What's amazing to me isn't that/. has carried on this long, but rather that the comment quality on here hasn't gone the way of most social new sites. It seems that in general as a social news site ages, matures, and grows, the comment quality follows an inverse pattern. Or more simply, as the number of users approaches infinity, the comment quality approaches 4chan. Digg used to be a decent site for discussion; now you'd be laughed at for even suggesting that the comments might be notable. Reddit is quickl
I have actually found that if I spend all my points before they run out and don't post while I have them I tend to continue to get them until I break the cycle.
I have found that I get metamoderated into oblivion (and therefore lose my mod-points) if I moderate a discussion in a way which does not fit the general opinion of most slashdot users.
That's the negative aspect of the/. moderation system, it encourages groupthink and censorship.
But yes, I agree, it is certainly the worst - except for everything else.
But it was fairly obvious. I was consistently given mod points for years, until I moderated the heck out of a story in which I was of the complete opposite opinion of 80% of the comments in the story. So I positively moderated those that agreed with my point of view (and made valid, logical points). Within one month of my moderation, I lost the ability to obtain mod points for 13 months (kind of an interesting-to-know timeframe).
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:54PM (#30409800)
So what you're saying is that you moderated messages based on whether or not you agreed with them, which is exactly how you should NOT moderate ? No wonder you don't get mod points anymore...
I think what he meant to say is he gave points to those who had valid, logical points, yet had not been upmodded or in some cases unfairly downmodded since the opinions they expressed conflicted with the Slashdot groupthink. Happens all the time, and good for him for trying to swing the balance a bit.
I think Slashdot has done much better than other social news sites in this regard. At least some of the mods and meta-mods can recognize that upmodding shouldn't correlate to agreement with a statement. Try posting unpopular opinions on Digg or Reddit and you'll see how much harder it is to be heard because everyone has downvoting power.
Honestly, I'd be overjoyed to see a flurry of insightful or informative comments, even when they're not what I agree with. I want to be forced to think and be confronted by conflicting opinions - that way I can form more educated opinions of my own and be less influenced by groupthink circle jerks.
I have found that I get metamoderated into oblivion (and therefore lose my mod-points) if I moderate a discussion in a way which does not fit the general opinion of most
Confining your moderation to one discussion tends to make any of your biases appear as a pattern. However, if you use your points in different discussions, maybe you look like a better moderator.
Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough in my old slashdot account even though I never commented and rarely used them I was handed 5 moderation points pretty much every week.
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Age and quality. (Score:4, Interesting)
In the middle of a long dry spell myself
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's the negative aspect of the
But yes, I agree, it is certainly the worst - except for everything else.
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Funny)
how do you determine your meta-mod status?
Guessing.
But it was fairly obvious. I was consistently given mod points for years, until I moderated the heck out of a story in which I was of the complete opposite opinion of 80% of the comments in the story. So I positively moderated those that agreed with my point of view (and made valid, logical points). Within one month of my moderation, I lost the ability to obtain mod points for 13 months (kind of an interesting-to-know timeframe).
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he meant to say is he gave points to those who had valid, logical points, yet had not been upmodded or in some cases unfairly downmodded since the opinions they expressed conflicted with the Slashdot groupthink. Happens all the time, and good for him for trying to swing the balance a bit.
Re: (Score:0)
Re:Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I often find myself modding up posts I disagree with, to undo an unearned "troll". Was that you?
Re: (Score:2)
"That's the negative aspect of the /. moderation system, it encourages groupthink and censorship. "
I agree quite a lot. Try posting anyting critical of free markets or austrian economics, see what happens.
Left wing criticism of anything gets heavily modded into oblivion all too often.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what underrated and overrated are for.
Re: (Score:2)
I have found that I get metamoderated into oblivion (and therefore lose my mod-points) if I moderate a discussion in a way which does not fit the general opinion of most
Confining your moderation to one discussion tends to make any of your biases appear as a pattern. However, if you use your points in different discussions, maybe you look like a better moderator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I wonder if it's because I don't post much?
Re: (Score:0)
I get 15 mod points at least once a month and I rarely use more than a few of them. I still keep getting them though.