Poll 2014-07-14 Moderation schemes I like
Poll
Moderation schemes I like
Plus one (like Google Plus)
25 points (4%)
Mod up/Mod down (like Reddit)
73 points (11%)
Insightful, troll, funny (like Slashdot)
153 points (23%)
Plus one/Minus one with tags (Reddit plus Slashdot)
132 points (20%)
No mods, killfiles (Usenet)
31 points (5%)
Friends/Following/Foes
54 points (8%)
Upvote points only (Hacker News)
28 points (4%)
Inform/Insightful +1, Troll/Offtopic/Inaccurate -1 (OSNews)
108 points (16%)
Like! (Facebook)
14 points (2%)
Comments only (Verge, theRegister)
33 points (5%)
Other (describe in comments)
12 points (2%)
Reply 6 comments

Lots of room for improvement in this poll (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-14 10:48 (#2GC)

The more I look at this poll, the more I realize it could be improved. Oh well! It's perhaps more ripe for a true conversation/topic and the poll just gets it flowing. Looking at it again I see Google+ and Facebook (Like) are essentially the same thing. And I missed the Slashdot Karma system.

I think currently I'm interested in a simple vote up for posts I like, a vote down for posts that are offensive, trolling, flamey, or inconsiderate. And a few tags for things that are useful to filter out (in your preferences you can opt to filter out "funny" for example). Then the Karma system so good posters can get rewarded. But whether to apply global karma (everyone's experience is affected by the group's opinion of a user's karma) or if karma works the way Usenet kill files do, where my opinion of posters affects only how they are presented on my screen? That's an interesting subject too.

So much room for experiment.

How about "Minus one sends a mild electric shock to the poster of the troll/flamebait post"?

Re: Lots of room for improvement in this poll (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-07-14 14:11 (#2GE)

So what about a forum that allows up/down votes with no upper or lower limit per post which rates all posts from 1 to 10 on scale where 10 equates to the current highest upvoted post and 1 is the lowest. Question is, would the cream still float to the top...

Ratings instead of +/- (Score: 1)

by quadrox@pipedot.org on 2014-07-15 09:33 (#2GS)

I have mentioned this on SoylentNews several times, but I believe the only sensible moderation system is one where you cannot only add or subtract one, but where you can give your exact rating of a comment. Then let the average decide.

And if you are too concerned with single moderations instantly getting a comment to +5, then make it so the score can never be higher than the number of moderations.

Nice poll - fun topic! (Score: 5, Interesting)

by kerrany@pipedot.org on 2014-07-15 19:04 (#2GW)

There's an option missing, as performed by Popular Science: shut down all communication. Lack of communication is still a form of communication. It's a fringe option, though it's one I wish more news sites would look into. (I'm sick of running across people who'd like to just shoot all them immigrints what're here to steal our jobs an' vote for Obama!!!)

Here's what I'd like to see. I'm putting heavy emphasis on tagging below because it's a form of "silent speech" - it's something that the mythical Moderate Middle or Silent Reader can do without expending much effort, and thus should encourage more participation, even from people who are afraid to speak up.
  • Take the Slashdot/Reddit system of up/down tags and expand it so posts can have multiple tags.
  • Expand the number of predefined tags to cover things like "Disagree" and "Rude" - it's dumb when people use "Troll" as a synonym for "I disagree" and the tagging system should discourage that by actually including terms people will want to use - even if it doesn't give them a positive or negative value on the back end.
  • Get rid of the public +1 and -1 associated with each tag. They're still there, they're just hidden and can be changed up as you get to know the site's community.
  • By default, do not apply negative modifiers to tags like "Disagree". Just show the tag. Users can apply their own +/- filters for tags, but they've got to log in and build their filters. The default modifiers should be heavy on the positives and light on the negatives to promote discussion.
  • Allow users to vote on tags people already added instead of supplying their own. Up-voting or down-voting a tag is the same as sending in a tag for that post - you only get one vote per post. Plus, it's instant meta-moderation - a lot of people disagreeing that something is Funny means that tagger's idea of funny is off for your audience.
  • Allow users to tag their own post, but don't give that tag any + or - value. "Ohhh, they were going for Funny with that comment."
  • When people get enough highly-rated posts (whatever "enough" is) in a specific topic (judged by the tags on the topics they post in) like "law" and "engineering" and "linux", tag those users as "linux-expert" or "law-hobbyist" or whatever. They could remove or downgrade their own expertise-tags, of course.
  • Aggregate post tags and apply them to the user - "Rude", "Helpful", "Controversial", or whatever. Positive tags could serve as a form of rank; negative tags would serve as a warning. It doesn't have to be public, though. I'm of two minds on that.
  • Allow people to use the friend/foe/following stuff - they're going to anyway. Keep an eye on those friend/foe/follow networks though - anyone who +1s the same person's posts, or all posts that are about the MPAA being good guys, or whatever, needs to be examined by moderators.
  • Keep moderators around. Someone's got to boot the spammers and spank the trolls, plus humans seem to be better at spotting voting rings than machines are.
  • Make the comments part of the "story". Include them in the RSS feed, promote the ones that elaborate on the topic with more information and resources, have a "comment of the week", etc. If you want a community, hand out community status, put the community in the public eye, make the community members famous.
I put way too much thought into this and then edited it down to just the bare bones. I hope it's coherent.

Re: Nice poll - fun topic! (Score: 0)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-15 21:50 (#2GY)

This is really well thought-out; thanks for being so thorough. In fact I'm still chewing on it. The fact that this system doesn't exist anywhere on the 'Net that I'm aware of makes it intriguing – it's a departure in a totally new direction. Cool.

Re: Nice poll - fun topic! (Score: 3, Informative)

by kerrany@pipedot.org on 2014-07-16 13:46 (#2H5)

Thanks! I wanted something that would be useful to:
  1. Pick the experts out of the crowd and elevate their posts.
  2. Encourage civility/helpfulness/other community behaviors. (I've seen forums that would encourage flames and rudeness, so customizable ratings are important.)
  3. Make the trolls easier to flag - without automatically suppressing their speech. (Some people really believe that crazy stuff. They need to be mocked, not silenced.)
  4. Let moderate/quiet/scared people have a voice without requiring them to be vulnerable to backlash. The bad stuff is out there, and most people don't agree with it, but most people aren't going to post their disagreement - they'd rather just click a button.
  5. Something a little more nuanced. Whee "Funny Troll"!
The problems with the above system that I can see are:
  • Do you make aggregate post ratings public? That might convince some people not to post at all. (Is that good? More signal, less noise? What about the people who take pride in their Troll Level 9000?)
  • How the heck could anyone make this scalable? I guess if anyone could though, you guys could!
  • What tags do you permit? A list of tags could easily shape the discussion - people will be trying to earn specific ones, avoid others, etc - but you still have to make sure to cover "what people are going to really feel about a post", or they'll start using tags for other meanings and your measuring system will be out of whack.
    • Do you permit normal users to apply topic-specific tags to posts? So you could have users tag a post as being "about Linux" or "about free speech", whatever you choose to call those topics. That could help with catching the experts, but might subject the expert-finding system to easier gaming.
    • The absolute basic tags you'd need to apply to catch people's feelings (I think) would be something like:
      • The gut check stuff:
        • Agree
        • Disagree
        • Rude
        • Unhelpful
        • Funny
        • Serious
      • The nice stuff:
        • Polite
        • Helpful
        • Interesting
      • The factual stuff:
        • True
        • False
        • Mostly-true
        • Mostly-false
        • Half-true
        • Troll
      • I thought about including stuff like "stupid" and "hell yeah" but I figure if you're trying to encourage civility you probably shouldn't allow the silent majority to outright insult people in their tags. XD
      • There's probably stuff I'm missing here. This post is already way too huge, though.
  • How can this system encourage people to read and tag more new posts?
    • Give a "reader rating"? "You have read and tagged 900+ posts! Congratulations!"
    • Give their tags more weight? So long as you don't let the bots take over.
    • Can you rate a tagger based on how many people agree with their tags? The only thing that seems good for is determining whether someone is with the group mind or against it on certain topics.
    • Let the good ones have custom tags? I have a bad feeling about that - but I'd love to earn a tagging rep so I could tag people "whackadoodle" or "window-licker". Maybe moderators would have to approve the custom tags to keep them civil or whatever. That could get overwhelming, but they're short, right?
I think Slashdot was headed this way but stopped when it got to be "good enough". I got the "multi-tagging" idea from Pipedot, though. I noticed how once multiple people agree that a post is off-topic, it gets flagged off-topic - unless more people agree that it's funny. When moderating, I've actually fished around until I found the adjective other moderators wanted to apply so I could make it show up right away - is this post "insightful" or "interesting", oh let's click that one since the word will show up faster. When I caught myself doing that, I realized that the site must store both tags - and I thought, why not show them?

Things to look out for:
  • What if 9 bajillion people tag a controversial post 200 different things? I think you should only show the top 10 tags but then you run the risk of moderation being shouted down. Shown tags are more likely to receive metamoderation, though, so my expectation is that tags that get added quickly (or were added by the original poster) will win out, and tags that are outright wrong will be dropped quickly from the list.
  • What about people specifically posting only in certain topics, trying to raise their rank to "expert" in those topics? I... guess you end up with a very informative site then?
  • Find a way to handle a threaded conversation that is 1000+ comments gracefully - ha! Good luck! XD
See, toldja I put too much thought into this! But it is a very fun topic!
http://pipedot.org/poll/2014-07-14/moderation-schemes-i-like
pipedot.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-47
18190
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7TFAHTN2EQ77CUJ3EZ6GKLXAKWODBA4P
<urn:uuid:2acd75d0-1a58-4af9-9ae3-49bafe1a801b>
2018-11-20T08:08:31Z
198.58.109.112
text/html
sha1:EPTDQCC2CGLVE3YVYLNUGZJADSVADJDK
<urn:uuid:ab5d8d0a-18e8-4e64-88d9-1600f97b777c>
http://pipedot.org/poll/2014-07-14/moderation-schemes-i-like
response
<urn:uuid:5474a7dd-b32b-4171-9283-985481b5840b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-47
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-168-131.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/