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 While something like Unicode support sounds hellish, especially if shitty and/or outdated technology like Perl and MySQL are involved, increasing the moderation transparency would likely just involve showing more data that should already be easily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.
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 use
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
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: (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 use
Re:Greater moderation transparency? (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