I've wrapping up what can only be called "moderation 2," what will surely end up being the biggest rewrite of OSNews voting/moderation since it was introduced. Since we made our last changes and introduced the "report" button, we've had to field many questions and address confusion about what the vote down button means now. Rather than attempt to band-aid the confusing but functional current system, we're going to start with a new moderation paradigm. The new system will be word based, so you'll choose a term that will assign + or - points to a comment. But before I get too into it, tell me what words you think should be available for moderation. Here's what we've got so far:
Informative, Insightful, Funny are positive mods
Troll, Inaccurate, and Offtopic are negative mods
Then we have a Report Abuse option for... you guessed it... reporting comments that violate to the TOS such as spam, personal attacks, or or hate speech.
Are we missing anything?
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-03-30
Member since:
2007-02-22
What's the difference between 'trolling' and 'personal attacks'?
I frequently vote down trolling/personal attacks (and pop the latter, regardless of whom the attack was aimed at, into my ignore list), but I don't think that's quite reportable ... unless it's required to do so.
Member since:2005-06-29
I'd say that there's some overlap, but for me the textbook definition of trolling is posting an intentionally inflammatory item that does not contribute to the discussion but is intended to bait gullible readers into responding indignantly and derailing the conversation. It may or may not contain personal attacks.
On the other hand, you may preface your statement with, "obviously you are a feebleminded git," and proceed to lay out a thoughtful and on-topic rebuttal. But it's still a personal attack.
It's a valid question to wonder whether it's worthwhile making the distinction while modding it down, but I do think that there is a distinction.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Inherently? Nothing.
The problem is when people try to inflate the importance of anecdotal evidence / experience - and then form arguments based on it. As the saying goes, "'anecdote' is not the singular form of the word 'data.'"
Personally, I would prefer options to mod down posts by selecting the logical fallacy or lazy debate tactic that they contain.
Member since:
2006-05-18
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
If the attempt is to stop blatant modding down of posts that are against the grain, but are articulate in their post - then I think the first line of defence is this; include a button which lists all those who have moderated the post. You can click on "Who moderated this post" and there is a list of people who moderated it; who moderated it up, who moderated it down. From there, website maintainers and others can see those who blatantly abuse the system to suppress opinions they don't agree with.
I see nothing wrong with the up and down (plus and minus) like there is now, but I do think there needs to be accountability for posts being moderated; if you're willing to be bitchy when it comes to moderating other peoples posts, you should also be willing to have your name associated with that moderating decision. Its called accountability.
Member since:2005-06-29
We admins can already do that
. For you users this will NEVER be visible - at least not as long as I'm around. Moderation will stay anonymous, end of story.
Member since:2005-07-06
We admins can already do that
. For you users this will NEVER be visible - at least not as long as I'm around. Moderation will stay anonymous, end of story. " Why? are you one of those people who support the suppression of unpopular opinions? Accountability, accountability, accountability - if a person is happy to moderate something down, they should be more than happy to have their name associated with that decision.
In fact, I'd go one better. When you moderate a post, you have to give a reason why you moderated that person in that way. Failure to give a reason earns the persons account a suspension for 2 weeks.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-07-06
The idea is to phase out confusion and separate disagreement from abuse.
No, it shows who those people who moderate out of disagreement; full disclosure ensures that people moderate under the spotlight of scrutiny rather than in the basement of their mum and dads house.
You can never separate the two on this site, because this site is filled with immature idiots who are incapable of doing that. What you can do is name and shame those who abuse the system.
Member since:2005-04-01
I think you're being too cynical. People who whine about the mod system usually fail to realize that it does what it's supposed to do and does it pretty well! Crap is usually downmodded, which is all we really wanted to do.
A revamp will help avoid confusion, because the rule of *when* to downmod changed.
If you think revealing downmods will "expose the abusers," then it reveals that you don't know much about the innerworkings of our mod system. It's not nearly as abused as you think or imply. The admins have discussed this before, and we will never reveal moderations publically, period. It will not accomplish what you think, but it will encourage retailiation.
Member since:2005-07-06
A revamp will help avoid confusion, because the rule of *when* to downmod changed.
If you think revealing downmods will "expose the abusers," then it reveals that you don't know much about the innerworkings of our mod system. It's not nearly as abused as you think or imply. The admins have discussed this before, and we will never reveal moderations publically, period. It will not accomplish what you think, but it will encourage retailiation.
But for me, I never moderate people down; now sure, if I think that a post really does contribute to the discourse (even though I might disagree with it), I'll add a point onto it. I know that even if I were to moderate it down, it will be due to personal bias - no matter how much I might wish to claim I was being unbiased.
As for retaliation, it might actually hold people to account for deducting points. Look at my posts of the past, purely points deducted by operating system fanboys unwilling to debate the issue - so instead moderate the post down and drown it in yelling and screaming. If these people were held accountable, then maybe the question will be asked, "this person moderated the parent thread down and yet, he couldn't even be bothered replying to the post critiquing what was said", thus, the conclusion can be that it was nothing short of revenge against the original author.
Member since:
2008-02-05
I think it's good idea to allow (or even force) users to give a reason why they modded a post up or down, even when they have to choose from a smallish pool of reasons. I also believe it might be interesting to give authors insight in statistics about the (average or post specific) mod status of their posts.
Member since:2005-07-06
But how does that ensure that they don't simply choose 'offtopic' for something they disagree with?
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:
2005-08-12
If I understand correctly, the system will still display a positive or negative numeric summary of all the votes. So I have to somewhat plea that you also make available the number of each vote applied.
My biggest complaint with the current system is that a comment that's a 1 could have been voted up 7 times, but since 7 people also voted it down, an apparently very interesting comment is lost in obscurity.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-08-12
Breakdown? I want a per-comment, up-to-the-second count of the votes in each category. And as an extension, I think the amount of votes should mean something when the algorithm is rating comments. Perhaps the system could have a seventh rating it would apply to comments that have been ambiguously rated. That is, if several people call a comment "trolling" and several people call it "insightful," the system rates it as "controversial."
But, yeah. Counts.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-06-29
Clever Useful Entertaining
Derogatory Malinformed(ing) Offtopic/personal
Folks, just think about what emotions are triggered by reading those comments. It was tempting to include 'stupid' in the list, but that's ambiguous.
All in all I don't think people who ought to do moderation will have time or urge to sort through the comments to mark them. Mostly people with nothing better to do with their time will.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:
2005-07-06
Here's a novel idea: Have a moderation system that, instead of using a fixed set of 5 words, works more like a tag-based system, where users can type in their own superlatives to describe comments, and all superlatives already picked by others are shown and pickable by new users.
Use case would look something like the following:
-User A mods comment up and types in "insightful" as the reason.
-User B then comes along, sees that the post has been modded insightful, and seconds that "insightful" mod.
-User C comes along and mods it "flamebait"
-User D comes along and mods it "interesting"
-User F comes along and sees that the comment is at +3, having started at +1 and having had +2=insightful, -1=flamebait and +1=interesting added to it. User F decides to agree with the "interesting" mod, bringing the comment up to +4.
Pros: The full spectrum of opinion regarding the comment is represented; the comment is not reduced to a single number or single superlative, since the users can always see the entire mod history. There is also a lot more room for superlatives that go beyond the unavoidably vague 5-option model.
Cons: Of course, this system would be more complicated to code. It would also potentially take up a lot more screen real estate, although perhaps just the highest-rated (or if that fails, the first) mod could be shown by default, and an expandable "mod history" view be offered for those curious.
Anyway, it's just an idea, actually one that I've never seen implemented anywhere else, so I can't promise how effective it is ;-). But I like it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:
2006-05-18
Any chance of adding this feature: http://osnews.com/conversation/47f659b4/Comments_improvments ?
It would be a big time-saver for anyone using Threaded View. I hate having to read again and again all the comments in a story I'm really interested in.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-04-01