These recent changes are a superb start. Things are really starting to look better around here!
Has there been any progress made on greater moderation transparency here? While something like Unicode support sounds hellish, especially if shitty and/or outdated technology like Perl and MySQL are involved, increasing the moderation transparency would likely just involve showing more data that should already be easily available.
At the very least the following should become public knowledge, easily accessible to
It is just like moderation value around here is over-hipped. Just take a look at stackoverlflow - almost anyone can downvote and upvote everything, unlimited times, and it is not like it sunk down in a singularity.
I for one, do not care for having/. "moderation points" I have to carefully spent over 5 days for a while.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @04:34PM (#51703089)
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
This prevents other users from being able to see such comments, unless they jump through hoops to browse at -1, which in turns renders the entire moderation system pointless.
Hiding a good comment that was wrongly downmodded also often prevents the incorrect downmod from being undone swiftly.
Even if that incorrect downmod is undone, this inherently wastes a mod point that could've been used to promote some other quality comment.
It may sound irrelevant when thinking about it in terms of a single comment, but when it happens again and again (as it does very regularly) it becomes very disruptive to this site.
On a large scale, Slashdot ends up being no better than a site like Reddit or Hacker News, where groupthink takes what would otherwise be excellent discussion and shapes it into worthless, mindless, self-reinforcing demagoguery.
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
This prevents other users from being able to see such comments, unless they jump through hoops to browse at -1,
Nonsence, since ever I've set my prefs for browsing at -1, absolutely no problem.
which in turns renders the entire moderation system pointless.
Why is that? Moderation isn't about hiding stuff, it's about highlighting.
Hiding a good comment that was wrongly downmodded also often prevents the incorrect downmod from being undone swiftly.
Come on, just browse at -1! You can have a quick scan at 4 or 5 and then return to -1 before modding.
Even if that incorrect downmod is undone, this inherently wastes a mod point that could've been used to promote some other quality comment.
It may sound irrelevant when thinking about it in terms of a single comment, but when it happens again and again (as it does very regularly) it becomes very disruptive to this site.
On a large scale, Slashdot ends up being no better than a site like Reddit or Hacker News, where groupthink takes what would otherwise be excellent discussion and shapes it into worthless, mindless, self-reinforcing demagoguery.
I did have a few technical problems to browse at -1: - on a mobile browser, the slider didn't appear to work, or I was failing to "drag" it with the touch screen. (I could have logged in instead but was not willing to) - on limited / special browsers especially those with no javascript whatsoever, it's hard to do set browsing at -1. - on same browsers, it may be hard or seemingly impossible to log in so as to benefit from the "-1" setting. (e.g. I don't really know how to log in from Dillo 3.0.3) - I was told
True, on the smaller screens it's not quite as easy as on the laptop I'm using.
Providing you've got excellent eyesight or a tablet yes the classic menu is preferable.
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
The problem is that many moderators equate "I don't agree with you" as "Troll", so lots of high quality comments get modded down without any reason other the moderator doesn't agree with you.
Maybe meta moderation was once a good mitigation, but the moderation quality has really suffered in recent years, and I suspect meta moderation has suffered too.
Metamoderation used to be "Here's a comment and a moderation to it, was that moderation appropriate?". Last opportunity I had it was "Here's a comment. Should it have been moderated up or down?" even if I wouldn't spend a mod point on it if the point were highly radioactive.
I seem to recall it was changed to better correct bad mods, while not having to sanction the person making the bad mod. Originally if you bad lots of bad mods you would lose future mod points and effectively be shadow-banned from moderation. The problem with that was good moderators would be hammered by asshats bulk meta-moderating for political reasons.
So they changed it so that there is either no or much less negative effect on the moderators, but he meta-moderators' changes have a direct effect on score.
A lot of times the reason I disagree with it is because instead of talking about the subject, a person just drags in their person favorite topics and says something nasty. That is just a type of trolling in my opinion. And if they say something nasty that is on-topic, they'll get "flamebait" because what else are you trying to do than start a flame war if you're being nasty?
If I simply disagree with their opinion or conclusion, but they state it as just their own opinion or analysis, I would never downmod t
That is because you're posting anonymously on a free site, and start with a low score. Anonymous comments, like yours, are generally lower quality than the comments from logged-in users. If you were a user with good "karma," then you might be starting at 2 and there would be no problem.
A significant percentage of my comments that finish at +5 or +4 were first given a -1. It is not a problem. And these days there are few enough comments, you don't need strict filtering like you did 15 years ago when it was a
The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair".
-- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"
Where's my UTF8? (Score:3)
Just kidding, I'm sure fixing slashcode for that is going to be a nightmare.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay you know what, the changes around here--including responsiveness to user opinions--are getting really, really nice. Thank you.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Greater moderation transparency? (Score:0, Insightful)
These recent changes are a superb start. Things are really starting to look better around here!
Has there been any progress made on greater moderation transparency here? While something like Unicode support sounds hellish, especially if shitty and/or outdated technology like Perl and MySQL are involved, increasing the moderation transparency would likely just involve showing more data that should already be easily available.
At the very least the following should become public knowledge, easily accessible to
Re: (Score:2)
It is just like moderation value around here is over-hipped. Just take a look at stackoverlflow - almost anyone can downvote and upvote everything, unlimited times, and it is not like it sunk down in a singularity.
I for one, do not care for having /. "moderation points" I have to carefully spent over 5 days for a while.
Re:Greater moderation transparency? (Score:0)
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
This prevents other users from being able to see such comments, unless they jump through hoops to browse at -1, which in turns renders the entire moderation system pointless.
Hiding a good comment that was wrongly downmodded also often prevents the incorrect downmod from being undone swiftly.
Even if that incorrect downmod is undone, this inherently wastes a mod point that could've been used to promote some other quality comment.
It may sound irrelevant when thinking about it in terms of a single comment, but when it happens again and again (as it does very regularly) it becomes very disruptive to this site.
On a large scale, Slashdot ends up being no better than a site like Reddit or Hacker News, where groupthink takes what would otherwise be excellent discussion and shapes it into worthless, mindless, self-reinforcing demagoguery.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
This prevents other users from being able to see such comments, unless they jump through hoops to browse at -1,
Nonsence, since ever I've set my prefs for browsing at -1, absolutely no problem.
which in turns renders the entire moderation system pointless.
Why is that?
Moderation isn't about hiding stuff, it's about highlighting.
Hiding a good comment that was wrongly downmodded also often prevents the incorrect downmod from being undone swiftly.
Come on, just browse at -1! You can have a quick scan at 4 or 5 and then return to -1 before modding.
Even if that incorrect downmod is undone, this inherently wastes a mod point that could've been used to promote some other quality comment.
It may sound irrelevant when thinking about it in terms of a single comment, but when it happens again and again (as it does very regularly) it becomes very disruptive to this site.
On a large scale, Slashdot ends up being no better than a site like Reddit or Hacker News, where groupthink takes what would otherwise be excellent discussion and shapes it into worthless, mindless, self-reinforcing demagoguery.
Re: (Score:2)
I did have a few technical problems to browse at -1 :
- on a mobile browser, the slider didn't appear to work, or I was failing to "drag" it with the touch screen. (I could have logged in instead but was not willing to)
- on limited / special browsers especially those with no javascript whatsoever, it's hard to do set browsing at -1.
- on same browsers, it may be hard or seemingly impossible to log in so as to benefit from the "-1" setting. (e.g. I don't really know how to log in from Dillo 3.0.3)
- I was told
Re: (Score:2)
Providing you've got excellent eyesight or a tablet yes the classic menu is preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that even just one single incorrect downmod can take a perfectly fine comment and hide it by default.
The problem is that many moderators equate "I don't agree with you" as "Troll", so lots of high quality comments get modded down without any reason other the moderator doesn't agree with you.
Maybe meta moderation was once a good mitigation, but the moderation quality has really suffered in recent years, and I suspect meta moderation has suffered too.
Re: (Score:3)
Metamoderation used to be "Here's a comment and a moderation to it, was that moderation appropriate?". Last opportunity I had it was "Here's a comment. Should it have been moderated up or down?" even if I wouldn't spend a mod point on it if the point were highly radioactive.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall it was changed to better correct bad mods, while not having to sanction the person making the bad mod. Originally if you bad lots of bad mods you would lose future mod points and effectively be shadow-banned from moderation. The problem with that was good moderators would be hammered by asshats bulk meta-moderating for political reasons.
So they changed it so that there is either no or much less negative effect on the moderators, but he meta-moderators' changes have a direct effect on score.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that they might want to change the effects. I just get frustrated trying to mod comments I'd never mod.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of times the reason I disagree with it is because instead of talking about the subject, a person just drags in their person favorite topics and says something nasty. That is just a type of trolling in my opinion. And if they say something nasty that is on-topic, they'll get "flamebait" because what else are you trying to do than start a flame war if you're being nasty?
If I simply disagree with their opinion or conclusion, but they state it as just their own opinion or analysis, I would never downmod t
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you're posting anonymously on a free site, and start with a low score. Anonymous comments, like yours, are generally lower quality than the comments from logged-in users. If you were a user with good "karma," then you might be starting at 2 and there would be no problem.
A significant percentage of my comments that finish at +5 or +4 were first given a -1. It is not a problem. And these days there are few enough comments, you don't need strict filtering like you did 15 years ago when it was a