Idarubicin's Journal: Thoughts on moderation--the missing mod

There have always been a few denizens of Slashdot who have insisted that they will always metamod any negative moderations Unfair. Those who insist on such an absolute stance probably will not have their minds changed by my little journal entry. Not only might they feel smug about their little 'principle', but they are also saved from making the effort to read and understand negatively moderated comments. It smacks of laziness, really.

I digress. Here I intend to address the 'new' breed of metamods. They have a stated predisposition against negative mods (here, for example) but are willing to consider the content of a post. Looking at the negative mods:

Troll and Flamebait. Both of these mods suggest that the moderator knows the intent of the poster. Although it may seem apparent, the individual could be misguided, stupid, or (gasp!) even correct. Regardless, since we cannot glean intent (with certainty) from the post, these mods are always Unfair.

Offtopic. Unless a post is way out in left field, there really isn't a need to use this mod. It may be a crutch for a moderator who doesn't want to sound 'mean'...or a blind for a moderator who just doesn't 'get it' and wants to hide a post that is over his head.

Redundant. One man's redundant is another man's detailed shade of meaning. Again, tough to apply, except to the karma whores who have posted the full content of a linked article...for the third time.

Overrated. The chink in the armour. This moderation is not subject to metamoderation. It can therefore be abused, and should probably be eliminated. To quote (approximately) a fellow Slashdotter--unfortunately, one whose name I do not know--"the Offtopic mod is like saying, 'it sucks, because.'" It just doesn't seem to be a good reason. It fails to explain the reason for the moderation to anybody--poster, other moderators, metamoderators.

So what's the missing mod? I've just finished saying we can dispense with one moderation already--why replace it? The new mod that I propose is -1, Factually Inaccurate. Sad as it is, there is currently no moderation appropriate for a clear, polite, reasoned post based on objectively incorrect information. These posts may be flagged as Trolls or Flamebait because moderators don't know what to do with them. Moderators may throw up their hands and just mod up correct replies. They may use the flawed Overrated mod.

None of these techniques exposes the moderators thinking to the poster, and moderation leaves them open to vindictive (or 'corrective') metamoderation. By introducing a -1, Factually Inaccurate mod, metamoderators will be encouraged to check facts for themselves--read more of the thread, and so forth. The reason for the moderation will be crystal clear. Finally, the moderator will be encouraged to know his stuff before he goes out on a limb and claims a poster is wrong.

Get rid of reason

[GigsVT]

I say just ditch the whole "reason" system.

I mean, all the positive mods overlap so much that they are basically the same mod.

The negative ones, as you have pointed out, pretty much all have fatal flaws.

So lets just rate comments without reasons given. Or, since that isn't very conducive to good metamodding, let moderators enter a reason for negative mods in a one line text box that only the metamods see.

There is no way you can encapsulate every possible reason to downmod someone in a handful of prepackaged reasons, that is the real problem and flaw. The whole problem is a lack of communication of intent and rationale between mods and metamods.

Re:Get rid of reason

[GigsVT]

OK, Mr. Moderator, point taken. :)

I revise my post, there are basically two upmods, Funny, and OtherwiseGood.

Re:Get rid of reason

[BandwidthHog]

I disagree. Tighten it up. Triple the amount of M2 given out, and encourage people to use 'Unfair' if the wrong reason is given.

And while we're at it, allow the point system to peak at 10 rather than 5 (but with a mod total of 5, with the rest of the adjustment made by each reader), so I've got more granularity to go with the modifiers they've recently added to the system.

Oh yeah, and peace on earth. Definitely that one.

Re:Get rid of reason

[GigsVT]

It seems they are having a hard time getting enough M2 anyway, since they advertise it every time you post a comment.

Really though, M2 is boring, that's why I rarely do it anymore.

Custom mods

[Kedyn's Crow]

Better yet why don't they simply let moderateres type in their own descriptions in a small field and choose weather the comment should have one point added of subtracted. With a limit of 60 chars there would be ample room for Factually Inaccurate, Lame, LOL or whatever. Then you could choose weather to give the comment +1 or -1 without reguard to the discription. That way you could mod up an Offtopic post if you thought it had some merit, or you could mod down an Interesting comment if you thought it was in

Re:Custom mods

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Or better yet, stop requiring the use of whole numbers. I say raise the cap on posts to 7, increase number of moderation points in the 'pool' (while giving less out per mod, just more mods), and allow people to mod posts UP TO -1 or +1 per moderation, but not forced. What I mean is if someone posted the obligatory quote that you found funny, but is so obvious that its also redundant, give it +.2 funny.
Quick recap of my idea:
1) More moderators.
2) Less points per mods.
3) Ability to mod in fractions.

And thi

+1: Loony

[hawkfish]

Some of the funniest postings are unintentionally so. We need to support this.

wouldn't work

[Imperator]

Your idea assumes that both the moderators and the metamoderators would be sure about what's factually accurate and what's not. That's a mighty big assumption.

The correct response to a post based on incorrect facts is another post pointing out the falsities. That post will then get modded up if anyone is still interested in the discussion or the facts. Speaking as someone who's been involved in all aspects of this phenomenon since the start of the moderation system, I can tell you that it does work.

Re:wouldn't work

[Reziac]

That's exactly the problem I have with "-1, factually inaccurate" -- how do you know you're right and the poster is wrong? Maybe YOU are the one who has a factually inaccurate understanding, or insufficient depth of knowledge on the subject, or is just plain wrong. If you think someone is wrong, post a rebuttal so everyone can learn from it (including possibly yourself).

OTOH, I tend to agree with the arguments against the negative mods. I never mod down, partly for those reasons; partly because there are e

Not a moderation issue

[turg]

Accuracy is not an issue for moderation. If a post is innacurate and you want to address this, you should reply and explain why it is innacurate. Merely voting it "innacurate" rather than explaining it to the rest of us would diminish the value of the conversation (We still have the innacurate comment but not the correcting response)

We have it already!

[ma++i+ude]

In fact, the "-1 Factually inaccurate" mod already exists! Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough.

Forgive me, I just wanted to demonstrate the need for such a mod. The point is, my comment is factually inaccurate. Since it doesn't really qualify as a flamebait or a troll, you have no choice but to mod it as funny, thereby increasing my karma, which is exactly the opposite of what I deserve. Quod erat demonstrandum, I rest my case.

Re:We have it already!

[bj8rn]

Modding you funny doesn't raise your karma anymore (RTFAQ, if you don't believe me). Therefore, it's safe to mod you funny. Quid pro quo, agent Starling, quid pro quo...

*agrees*

[Ashran]

nt

Source for the anti-overrated sentiment

[yerricde]

To quote (approximately) a fellow Slashdotter--unfortunately, one whose name I do not know--"the Offtopic mod is like saying, 'it sucks, because.'"

Was this my journal article [slashdot.org]?

Re:Source for the anti-overrated sentiment

[Idarubicin]

That may have been the original source--in which case, well said! I first saw the quote in a sig; I don't know if it was yours, or if it was just someone who lifted the idea from your journal.

Re:Source for the anti-overrated sentiment

[yerricde]

I lifted many of the ideas in my explanation of Slashdot moderation from signatures, such as one that went approximately like this: "The only Anonymous Cowards here are moderators who use (-1, Overrated)."

Re:Source for the anti-overrated sentiment

[Reziac]

I think that's exactly how Offtopic and Overrated are both used -- "it sucks, because", not really anything to do with the topic or quality. Sortof "I don't like you, and your little post too."

Speaking of OT, congrats on the recent graduation!