Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

FortKnox's Journal: Unread: Anonymity Result 18

Journal by FortKnox
I'm going with a bit of a combo with everyone.
Mad props to Planesdragon for coming up with a great idea.

I will allow 'incognito' posting, which will be a quick way to anonymously post right away, but admins will be able to tie incognito posts to users.

True anonymous posting will occur, but when you type in an anonymous comment, it will be placed in a queue where highly trusted users will be able to vote yea or nay on it being appropriate.
There will need to be an algorithm to determine when something is posted and when something is dropped (ie - at least 3 users vote and it gets at least 80% yea, then post, if it gets less than 30% yea or over 10 people vote, it gets dropped).

Oculus gave a bit of a warning about how this will lag posting which could cause trouble. I'm aware of it, but still want to try it. I'll make sure to design it so we can change it if it becomes a hassle.

Next up, ranking/moderation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unread: Anonymity Result

Comments Filter:
  • by turg (19864) *
    at least 3 users vote and it gets at least 80% yea
    80% of 3? :-)

    Anyway, how would it be "at least 3" rather than exactly three (or whatever is the minimum)? i.e. Why would the post be held after the minimum number of votes is received? Would it be a time-based thing?
    • I just go with the 'majority' thing. If one person thinks its appropriate, but 500 others think its appropriate, I'd want it to come to a vote for fairness.

      Maybe it should be exactly 3 with over 50% yea to post, otherwise dump. I just sorta made up the algorithm for a simple example. I didn't really think hard on it or anything.
      • If one person thinks its appropriate, but 500 others think its appropriate

        So, 501 think it's appropriate? It's a little early to be messin' with my mind.
      • The 3 users 80 % thing got me to thinking that it might make sense to "fast track" stuff that is getting an overwhelming positive response, but stuff that is iffy get more opinions on. In other words if after 3 votes a post has 3 appropriates its getting overwhelming support, let it in otherwise it gets more opinions from the "highly trusted users". If it has 3 out of 4 apropriate let it through. If not its next chance is 4 out of 6. Last chance is 5 out of 10 (obviously once you have 5 you make it in)
  • Allow anon posting, but make them log in. Also only allow it for those with positive "karma" or whatever you want to call it so people won't want to make throw-away accounts. Then ding them double for down-mods to the comment.
    • Oh yeah... logged in only comments. Still sticking to the req. If you aren't logged in... you only read.

      As far as downmods, I only plan on having one, and that's to remove innappropriate junk. You do that too much, and you aren't commenting at all.
      • My point is that if you ding them double for an bad anon post then you'll be able to have anonymity for when it is needed without having to worry so much about junk being posted. You also won't have to delay the comment.
    • i agree with john. this is a simpler method. it may not be as effective, but it's also less limiting, which means it wouldn't be as likely to keep people from the site.

      whatever makes users "trusted" is what should allow them to post incognito.

      or do it your way. you're the new taco.
  • This is what I hate about slashdot. Use the mode not the median value, so that one vote doesn't sway the ranking so much.

    By the way, how will new users get created? Anything to stop someone from creating a bazillion accounts in an automated manner? I suppose I should go see what you have posted on the web before I ask any more dumb questions.

  • by the_mad_poster (640772) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:16PM (#10015822) Homepage Journal

    My thinking is "don't rate posts", describe them. Rather than having "+x, Whatever", someone who's moderating posts attaches a label to it. Say I have following labels available:

    Troll, Inisghtful, Informative

    And I come across a post:

    I am teh 1337! The GNAA is the r0x0rz cuz we like to raid mens b0x0r5!

    Well, maybe it gets these labels:

    Troll x 15
    Insightful x 5
    Informative x 0

    Twenty total labelings.

    And say that I'm Joe User, and I like to see certain posts labeled insightful, and I hate Trolls. I could then say:

    -1 for every 5 Troll labels
    +1 for every 1 Insightful label

    Browsing threshold 5

    All posts start at 0. Then, the post referenced above, as I see it, would be:

    (15/5) x -1 = -3
    (5/1) x 1 = 5

    Final score = 2. Post is not visible unless I do something to make it visible.

    That way, you don't have arbitrary numbering systems like you do on Slashdot. If there's a post that gets 2 flamebait mods and 1 informative, and it starts at 1, the final score is 0, Flamebait. All I can filter on is the Flamebait modification it wound up with and an arbitrary threshold, so that informative moderation basically disappears as far as me, Joe User, is concerned. Not cool. With the spate of moderators abusing their points lately, I have had to adjust my modifiers here on /. to give Offtopic and Flamebait +3 and set my threshold to 3. That's the only way it seems to sort of work.

    • 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 kind of downmod by the way. I also like the idea of being able to mod posts with multiple labels. Something can

      • I don't think there should be any up or down, only labeling. I don't think any number should be attached to it from the user's perspective at all. The user should simply be able to choose the TYPES of comments they want to see, not the "rating" of the comment. The up and down numerical moderation system is ripe for abuse here on Slashdot (just because it's offtopic doesn't mean it's not interesting - just because it's flamebait doesn't mean it's not informative, just because it's a troll doesn't mean it's n

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Working...