Journal FortKnox's Journal: Unread: Ranking (Moderation) 39
I'm tempted to turn off journal messaging for this doozy.
Moderation (but I prefer the term 'ranking' myself).
I wanna keep it simple, not complex. I want it to be all upmods if possible, no downmods. I want every moderation tracked so you can see who moderated what on every post if you want.
Here's the kicker:
I think that 'all users can rank posts' should only affect front page articles. Anything inside a personal journal entry/article should be ranked by the author and whoever the author gives permissions to rank.
Ok, now with that stuff outta the way, here's my opinion:
There are 5 levels of ranking (sorry about the cheesy explanations, but I want words, not numbers):
Normal Post
Good Post
Good Point
Great Points
I wish everyone would read this post!
Of course, each one would be associated with a number (normal = 0, good = 1, good point = 2, etc...)
The posts are ranked by averaging the rankings (I'd mode it, as one person suggested, but how do you rank a bunch of '3' ranked posts?). No numbers are given, you don't know how close one comment is to another, they are just organized.
Highly trusted users (and admins, only) will get one more ranking option, "Inappropriate." If one post is given X number of inappropriate ranks, it is placed in an area that default users will not see (though any logged in user can turn off this default to see anything).
Its a combo of the kuro5hin system in moderation, and the threshold limit in slashdot.
I am not going to fool myself. There is no way this site will generate the sheer number of responses that slashdot does, so there is no point in really adding a complex system. I think we should go with something simple, and work on something scalable if the site takes off.
Just keep in mind, most ranking will happen inside personal articles and entries. In that instance, the author and anyone the author assigns only get ranking priviledges, so this isn't something you'll have to worry about inside your own journal entries.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't have any 'karma' system thought out, but the way your posts are ranked won't have any effect on it. It will be based on your activity, and if you abuse the system (yes, I'll give out a definition of abuse, but it will be subject to change).
Ok, lemmie have it, now.
Moderation (but I prefer the term 'ranking' myself).
I wanna keep it simple, not complex. I want it to be all upmods if possible, no downmods. I want every moderation tracked so you can see who moderated what on every post if you want.
Here's the kicker:
I think that 'all users can rank posts' should only affect front page articles. Anything inside a personal journal entry/article should be ranked by the author and whoever the author gives permissions to rank.
Ok, now with that stuff outta the way, here's my opinion:
There are 5 levels of ranking (sorry about the cheesy explanations, but I want words, not numbers):
Normal Post
Good Post
Good Point
Great Points
I wish everyone would read this post!
Of course, each one would be associated with a number (normal = 0, good = 1, good point = 2, etc...)
The posts are ranked by averaging the rankings (I'd mode it, as one person suggested, but how do you rank a bunch of '3' ranked posts?). No numbers are given, you don't know how close one comment is to another, they are just organized.
Highly trusted users (and admins, only) will get one more ranking option, "Inappropriate." If one post is given X number of inappropriate ranks, it is placed in an area that default users will not see (though any logged in user can turn off this default to see anything).
Its a combo of the kuro5hin system in moderation, and the threshold limit in slashdot.
I am not going to fool myself. There is no way this site will generate the sheer number of responses that slashdot does, so there is no point in really adding a complex system. I think we should go with something simple, and work on something scalable if the site takes off.
Just keep in mind, most ranking will happen inside personal articles and entries. In that instance, the author and anyone the author assigns only get ranking priviledges, so this isn't something you'll have to worry about inside your own journal entries.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't have any 'karma' system thought out, but the way your posts are ranked won't have any effect on it. It will be based on your activity, and if you abuse the system (yes, I'll give out a definition of abuse, but it will be subject to change).
Ok, lemmie have it, now.
everything in moderation (Score:3, Informative)
"Ranking" would suggest that one post is ranked as the best or "first place" and another is second, and another is third, etc., etc. How about "scoring" instead?
Re:everything in moderation (Score:2)
Re:everything in moderation (Score:2)
Wham! (Score:1)
Sounds reasonable to me (Score:3, Informative)
I think a distributed responsibility with some ability given to an administrator is ok; however, it should be a checks and balances thing. I don't think the administrator should be able to wipe a post off the face of the earth just because *he/she* thinks it's inappropriate. (Of course, we all know that the administrator could just delete the post in the database, but you know what I mean...)
i dig (Score:2)
Also, if I read this right... the system would have no need for a "M2" system because, in theory, the system would be balanced by the majority... right?
Now, as far as "karma"... I think someone mentioned it a while ago where you build "trust" through your activity. So, basically your "trust" starts at 0 (unless you are invited --
Re:i dig (Score:2)
K5 lives. Sort of. (Score:2)
Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (Score:1)
It's been well over a year since I had mod points, though.
Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (Score:2)
jason
Re:K5 lives. Sort of. (Score:2)
"matched" mods? (Score:2)
What about letting people mod however they like, and after I mod, I get "matched" with people who modded much like my mods? Then later I have a "show me like minded drones" button :-) that lets me view later stories modded up by these people (and maybe their list of like-minded drones)? The meta-mod crap on slashdot would make more sense if it worked this way I think.
I like the idea of only one
Re:"matched" mods? (Score:2)
I hate 'shooting down' ideas, cause I don't want to discourage anyone, I just feel this is a little too complex for the site.
Re:"matched" mods? (Score:2)
jason
Re:"matched" mods? (Score:1)
Granted, that's still more complex than "nothing at all."
Re:"matched" mods? (Score:2)
Re:"matched" mods? (Score:2)
Basically, I'd like to see a recommender style system like Amazon has in place, where everybody has an unlimited number of "moderations" good and bad. They don't directly affect anybody else, but people who label posts like you do have posts they have
what about (Score:1)
that way everyone can weed out the trolls
is there a need? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
The 50-comment limit would only be for "front-page" stuff, or journals as well.
Additionally, what about Inappropriate use in journals. Should there be some tiny hit for being heavy-handed, even in your own journal? Maybe it's not where you want the discussion to go, but you asked the question. You want the journal owner to have control, but...
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
There needs to be some 'hit' for someone getting inappropriate comments in the journal, but since the author has supreme control of scoring, it shouldn't be anything major.
Heck, if chamcham creates an account and you curse in a reply, he could deem it inappropriate. But if I make it no hit, then a troll can make an account and only post innappropriate comments in journals...
Th
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
Re:is there a need? (Score:2)
Will points be distributed, ala /. (Score:1)
Re:Will points be distributed, ala /. (Score:1)
It's more of an issue of whether or not moderations are tracked. If they're not tracked, people go crazy with the mod points, no matter how many they have.
If they're tracked (i.e. public), then you could give a troll unlimited mod points, and he'll be careful in using them so as to not get kicked off.
Re:Will points be distributed, ala /. (Score:2)
I don't like the K5 system... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't like the K5 system... (Score:1)
For example, User2 votes +1 to User1's comment.
User3 likes User2, so he see's User1's comment as scored "+1"
User4 is neutral to User2, so he see's User1's comment scored as "+1"
User5 dislikes User2, so he see's User1's comment as "-1"
It would make more sense on a per-moderation basis, though. I might have "
Simplify it further (Score:1)
Re:Simplify it further (Score:2)
Re:Simplify it further (Score:2)
I think you'd need a (-) vote. With only (+) votes, there's really no difference between demotion and mere apathy. The number and ratio of votes would also reveal how significant a post is. Hot-button issues would garner a large number of votes, positive and negative. (Think "Score: +4, Flamebait"). Well-received posts will get a lot of plusses, and floodcrap will be smacked down with many minuses.
Filtering could be done based on +/- ratios at the ends of the bell curve (yeah, yeah, I know). There would h
Re:Simplify it further (Score:2)
I loved the simplicity, but it may end up just like the dot.
i like that just as it is (Score:3, Informative)
-1 For Self Moderations (Score:1)
Re:-1 For Self Moderations (Score:1)
had you gone with mode it could be bad (Score:2)
Alright, my expanded thoughts on the topic (Score:2)