Journal dj42's Journal: meta-mod 1
When I meta-mod, I'm always evaluating things not based on public-perception, but person.
If someone type a semi-applicative "In soviet Russia..."
If someone gives a URL as a backup for a file. That's helpful. It's not interesting, it's not insightful, it's helpful. The flaw in the system is there is no way to "float that" to the surface without giving it proper credence, so I allow those to be +3 at best. Just so they get recognition. If it's +5, I mod it "unsightful" or whatever.
+5 comments to be should be lol funny. Incredibly insightful (not just informed-opinionated). Incredibly interesting, not just a rehash of some opinion with a random fact.
+4 comments get some flexibility. I'd like them to still be +5s, only maybe not quite as good as the 1-5 comments total (per article) that get +5.
+3 comments are all those that basically "hit my radar". Anything below this I don't even want to see.
What I like to do is "unfunny" a lot of the "funny" shit. Just because the comment "seems funny" or like it would be, or TRIES to be, doesn't mean it is.
Think of yourself like a writer for a TV show. Would you really mod cliche'd jokes +5 funny? Would you put that on TV?
I consider my job (as meta-moderator) to put people in their place when they choose to mod this common-place drivel, perhaps mildly clever, to rest. The only things that should make it to +5 should be smart enough, insightful enough, or funny enough to be on TV.
Not that TV isn't retarded.
Trouble is (Score:1)
Although it's very tempting to account for the existing degree of moderation, I attempt not to, for this reason.
Far better to post a reply to the post, although the moderator probably won't see it. I sometimes do this (usually AC) when I think that a bit of real feedback is in order, at least to the original poster, and not just the categories that /. appears to wish to impose upon you.