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!

Slashdot's Meta Moderation

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the making-the-net-a-better-place dept.

284

So its ready for testing on The Meta Moderation Page. Essentially eligible users are presented with 10 comments the moderation done to them. They are then asked to rate the moderation as Fair, or Unfair. Click the link below to read more comments on this addition to our moderation system.There have been a few minor tweaks to the system since I last mentioned it.

The most confusing issue in M2 is context. We don't have enough of it. The comment is seen without its parent comment and its replies. Hell, we don't even see the story it was written in reply to. We don't know what the score was when the moderator moderated. All of these things are issues that I'll fiddle with resolving as I have time to tweak them around. When in doubt, feel free to leave the button alone and simply not moderate. I've found that usually its pretty easy to flag "Fair/Unfair" on half the comments, but sometimes I need more context: Then the parent link is helpful to see where the comment was coming from. When in doubt, leave it alone. I've found that only a handful of moderation is ever really unfair (maybe 2 or 3 out of my 10).

Some details on the system:

First is some limits. Certain circumstances will cause your M2 to be disregarded. This is to prevent abuses. I'm not going to release the specifics as that would defeat the purpose, but essentially, if you vote to heavily in either direction (like say if you vote that all 10 moderations were "Unfair") your M2 may be discarded.

Second is the addition of a karma bonus for meta moderating. There is a sliding scale of karma that might be "earned" for meta moderating. It won't be enough to ever earn you "the bonus point", but its something. Since you aren't eligible for M2 if you have negative karma, this can't be used to dig you out of the hole. Most of the stuff in place is designed to make abuse difficult.

Third is the finalized restrictions on M2 eligibility:

  • Registered/Logged in User
  • Non Negative Karma
  • Hasn't M2 moderated yet today
  • Account is in the older 75% of all Slashdot accounts (filters out the newbies)

These are basically the same restrictions as the normal moderator access, except that M2 is once a day, and moderation tries to pick from people who read an "Average" amount of Slashdot a day (weeding out occasional readers and obsessive overreaders)

Finally is an interesting idea that has been proposed a few times that I just wanted to throw out for discussion. As it stands, you only see the moderator controls when you have moderator points to use. What if the moderator controls were always visible, but when you submitted the form, they were only counted if you had moderator points. Oh, and you wouldn't know if you had points.

On one hand, people would burn out on moderating fairly rapidly (the randomness in the existing system means people tend to use their points) but on the other hand, only the diligent would actually be relevant. The only question is would the people obsessive enough to do it be honest moderators, or guys trying to push around their own agendas.

Side notes I've been adding a few bits to the FAQ trying to address a few of the, well, FAQs. So read the the guidelines FAQ for answers to exciting questions like "Why don't you give my points back if I post into a discussion I moderated" and "I think I should have longer than 3 days before my points expire". I've also got a few new things in the "Ideas" space that I'm currently mulling over.

Update: 09/07 04:19 by CT :Answering the old questions:

  1. Simply creating dummy accounts won't work.... the accounts need to be older to be eligible anyway.
  2. Duplicates are OK. You're M2ing an individual act of moderation- it just so happens that you got 2 moderations upon the same comment. (this is very likely in cases where comments are moderated in rapid succession which often happens on new/extremely bad comments.
  3. I'll probably link it from the left hand menu. Else from the top of the comments. Maybe right on the homepage "You haven't MetaModerated Today". I'll worry about that later.

cancel ×

284 comments

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

Why are the responses timed earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697302)

This has been happening on the last several articles. What gives?

Rob's REAL plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697303)

I don't like where this is headed. Right now Rob is the only meta meta moderator. But it can't be long before he gets lazy and implements a meta meta moderation system. Then meta meta meta moderation. And then meta meta meta meta moderation. Eventually there will be an infinite number of levels of moderation, and then Rob will become the GOD OF MODERATION.

I love it when they put crack in my wheaties!

Re:moderating the moderator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697304)

Moderators who get their moderations countermanded more than x% of the time should cause them to lose their moderator status (and karma).

Re:Rob's REAL plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697305)

Wait'll he turns it into a strange loop so that the zeroth-level posts moderate the meta- meta- meta- ... meta- meta- meta- moderators!

Agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697306)

I seem to be a permanent moderator, so perhaps this wouldn't affect me much, but I think this is a really terrible idea. Like weave, many of us are busy, and if we're going to take the time to read all the comments on a page and moderate them, we should know they'll count for something. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time. If you're going to ask us to score comments, *please* don't throw 90% of those scores on the floor. Otherwise, a lot of good peoplw won't waste their time on it.

One other feature, which might already be implemented: (I haven't tried this anon post feature yet.) can I track posts I've made anonamously from my user page? That would be really cool.

Where are the Unbiased Moderators? (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1697324)


Moderators are for moderating content not authors' identities, right? As recently as Slashdot's article in May 1999 on the new terms of use at Deja.com, AC posts with excellent content were being moderated up to score 5 (my own AC post in that article was scored 5). Since late Spring, however, perhaps due to the unpleasant anti-AC bias widely expressed lately on Slashdot, there have been no top scored posts by ACs. As an example, this comment [slashdot.org] in this AskSlashdot article [slashdot.org] on Linux MIDI gives useful information, is highly relevant to the original poster's question and might deserve a correspondingly high score but so far it has score 0.

Signed, Permanent AC

Neet (2)

drwiii (434) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697328)

That's some wild stuff there.. Seems like an overall good idea.

Another idea would be to have a mini-moderation forum set aside for arguments over scores and such, but that would probably be overdoing it.

Moderations... (3)

strredwolf (532) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697339)

A few comments...

Moderation notification: The current system is good, since putting up buttons by default for moderation when the user isn't being a moderator is going to put more load on the server, possibly crashing it again (AIEEE!!!!). Not a good idea.

Logged in but Anonymous This is worth it, but can be abused. But then, it's psudo-anomymous, so it has to be handled by users with care. Flamers? Kick 'em off.

Posting restrictions: A good writer would take about five minutes to write up a good post, with nessisary proof backing up the claim. A "Me Too!" post is under one minute. So does a cheapshot flame. I propose a one message per IP/user per 4 minutes time, with adjustments baised on Karma on the time limit (less time to wait for more Karma, more time for less). Do you really care about a subject enough to write a virtual essay, which would be moderated high, or some short statement which really doesn't add more to the topic and stays scored at one or zero? I'd say the most well written ones are ones in which some time is gotten into it, and it shows with the proof used to back it up -- and it takes time to gather that proof. The system is very tuned to how people write!!!

I wonder what my Karma is looking at now... Is there a Slashbox for Karma?



---
Spammed? Click here [sputum.com] for free slack on how to fight it!

There is (1)

Indomitus (578) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697340)

It's listed on your "member page" or whatever the page is called when you click on your name in the header.

Re:Karma-o-meter (0)

phil reed (626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697341)

Karma has been added to the user info page.


...phil

Re:I must have missed something, but... (2)

Enry (630) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697343)

Karma has to do with your previous articles. If you consistently get moderated up by moderators, your articles will appear with a bonus (I get a +1 score). If you consistently get moderated down, your articles start off with a score of 0.

Controls always visible (1)

maelstrom (638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697344)

I'm not sure I would like the moderator controls to be always visible. I would like to know when I have moderator status. Whenever the moderator controls pop up, I switch my threshold to -1 and begin to look for abuses. I also tend to read the comments a bit more carefully so I can promote the good stuff.

I think it would be frustrating to go through moderating stuff up and down and not even know if all the work you just did will have any effect. Or am I misunderstanding what CmdrTaco has proposed?

Re:A little nitpick... (1)

Doug McNaught (668) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697345)

I think it was just a comment that got posted twice (or perhaps more than that), which happens a lot. Might be a real bug though.

-Doug

Where's the Link? (1)

karrde (853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697348)

Silly question maybe...

But once this article has scrolled to the point where I'm digging for it, where is the M2 link gonna hide.

The way I read it is that if you're eligible for moderation than you can M2 once a day every day do it should be a handy link..

Of course the left bar is probally out since not everyone will be eligible, and we should probally only display it to those who are eligible

Of course I just came up with a wacked idea. How about articles that are only visible to those who are eligible for moderation? (Sounds a little stupid I know)

Karma, Moderation and Bugs (oh my!) (1)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697350)

First off, I think that the idea of Karma instead of Points is much better. There are some people (MEEEEPT comes to mind) who are just walking flamebait. Others like ESR and Bruce Perens often have insightful additions to /. and can bring these things to the table.

I'm glad to see this new moderation technique, as I've used my moderation points in the past to moderate posts that I thought were unfairly moderated to 0 or -1 back to 1 or 0 respectfully.

Now on to the bugs. I like many others am getting the SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please! All I was doing was Submitting my changes for today. I really hope that you get it all ironed out as I think this is a great forum for us geeks and I like to see it prosper.

cool (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697351)

I think you're taking this whole bru-ha-ha the wrong way (Rob).

I don't see this as a collapse or a disaster of the previous moderation. I see it as a fine tuning. I think anyone else who's been around since before moderation came into effect will agree that even with the latest abuses, (someone was bound to exploit them eventually), the moderation system is WAY better than no moderation at all was. Just /. growing pains I think. I know AC posting isn't in jeopardy, but this latest issue shouldn't be used as an excuse to eliminate AC posting altogether. (though I think the "post anonymously" box isn't a great idea - it just makes it MORE convenient to do a bad thing - if one's tempted).

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

Sorta; you're only evaluating a SINGLE moderation (2)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697352)

Disregard the comment's score and it's current "tag" (perhaps this should be removed from the page entirely). All you're being asked to evaluate is that one specific moderation.

The point is to say, "Yes, that moderator made a good judgement call by saying this comment was 'Insightful,'" not, "Yes, this comment deserves the score it was given."

It may seem like a small distinction to make, but if you base your meta-moderation on the comment and its score, and not the action of the moderator you're meta-moderating, your vote could affect the moderator's karma when all you want to do is affect the comment itself.

Err, please, expand.. (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697354)

I'm a bit confused.. Define 'Unfairly Moderated'. Not high enough? To High? Is not high enough any of the individual moderators fault? Or is this merely for things that where moderated down unfairly?

Re:Err, please, expand.. (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697355)

AAhh..

Ok, that makes more sense.. So it's not the moderation SCORE itself, (Aka, the Score: value), but the specific descriptive values given..

SQL Errors: Hey Rob! (1)

Hawke (1719) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697357)

I had a couple comments where I wasn't really sure if the moderation was fair or unfair: for example one comment was a reasonably insightfull comment that deserved a 3, that had a 5; or a poke at Al Gore that wasn't funny at all until you realized that it was a comment on the 30th birthday of the internet story.

So I left them blank, neither hitting the fair or unfair buttons.

When I posted the MM, I got 4 SQL errors. I think that is the number of moderations I did not judge.

My views on moderation (2)

Rendus (2430) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697363)

Here are a few of my views:

1) Moderators need more points, or more people need to be moderators. And I need to learn how to spell :/ Anyway, even browsing at a threshold of 2 is pretty pointless on many articles, as many very good posts never make it past 1, no less 3. And very, very rarely is there a 5, when there are comments that certainly deserve it.

2) Letting everyone see the moderation controls, but only letting them work for those who have points would just cause problems as people try to figure out if they have points, etc...

3) If straight AC posting (not logged in) goes away, there should be a time delay implemented for the creation of new accounts. Perhaps a 2 run-of-slashd delay (24 hour minimum) to prevent trolls from creating an account, hitting the bottom end of the moderation, then creating a new one and repeating.

4) ISP-based karma? This would balance out for the large ISPs, so trolls from AOL wouldn't cause problems for the decent users, etc.. But trolls on small ISPs, where the chance of other users reading slashdot is minimal I guess, wouldn't be able to do much damage and at the same time it'd take care of dynamic IP problems. If the DNS doesn't resolve, or you don't want to deal with the overhead, IP blocks would work just as well. Unfortunatley, if there's 2 trolls and a well-behaved user on one ISP, the trolls ruin it for the well-behaved user. One possible way around this is the karma clears after a few hours, so the well-behaved user can post normally again, and the trolls have probably given up and moved somewhere else.

Blah... How'd I get -10 karma? My posts average out to unmoderated (all 1s except a 0 and a 2, which average out). Oh well...

Re:too-visible moderation? (1)

Zapman (2662) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697364)

Ditto on this. Basically it comes down to an old cliche'. Familiarity breeds contempt. If you see something too often, you just ignore it. I for one never notice that I'm a moderator until I see the controls.

Discouraging? (1)

blue (2742) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697365)

M2 sounds fun, I just had at it, and it does make me a bit impartial (the middle dot!) whether to mark a comment "Unfair" or "Fair", depending on context, as has been pointed out.

Regarding the moderation controls always there -- I think that's a bit discouraging, because I've only received moderator access on Slashdot three times, so it's rare that it'll happen, and I wouldn't want to moderate blindly if 1/100 it won't do any good. Of course, that'd most likely weed out abuses, but only leaves the obsessive (good or no?).

I think the moderation system works pretty well, but usually the ones that are already moderated high are the ones that stay there, leaving some other interesting ones at the bottom (or the comment limit goes into effect and discourages moderators from going through all the pages).

All and all, I like it. I'm certain it'll effectively filter out the moderation abuses.

P.S. Sometimes I have problems connecting to Slashdot ("Contacting Host...") which I thought the new server was going to fix. When it's up, it's quick though. Is it just me?

Moderation Poor Idea (1)

John Goerzen (2781) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697367)

As I said before [slashdot.org] , moderation is completely stupid for a site as large as this. A system more like GroupLens is necessary, where the points for articles are tailored to each individual user's historical preferences. Why is slashdot not using this?

Believer of the Gaussian, Digital traces (1)

mvw (2916) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697368)

(..) but essentially, if you vote to heavily in either direction (..) your M2 may be discarded.

Obviously people believe in some kind of "the good is in the middle of the distribution" wisdom. My uncle told me about the painting "The last supper" that it appropriatley represented statistics of society (1 saint and 1 criminal among 13 people) and a colleague told me the story that a former company he worked for always discarded bids at the statistical extremes without evaluation.

(..) to pick from people who read an "Average" amount of Slashdot a day (weeding out occasional readers and obsessive overreaders)

I suspected that the login procedure on Slashdot (and other sites) could be used to generate digital traces of a readers activity. Not unproblematic.

Meta-Moderation unnecessary (4)

Sinner (3398) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697372)

I don't think adding extra layers of moderation is a sensible way to deal with bad moderation. I think it should be obvious from the way the complexity level is going through the roof that this is a bad idea.

Instead, I think the system should judge moderators by how often their moderations get overridden by other moderators. Specifically, a moderator should lose karma when a comment they have moderated in one direction is subsequently moderated in the opposite direction. Not a lot each time, because you don't want to allow vendettas or suppress differing opinions, but enough for the system to detect genuine abuses.

For this to work properly, there would need to be more moderation points in circulation. I don't have a problem with it if some comments get up to +10 or +15, in fact, it would help differentiate them.

Somehow I don't think CmdrTaco is gonna drop the M2 system he spent all weekend coding, but I thought it was worthwhile getting my idea out there anyway. :-)

Troll Points (1)

docwhat (3582) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697373)

Regarding Trolling, perhaps it needs to be a different system. Since the "point" system seems to aimed at articles that are more relavent or less relavent, articles that are completly off the scale should probably have a different method of being delt with.

After all, if one tests for the quality of eggs, you throw out the rocks!

Hmmm....on second thoughts, I'm not sure I'd impliment this practically. A seperate "de-troll" allowance, and if so many moderators (2 or more) use a de-troll point on the article, then the article is blasted to -100?

That wouldn't be bad with the meta moderation to help nail over enthusastic moderators. Though I think someone who is good at de-trolling may not be good at moderating up/down and vice-versa. So maybe removing one privlege shouldn't automatically remove the other.

Here's a question for you.... (2)

tetlowgm (4161) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697380)

If you always have moderator controls, and you try to moderate, won't that stifle people from posting due to the rule you can only post if you haven't moderated? Gordon

Questions and observations on M2 (2)

crisco (4669) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697381)

So I just MM'd my 10 comments. 9 seemed obviously fair. One I just wasn't too sure about so I left it at the middle button. Is that what that is for? Unsure, don't know, disagree but want to be fair?

From the info in this article it seems that marking everything unfair flags abuse? Marking everything fair won't count, will it?

After I hit the button, I got a few of the following messages:
SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!
It did say that 10 comments were M2'd

too-visible moderation? (4)

Ryandav (5475) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697386)

I really hate to say this, as I hate sounding negative, but I don't see why it's better to have the moderator controls always visible. I, for example, browse most of the time at +2 so I can just read the first 30 good comments or so. If I'm bored later or really interested in a topic i go to -1. If I get moderator access, I need to browse at -1 and see everything. While I enjoy moderating from time to time, I don't want to have to always browse at -1 _just in case I might be mod_... It seems to defeat the purpose: to allow those with limited time or attention span to see a story and read just a few good comments on it. You also begin to make it so that only a few people will participate in the moderating.

Other than the "bonus point" system for certain people, I really think the system here has been working out great. I hope "creeping featurism" doesn't take over it all.

A new revenue stream. (3)

Booker (6173) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697393)

Is all this leading up to a new revenue stream for Slashdot? "Get your Official Cmmdr. Taco Meta-Kharma Decoder ring! Only $9.95!"

On more serious notes,

1) I think this is all looking really good, and
2) I don't want to see much more of it.

You can legislate forever, but you're never going to codify every possible violation. Try not to let the jerks force you into too many coding contortions, as you'll probably just wind up creating more loopholes, and make it more complicated for everyone. (Think IRS)

Relative moderation (2)

"Zow" (6449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697395)

Rob -

I don't like the idea of the moderation controls always being present and only counting if the user has points because:

  1. The reasons you describe: burnout and only obsessive people being left. I doubt I'd moderate at all if I didn't know I was doing some good.
  2. If people can moderate everything, they won't feel compelled to pick the very best comments.

I propose a better system: relative moderation. Let everyone moderate (within the limits of who is currently allowed to), then using a statistical distribution (or something like that - never really liked sadistics) of the points across all the comments to pick out the best (5s), really good (4s) and so forth comments. I think this might even eliminate the need for M2 moderation (and after all that hard work - sorry).

-"Zow"

Possible Bug, Or Am I Smoking Something Wicked? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697399)

This morning, I noticed a post of mine [slashdot.org] that was moderated up to a +5 and then ticked down to a +4.

When it was at +5, I had 18 karma points. After it was ticked down to +4, I had +19.

I suppose it is always possible that someone came along, dropped it to +4, then another came along and dropped it to +3 and then yet another came along and boosted it to a +4 again (thus the increase to +19), but it could also be that decreasing a number which is already a 1 or greater still gives the poster positive increases in karma.

One thing I am curious about is whether being ticked down from a positive number to another positive number effects your karma negatively? In other words, do you lose a karma point for going from +2 to +1? My personal opinion is that you should only lose a karma point of you are reduced from any positive number to a 0 or less.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

Not a good system... (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697400)

Well, I just looked at a meta-moderation page, and I decided that the system is fundamentally screwed up.

For example, say I see a post that's rated as "Overrated" and "Underrated" -- those are contextual decisions based on the article's rating at the time the moderator voted on them. If the moderator has moderated it from 5 to 4 with an "overrated", I might think it fair -- but he might have moderated it from a 1 to a 0, with other moderators later spending points to correct that unfair demotion. How, then, can I rule on whether the "overrated" moderation was fair or not?

Similarly, how the hell can I judge a rating of "redundant" without going and reading the whole fscking thread?

Meta-moderation just looks ripe for misuse, abuse, and erroneous use. I suggest instead that, when moderator access is granted, the moderator also gets two "meta-moderation" points he can use to delete a moderation from a post. That helps check unfair moderation without the problematic context-dropping.

Anyway, I chose not to meta-moderate, since I felt I couldn't fairly judge. And, if this is the arbitrary process I'm going to be subject to, I'm going to stop moderating.

A little nitpick... (1)

kzinti (9651) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697413)

During my practice run at meta-moderation, I saw one moderated comment twice. Trying to check my meta-moderation (meta-meta-moderation) by seeing if I rate the same moderation the same way in both instances? Or just a programming oversight?

--JT

Confusion, Selling Karma, and what I really want! (2)

GoRK (10018) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697416)

Please, oh please stop confusing me, Rob! If you put the moderator controls on everything I look at, I won't know what to click! Can you Meta-Moderate yourself? If you can't then you could tell if you were a moderator! How about if we don't know if we are Meta-Moderating? How about if moderators get paid $5 per day like jurors? Also, I bet you could probably sell karma for like $5 per point. To get the bonus, people would have to give you about 125 bucks! Then again why not add a double bonus +2? If you post anonymously while logged in and get moderated up, does your karma get effected? Possibly a moderator could figure out who the AC was if this is the case.

Please don't cry when you have to code Hyper-meta-moderation because some day you probably will!

What I really want to see is the ability for me to append to my existing comment without having to reply to myself. I also think that if a person submits a story or has a feature done about one of their projects on slashdot, then they should get like a +3 bonus to their comments in that particular article. It shouldn't boost their Karma though.

I am even more confused now. Time to click on the next button.

~GoRK

Re:micro-moderation (1)

The Anonymous Cow (11359) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697422)

I like this idea. Everybody moderates, all the time. Increase/decrease points as a percentage of all moderation applied.

Flamers would quickly disappear, good posts would rise to the top, and it would be more difficult for a "bad" moderator to skew the ratings.

Redundant could be a tough call. (2)

Davorama (11731) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697423)

Seems like in order to tell if a comment really was redundant then you'd have to go on a witch hunt through the comments and see if this was really the case. So, hypothetically, it could be obvious when there were two comments which were obviously cut-n-pasted copies of each other on the meta moderation page but if you just see one comment and it's been marked as redundant it's more trouble than it's worth to figure out if the moderation is fair or not.

Perhaps, it would be better to put in some information like how many posts the poster made in that article and a link that summarizes them so that the meta-moderator won't just mark it as fair or leave it unchecked because they don't want to take the time to look into it?

Microsoft Sucks! (5)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697429)

Now, if that comment was posted because of an article about how Bill Gate's personal wealth had surpassed a trillion dollars, that comment might be moderated as being funny.

If it were posted because Microsoft bought Redhat, then one might call it insightful

If that comment was posted in context of a comparison between IIS and Apache, it could be considered flmebait.

If it were posted in a discussion about Sony's robotic dog, then it'd be a troll...

Basically without having any context to the comment (at least give us a link to the story and the it's parent) this meta-moderation seems rather pointless. We're (or rather Rob is) spinning in circles trying to figure out what to do about trolls... Just like anything else that's bad in life, it'd be hard to be sure to be rid of them without hurting ourselves as well.

How about this:
Moderators get 10 points, rather than 5.

They can choose which discussions they wish to moderate: so long as they're a moderator, they cannot change their comment threshold above -2 (or however low it goes). Also have it not show other people's moderations to the moderators (everything, regardless, would appear as being posted by the Anonymous Coward with a score of 1.

They can click a button at anytime that removes their moderations, shows original posters, other peoples moderations, and lets them comment. Kind of how it works now.

Basically, I think moderators were doing a good job thus far with the tools that have been supplied. What we need is more moderators, and more "un-biased" moderators, with unbiased meaning that they HAVE to view every comment, and not know what other people have said about it.

This is difficult... (1)

wilkinsm (13507) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697430)

The comments I was just given are really hard to judge. What consitutes humor? What consitutes being sarcastic or flamebait? What consitutes just a very heated discussion?

One of the main reasons I read the comments on slashdot is learn how other intellegent people view issues and ideas. If I was just looking for facts and figures, I'd go read a magazine. It's the human quality that make slashdot different from any other techinical resource I read.

Speaking of which, I could use some constructive input here.

When you moderate the moderator...? (2)

198348726583297634 (14535) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697433)

say a comment started with one point, and got moderated up to 5. When you apply your meta-moderated points to it, whose moderation points do they apply to? If the comment has four additional points and you tag it as "unfair," are the unfair-moderation points applied to each moderator by 1/4th?

Re:Karma-o-meter (2)

maphew (14702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697439)

There is, go to your slashdot homepage [slashdot.org] .

Re:too-visible moderation? (2)

maphew (14702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697440)

I have to agree, I want to know when I'm a moderator, and when not. When I've been granted moderator points, my attitude changes slightly.
Sort of like being on your best behaviour when Grandma is over for supper you know?

-matt

M2 duplications and Persistent M1 (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697442)

One problem I found with the M2 system -- I wound up with 2 comments each appearing twice on the same page, so only 8 of the 10 comments were "original". I hate to vote twice on one comment, so I suspect we need to figure out a way to remove duplicates.

On the idea of always having moderation controls available, I think it's a bad idea simply because I don't have enough time to moderate every comment I ever read, only to find out that only 1% of my effort takes effect. If I've got moderator status, I pay more attention, and make sure I'm being fair and unbiased, but if I don't know if I'm moderating or not, it would take me too long to read everything and I'd wind up NEVER moderating. then you'd wind up with either obsessive-compulsives or people with agendas doing all the moderation...

nathaniel

Re:Unfair in which direction? (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697443)


I had the same issue -- some posts were bumped up to 3 or 4, and contained nothing particularly original or insightful, although they weren't off-topic or flambait, either. I hate to penalize a moderator for pumping up an article, but at the same time I don't think articles that are "1"s should be pumped up to "4"...

nathaniel

Agreed - where's the context? (3)

Yosemite Sue (15589) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697444)

I just tried Meta Moderation, and though you can reasonably guess that certain posts are interesting/informative (or trolls/flamebait) by looking at them, without a link to the actual story it is difficult to truly know the context of the post. I don't think I'll feel comfortable M-Moderating under this system.

Lucas's suggestion of increasing available moderator points makes sense, especially given the recent scourge of trolls that have been wasting moderator points. Much less complicated than Meta Moderation, too, IMO!

YS

non-moderator moderation (3)

crow (16139) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697446)

Moderation is a public service, much like jury duty. Let's not drag everyone into it when we don't have to.

On the other hand, there could be a system whereby you would specify in your preferences to always have moderation buttons on. Then you could moderate even if you have no points, but the moderation wouldn't really do anything for normal users. For real moderators, though, they would see something like:

Non moderators recommend:
-5 off topic
-2 flamebait
+4 funny

Then, using that example, a real moderator might use a point to lower the score of the post. This action would clear out all the recommendations, or at least those that said to move the score in the same direction.

This might also eliminate the need for M2, as it would allow anyone to attract the moderators to articles that have been miss-moderated.

Moderator controls shouldn't always be visible (1)

geophile (16995) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697450)

Finally is an interesting idea that has been proposed a few times that I just wanted to throw out for discussion. As it stands, you only see the moderator controls when you have moderator points to use. What if the moderator controls were always visible, but when you submitted the form, they were only counted if you had moderator points. Oh, and you wouldn't know if you had points.

Here's why I don't like this idea. First, there is the burnout issue. When I'm a moderator, I will make an effort to read and moderate lower-rated posts. If I don't know when I'm "on", then I'll be less likely to read those lower-rated posts. I think what this will do is to cause many good comments to never get moderated up. Second, it's easy enough to see if you're a real moderator -- just vote and see if the rating changes. (Not foolproof, but it has some accuracy.)

Just tried it out... (2)

TheWall (21578) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697464)

Just tried it out, not sure if it worked or not. I got like 7 lines saying SQL Error Email Rob blah blah. But now it says I've already metamoderated today... so I guess it worked?

Seems like a good idea to me. (The whole meta moderation thing). I was surprised I didnt find any "First Post" messages on my list. heh

One thing about First Posters... if you First Post as an AC what good is that? ~ANYONE~ can say they were that AC...

Karma-o-meter (0)

p0six (23324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697469)

It'd be really neat if there was a page where you could look at what your own Karma was.

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

p0six (23324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697470)

Oh. duh. I'm stupid.

You're doing this all wrong. (1)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697472)

Hardcoded separation of levels is only going to lead to confusion and ugly code. Instead, why not do this:

For moderators only, show a history of moderation action for each comment. This could be a 2D chart with history being vertical and different moderation "levels" being horizontal. So if I became a moderator I'd see something like this:

Score: 2
| Insightful +1 |
| Troll -1 | Stupid Moderator -1 |
| Interesting +1 |

(I hope the sense of this comes through the formatting) Each "decision" can be moderated individually. A moderator is allocated a certain number of points, say 10. For a cost of 2 points each then can moderate a "base comment". For a cost of 1 point each they can moderate anything above that level.

On a totally different topic: Why are we spending time on esoteric oddities like meta-moderation when simple features like the below need working on?
  • Spell checking
  • Link checking
  • Anti-/. Effect Mirroring
  • Basic uptime issues
  • Non-retroactive signature changes

---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein

You're doing this all wrong. (5)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697474)

Hardcoded separation of levels is only going to lead to confusion and ugly code. Instead, why not do this:

For moderators only, show a history of moderation action for each comment. This could be a 2D chart with history being vertical and different moderation "levels" being horizontal. So if I became a moderator I'd see something like this:

Score: 2
| Insightful +1 |
| Troll -1 | Stupid Moderator -1 |
| Interesting +1 |
(I hope the sense of this comes through the formatting) Each "decision" can be moderated individually. A moderator is allocated a certain number of points, say 10. For a cost of 2 points each then can moderate a "base comment". For a cost of 1 point each they can moderate anything above that level.

On a totally different topic: Why are we spending time on esoteric oddities like meta-moderation when simple features like the below need working on?
  • Spell checking
  • Link checking
  • Anti-/. Effect Mirroring
  • Basic uptime issues
  • Non-retroactive signature changes

---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein

10 fair moderations possible (1)

harmonica (29841) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697479)

When I just M2'ed (yeah, I said it!), I found all comments fairly moderated. I cannot understand why my M2 should be disregarded because of this, although I think that 10 m2's of 'unfair' are pretty unlikely.

I also encountered a duplicate, it asked for the same item (Interesting, IIRC) and I don't see why moderating twice should be OK as CmdrTaco says in the update. Can't you take my M2 vote for all acts of moderation of a kind (here: Interesting) for this comment? It might be more complicated from the programming point of view, but it does make sense.

'black box moderation' (2)

CocaCola (30016) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697480)

If available moderator points are not visible to the moderator then what keeps people moderating? Moderating is 'responsible work' in a certain way, and if it can be 'lost work' then the perceived value of moderating decreases. Everybody will just randomly moderate because there is no control over wether a moderation actually makes difference. I think this introduces unnecessery uncertainity and the resulting noise will just degrade the quality of moderation itself - we dont want that, do we?

Re:Karma-o-meter (0)

expunged (30314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697481)

sorry about that...

stupid webcache

-nicole

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

expunged (30314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697482)

Look at your own user info... or heck look at mine. You can see anyone's Karma through their user info page:

http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=US ERNAME

-nicole

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

expunged (30314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697483)

I swear I posted a response to this... but /. still says only 3 comments. *shrug*

You can see anyone's karma through their user info page:
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=US ERNAME

-nicole

Re:I must have missed something, but... (5)

expunged (30314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697484)

Karma is the sum total of all moderation that's done to you.

So if you post a lot of stuff that's moderated up, you get good karma. After +20, you start to get a bonus point every time you post (posting at +2 instead of +1). If you post a lot of stuff that's moderated down, you get negative karma. After -10, you start to get a negative "bonus" point (posting at 0 instead of +1).

So if you start posting with brilliance your karma can go up, and if you start flaming, your karma will go down.

-nicole

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

ravenskana (30506) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697491)

There is. Check out your User Info.

Karma qualities? (5)

homunq (30657) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697495)

I don't mind reading the stuff that has been explicitly moderated up as "funny". However, there are a few folks who posted a lot of hair-trigger joke responses. That's great; sometimes they score a direct hit. But when they accumulate enough karma to get a default score of 2, all those jokes start to become annoying.

So, what's the solution? More feeping creatures. The question is, which ones feep the least?

-People's karma comes with the adjective that is the "mode" of all their moderation adjectives. Their default-moderation-level posts also acquire this adjective. In your preferences, you can explicitly give a -1 to posts with certain adjectives ("I don't *want* to be amused, dammit!"). Feeps pretty hard, because it requires additions to the already-huge preference screen.

-You can't attain Enlightenment (enough positive karma for a default upgrade) without a mix of adjectives. Someone with 20 "funny" posts wouldn't make it, but someone with 17 "funnies", 2 "interesting", and an "informative" would. Also highly feepish from an implementation POV, but at least pretty transparent to the user.

-Only a certain number of posts a day get your default moderation bonus. If you're posting more than once or twice a day, chances are you're not putting excessive thought/new information into each post. This idea is by far the easiest to implement and the cleanest. It would probably solve the problem, even though it doesn't address it directly.

Feedback loop? (1)

akkem (31946) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697503)

Sorry if this has already been brought up - I haven't been reading every comment in the moderation discussions.

The question: does MM create a feedback loop? The people that moderation rewards get to reward the moderators, right? It certainly seems like it's got the potential to be unstable.

What if, instead of MM, we just defined a "bad" moderator to be someone whose use of points is contrary to other moderators'? For example, if one moderator loved an article and many others hated it, then the moderator who loved the article is doing a bad job. I'm not sure how well this would fit into the /. moderation system though.

still lost (1)

deborah (32113) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697504)



So when you have meta moderator access, you're directed to a page like the one linked in the story? Or do you just moderate moderated comments in the regular pages?

Moderation controls as a Slashbox (1)

calibanDNS (32250) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697505)

What if the moderation controls were a Slashbox? Then if you wanted to see them when you log in you can, or you could ignore them. Anyone who was logged in could submit moderation pionts, but they would only be counted if the user had moderater points (which the user wouldn't know if they did or not).

~Caliban

Re:too-visible moderation? (1)

zmooc (33175) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697507)

I always browse with a 0-threshhold, but I usually just read the highly-rated comments. When I'm moderator I usually read a lot more because I want the new comments (that haven't had the chance to be moderated up) to have a fair chance. If I wouldn't know when I'm moderator, I wouldn't bother reading those lowly-rated comments, so I agree with Ryandav: it's not a good idea.

Because of this I also think a system where you only get to moderate a number of random comments (just like in the MetaModerate-page chosen by slashdot) instead of choosing which comments you moderate. This way I have to spend all my points at once, and in the end also the newer comments get moderated.

Also: I think 10 comments is a little too much to MetaModerate at once. Since some comments aren't very interesting (especially since I can't see the parent), I lose interest after 5-7 comments. I think 5 comments at once would be a better number.

Duplicate metamod comments? (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697508)

I ended up with the same comment appearing twice within the group of 10 metamod articles. Now, that must a one in a million occurence given the shear volume of comments/articles posted here!

PS: It was the joke survey on shift key usage...I assume each person's group of metamod comments is random? Or is it the same group of 10 for everyone to metamod?

Unfair in which direction? (1)

HeatherMax (33449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697509)

When I did a meta-moderation there were some comments I might have liked to say "Unfair - add one" and others I would have liked to say "Unfair - subtract one", but no way to indicate that.

I read slashdot with comments set to "3".

Competition??? (1)

Foogle (35117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697515)

No thanks. This is a discussion forum, not a game. I'd hate to see people's motives for posting diverge from the noble path towards something like "Ooh, I'm only 5 karma points away from beating Sun Tzu!!!"

Besides... Nobody would ever beat ol' Brucey :)


Re:Yep, it's beta ;) (1)

Kyrrin (35570) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697518)

It's not the burrito (though that does sound good!); it's doing it for me, too.

As was suggested later down, having a multi-leveled m^2 interface that would allow a m^2 to view the entire history of what had been done to the comment would be more helpful.

Also, am I the only one concerned that you're being asked to rate the "tag" (Interesting, Funny, etc) and not the score? On my test m^2 page, I saw a few comments that /were/ interesting, etc, but didn't rate the numerical value that had been given to them, IMHO. Perhaps a change to the system to ask whether the tags *and* the final numbers were fair. Though if it were done with the "history" visible, then the m^2 would rate each moderation step...

Or maybe I'm trying to make this too complicated, but I think the way it is now, it has too much ambiguity.

Re:micro-moderation (1)

costas (38724) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697520)

I also proposed something similar to another thread. I doubt that meta-moderation will help too much; the same problem is bound to recur again and you're gonna need M3 moderation (this of course, assumes that /. will keep growing at the same rate ;-).

Instead, I say get rid of moderation as it stands now: go totally peer-review. Give *every* registered, logged-in, /.er say 5-10 moderation points per day. Then allow us to vote each post up or down only (and only one vote per post per time).

This will mean that posts might get scores of +/- 50 or 500 or 5000 even, so instead of making thresholds absolute, make them proportional (say, show only posts that in the top 5, 10, 30, etc. percentile of points).

That way your SQL will get uglier (and the server will get slower ;-(, but it should work for any number of users, and it will eliminate successive review of reviewers.

Just my $.02


Does this really help the moderation situation? (1)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697521)

I don't see why the trolls still can't create a bunch accounts so they can negatively affect the meta-moderation. If they create accounts now and ignore them for a couple months, all those accounts will be eligible for meta-moderation since it simply requires the default positive karma and a non-recent account. If they have enough accounts, they can lower the karma of the moderators so the moderators can't moderate any longer.

Re:A little nitpick... (1)

Queuetwo (42128) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697525)

I saw one posted twice, too. Figured they were checking on me, too.

Errors on Meta-moderation. (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697528)

When I tried a session of meta-moderation, I had two problems.

  1. One message showed up twice
  2. When I pressed submit, the resulting page said "Database Error Contact Rob and tell him what you were doing." Well, you see, I was trying to meta-moderate, and I then hit "submit" =P

    As to having the (normal) moderation controls visible always, who would actualy use them? With a 1/50 chance that it actually would effect anything, would *you* bother with them?

Karma rankings (2)

georgeha (43752) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697530)

Even better, rank the top 50 or 100 posters in terms of karma (which was suggested deep in an earlier thread).

George

Moderator controls always visible... (5)

weave (48069) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697535)

Finally is an interesting idea that has been proposed a few times that I just wanted to throw out for discussion. As it stands, you only see the moderator controls when you have moderator points to use. What if the moderator controls were always visible, but when you submitted the form, they were only counted if you had moderator points. Oh, and you wouldn't know if you had points.

PLEASE don't do this. Whenever I get moderator points, I spend a helluva lot of time reading stuff at -1 and make a real effort to be fair and thorough. If this suggestion was implemented and I just appeared to have access, but didn't know for sure, I just wouldn't bother at all.

I hate to sound snotty, but I am a technical services manager, have a lot of experience in NT and Linux, have a lot to offer, but I do NOT have time to sit around and waste.

If you occasionally want me to moderate, fine. I will, I will take it very seriously, and I will be honored by the privilege.

But please don't jerk me around. It'll get old fast...

Thanks.

Re:Yep, it's beta ;) (1)

rrogers (48345) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697536)

The rating listed with the score is only the last rating to be done to that comment. It may have been rated Interesting-Informative-Overrated in that order and so it would say Overrated, but you would could be asked whether the Informative rating was fair.

Re:A little nitpick... (1)

rrogers (48345) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697537)

Maybe it was a comment that had been moderated more than once. I had one that I was asked whether the Insightful was fair and then 2 comments down was the same comment, but it was asking about Informative.

Re:Err, please, expand.. (1)

rrogers (48345) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697538)

It's not asking about the overall score, but the specific moderation listed at the bottom. You may see a (Score: 2 Redundant) at the top, but the bottom will say ask you whether the Insightful moderation (which obviously came before Redundant) was fair, that is was this truly an insightful comment.

Meta-meta-moderators (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697540)

What about the meta-meta-moderators?

...I say figure out a flat, auto-adjusting moderation system...see my post in the past slashdot headline...

Re:Karma qualities? (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697541)

Yeah...I like the sound of Enlightenment! Can we have classes and hit points too ;)

Re:Moderations... (1)

ratliff (53656) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697547)

Good ideas, except that users who are posting from behind a firewall, often come from the same IP. For a large company, some users may never hit the 4 minute window.

Let's hope we all play fair... (1)

SmileyBen (56580) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697549)

... some people won't though.

Aren't people that deliberately troll bound to come across as more defensive, and deem all the moderation made about them as unfair, whereas people who don't tend to troll aren't going to always say that moderation is fair, since they'll be more open to criticism?

The 'ignoring people who always say the moderation is unfair' thing might help, but intelligent trolls who've read that will just say one is fair. Then again, it does say that other techniques might be used to ignore people, and that might well address this very point.

Not allowing ACs to meta-moderate might at least push some to register an account. Hopefully.

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

PrinceOfChaos (62778) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697553)

Look at your User Info page. (Your karma is -1)

Karma stats (2)

PrinceOfChaos (62778) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697555)

Why not add Karma statistics page. E.g. 'Your Karma is higher than Karma of 75% Slashdotters' or 'Top 10 Slashdotters by Karma' or 'Your Karma Rank'.

This would make people try to increase their Karma leading to the better posts and better signal-to-noise ratio.

An interesting idea (2)

HSinclair (64082) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697556)

to have the moderation controls always visible, but I think if people thought there was a large chance that they weren't really moderators it would lead to random clicking which would just mess everyone else up.

Yep, it's beta ;) (1)

brickbat (64506) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697558)

Seems that the rating you're asked to judge doesn't match the actual rating given to the message. For instance, a message may be rated 'Off-Topic' in the header, but the question below it will read 'The rating of 'Insightful' is . . . '

Or it could be the double burrito with extra green chile I inhaled at lunch, and I'm just confused.

moderating the moderator (1)

asad (65703) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697559)

well I hope this fixes the AC problem, but I still think we need more moderators just because of the volume of posts that /. gets. As /. gets more an more press we can expect a larger number of newbies to post here. And for /.'s sake I hope this doesn't follow the same way that usenet went.

micro-moderation (1)

eries (71365) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697566)

I have already proposed this on another thread, but I think it's decent enough to try again, because I think this meta-moderation stuff is getting really complex.

Why not try something simpler. Allow /. users the ability to affect the moderation of a post by a very small amount (perhaps .01 point). In cases where the entire community thinks some post is offensive, that post will get moderated way way down (ie trolls), but in cases where the community is split (various flame wars) the moderating should balance itself out.

Of course, you'll need various limits, but even if each user only got a total of one moderation point a week, that would still be quite alot.

Ok, just my $.04 - I really like the moderation system as it stands, so let's not change it TOO much.

Nothing Really Outstanding (1)

kuroineko (71801) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697567)

I think moderators are good at putting down
noisy things like 'Fsck BG/LT'or 'First Post'.
However, I was unable to find a comment that
impressed me too much to deserve 3 or 4. IMHO.
Probably, this is a problem of a non-native
speaker, but I used to think 'Insightful' means
something that sheds a light on something previously unkonwn or obscure.
Rather than just saying 'grey could turn into white if you raise RGB to 255 each'
Again, this is just IMHO, no intent to offend anyone.
BTW, some 'random' articles appeared duplicated, that's why I didn't vote. Is this a problem with my Lynx?

maybe a bug? (1)

reptilian (75755) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697569)

I just looked at the MetaModerator page and it had one post twice. I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen (would the metamoderation of it count twice?).

-kyle

I must have missed something, but... (1)

vyesue (76216) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697570)

what is Karma? (in the slashdot context)

how does one's Karma rise and fall?

Re:Karma-o-meter (1)

vyesue (76216) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697571)

try looking at your user info page.

How do you define "obsessive reader" ? (1)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697572)

After all, I usually login to /. when I get to work, and just refresh it occasionally throughout the day. I only log in once, but I'm here for eight hours.

Personally, I think that having the moderation visible to everyone but only applying when you have points will seriously cut down on moderation; why moderate if you don't know you're having an effect?


According to my Slashdot Karma, I'm coming back as a FLATWORM!

SQL Error (1)

bgraham (78637) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697573)

I just tried the Meta Moderation and it gave me this:
SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!


SQL Error Email Rob and tell him what you were doing please!
10 comments have been meta moderated. Thanks for particpating.

Well Rob's email isnt easy to find on this site, so i just post it.
Ben

Re:SQL Error (1)

bgraham (78637) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697574)

I answered all questions with fair and it gave me that error.
I didnt close the browser yet if there is anything else i can tell.

Re:Does this really help the moderation situation? (1)

zantispam (78764) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697575)

"I don't see why the trolls still can't create a bunch accounts so they can negatively affect the meta-moderation."



I think that with the massive amount of /. readership (80,000+), a troll would have to be very persistant and very patient. To be sure it could be done, except for the fact that M^2 status comes from the same middle-of-the-road, average /. demographic. IOW, to M^2, one still has to post regularly.


I do see that as a possible attack strategy, however.

Re:I must have missed something, but... (1)

nix99 (85909) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697577)

your Karma is the sum total of all the moderation that has been done to you.
IE if you start at +1 (the default for most logged in people) and a moderator has pushed 2 of your messages to -1 (this is down by 2 pts)
your Karma is -2+(-2)=-4
I hope this explains it.
-Nix

the other answers did not load at first sorry (1)

nix99 (85909) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697578)

sorry about answering a questions alread answered, for some reason the other answers did not load the first time.

great I can alread see the moderators going after that one

Re:You're doing this all wrong. (1)

xxyyxxzz (87887) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697583)

Well, I imagine that Rob is doing meta-moderation first for two reasons: 1. Its a little easier to implement than spell checking, seeing as the code for moderation is already there 2. Immediacy - Given the volume of posts, and the increased complaints about bad posts and bad moderations, trying to fix the moderation system is a little more important than some of the other things. How often is /. down for you anyway?

Re:Rob's REAL plan... (1)

xxyyxxzz (87887) | more than 14 years ago | (#1697584)

I think WAY TOO MANY of us have been reading Goedel, Escher, Bach to fall for this one.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>