The moderation system seriously needs thinking and redone. It's constantly abused on Slashdot, up to the point where it really has started to annoy people. All the stories are filled with slashdot groupthink comments and it's always clear what kind of comments will be modded up and which down. This especially comes up within certain subjects - anything anti-piracy will get modded to -1, as does anything that says good things about Microsoft.
This really ruins the comment system as one is supposed to only h
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
I've found that one can thoughtfully articulate an unpopular opinion in a way that causes others to consider ideas and perspectives they would otherwise be unwilling to entertain. Though they do it for petty and ignorant reasons, that same rigid orthodoxy winds up serving the higher purpose of helping me sharpen a skill that is otherwise more difficult and costly to practice. If they insist on being this way, let them; I will continue to use it constructively despite their narrow-minded intentions.
When they changed the meta-moderation system I stopped meta-moderating. I'd be surprised if I were the only one that stopped. The older system of an up or down vote was a lot easier to do, without actually spending huge amounts of time, it's just too hard to figure out what the moderation should have been.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday October 06, 2011 @04:44PM (#37631780)
When they changed the meta-moderation system I stopped meta-moderating. I'd be surprised if I were the only one that stopped.
I'd like to know how metamod is supposed to work these days. What's the thing that's actually being measured?
The pre-AJAX metamod system was relatively simple to understand: "Was the moderator's action of ("Insightful" or "Troll") a reasonable moderation to apply to a given post or not?" Having the "see in context" URL handy was invaluable - a snarky one-liner might be (-1, Troll) out of context, but in context be a clear (+5, Funny)
The current metamod UI is confusing. "Below are a number of random user comments in our system. You are asked to decide if these are good or bad. Clicking the + and - indicates that you think that a comment is good or bad."
To illustrate the conundrum, this comment, as made by an AC, starts at (Score: 0). I think it's a good comment, but it hasn't been moderated yet. It could just as easily be a (Score: 1) or (Score: 2) if I'd logged in and/or applied my karma bonus. But it shouldn't be showing up in metamoderation yet, because in none of those three cases has it ever been moderated. Even if it earned a (Score: 5) and if I had mod points I might not choose to moderate it up to 5 myself, I wouldn't click "-" on it in metamod; as it's not a bad comment.
What does metamoderation actually measure these days? I see a lot of unmoderated comments in metamod (and I still don't know if my mouse clicks are working, even when Javascript is enabled. That might be my browser's fault...), so it's not like metamod can be putting the brakes on abusive moderations...
Moderation system (Score:4, Insightful)
This really ruins the comment system as one is supposed to only h
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
I've found that one can thoughtfully articulate an unpopular opinion in a way that causes others to consider ideas and perspectives they would otherwise be unwilling to entertain. Though they do it for petty and ignorant reasons, that same rigid orthodoxy winds up serving the higher purpose of helping me sharpen a skill that is otherwise more difficult and costly to practice. If they insist on being this way, let them; I will continue to use it constructively despite their narrow-minded intentions.
If y
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
When they changed the meta-moderation system I stopped meta-moderating. I'd be surprised if I were the only one that stopped. The older system of an up or down vote was a lot easier to do, without actually spending huge amounts of time, it's just too hard to figure out what the moderation should have been.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
Re:Moderation system (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to know how metamod is supposed to work these days. What's the thing that's actually being measured?
The pre-AJAX metamod system was relatively simple to understand: "Was the moderator's action of ("Insightful" or "Troll") a reasonable moderation to apply to a given post or not?" Having the "see in context" URL handy was invaluable - a snarky one-liner might be (-1, Troll) out of context, but in context be a clear (+5, Funny)
The current metamod UI is confusing. "Below are a number of random user comments in our system. You are asked to decide if these are good or bad. Clicking the + and - indicates that you think that a comment is good or bad."
To illustrate the conundrum, this comment, as made by an AC, starts at (Score: 0). I think it's a good comment, but it hasn't been moderated yet. It could just as easily be a (Score: 1) or (Score: 2) if I'd logged in and/or applied my karma bonus. But it shouldn't be showing up in metamoderation yet, because in none of those three cases has it ever been moderated. Even if it earned a (Score: 5) and if I had mod points I might not choose to moderate it up to 5 myself, I wouldn't click "-" on it in metamod; as it's not a bad comment.
What does metamoderation actually measure these days? I see a lot of unmoderated comments in metamod (and I still don't know if my mouse clicks are working, even when Javascript is enabled. That might be my browser's fault...), so it's not like metamod can be putting the brakes on abusive moderations...