Guest post by Web 2.0 throws a lot of buzzwords at us. New technology has given us new terms to describe a particular design process. One of these is “user-centric” design. An example of a website that isn’t user-centric would be microsoft.com. A static site where the users have no control over the content of the site, nor any choice in what they see. The company displays the information they deem important. This is considered web 1.0. (Note by AS: a new microsoft.com site has gone live since this submission). YouTube and Digg are examples of Web 2.0, user-centric sites whereby the users of the site contribute not only the content that the other users consume, but each user helps decide what content is promoted. Today, I’m going to coin a new term: self-centric design. To define this new term, I will compare OSNews to one of the leading web 2.0 sites: Digg.
What’s new at Digg?
As a Digg user, you can submit a news article immediately, and see it automatically published. OSNews requires that your news is verified and chosen by an editor. There is no guarantee when your article may be published, or if at all.
Once your article is published, other Digg users may ‘digg’ it, to show that they approve of the article. Articles that get many “diggs” within a short space of time will be promoted up the list to the front page. OSNews lets you recommend an article, but this has no effect on its position on the home page. The order that you see is according to the publish date by the editors.
Digg users comment on articles to express their opinion. Unlike a forum, each user can moderate other user’s comments, either “digging” or “burying” a comment. A comment that is sufficiently buried will be collapsed and hidden from view by default. OSNews also provides user moderation that works similarly, however limits are set on the maximum number of positive or negative moderations that are allowed (-5 to +5).
In these respects, many would consider Digg ahead of the curve, with its hip, web 2.0 user-centric design. However, Digg is the perfect example of self-centric design.
What’s wrong with Digg?
A self-centric website is one in which the users all serve themselves. At the front of the chain, Digg’s submission process does not vet any articles for journalistic quality or relevance. Whilst the principle is that Digg users post articles they think others will like, the reality is different.
Since going mainstream with Digg v3, every day the Digg home page contains articles that are either a) a user’s own blog linking off to the actual article in order to get traffic / ad-revenue, b) some four year old meme a user only discovered today or c) an actual news item posted as hurriedly as possible to be the one to get all the diggs; or a different link to the same news item to try outdo the other article duplicates.
Digg includes a feature that lets you see only news from the categories of your choice; this way I can choose to only see the news that is relevant to me. The problem is that if I chose to see only Apple news, I see lots of crap Apple news; often badly presented or baseless. This is not user-centric design. The users are not looking out for one another, and are not interacting to improve the overall service.
The self-centric design of the site gears everything up to making users compete for superiority. Everybody who comments is just another nobody to agree or disagree with – to laud or to hate. There is no “community” to speak of and almost no middle ground in Digg. Besides the core users who post the news, Digg is a platform for self proclamation, one way or another. Digg’s mentality can be summed up simply as “OMG first post!!”
Does that make OSNews right?
By submitting a pre-written news article for vetting by the editors, you are putting your own journalistic abilities up for show. Isn’t this self serving? Not absolutely. There is no reward, nor fame for submitting news to OSNews other than some self-satisfaction. You are not in a speed competition with everybody else. Nobody would want to write something that resulted in a mass of other users laying into you personally. OSNews has proven over time that its users will submit news that only they may have been aware of (e.g. fringe news from small alternative OS projects) or written pieces that try to inform about subjects others would not have any experience of (e.g. RISC OS, etc.). Nothing is perfect, but these type of articles, given their slightly more narrow nature, benefit the whole community by informing and educating about subjects others would not normally encounter on a day to day basis.
OSNews falters by not giving its users enough means to control the future publication of articles. Users can complain in the comments about poor articles, but they do not feel any immediate or direct effect on the general flow of articles. This is a dangerous area however. The term ‘Digg’ is ambiguous, it is different for everybody, and means that users are not making a single, combined, coherent statement about the quality and enjoyment of the article.
I do not feel that reshuffling the order of articles based on user votes would benefit a site like OSNews. Instead it would be beneficial if users could state in a straight-forward manner, their opinion specifically on the quality of journalism in the article (either in -5 to 5, or a set of categories), not just whether they agree with the article or not – so that over time the editors (and users submitting their own articles) would become aware of what the community as a whole likes and dislikes in so much as journalism (and not just popular subjects). Thus, the users would be working together to improve the quality of the articles published, without necessarily narrowing the subject range.
What does this mean for Digg?
OSNews is not the perfect example of user-centric design at work. This is not what I am trying to prove. OSNews could be labelled ‘web 1.0’ as a method of drawing a line between recently deployed technologies such as AJAX and instant user contributed content, and previous standard methodologies. There is not, and never will be, a web 2.0. AJAX was implemented by Microsoft in 1999, and was available earlier than that in Outlook Web Access. Microsoft were doing gMail back when Google was still only doing search. All web 2.0 really means is not the new vs. the old – but instead the young vs. the experienced. Without experience, many web 2.0 startups are going to have difficulty dealing with the drawbacks of an initial self-centric design process, further down the line.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Although I disagree with some of what you say (such as this gem: “Microsoft were doing gMail (sic) back when Google was still only doing search“), I agree that the major flaw with digg is the fact that the lack of identity means people recklessly digg and bury each other. I think it makes the entire thing a game, i.e. “What can I say that will lead people to digg me up?”
I would much rather have a system like this, where genuine comments are rewarded, spam is modded, and other comments are generally left alone rather than being buried without much reason. I’m not suggesting OSNews is better than Digg, but rather, that our community tools – mostly afterthoughts, by the way – have created a stronger sense of community than exists on digg. I honestly feel like I know many OSNews readers.
This is all very interesting to read as we begin the first bits of OSN version 4, where we will incorporate the best ideas from all sites to get to what we believe is the best possible site.
Edited 2006-12-19 13:53
I agree with and support yours and others ambitions with OSNews. Too me, OSNews is a site which I visit when I have the time to read both an article and the discussion. I surf in here perhaps once or even twice I day, and I *learn* a lot about well news in the OS world. Slashdot is of course wider in scope and tend as everyone knows to have a bit different, more geeky, funny and ironic tone to it, which is relaxing and nice when I’m in the mood for that. And I certainly read the discussions more often than TFA. Digg on the other hand is most often like watching commercials, MTV, Fox News, Hidden camera or The Osbournes because you’re too lazy to sit up and fetch the remote. No continuity (per definition), no reflection. Just a quick sugar kick for the brain and afterwards I just feel brain-obese. I hardly ever read the discussions. Because what is there to say about some random YouTube clip?
Go OSNews! And thanx for a great job! 🙂
Anyways, if there is something creative I can add to this discussion, it would be that I would like to see a scoring system that takes into consideration the influence of a post. Just modding up or down is a bit simplistic. An impopular post modding-wise could have been very important for the discussion. I think having some sort of citation/impact index would improve the discussion in a forum like this.
What do you all think about this?
The community of Digg is the primary thought behind its design: it is the engine of the reporting and consumption of items for ad revenue. It is mostly-undirected and representative of a larger cross-section of the Internet populace than sites directed by some manner of editorial control.
The tools that Digg provides to enhance discussion are not uninteresting, since they largely cede comment selection to a similar user-level filtering as news items. If a comment does not advance a discussion, it can be weeded out for the benefit of others, and comments are not seen as inherently valuable. Considering that most comments on Digg are retarded, I think that is actually a good perspective.
The threading at Digg is pretty bad, but that is true of a lot of discussion forums on the Internet. The AJAX features are incredibly useful, and anything that reduces the irritation of using a site (especially one with perhaps hundreds of comments) is fine by me.
Of course the problem with Digg is that it is community driven and seeks to appeal to a wider cross-section of people than sites directed by editorial control. Any idealistic value of the tools it provides is quickly crushed by the harsh realities of the mob. As it turns out people are kind of stupid: between the absurdly low quality of discussion on Digg and the vapid stories that find their way to the front page, I only look at Digg once or twice a day and only on the first page or so. If I were running Digg through a spam filter I might be able to tolerate it, but as a website it’s obnoxious. The comment selection responds to popularity rather than quality, which spurs partisans to swap whines about being buried because of bias. The front page is obviously ‘gamed’ to promote advertisements. Much of the articles that are selected that don’t appear to be advertisements are duplicates or stupid.
If you want a lesson on why a republic is better than a democracy, well I think Digg will let you know. If you want to see how to be hot on the Internet, though, then you can also think of Digg. It went from nowhere to being an in thing, by appealing to a broad audience. That is its community: it’s large and kind of juvenile, with considerable in-fighting and group-think. It’s like the world, I suppose, only “enhanced” by the anonymity of the Internet.
Some nice points raised in Kroc’s article. I suppose one problem is that OSNews perhaps doesn’t have an sufficient quantity of news that they can afford for 50% of it to be hidden?
In all fairness, would an article about RISCOS ever reach other news sites via a voting system? On the other hand, another ‘I think Microsoft and Vista suck!’ probably would generate the interest.
I for one would like it if there was some text clarifying the meaning of the ‘recommend’ function. By recommending an article, am I saying that I agree with the points raised, or that I thought it was a good piece of writing, or that I think other people should see it to take issue with it etc?
I for one would like it if there was some text clarifying the meaning of the ‘recommend’ function.
What you are doing is telling fellow readers to take a look at this article– you are recommending it to other readers. Where that recommendation is based on is up to you– quality, subject, pictures, whatever.
Realistically, all I needed to do was link you to Digg and be done, the quality speaks for itself. But that would be a matter of bashing just Digg, which isn’t the entire point here; Digg is just the perfect example, of a web2.0 mindeset that has severe design flaws when it comes to community planning and design.
Creating a website – and a community – is not just about a nice skin, and a bunch of AJAX features. In the pursuit of Ad Revenue, VC, and status (Digg reports on every utterance of Kevin, yet I don’t even know [or care] who he is) web2.0 is not working toward building long-lasting stable and supportive communities.
I wish I could argue this. I participate quite a bit on digg, and my frustration has been growing. I left a comment yesterday about a post – the post was a link to a jpg that is about 3-4 years old. I pointed this out and was buried into oblivion. Then I left a follow up saying something like “jokes passed around in email three years ago, wikipedia articles, and youtube videos are what pass for the front page of digg news these days.” That was dugg up.
There’s no rhyme or reason to the digg community, because there’s really no community, just a lot of users.
I don’t really need to know every time Kevin Rose farts, although he is an interesting guy, and therein lies the problem – there’s no middle ground. There were about 200 James Kim stories in 5 days, all of which were lacking detail. Whatever interests the crowd can overshadow the rest of the content, which doesn’t happen as much with an editor-based news site.
Anyway, the point is that digg does a lot of things right, but they do *a lot* of things that I think we can improve upon – not to compete with them, but rather just to improve our own community.
And another thing about web2.0 – everybody thinking it’s a competition. It’s Slashdot vs Digg or something new each day. This is again self-centric design at work. OSNews doesn’t need to compete with Digg in the slightest – only do its own job, the best it can. Why do people obsess so much over themselves; and the cause/website they support?
The biggest problem with Digg is that its model favours mediocracy and general opinion. A naked picture of Bill Gates would make it to the front page, but an in-depth article analysing and assessing the differences between a muK and a monolithic kernel design would get about 5 Diggs. I wouldn’t call Digg a newssite; I would call it a community weblog. 95% of Digg’s content is what belongs on your personal weblog; not on a self-respecting newssite.
Digg is the ultimate expression of boulevard press; not only give the people what they want, but also let them write it the way they want. Which is fine– it’s just not for everyone (or me).
All in all, I agree with you, Kroc, that OSN and Digg do not compete (and by sheer volume, we’d be crushed anyway). However, I do know that if I had to bet my money on either of the two surviving the test of time in the coming 5 years, I’d know what I’d bet on.
Edited 2006-12-19 14:52
“””
A naked picture of Bill Gates would make it to the front page
“””
Yuk!
Put him on a rack. Add some black leather. And maybe some compulsory Ubuntu usage. And it *might* get my click. 😉
Got a few kinks there, sbergman27, eh?
“””Got a few kinks there, sbergman27, eh?”””
Are you speaking of the rack? The black leather? Or the Ubuntu usage? 😉
The Marquis would have been proud. 🙂
And about the article, it was a good read to start the day on. As for OS News, I usually start my day with it. I like the format and most of the articles are very good. I know there is a lot of griping about some of them and articles get ripped not on their technical merits but on their content on occasion, but that just keeps things interesting. Keep up the good work.
And to the Staff, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or Happy whatever it is you celebrate during this season. 🙂
I don’t think any of the popular link magnets are “self-respecting news sites.” They largely create little content besides discussion, and what content they do create is of dubious quality. It’s rarely investigative, and is usually just opinion. They rely on sensational headlines and pick subject matter that is often unimportant. To some extent they may have something in common with other news organizations, but that says more about the decline of journalism or the superficiality of their audience than anything else. In any event, enough about Slashdot.
If I were to suggest linking to research papers here, for example, I would expect to see maybe 2-5 comments. I could probably name the people that I would expect to chime in, but I won’t because I don’t want to drag them into my own opinions. The subject matter would lie outside of the domain of expertise of many people, and require significant time to read, and so it would see little traffic from people that are largely interested in inflaming passions about simple topics or just keeping up with the latest news from projects. There is a lot less nonsense here than there is on Digg, by virtue of it having an editorial staff, and by being directed to mostly technology-related items, but that does not mean that the discussion here does not favor mediocrity. I will never see Bill Gates naked here, but I will see links to articles that pander to the Dvorak audience or to Learn To Read in 21 Days snippets. Of course I will also find interesting things, which is why I read this site more than Digg despite the much smaller volume of information: smaller is better, because I have things to do. We use spam filters for a reason, after all.
I also read programming.reddit.com and lambdatheultimate.org, but those are more-targeted link magnets than OSN seeks to be, though LtU used to generate a lot of interesting discussion. Or I guess to put it another way, these sites only compete with each other if you happen to only read one of them. Otherwise they are partially-overlapping sources of information. Digg is no longer focused on technology news and OSN doesn’t link to Jon Stewart on YouTube.
“””
Whatever interests the crowd can overshadow the rest of the content, which doesn’t happen as much with an editor-based news site.
“””
Which reminds me…
We haven’t had any OpenSuse 10.2 reviews yet, today. 😉
I’m sure that’s a joke, but isn’t it news when something new is released?
Do you realize how much shit the editors have to take EVERY FEW MONTHS about this? Too much Ubuntu when a new Ubuntu comes out, too much Vista when Vista comes out, too much OS X when a new version of OS X comes out, too much SUSE when a new SUSE comes out… it’s getting to be so annoying. When something is released, there’s always a flood of reviews, and then it fades back into the middle of the pack. The EXACT SAME THING happens on all technology sites, Web 1.0, Web 2.0, or whatever.
Sorry. It *was* a joke. 😉
And you are quite right to post the reviews as they come out.
I actually like seeing all the varied opinions. Particularly, about distros and OSes that I *don’t* use.
Just givin’ ya a hard time. 🙂
You could be more selective about the reviews you put up. A lot of the reviews of various OSs I’ve seen here are little more than one page of: I installed it, it did/didn’t detect my hardware, it was great.
And? What’s so bad about that?
If you want to keep from seeing so many reviews of some particular OS on the front page, at least until the hype dies down, you should be able to filter it and others of similar criteria out in your preferences. Even filtering out specific categories should be an option once you’re logged in.
Unfortunately, preset categories are still pretty agnostic as to what you *really* want to filter out. There are some good front-page articles which could fall through the cracks of your filters, and there are others which are crap (“why ‘x OS’ is better, and always will be”, and others), but still get through your filters because someone posted it in the wrong category.
And finally, there can *never* be enough preset categories, as far as I’m concerned. I want to see more Mozilla development-related articles, more Wikipedia-related articles, more Google articles, etc., but probably won’t today (not even through Digg search for the last 7 days) because the Software section is full of Mozilla, Adobe, Mac OS (wait a minute, there’s an Apple section over there. Get to steppin’!), Microsoft, and so forth.
At least OSNews has many more OS/software-specific RSS feeds and categories, although the article turnout for most categories on OSNews is far lower on average than those on Digg.
And one more thing: I only read OSNews or Digg because of the comments. True, on either site, most comments are either juvenile, trollish, fanboyish, conspiracist (oh yes, lots of shiny Tinfoil hats on OSNews!), etc., but they are the main attraction to the site. Someone else just said earlier on this thread that they actually feel like they know the commenters on OSNews.
But is the whole “family” and “quality” aspect what OSNews is aiming for? Do the editors have to be so hard on the quality aspect that they can’t assume that users generally think of x article as crap (That recent why-I’ll-always-use-RISCOS article should’ve been buried to Hades as soon as it was posted)?
Simply put: I can find out more about particular OSes through OSNews than through Digg. And I (and many others) want to know more (including the latest minute detail) about them. To that end, please be more liberal to the article submission, the comment system, and to the users themselves. Trust me, we’re alot smarter and discriminating in taste than you guys may think.
OSNews, first and foremost, is the summation of our users’ participation. Although we feature originals and our editors (T & E) do lots of combing for it, our primary news source is our readers.
To anyone who suggests we are light on news on more obscure Operating Systems, my response is always the same: submit more news!
Usually, the reason we’re light in some categories is because there just isn’t as much exciting news about Mozilla development or SkyOS or Syllable as there is about Microsoft, Apple, Sun, and Linux in general.
I like the conclusion of the article and the “young vs. experienced” statement.
“Everything” about Web 2.0 is you don’t provide any content yourself. This is not really an alternative. Instead, it can only be a supplement to what we had already (“web 1.0”).
Nobody really wants to rely on news posted by some idiot around the block. This was already there some years ago in germany (called “shortnews”) and it sucked. But on the other side, personal views can give comprehensive information about a specific topic – we get to blogging.
The problem is, everything written in a blog, or on digg, or even on slashdot, tends to be nonrelevant crap. Everytime it’s getting serious, you rely on other sources of information, as there hadn’t been done enough research. People often claim spectacular things, like in the boulevard press, but on their blogs or on digg or even on slashdot. It is not put into question. Very often, it’s just plain wrong.
For example, look at how this hoax evolved:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/2050248
As I submitted it, I pointed out myself “can this be true?”. It got cut out 😉
Alright, but where’s the “digg this” link?
http://digg.com/tech_news/Web_2_0_and_digg
But don’t expect front page!
(note: Ssullivan dugg it, not me!)
Edited 2006-12-19 14:55
That readers can only rate the stories/links themselves and not the subjects of the links, the posters of the stories or the people replying.
Being able to do so would mean getting the ability of see the ratings of stories/links based only on those you found useful in the past for example or giving such people higher values in their voting.
One simple thing these forums mostly lack is filtering out certain posters, either their messages or their posted points.
Because of the large number of users the database needed to do these may be too large for quick response, but the removal of a lot of chuff could be worth it.
I played with implementing a user “ignore” list for v3. Ultimately, at the time, fixing our scalability problem trumped adding a new feature.
Now that we use smarter, fater queries and caching, it’s something I COULD implement, if people thought it was necessary.
Sound off here: do you see a need for an ignore/block list?
Many would want an ignore feature, but would it benefit only yourself, or everybody else? If you’re ignoring certain users, then you may not end up modding down any new, particular trollish comments, thus not contributing to the overall pruning of the community. I would rather mod others down until they were at a commenting disadvatage (and eventually got the point and left), then just serve myself and ignore a user, to the detriment of other users who would have to put up with the person.
OTOH, if enough people ignore a person, it could lead to reduced privledges for them, as another method of community moderation.
I’m not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart. People you have on your ignore list might make a similar comment to yours, or ask a similar question/post a similar answer, making the comments section a messy place with a lot of duplicate efforts. Some people will reference to another comment you cannot see, making discussing a certain subject very clumsy.
I understand its purpose, but doubt its usefulness.
Ignoring someone can already be achieved by simply not replying to the comment you’d like to ignore. Of course you can always mod comments down. The number of True Trolls (like NotParker who got banned by me after ignoring a warning a few days ago) is extremely low on OSNews, and there is barely ANYONE here who SOLELY makes trollish comments, and if there are, they get dealt with very quickly (can you name any troll here which really messed up discussions, besides NotParker who is now banned?). We all troll once in a while (me too), so who exactly would you ignore?
I’m not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart. People you have on your ignore list might make a similar comment to yours, or ask a similar question/post a similar answer, making the comments section a messy place with a lot of duplicate efforts.
That’s a good point, and there are also implementation problems. If you ignore a user, do you still see responses to his posts? Also, what if a user with trollish tendencies decides to grow up and amend his ways by making reasonable posts? You wouldn’t get the chance to see theses…
We all troll once in a while (me too), so who exactly would you ignore?
Right. We can all have bad days, and sometimes we may strongly disagree on certain subjects and agree on others. I remember getting into some quite intense political flameware with dylanmrjones, but we do get along fine on other points…
I’m among those who suggested an “Ignore” feature during the NotParker debacle, but after thinking the idea over I’m not convinced it’s a good idea, at least not on a community-oriented site such as OSNews.
Perhaps we could simply add a “Flamebaiting” option for modding posts down (or add a mention to Flamebaiting in the Off-topic option, since the two are more often than not related…)?
“””
///We all troll once in a while (me too), so who exactly would you ignore?///
Right. We can all have bad days, and sometimes we may strongly disagree on certain subjects and agree on others.
“””
Indeed. “Variants of the word ‘Troll’ really are more applicable as adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, than as nouns. Few people “are trolls”.
It seems that I often find myself in a minority position. I don’t know why, but I do.
Sometimes “trolls” are a reality check. I find myself immersed in a particular community, saying things that would be considered absolutely crazy in the outside world, and along comes some “troll” from that outside world to set me straight and give me some perspective.
In my opinion, we would all be the richer if the terms “Troll” and “FUD” were eradicated from the language.
Edited 2006-12-19 17:30
Others:
“astroturfer”
“shill”
“Microsoft Windows Butt Monkey Lemming Ignorant Fan Dorks/Fanboys” (to quote the following):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.moz…
I would be more concerned about the nonlinearity of discussion that ignore would cause, but that already occurs with moderation anyway. Trolls mending their ways is not something that I would worry about. If they want to grow up they can get a new account, but if how they spend their time on the Internet is by annoying others for no reason, then I don’t really think I would miss much if they decided to act like a normal person.
For the most part I think just banning people that persistently engage in obnoxious behavior would be more useful than making 60,000 people ignore them individually. It would save some space in the database too. In any event if people really want to ignore others then someone can create a Greasemonkey script to remove comments from the page by username.
“I’m not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart.”
Hmm, I haven’t seen it that way before but you are probably right.
And thanks for banning NotParker, I sure hope we can get back to normal now
I browse at -5 level for that reason, to see all posts in context. So banning is better than an ignore-option.
“””The number of True Trolls (like NotParker who got banned by me after ignoring a warning a few days ago) “””
I would like to go on record as disagreeing with this decision.
I respect your judgment call, Thom. But NotParker, as annoying, provocative, and single-minded as his posts have been, has value to contribute to this forum.
I can’t believe I said that but I’m pressing “Submit” anyway. 😉
I respect your judgment call, Thom. But NotParker, as annoying, provocative, and single-minded as his posts have been, has value to contribute to this forum.
I warned him, placing him under extra supervision; I mailed him this. He then CLEARLY broke our rules by posting the same comment TWICE. Hence, his banning was ENTIRELY justified.
“””
I warned him, placing him under extra supervision; I mailed him this
“””
Like I say, I respect your judgment call.
But I did have to say what I did.
What are the terms of the banning? How long?
I hate to seem like Bruce’s advocate. But he does make some good points. He just needs to learn to make them in a better way.
Edited 2006-12-19 17:58
Ignore options won’t work the problem I think is the mod points system, today exist a group of unobjective users who deside what is worth to mod up and what is not, and they have the control because they mod up to each other and mod down who don’t like togheter, that’s why we have trolls like twenex who often insult people and get moded up to 5, or segedenum or whatever who ruin every Novell or SUSE treath with off topic FUD and he is moded up to 5 for the same group and at the same time they disarm more objetives users giving them less mod points to defend their point.
The actual mod system is propense to do that.
Edited 2006-12-19 18:09
“””and they have the control because they mod up to each other and mod down who don’t like togheter, that’s why we have trolls like twenex who often insult people and get moded up to 5,”””
While I agree with you that the mod system here is shit… try as I might, I’ve not been able to come up with anything better.
I’ll continue to complain, because there must be someone out there who is smarter than I am who *can* think of something better.
And Twenex is *not* a troll. Merely someone with whom you obviously disagree. Get over it. You’ll be all the happier for it. 😉
-Steve Bergman
I have not problems with twenex being a troll, I have problems with twenex calling people stupid and get modded up for it.
“”
I have not problems with twenex being a troll, I have problems with twenex calling people stupid and get modded up for it.
“””
I’m not familiar with the post or posts you are referring to.
But what you say strikes a chord.
On a forum such as this, what you say matters less than the way you say it.
Presentation is very important.
“Hey, you’re just stupid!!!” is going to be modded down regardless of what comes after.
A post implying that one is stupid is a different matter, altogether.
I woldn’t be complaining if he used the word for a reason but I complaine because he is using it againts people with a different opinion than his.
Edited 2006-12-19 18:37
@sbergman27
Actually, over at osnews metablog, NotParker suggested a possible solution for the big game… I mean the moderation system. An icon any user can click to check up who did any moderation and which way that moderation went. That way, the “players” (aka abusers) in the “big game” (aka moderation) would be revealed.
That way, the “players” (aka abusers) in the “big game” (aka moderation) would be revealed.
…and a shitload of pointless “Why did you mod me?” threads. No thank you.
“…and a shitload of pointless “Why did you mod me?” threads. No thank you.”
Thats true. I often look at the comments as much as the article itself just because there usually are intelligent people bringing up points that may have been missed. Having to filter through dozens of “Why did you mod me?” comments is just a waste of everyones time.
To me, complaining about being modded down is automatically off-topic and therefore fair game to be modded down (except if the thread is about the modding system, of course…)
@brewmastre
Having to filter through dozens of “Why did you mod me?” comments is just a waste of everyones time.
It’s usually a sign that the moderating system is being gamed.
@Thom_Holwerda
…and a shitload of pointless “Why did you mod me?” threads. No thank you.
And you can honestly say that you prefer as it is now with the mob rule mentality?
It wouldn’t be any different if the mods were public…with the exception being that people would argue why someone has modded them down.
“Why did you mod me down?”
“You were off-topic.”
“No I wasn’t!”
“Yes you were.”
“You’re a douche!”
“No, you’re a douche.”
etc.
I can honestly say that, yes, the current system *is* preferable to this.
@archiesteel
It wouldn’t be any different if the mods were public…with the exception being that people would argue why someone has modded them down.
Yes and no. The offending person would be singled out. That is whole point. And would put some pressure on that offending person to stop that person’s random acts of stupidity.
Yes and no. The offending person would be singled out. That is whole point. And would put some pressure on that offending person to stop that person’s random acts of stupidity.
There’s a reason why, in The Netherlands at least, the press does not provide full names of suspects in criminal cases.
I will NOT go the cheap route by scaring people this way. The whole point in community moderation is that it is, well community moderation. You are moderated by the community and not by individuals.
@Thom_Holwerda
There’s a reason why, in The Netherlands at least, the press does not provide full names of suspects in criminal cases.
But this isn’t a criminal case. This is about a moderation system that is being gamed just like on /. and Digg.
I will NOT go the cheap route by scaring people this way. The whole point in community moderation is that it is, well community moderation. You are moderated by the community and not by individuals.
The whole point in moderation is to remove the spam and the abusers. Too bad your “community moderation” ended up as “mob rule moderation”, uh?
The whole point in moderation is to remove the spam and the abusers.
That’s only for down moderation. Up moderation is still use to encourage posts we agree with, or think are worth underlining.
Too bad your “community moderation” ended up as “mob rule moderation”, uh?
Again, having non-secret moderation wouldn’t change this. All it would do would be to add another layer of off-topic bickering.
@archiesteel
Again, having non-secret moderation wouldn’t change this. All it would do would be to add another layer of off-topic bickering.
But in the end, non-secret moderation would remove most abusers. As they’d be caught in the act.
But in the end, non-secret moderation would remove most abusers. As they’d be caught in the act.
That’s where we disagree. For the most part it would only bring about more discussion about the subjectivity of some moderations vs. others. Those who posted off-topic posts and were moderated for it would complain that the moderation was unjust, and then would argue with the moderator about whether the post was off-topic or not. This would solve nothing.
Yes and no. The offending person would be singled out. That is whole point.
I fear you miss the point. Who’s to judge what is offending or not? Take the example of NotParker: while many of his posts were offensive to the majority, some other posters agreed with his anti-Linux agenda. They would have seen me mod him down for an off-topic post as a “politically” motivated mod, and would have claimed I was in the wrong.
So we would end up in a situation where we’d all argue on mods, because someone who feels he is unjustly modded down would feel like he can appeal to popular opinion to overturn that mod. That wouldn’t be very different from the mob rule you decry.
I think it’s better as it is now, if you feel unjustly targeted you just get in touch with the OSNews crew and tell them about it.
@archiesteel
…I think it’s better as it is now, if you feel unjustly targeted you just get in touch with the OSNews crew and tell them about it.
I know the moderating system needs fixing because it’s not fulfilling it’s purpose. BTW I don’t need to get in touch with the OSNews crew. They read these comments. And they acknowledged about the moderating system’s problem.
I know the moderating system needs fixing because it’s not fulfilling it’s purpose.
It’s purpose was to reduce the role of us editors in moderation (it was way too much work). It succeeded beyond expectations.
THAT is its purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW I don’t need to get in touch with the OSNews crew. They read these comments. And they acknowledged about the moderating system’s problem.
It has problems, but these problems are not solved by letting you see who modded who. That’s all.
@Thom_Holwerda
It has problems, but these problems are not solved by letting you see who modded who. That’s all.
That’s your opinion. I see it differently.
But in the end, non-secret moderation would remove most abusers. As they’d be caught in the act.
You don’t seem to get the idea behind trolling. They want attention, derailing discussions is what they’re after. Seeing their names in the “who moderated this” list will only help this cause, not prevent it.
So, besides not solving any problems, this “solution” would only create more nonsense threads (“why did you moderate this”).
Another option is to have metamoderation like they have at Slashdot.
That said, when you look at the comment scores for the big FSF thread we had last week, it becomes clear that the “game” (as you call it) is not as one-side as some here would have us believe. There were plenty of posts that were quite critical of the FSF that got modded up, and more than a few up to +5.
I think the people complaining about the moderation system are simply uncomfortable about the fact that some opinions are more popular than other.
Have you ever stopped to think that the reason pro-MS posts get less promoted than pro-Linux ones is that there are simply more Linux enthusiasts than Windows advocates that visit (oh, surprise) a web site about OSes?
As for modding down, well, of course youshouldn’t mod down posts simply because you disagree with them. You should only mod them down if they are abusive or off-topic, or both (which often includes flamebaiting). Knowing who moderated which way wouldn’t change much.
Again, the best way to get mod points is to make on-topic, insightful and respectful posts and thus get your trust rating up. Since there are many pro-MS posters with trust values above average, I don’t see why anyone feels that the system is “gamed” one way or the other.
Yeah, I really like the mod system at times and other times I completely hate it. Back when Thom linked to the story about Hans Reiser getting charged with murder I posted this:
“Now I see why some distro’s have said that they will stop using ReiserFS after all these years.” I was trying to say that maybe some of these distro’s don’t want to be associated with that kind of bad publicity, even though it is a great FS.
I don’t see any personal attacks or offensive language in this post, but somehow it earned me a -5.
I think that if people get modded down, there needs to be a system in place to moderate that decision, not just let anything fly. OSNews is a fantastic site that never gets closed on my computer, work or home, and I am glad to see actual news rather than some of the junk that gets spewed all over some of the other sites. Thanks.
I think that moderation of the “bads” (personal attacks, offensive language, off-topic-ness and spam) should be separate from the [+]/[-] moderation. I envision a third, separate skull+bones icon. Think ‘kill’ or ‘poison’.
The [+] and [-] should only ever be used for expressing like or dislike, or whether you agree or not, and be completely up to the community.
It might also be neat to display both ups -and- downs for each post, instead of a single, opaque “score”. If 5 people vote me up and 5 vote me down, the score doesn’t tell.
The ‘kill’ button would alert the admin, and be purely admin domain.
Here is a radical suggestion. How about *no* moderation system?
Is OSNews really a large enough site to require it?
Moderation is not a site feature. It is a necessary evil for sites that have no choice.
I’m not so naive as to think that there is no need for the proprietors and/or users of a site to exert some control.
But does it really need to be formalized into a mod system, right now, here, for OSNews?
Just a thought…
“””Many would want an ignore feature, but would it benefit only yourself, or everybody else? “””
Kroc,
I agree, for the most part. An ignore feature is the cyber-equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
As I have said before, I browse at -5. There are some good posts there at -5.
If we are to be a community, we need to know what others are saying, even when it annoys us.
I disagree about using that knowledge (and power) to reduce others’ abilities to get their own message across.
I dislike the policy of not allowing replies to messages with scores lower than a particular threshold value, for example.
I believe in the usefulness of two tools in the case of people acting as trolls:
1. Lead by example. (Make good posts, and don’t get sidetracked by straw men.)
2. Ignore them, where appropriate.
Neither of these techniques gets satisfying feedback from the suspected trolls.
But, like Porcelana, if you keep using them, they *do* work.
Edited 2006-12-19 16:47
Actually, I don’t feel it is a vital addition to OS News. Some of the stuff getting complained about is good for a laugh at times. I mean after all, if you don’t like someone’s comments over time just see who posted and don’t read it. It might take an extra couple of seconds.
And I must admit that on occasion I have taken the opportunity to rattle a trolls cage. I mean after all, it is either that or running up XP when I am in a masochistic mood… 🙂
I agree with you, but perhaps some don’t, and for them it might be useful. I do not think that we in general have enough troll invasions for this to be very useful.
I mean most of us are just here to discuss OS stuff and sure it can get a bit emotional, but if some comments or persons are so disturbing that they need to be automatically excluded from your sight, then you might need to take a break and go for a coffee and some sunlight or good music instead or something. It is OSs/etc we’re discussing not foreign policies or liberty rights.
Or instead of “Ignore”, we could perhaps have an “auto-mod-down” feature and a list of “Enemy of …” 😉
Edited 2006-12-19 16:48
“Its OSs/etc were discussing not foreign policies or liberty rights.”
Not when an article that involves the French comes up ;3
“and a list of “Enemy of …” ;-)”
Now that’s getting into politics!
Not when an article that involves the French comes up ;3
Unfortunately, in this respect OSNews is often similar to Digg and other sites such as Fark…
Personally, I fin any derogatory references to nationality on an international web site to be a bit tasteless. Not that I mind that much: we Canadian French also often find the French – or rather Parisians – quite annoying :-). Still, to me these kinds of jokes are an immediate candidate for modding down, even if the rest of the post is thoughtful.
Sound off here: do you see a need for an ignore/block list?
NO. Reasons are stated in previous comments.
But I see need for little, almost meaningless button: I DON’T AGREE.
And number of non-agreements next to this button (or even some coloured thingy) – this way I can visually filter out interesting comments – because uninteresting or senseless comments will have this counter near zero.
🙂
I am wanting more than just a block/ignore function.
I want to be able to modify the voting weight of different posters. A poster who I consider very knowledgeable I may want to have all their votes have a value of 10*times their normal point rating. Other posters who I consider a little on the silly side have the value of their points divided by 10 for example.
This would mean articles I see would be voted up by people I considered worth listening to and the votes will not just get swamped by the large number of people who are not really thinking about how they vote.
Also break it out into subject areas if possible.
Example: I am a BeOS fan, if I know a person is a BeOS/Haiku/Zeta developer I would like any votes from such a person to rate highly in said subject (say every vote is worth ten(10) points). At the same time the same person could be not very knowledgeable when talking about Linux, so I would like to leave their vote at it normal one(1) point value. If however on the other-hand they go into a rant when talking about Windows, I would like to decrease their vote value even further (example .1 points for each vote).
Complex yes, but over time you start to see intelligent voting on subjects instead of the rule of the masses.
Back in the days of the Baroque library, there was no need for a classification system – you saw the whole collection and visual markers and the arrangement of the library physically, coupled with the knowledge of the collection on the part of the custodian, allowed users to find what they needed.
Jump through to post-Revolutionary France and the trawl by Napoloen through the libraries of conquered Europe. Collections became massive and oversight of them required a separate classification system – metadata.
Now we have the internet, and Web and Library 2.0 – search results may be ephemereal but in each case throw up a visual navigation system to the ‘collection’ convened by the power of your search terms. Searching material by social tags may mean that the collective becomes the custodian of the collection (however construed) but this article (to me) points to the inherent difficulties of allowing this to happen and discounting metadata and other systems of classification, order and sense-making. It may be the case that the collective custodian emerges, and metadata wanes, but the “15 minutes of fame” syndrome works against a knowledge management esprits de corps that could be beuatifully enabled by the technology (with acknowledgemet of Jeffrey Garrett’s “The legacy of the Baroque in virtual representations of library space”.
>OSNews requires that your news is verified and chosen by an editor.
HAHA…thats a joke…OSNews has been delivering some real trash content that insults the intellegence of its audience lately.
Exhibit A: http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16636/War-for-Linux-Is-Lost–Almost
Exhibit B:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/15786/IE-6.x-More-Secure-than-Firef…
Exhibit C:
…anything posted by Thom who would not know how to tell the difference between a good or bad article if it bit him in the….
Edited 2006-12-19 18:06
Another issue with these so called “Web 2.0” sites is that there are literally thousands of submissions made ever single day.
The only way stories get to the front page is when cliques, some use the term cabals, vote the stories up into visibility. Then someone figured out how to use a botnet to vote stories up on Digg. Nyuck.
For me, I’ve gone back to editor controlled sites such as OSNews and SlashDot and quickly skim Digg to see if there might be something of interest. Or more targeted sites such as DZone.
Sites like Digg and Reddit became popular because editors of sites like slashdot do such a bad job. They post duplicate articles, blatant grammar and spelling errors, articles with limited credibility, etc.
People thought “I could do better than that”. Initially the quality is better, but only because the quality of the users is high. Once the morons hop on the bandwagon, the community driven sites become moronic.
One thing that I like about reddit is the way that threads are re-ordered according to their score. This keeps the threads much more on topic because people aren’t rewarded by simply replying to the first post with an unrelated response.
There is a famous saying that goes like: “Sometimes the majority only means all the fools are on the same side”
Although Web 2.0 might work in a multimedia sense, like with Youtube, I don’t really believe reporting news based on majority opinion is necessarily a good idea.
On an IT news site there is always groupthink, but with web 1.0 the mob does not necessarily get the run of the place.
In leaving editors to post articles, the editors only have to be slightly less bias than the mob as a whole to make that model “better”, and for the most part I’d say I have to give Thom and Eugenia that much credit.
I don’t get why you refer to microsoft although its a company website and not a community website.
To me, all company websites are “user-centeric” then which makes perfect sense
http://www.digghater.com/