through a story's replies, marking down all pro-GNOME articles that piss me off and marking up all anti-GNOME (or pro-KDE?) articles. Some people are exactly this mature. And some of them even read Slashdot.

I even suppose that anyone can mis-moderate. Sometimes caffene deprivation sets in. It's late. (Or early.) Or you're in a bad mood. PHB, or In a hurry, etc. I don't know, I've never tried moderating.

Wow.. (1)

Jon Shaft (208648) | about 14 years ago | (#741015)

I'm impressed Slashdot is working with kuro5 like this.

Makes a smile come to my face that a story like this makes it to the front page. :-)

Re:Clan wars. (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 14 years ago | (#741017)

ACK... should have proofread that one. :)

What a complicated system (1)

baywulf (214371) | about 14 years ago | (#741027)

And I thought the IRS tax code was complicated!

Hmm... interesting idea (1)

Troll Messiah (215206) | about 14 years ago | (#741028)

Certainly worth an experiment, but potential problems:
  • The proposed moderation system encourages short Ideas which can be read quickly, ergo moderated quickly.
  • It doesn't take into account the potency of three dollar crack although it works better assuming a low saturation levels.
  • Trolls will still be trolls, but metatrolling is discouraged.
  • Transition appears to be a matter of simple substitution.
  • The Karma system clearly has its flaws but it does represent a accurate cross section reflecting the quality (or lack thereof) of the typical poster/troll/moderator.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Go Here. []

Duplicates and Self Moderation (1)

wmoyes (215662) | about 14 years ago | (#741029)

The problem with the system they proposed would be even more duplicate articles. We have had, what is it, two or more duplicate or near duplicate articles in the last week? This system would make it even worse.

One thing I would like to see is some form of self-moderation. Why? If I post something as a joke I just wanted someone (perhaps the author of the parent) to get a laugh out of it. But other times I write something that I think has good technical merit and wish it would float a little above the default of 1.

I wish I could think of a way to prevent troll abuse. Perhaps allow users to have a +0.5 and a +1 depending upon karma and make it optional (if the author wants to use it, so be it, if not, don't use it). Or perhaps make it a point pool that depletes (like mod points).

As a reader I would like to see what the author thought of his/her own post. It would be amusing to have pointless (pun intended) message attributes (+0 funny, +0 troll, and -0 just wanted to make the mathematicians whine).

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (1)

LaZZaR (216092) | about 14 years ago | (#741031)

IMHO, some topics are very opinionated, and aren't always modded properly. Perhaps there should be a system where to moderate up/down it requires more than one moderator to mod up/down, to reduce bias. For example, A particular user makes a comment, moderator wants to up it a few points, but must be seconded by another moderator. Kind of like a voting system. Another way to do it would be the higher you want to mod it up, the more "votes" it must accumulate, +1 requires one other moderator to vote for it, +2 requires two other moderator votes, and so on. This might become a cumbersome and slow system, but it will help to ensure that moderating is fair.

Also, for /. "members" who keep posting garbage and flame/troll, there should be something done to that user, i'm thinking something like the oposite of having an automatic +1 for posts. For example if a particular user is modded down a great deal (accumulate -1 points), when the user reached a predetermined minus score, all posts recieve -1 to filter the crap out. I do realise that they can just create another account, but I really can't see any solution to stop trolls from doing that. Perhaps a small membership fee would be in order, members get bonus points etc.

Re:Wow.. (1)

Prolog-X (233570) | about 14 years ago | (#741039)

This is not too supprising, considering that VA Linux [] (Slashdot's parent company) donated Kuro5hin's hardware.

OT, but i love it (1)

tolan's my name (234431) | about 14 years ago | (#741040)

OK thats &#9786. Its unicode, and, basically any body with a sufficently modern browser, and a reasonable unicode font will see them as smilie faces.
(in IE its one of those install on demand components. In X, well ive got my unicode font installed, if only i could get a browser to use it) may also be on crack though.
&#9786 (thats a ;o) for the rest of you)

Re:For starters, just /document/ what slashdot doe (2)

pb (1020) | about 14 years ago | (#741047)

What, is the new limit 64? I only lose points because my karma is well over the new karma cap that was enstated. I asked Rob about it, and he told me that it doesn't matter because high karma doesn't matter. Well, he's right, but it would have been nice to mention that on the site.

The proper place to go to bitch about moderation is here [] ; that's one thing slashdot *did* get right.

Hey, write a better FAQ, and link to it in your .sig; maybe you'll get it on slashdot as a story. You can only expect so much from CmdrTaco and company, and most of the time it doesn't happen. That's why sites like kuro5hin and half-empty exist, because obviously slashdot wasn't enough for some people.

Personally, I'm still drooling over the skinning support on half-empty. On slashdot, I'd be happy if I could just get a consistent *color scheme*; if Rob implemented a skinning system, I'd probably have a heart attack!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [] .

Re:speaking of moderation... (2)

pb (1020) | about 14 years ago | (#741048)

Well, I don't like the karma cap, but all that means is that you have to keep score yourself. Also, I think that displaying/not displaying karma on your page to other people should be a user-configurable option, because my Karma is definitely part of my user info.

I think that your other idea is basically sound, but needs some work. Realize that Signal 11, as well as most users that post a lot, get moderated down a fair bit, and not always for valid reasons. Therefore, this shouldn't be a number of downward moderations, but rather a percentage.

I know (because of the karma cap) that I've gotten 37 downward moderations since it was enstated, but since that only counts downward moderations, that includes a (-1, Overrated) moderation on a (+5, Insightful) post. That is, what would normally be at least a +3 gain in karma ends up being a -1 loss. Under your system, I might be posting at 0 for posting insightful comments; that's why a flat number won't work for everybody.

Similar proposals have existed in the past, including "aging" of karma. Personally, I would like a simple all-time chart, though, just to keep score. I still think that a really fair way to do moderation probably looks a lot more like kuro5hin, though, and they don't have karma, hence, no need to want to "keep score". That's probably a good thing.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [] .

Re:Kuro5hin? (2)

Proteus (1926) | about 14 years ago | (#741050)

According to the FAQ on that site, it is pronounced "corrosion" - so chosen because the site owner/editor is "rusty". Kinda inventive, actually.


duh (2)

craw (6958) | about 14 years ago | (#741052)

Moderation will always be inherently flawed when moderators achieve moderator powers for arbitrary reasons. I could put a stream of funny posts that get moderated up. Why should I then get the chance to moderate something as +1 insightful. Interesting post seem to mean, sounds good because I don't really understand the post. Interesting should mean something that a knowleable person has not previously realized. Now interesting means is that a newbie just learned something.

That said, the kuri5hin recommendations is better than the moderation here.

Question: Why doesn't /. return to the days of the ultimate moderators? What was/were the factors that eliminate this? IIRC, it was because this power was being abused.

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (2)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#741054)

Some moderators rate articles not on the merits of the content, but on how much it angers them or tickles their fancy.

Why is this necessarily a problem? Use it to an advantage.. have people sign up to be part of moderator groups. Each group has a specific focus - pro-linux, pro-*BSD, that kind of thing. Be a member of more than one group if you want. The people in charge of that group are in charge of moderation for that group.. if they want everyone moderating, they can do it. If they only want a small group of like-minded people moderating, they can do that too. Form moderator "communities" and let them decide what's good and what's not.


Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (2)

PD (9577) | about 14 years ago | (#741056)

Try this:

In statistics, it is a common practice to throw out the high and low values, counting them as anomalies.

If an article gets 3 moderations or more, and at least one of those moderations is different than the others, then pick a +1 moderation to ignore, and also pick a -1 moderation to ignore. Use the remaining moderations to score the article.

Article moderated as follows:
-1 Flamebait
+1 Insightful
+1 Interesting

This shows an indication that someone was personally offended and mismoderated. Throw out the high and low, leaving a remaining +1 moderation intact. The article gets scored at +1, which is what it would have scored at anyway.

We want to encourage marking comments UP, so we don't penalize the person who made the +1 score that was thrown out. We WILL penalize the karma of the person who likely made the bad -1Flamebait moderation.

Furthermore, we need to get rid of the overrated and underrated markers, because they don't stand in meta. I have frequently seen them abused by people who mark comments out of spite in order to dodge the retribution from meta.

And another thing: Make the +1 score bonus OPTIONAL. Right now if you don't click that little button, the +1 is the default, which seems wrong to me.


nebby (11637) | about 14 years ago | (#741058)

You are slashdotting my poor linux box! YOU BASTARDS!

I hope I don't lose my cable service!

Dammit! I can't take the slashdot effect!

-The admin of

Re:There's something missing... (2)

nebby (11637) | about 14 years ago | (#741059)

This is a common complaint about the system I've set up.

The point of the whole thing is that the points will not BLOCK people from posting. There will not be people dominating the site. If there are, there are variables I can tweak.

The point system is designed for two things
1) Keep out spam
2) Provide quirks for users who post consistent, popular posts.

These quirks include posting in the busiest categories of the day (these change constantly, there are more than 100 categories) and appearing on a top ten list.

It's an experiment. If it turns out to rely too much on moderation and people are dominating the site, well then I will lighten it up a bit.

With such an open site, it becomes necessary to implement a system such that spamming can get destroyed easily without my intervention. To do this I have to find a balance.

Wish me luck :)

Re:People have rights (2)

nebby (11637) | about 14 years ago | (#741060)

The points don't censor people. They're designed to keep out garbage. Read my other post on the subject.

Re:Well it seems sufficently complex.... (2)

nebby (11637) | about 14 years ago | (#741061)

Note that the moderation system (despite this thread) isn't the purpose of the site. It's also a really neat place and you can post content rich stuff with images and files.

Re:Slashdot going downhill? (2)

jimmyphysics (16981) | about 14 years ago | (#741065)

What a perfect example of mis-moderation? Why is this funny? Dragon is making a legitimate, and accurate comment.

Insightful and interesting? Yes. Funny? No.

Re:Thoughts on a new moderation system (2)

Juln (41313) | about 14 years ago | (#741072)

as a moderator, i just finished smoking a large pile of Northstar Glassworks Blue Moon powder, NS-45-p, mixed with some Glass Alchemy Caramel Luster. Mmmmmm!! You gotta use oxy-propane on that, baby!
. [] []

Re:I have it (2)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | about 14 years ago | (#741074)

the idea that some people's posting should be limited seems wrong ... at least here, part of Slashdot's charm is that anyone can post whatever they want, and moderation only helps people filter the list.

I think I agree. Free speech means that you can speak and whether anybody wants to listen depends on (hopefully the quality of) what you say. A good filter would "supress" (without eliminating) the obvious noise and allow low rated quasi-noise. We then decide what ratio of signal to noise we desire or can tolerate.

Perhaps I'm concerned I'd be left out...but I'd also miss some of the interesting tangents I read.

Querry: are we demographicly capable of such "pure" democracy? What is our "troll/hacker" ratio? Regardless it sounds like a truely grand experiment.

Re:Spendable Karma (2)

Spyky (58290) | about 14 years ago | (#741077)

Case it point, if I had some moderator points, I'd mod this up. This is a really good idea.

However, it does have a lot of potential for abuse. Transferring karma across accounts *will* be a problem. Some can mod up their troll comment, and transfer karma from an account that has high karma to one with low karma, essentially avoiding the karma cap.

Even with its faults its definitely something to consider.

Maybe these sacrificed karma points wouldn't give a karma bonus to the poster of the comment that is modded, thus avoiding potential abuses. However, it doesn't seem entirely fair to the legitimate comment posters, since he won't benefit from all the karma he might normally have recieved.

I really like the idea of karma having more of a use than just a +1 bonus.


A Modest Proposal (2)

kirwin (71594) | about 14 years ago | (#741082)

If your comment sucks, we eat you and the poor children of Ireland.

Automatic Slashdot Moderation System (2)

zpengo (99887) | about 14 years ago | (#741088)

Give posts +1 for any of the following:
  • "Patents are dumb."
  • "Down with Big Business!"
  • "These lawsuits are absurd."
  • "I think that's a great idea."
  • "Free as in Speech."

Give posts -1 for any of the following:

  • "Microsoft has done a good job with..."
  • "Maybe this lawsuit is justified because..."
  • "That's a terrible idea because..."
  • "Open Source isn't always the best option..."

Re:Spendable Karma (2)

yuriwho (103805) | about 14 years ago | (#741093)

This is easily fixable. Prevent accounts from transferring more than 2 karma points per day back and forth (or prevent it all together). So you may respond that all it will take is a three (or four) account circle to bypass this. These are quite easily tracked too with a decent algorithym...abusers get kicked out for a month.

This idea can work. Lets start to build it and lobby Cmdr_Taco for his thoughts on it. It's a much better scheme than the complicated ordeal in the parent story.

I have it (2)

nomadic (141991) | about 14 years ago | (#741100)

Here's an idea for moderation; pay-to-play. Sell moderation points at a dollar a piece, which will cut down on mismoderation. Then, give all the money you make to a good charity. Everyone wins.

How about it, Taco?

Re:I have it (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 14 years ago | (#741102)

The moderator that moderated this (and I would assume, the at least two others in this discussion) post as offtopic helps prove that the moderation system is really bizarre. (I would guess that this one did it to make a point, but I occasionally read at -1 for a laugh, just because the trolls who complain about 'moderators on crack' are so often right.)

That said, I don't think this proposed system is all that great ... I wasn't really able to follow it that well, as it seemed quite complicated and I wasn't too inclined to try to sort it all out. However, the idea that some people's posting should be limited seems wrong ... at least here, part of Slashdot's charm is that anyone can post whatever they want, and moderation only helps people filter the list.

Self-sustaining (2)

AntiPasto (168263) | about 14 years ago | (#741103)

I think this would be a great idea... perhaps not for Slashdot quite yet, but perhaps in the future when they want to stop employing editors.

However, I think the real world is this way... moderated by performance of your economic weath and incorporation. Perhaps that is obvious, but I think this article outlines the process of how a voice is heard in the real world. The only thing it doesn't account for neccesarily is the "who-you-know" factor, which could perhaps lie with emailing, and outside-moderation contact.

Currently I think Slashdot (as far as modeled after the capitalistic process) is much like the current economy. Business are socialized (tax breaks, federal bank loans, etc -- compared to Slashdot's story posters), and the profit is capitalized (companies earn profits the normal capitalistic way, as does slashdot by the traffic of it's posters).

On the other hand, I think you all might agree that this idea could be insanely great, or just plain suck. Slashdot's strength I feel is it's stability amongst anarchy.


Kuro5hin? (2)

Fervent (178271) | about 14 years ago | (#741106)

Not entirely offtopic: what does "Kuro5hin" mean? Is it a hacker version of "Kuroshin" (which also doesn't make much sense)...

Interesting, but .... (2)

Alien54 (180860) | about 14 years ago | (#741107)

it seems that it would difficult to ensure that articles are posted that are relevant to the stated subject matter of the site. Slashdot is somewhat Linux/Unix centric. With this moderation system, I do not see how to make sure it does not drift into a sea of noise.

The Early Days (tm) of the web come to mind, where the community culture was set one way, and then all these new folks (outsiders, etc) got into the act. Not bad really, but you see what happened to usenet. The signal to noise ratio has deteriorated badly into tidal pools of spam, etc. It would be very easy for a message board base on this to go the same route. This seems to be the primary flaw.

- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."


Alien54 (180860) | about 14 years ago | (#741108)

The price of fame is that you are popular.

Now imagine if this was not late sunday night, but some other time that was prone to more traffic, and count your blessings.

You did say you wanted a stress test, didn't you?


- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."

Great Idea (2)

Pru (201238) | about 14 years ago | (#741114)

Current Moderation is way to complicated, what do others think, less complicated moderation needed?

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (2)

gtx (204552) | about 14 years ago | (#741115)

as long as singal 11, and his impressive karma, keep coming up in conversation, i would like to suggest that taco makes an option to have "signal 11's karma" be one of the slash-boxes that you can choose to have on the side of the main page. i think signal 11's karma whoring would make an excellent online spectator sport.

Clan wars. (2)

GigsVT (208848) | about 14 years ago | (#741116)

I don't know, I get the feeling this would become more of a popularity contest. Rather than ideas getting moderated, people would moderate more on the basis of who posted a certain thing.

I think there are definite flaws in the current moderation system on /.

One glaring one I see is that you have to wait forever to be able to meta moderate. This account is at least 4-5 months old and I still can't metamoderate. I even have the +1 bonus available now, and yet cannot metamod, and probably am ineligible to moderate too (I never have gotten any points on this account). While a do agree with not letting new accounts moderate, I think especially think that metamoderation should be available sooner to people with karma.

Re:Spendable Karma (2)

tolan's my name (234431) | about 14 years ago | (#741119)

This is primea facea an amazing idea, one thing that occurs to me is that, while it initially seems that the karma in the system remains fixed, if lots of positive moderation is being done this way, modererators are going to do more marking down (if only because all the good comments have been moderated up). This could lead to a 'karma depression', with certain accounts (~11) hoarding karma for the long winters of low karma discontent
people browsing on +3 will believe that slashdot is broken, as no comments will ever reach such lofty heights. People will start exchanging money for karma, perhaps even karma whoreing in the literal sense.
Taco might have to start dumping karma on the market, trying to inroduce bouyency, the possibilities are endless.
Letting people pay to mark down comments would have an even stronger effect, as 2 points would be lost from the system, if this happens, what price a +5 post?

Am i joking or being serious? I'd like to think both, but i reckon +0, Ridiculous, but cute; would be the perfect moderation.

Re:Resident Karma Whore, move over. (3)

IntlHarvester (11985) | about 14 years ago | (#741122)

The people who took down the slashdot moderation system did so in an organized and systematic fashion.

And if you want to see an example of Slashdot just before wide scale moderation and karma went in, check out: Slashdot Moderation Phase 1.1 [] . Even the Anonymous Cowards generally had good comments.

S/N ratio was pretty high in those days, much like kuro5hin now, but from the look of it, community moderation and a 'reputation system' has failed in it's goal to keep ratio up. Instead we've gotten a Karma Whore 'n' Troll circus with lots of anonymous flamebait on the side, which is entertaining and might generate more pageviews, but is probably not good keeping readership up in the long run. Which is what you'd expect when you let a site 'run itself'.

Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before kuro5hin is 'hacked' and it's system has been rendered as useless as Slashdot's for encouraging valuable posts. You are damned if you do (let the readership moderate itself) and damned if you don't (admins end up censoring content, people rebel against 'elite' moderators.)

There is no perfect system (3)

tomreagan (24487) | about 14 years ago | (#741124)

How can there be a perfect system for moderation? Moderation is just that - a moderation of thoughts and desires, really nothing more than a system to balance the will of the masses against the will of the few. That is, letting people read what they want and ignore what they don't vs. being forced to read what they don't want and listen to what they don't like. Too little moderation and the little voices are drowned out by the big guys, too much and the same thing happens. So in that sense, it's really just a great big continuum.

I think that in the end, moderation is really just a personal preference issue and not worth that much effort. None is boring, some helps, but too much is worse. Though I must applaud the efforts going into this, and I do enjoy the debates the issue provokes, maybe instead of looking at it like and trying to build the "perfect" system, we might be content to just call it exploring options or do something more interested. But trying to "perfect" moderation seems silly.

Re:Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (3)

JohnDB (51703) | about 14 years ago | (#741126)

How About this:
1) If you think you were unfairly moderated, challenge your moderator to a duel (Say... High noon in front of the Geek compound)

2) You beat each other until somepody passes out.

3) The loser has his picture taken in all his bloodied glory, and posted in a new 'moderation' photo gallery for all to see.

Maybe that will get the moderators to be a little less biased, having to worry about their own butt.
...Then again, that'd probably be illegal in most areas of the world.


There's something missing... (3)

jonnythan (79727) | about 14 years ago | (#741127)

In all of the moderation systems I have seen proposed, there's something missing that keeps all moderation systems ridiculously stupid. It's called negative feedback.

All of the systems I have seen either totally lack feedback at all (for instance, Slashdot's miserable attempt called MM) or have some type of positive feedback - this proposal included. I may be wrong, but it seems that a "poster" with an "idea" can grow to wield power. Someone accumulates enough points, he or she can consistently post to the most active categories and be seen. What would this lead to? A few people who are very active and dominate the board.

I don't know what to propose as a negative feedback system for this type of situation. All I know is that I see a desperate need for someone to design a system in which all users share power equally, however cheesy that may sound. I would love to see a proposal that intends to keep power out of a select few individuals so we rarely see the same name twice. Everyone could have the power to moderate every story they see. The bad stories will quickly drop off the front page, and the good ones will stay. The site won't have the highest-quality news, but you simply can't have both.

What you will get from a site like this is a myriad of opinions and views from all sorts of places. It won't be CNN, and it won't be nearly as homogenized as /.'s "napster,, linux" current portfolio. This kind of site would be a great place to get a fresh look on things.

This is just an idea, but such a site would cater to the crowd that kiro5hin has attracted. Hence, I think it would provide a nice counterpoint to Slashdot, where one can get a more mainstream, less off-the-wall and imaginitive, quality news source.

Again, admittedly, I didn't inspect the original story too closely..I read the first half and skimmed the second. Just felt like giving something to think about though.

Re:Spendable Karma (3)

yuriwho (103805) | about 14 years ago | (#741129)

Cheers to this idea!

Even if it is just an added option to the current system. To make this transparent the spender/s should be identified!?!!!! That would be really interesting and would prevent siggy from dominating moderation for the first couple of weeks.

Just I spend on this comment and lose my +1 for the good of humanity? If it was done transparently this would be even more interesting as your moderations would tell as much about a person as their posts.

I say lets do it.

Re:I have it (3)

nomadic (141991) | about 14 years ago | (#741131)

Why else would they be home all day long to claim "f1rst p0st fuxxxxerz!!!JH(*)&# eye 0wn jew" and talk about naked and petrified actresses?

I always thought it was some form of performance art.

Traditional Wisdom (3)

gunner800 (142959) | about 14 years ago | (#741132)

I say we stick to the conventional wisdom of "Everything in Moderation". Moderate everything.

If you don't like a post, just click "-1, don't like it" and be done with it. Don't like a story, moderate the story as "-1, post-IPO-esque" and you're through.

Strong opinion about a particular user? Moderate every he has posted and ever will post. Just think, with out combined might we can hand out a bitchslap even the Taco would envy.

Heck, you even moderate moderation. If you disagree, there's "-1, wrong". If you like it, it's "+0, right" (because if its right, it doesn't need to be moderated). Hell, you can moderate the whole moderation system; if it gets low enough, it will be defuncted and Anarchy shall reign.

Moderate Slashdot as a whole...negative moderation will bring more stories confiscated from Kuro5hin, positive yields more Jon Katz stuff.

It's extends to the micro-level as well. Moderate the topic list, color scheme, each others' passwords...

Moderation at the bit-level may be difficult, until we get quantum computers and get moderate an individual bit as "+5, very" rather that just "0, false" or "+1, true".

My mom is not a Karma whore!

Unfair or Inaccurate moderation (3)

DickBreath (207180) | about 14 years ago | (#741133)

Something needs to be done.

The moderation on a lot of articles is just plain wrong. Or opinionated. Some moderators rate articles not on the merits of the content, but on how much it angers them or tickles their fancy. Articles that follow the groupthink of the cult get good moderation.

Well it seems sufficently complex.... (3)

tolan's my name (234431) | about 14 years ago | (#741134)

On problem, as with any universal rating scheme is that it would be easy to, say, create 20 accounts and consistantly mark-down a certain author, something you cant do on /. because you would have work the accounts up to moderator status first.
On my reading of the summary the system doesnt seem to have a way to deal with this. Indeed it doesnt really seem to be adaptable to deal with this.

On a positive note offensive comments should go down quicker than they do on /., and the system allows for a finer grading of articles, but i cant really see it being better in the end.

Since this is going to lead to an inevitable discusion about /.s moderation scheme my two-pennies worth is that you could combine this scheme with /.s in a 3 tier manner. Any reader can vote a story up or down, however no effect registers until a moderator (generted in the /. manner) comes online. They are then presented with the top x movers, and check to see if the public vote is accetable. They can then ratify or veto the decision. It could even take 2, or 3 agreeing modrators before the story was moved up or down. Metamoderation would then take place in a similiar way to at present.

However i dont really think that the system would be an improvement on the present one, which, given the circumstances, works rather well (though i might only be saying that because i got +4 karma today &#9786).

Resident Karma Whore, move over. (4)

Signal 11 (7608) | about 14 years ago | (#741135)

Okay, as the resident Karma Whore and de facto expert on moderation here on slashdot, I think I'm probably the one person here who can comment with authority on this article.

My gut feeling - it won't work. I think the ideal moderation system would be based on what is called the Delphi Effect, if I understand it correctly. Basically the more people you have moderating, the closer to the "true" rating it will be. ie: if 80% of people believe a post is +3, but 20% believe it is -1, it is +3. No averages. A sort of majority rules. It depends, however, on alot of people moderating.. to the point that there are more moderations than there are posts. But, my ideas aside...

The problem with this proposal is two-fold: One, it has no way to detect 1 person using 10, or a hundred, or a hundred thousand, accounts and thus biasing the voting system. It's a problem prevalent here on slashdot where the trolls have created throwaway accounts. Limiting on IP address doesn't work, because many are behind firewalls and hence multiple users can legitimately be on one IP. one account per e-mail address doesn't work either - e-mail addresses are easy to get.. often for free. The net result is a small group of determined attackers can destroy the system (sound familiar?).

The second problem is related to the first. Their idea of having the users rate themselves initially is a very good idea (rob, you paying attention?) but it suffers from the fact that someone can simply moderate their own posts, and gain a point advantage.. and we're right back where we started.

The key to moderation lies in accountability. You can create the best system in the world - but unless you can enforce some kind of "one person, one vote" standard, it will always be open to abuse.

Lastly, some advice for the kiro5hin maintainers - don't count on obscuring the statistical system to deter your attackers for long. The people who took down the slashdot moderation system did so in an organized and systematic fashion. These people are bored and have nothing else to do - but you DO and hence are at a disadvantage. Once the system is in place, PLEASE ADAPT IT - don't just deploy it and forget about it. It'll need to be tweaked, updated, maybe even entirely thrown out for a new system. Trust the wisdom of Strousoup(sp?) on this one - design the first implimentation to throw it away, you're going to do it atleast once anyway.


Signal 11


speaking of moderation... (4)

The_Messenger (110966) | about 14 years ago | (#741136)

... I think Slashdot needs to remove the +50 KarmaKap. We all know it's not supposed to be about the karma, but why bother encouraging quality posts with a reward system if you can only go so high?

Some of you may feel that without such a cap, it becomes a game (as in "karma whoring" AKA "Signal 11's life"), but I think that's irrelevent. The only "downside" to this "game" are more interesting, informative, and funny posts -- not much of a downside, eh? Some call it "karma whoring", but I think that it's simply the knowledge of how to be a good Slashdot citizen.

Yes, I check my karma totals, but not because I feel it's a game. I use it to gauge the overall effect my contributions to the site by observing the rate of karma growth. And if my karma drops suddenly one week, I know it's time to cut back on the flames and trolls. ;-)

And yes, it's also fun. I'll admit that.

I understand that one of the major reasons for having such a cap is to avoid abuses like this: let's say Signal 11 post interesting, insightful, and funny things for a year. From my experience, an active, consistently good poster can, on average, easily get 100-200 in a year. This means that Signal 11 could start posting links, and it'd be weeks before he loses his +1 bonus.

I have a proposal to solve this: if a user is moderated down more than 20 times in one week, he loses his +1 bonus for a week. If he is modded down more than 30 times a week, he posts at 0 for week, then at 1 for a week. If he's modded down more than 40 times a month, he posts at -1 for a week, 0 for a week, and 1 for two weeks. I think this not unreasonable, considering that most users with enough karma to get the +1 bonus won't suddenly become PBG or *syringe. :-)

Who else agrees that the +50 KarmaKap has to go?

All generalizations are false.

Moderating articles for /. (5)

Frac (27516) | about 14 years ago | (#741138)

I wish I can moderate articles on slashdot. In fact, I wish there are little radio buttons next to each article that says:

I don't want to see this article again and again


Please post this article again and again and again

so CmdrTaco and his very diligent team will know which articles we want to see redundantly.

Slashdot - News for Attention Deficit Disorder. Stuff you saw yesterday.

On a slightly more serious note - surely Slashdot must be getting very uninteresting for the Slashdot admins if they arent' reading their own site. What does that say about quality control?

For starters, just /document/ what slashdot does! (5)

devphil (51341) | about 14 years ago | (#741139)

Very little of how /.'s moderation and meta-moderation works is documented. How come my karma never goes above 64 even though I get moderated up? Why is it that occasionally it just drops a few points even though I haven't been moderated down? (Does karma age?)

Why can't we talk about moderation somewhere on Slashdot? If it gets brought up in a normal discussion, it's -1, Offtopic. I've never tried to submit a Slashdot article that concerns Slashdot itself, but the people who have say those are rejected.

How about a new category: -1, Herdthink, for those posters who just spew the party line about "and this is why Linux is so much better." At the very least they shouldn't be getting Insightful points for copy'n'pasting stuff from the FSF or OSI's webpage verbatim.

If we had a better FAQ, it would at least contribute to more "Insightful, Interesting, and Informative" discussion about moderation.

Enh, just my two timeslices.

More ideas for slashot moderation (5)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 14 years ago | (#741141)

All too often, there are posts that really need a +1 or -1, but the choices just don't cover it. Therefore, I say we need the following choices added:

+1, Troll
/* Really, we need more than just 'Funny' to reward the good ones. */
+1, Whore
+5, Signal 11
/* So we don't have to waste multiple moderators' time. */
+1, Slashdot Already Posted This
+1, Claimed They Were Expecting -1
+1, Redundant
/* Perhaps split into several categories, such as 'about [copyrights | patents | free speech | privacy | gun control | jon katz]' */
+1, Only Intelligent Post in the Entire Discussion
-1, Stupid
-1, Clueless
/* I expect these to be used rather heavily */
-1, Opposing view

There could be many more, of course ... Perhaps, instead of the list, we could have a textbox where moderators type the reason for their moderation.

Spendable Karma (5)

\\x/hite \\/ampire (185046) | about 14 years ago | (#741142)

How many times have you seen a post that really really deserved moderation but couldn't do a thing because you weren't privileged enough to be a moderator at the time? Many times I'm sure. How about this... in addition to the usual "randomly chosen" moderator stuff, for each story a user would be allowed up to three moderations. The catch, each of these would be at the cost of one karma point each. Why would this work?

You need to be logged in to moderate

You must have karma to give karma

It would actually give some type of value to karma

Honestly, the only way I can see to abuse such a system would be transferring karma across account, but why would anyone really need to do that? ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?