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.
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.
You dont actually have to pick a reason, but it's better if you do.
The way I treat meta moderation is "how would I mod this if I had mod points" rather then trying to guess the way other people modded it.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
An easier way to report abuses, will lead to abuses of that.
Some people get modded down fairly.
My only complaint about moderation is fanboy mods. This is most prevalent with the "cultists" but I see it happen with the "Hippy's" too (BTW, I lump myself in with the Hippy (Linux) crowd). The group supports each other, modding up posts to +5 insightful that should be modded into oblivion simply because they agree with the troll. I refer specifically to post that are nothing more then baseless, scathing attacks on the other side (Android, MS, Apple et al.).
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)
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.
You dont actually have to pick a reason, but it's better if you do. The way I treat meta moderation is "how would I mod this if I had mod points" rather then trying to guess the way other people modded it.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
An easier way to report abuses, will lead to abuses of that.
Some people get modded down fairly.
My only complaint about moderation is fanboy mods. This is most prevalent with the "cultists" but I see it happen with the "Hippy's" too (BTW, I lump myself in with the Hippy (Linux) crowd). The group supports each other, modding up posts to +5 insightful that should be modded into oblivion simply because they agree with the troll. I refer specifically to post that are nothing more then baseless, scathing attacks on the other side (Android, MS, Apple et al.).