Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org

Journal sllort's Journal: Moderation Guidelines: an Addendum 15

Slashdot Moderation Guidelines : Addendum.

Slashdot's venerable Moderation Guidelines have long been a subject of speculation and interpretation. This is due in large part to the fact that they contain almost no information on how one should actually moderate. The Guidelines are in general rife with vague handwaving such as 'Bad Comments are flamebait' [sic] (from which we can divine that 'Flamebait' always means 'bad comment', as illogical as that may sound). This addendum has been written to be a useful resource for new Moderators and battle-hardened Slashdot readers alike. It is my intention that this Addendum, frequently updated, shall serve as a companion document to the original Guidelines and hopefully improve the quality of Slashdot moderation in general. If you would like others to read this document, you can place a link to it in your signature or user history:

<a href=/~sllort/journal/15007>have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?</a>

General principles.

  • Patience. As a moderator, you have five points and three days to use them. There's no need to 'blow your load' and go moderate everything at once. You have a very limited amount of influence. You should save it for comments which are extraordinary, whether they be extraordinarily good or extraordinarily bad. If you are knowledgeable about something, pick stories which you know something about to moderate - this will help you to avoid accidentally moderating up garbage. Additionally, the best comments in a story are usually written well after the story is posted. In general, ignore the first hundred comments before you moderate.
  • Maturity. When you moderate a user, you affect their karma, an internal score which is the single most important thing in dictating someone else's Slashdot experience. If you negatively moderate the same user with all your points (for instance), that user will probably be gagged from posting, and may suffer a decrease in their posting score, a decrease in their number of posts per day, and other negative consequences. You have been granted power which, if exercised malicously, can be used to silence or even eliminate someone else's voice from Slashdot. Approach this ability with maturity, and avoid using it. While Slashdot Editors have been known to use this power in anger, Slashdot users must hold themselves to a higher standard.
  • Objectivity. It's easy to hold your own convictions close to your chest. When someone thoughtfully points out that the Verisign certificate used by Windows Update is in fact more secure than apt-get without signature checking, it's easy for Linux users to get angry at their operating system's weakness and direct that anger into bad moderation. While this is just one example, it's applicability is universal: don't break the system and moderate poorly just because someone has pointed out a fact you're uncomfortable with. As it stands, this is probably the #1 problem with Slashdot moderation today.

How to view a story
You may have already heard that Moderators should always view a story in '-1,Nested,Newest First', with all your Reason Modifiers set to Zero. If you haven't heard this before, now is the time to memorize it, because it's true. Here's why:

  • Threshold: -1. Yes, you have to read the crap at -1 as a Moderator. Horrors! It's really not that bad, especially if you're reading the newest posts first, and not reading the first 100 comments. After the first 100 comments have gone by, most of the stuff that the average Slashdot reader objects to is no longer posted (because the visibility is too low to bother). The reason it is so important to read at -1 is to spot posts that have been unfairly moderated to this level and correct the mistakes. You won't believe how often this happens until you read at -1 and see for yourself.
  • Nested: This is simple - the best comments on Slashdot are almost always replies, so you should read all of them. This is because, in general, people who reply have first considered someone else's opinion before considering their own. Think about it.
  • Newest First: This too is a no-brainer. The older a comment is in a story, the less time someone spent thinking about it and writing it. Newer comments include people who read the article, people who did some research, or people who learned something new. All the good comments are the newest ones, and they are also the ones that Moderators tend to ignore. You can fix this problem by reading Newest First.

Remember to set your Reason Modifiers (located in User Preferences->Homepage) to zero if you've modified them already. Nonzero Reason Modifiers will distort your view of comments so that you can't find out what tier comments are viewed in by default.
- Krow, 10/23/02

So remember: -1, Nested, Newest first, zero Reason Modifiers. Don't click Moderate without it.

Moderation Scores
This is probably the biggest mystery on Slashdot. What do Insightful, Informative, Interesting, Offtopic, Flamebait, and Troll actually mean? You'd be surprised how many people don't know. This is probably because Slashdot has never documented what these labels mean. Are they mystical, magical, and purely subjective...? No. Here's what they really mean.

  • Troll: The Big Ugly Moderation, reserved for those nasty people who live under bridges and eat children. What is a Troll comment? Well, the Troll moderation actually comes from the phrase "trolling for newbies", a fishing reference. The Troll moderation does not have anything to do with mythical creatures, and never has. Dedicated gun nut and German dance sensation Eric Raymond defined in detail what a troll is in his Jargon File. While hard to define, a Troll comment is a very specialized type of post which is crafted by an author to provoke replies which reveal the person replying to be stupid or immature. The key requirement when you are considering moderating a comment as a 'Troll' is to determine whether or not the person writing it was just kidding. This requires a great deal of insight, a personal trusted relationship with the author, or (preferably) psychic powers. If you are unsure of the author's intent, avoid this label like the plague, as you will (justifiably) be destroyed by MetaModeration. The Troll label is for 'experts only'.
  • Flamebait: It is noteworthy to point out that the Jargon File entry for Flamebait reads 'See also: troll'. Flamebait is actually more specific than Troll, as it is a moderation label for troll posts which are designed to start an angry discussion or 'flamewar'. Because flamewars are universally stupid, Flamebait and Troll both meet the general requirement of attempting to humiliate anyone who replies. Flamebait is even harder to use than Troll, and requires not only the psychic ability to read the intent of the original poster, but also the ability to determine that the author was attempting to provoke a flamewar. This is a double-diamond super-expert moderation label. If you can use it correctly, you're probably either psychic or God. Keyword: correctly.
  • Underrated: The most confusingly labelled moderation in existence, this should probably be renamed 'Good'. Underrated provides a means of raising a comment's score without judging it, and this dovetails with our goal of Objectivity nicely. Because you're not attempting to divine why a comment is good, you are not subject to MetaModeration when using Underrated. If you are a beginning moderator, you should probably use this 100% of the time. Once you are an expert, you can toss in the occasional "Informative" or suchlike moderation when you're really, really sure.
  • Overrated: Overrated is also poorly labelled, as it can in general be applied to comments which are scored too highly but also to comments which are bad, useless, or stupid (for which no moderation labels exist). This can apply to content-free 'first-posts', meaningless babble, etc. Overrated is especially useful when attempting to wipe out the smattering of +5 scored comments from the first 100 posts which are content-free and posted for the sole purpose of elevating a user's karma. Overrated should be your negative moderation of choice, except in cases where you're 100% sure something is way Offtopic, or you're a psychic capable of using Troll. Remember, Overrated is immune to MetaModeration!
  • Offtopic: The most abused moderation on Slashdot. The most important rule when using Offtopic is that the context of a post is relative to its parent. Therefore direct replies to the story should have something vaguely to do with the story, and direct replies to a comment should have something vaguely to do with that comment!. Here is an example:
    1. Poster A replies to a story about video cards with the comment 'I have one of these and I like it a lot'.
    2. Poster B replies to poster A with the comment 'Thanks for sharing. Your comment told me nothing, idiot.'

    Which one of these comments should be marked Offtopic? Neither. They both are direct, on-topic replies to their parent post. The second comment is probably Overrated, though, because it contributes little to the discussion, and there is no 'Uncreative Insult' moderation label.

  • Insightful, Informative, Interesting: These vanilla positive moderations are pretty easy to understand, and require little interpretation. Remember that when you use them, you limit the ability of a comment to be interpreted as anything else. If a comment is both insightful and informative (think Jon Carmack) and you label it Informative, you've put the comment in a little labelled box that constrains it from being thought of as insightful unless someone actually reads the comment. Remember that each label has a subjective, user-defined score, and some people may have Informative rated higher than Interesting - so be careful when boxing up comments to make sure they fit. Remember, when you're not sure, use Underrated. If a comment is already marked as Informative, and that label is correct, there is no need to pile on another Informative moderation. Just use Underrated instead.
  • Funny: Never use this. Well, ok, you can use it, but understand that a lot of people have it set to zero. If you've never read Laugh Lab's 'world's funniest joke', now is the time for you to read it. This will help you understand that what you find funny is often not what someone else finds funny, and things that are universally funny are at best mildly amusing. That said, this moderation can be appropriate, but it's usually just a waste of your points.

Moderation Thresholds

This is probably the least understood facet of moderating on Slashdot. There are seven possible scores for every comment, each score representing a tier with requirements for each tier. If a comment is where it belongs, leave it there - otherwise move it. That is your job as a moderator.

  • +5 : Absolute Gold. Comments worthy of a score of 5 are rare, and may not occur in every story. A +5 comment should be clearly written and contain information which really makes you a better person for having read it. Think about that requirement for a minute before realizing how few comments actually fit that bill.
  • +4 : The Good Stuff. This is the category for exceptional comments which are not just clearly written but contain something valuable such as unique information, a relevant experience, or a new perspective.
  • +3 : Good Comments. This is where you put just the good comments, stuff that may have some spelling or grammar errors but is far from useless. Informative links, calls for comments, enlightened discussion in general.
  • +2 : Good conversation. This is where most regular Slashdot readers post by default. Toss someone out of this tier only if their content is hard to understand or lacks value. A little bit of adversarial tussling is ok in this tier.
  • +1 : Average Conversation. This is where the millions of screaming voices that make up a Slashdot discussion should sit. Nothing extraordinary, nothing particularly well written nor anything particularly abusive. Moving someone down from this tier should only be done for good reason, such as abuse or illegibility.
  • Zero : Anything but Abuse. Leave everything at tier zero unless it has a reason to go up except abuse.
  • -1 : Abuse. This is the tier for attempts to break browsers, rendering hacks, malicious exploits of Slashdot or user browsers, hate speech, and copyright infringment. Think of tier -1 as 'deleted', and use it with the utmost care. Nothing belongs at tier -1 unless it was written to harm someone else.

Go forth and Moderate!

Hopefully reading this document has made you a better moderator (or at least helped you understand the system better). I will continue to add good suggestions to this document as I learn more, so feel free to send me your ideas and suggestions via the comment section or via email at operation_mongoose 'at' ziplip.com.

Have fun,

-s.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moderation Guidelines: an Addendum

Comments Filter:
  • Two comments (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2002 @01:46PM (#4514281) Journal
    1) "Insightful", "Informative" and "Interesting" should be merged into one category. They're used almost interchangeably and having all three just creates confusion.

    2) My recollection is that pre-moderation Slashdot terminology was like this: "Flamebait" is a comment that is sincere but egregiously stupid or factually incorrect. "Troll" refers to any maliciously posted comments, whether a proper troll, or just crapflooding.
    • Informative: Extra information.
      Insightful: Good remark / deduction.
      Interesting: Good idea / nice story.

      Users who like to dig for info themselves and would rather see new ideas could assign a -1 modifier to Informative and +1 to Interesting, or +1 to Insightful if they don't want to read the whole article.
  • Keep in mind that if you are doing moderation that you shouldn't have any of your reason bonuses set (or you will be seeing a modified number).
    • interesting. This makes the need for Temporary Settings for Moderators particularly important. How about letting Moderators click a button to set a story at (-1, Nested, Newest First, No Reason Bonuses, No Friend/Foe Bonuses) temporarily while moderating, to avoid having to unset/reset all the settings, which can take quite a bit of time? This could even be made mandatory as some have suggested.
      • Its one of two features that I am thinking that need to be added in the near future. Right now I am working on some of the more annoying display bugs in comments, hopefully after I am done with that (and the server move to the west coast) I will get a chance to do that.

  • I can actually feel it move when I mod. That being said, very eloquent, informative, and professional journal entry. Addressing the inherent subjectivity of moderation in conjunction with the point emphasis of 'mods are to move', is a polished gem.
  • Overrated is the most frequently abused moderation out there. Ok, Offtopic might be worse, especially when it comes to the editors. There need to be more and more descriptive negative moderations. Overrated is often used to lower the rating of a good comment that the moderator disagrees with. There needs to be a way to limit its usage given that it is immune to M2.
  • I have to disagree there.

    I remember the big push a few years back to get moderators to change to oldest first, and the arguments set forth there-in are what partly influenced my current /. reading settings today. (used to be -1 oldest first, now is +1 oldest first, gee thanks page wideners and crap flooders!)

    Oh, and nice troll with the entire "don't use the troll moderation" thing there. I will stop believing in the troll moderation when the trolls stop bragging about their posts. :P

    (though since I have not meta-moderated in ages I have not had mod points in a similar time frame, lol)
  • Seems to me that all this is good if you have moderators who aren't part of the unwashed masses. As any good technie learns when they release UI for lUSERS, if you don't constain the input, then they'll get it wrong, anyway.

    Since moderators are not hand-picked and given jobs with standards, and since they are /. lUSERS, then this is why we get "Offtopic" for posts that are intelligent responses to the parent, but have nothing to do with the original story. This is why we get "interesting" and "intriguing" applied to the same story. There is no solution to this problem unless you hold the moderators directly responsible for poor moderation (metamod doesn't work because you have no way of knowing what happened until one day you are "good" instead of "excellent"---hey, look: a legitimate use for showing a user her actual karma points!).

    I'd also add that slashcode shouldn't allow you to moderate a message that is in a moderator's "queue." Quite often, we seem to have a single post that two or more moderators apply scores to at the same time (this is when you get > +5 or -1 moderation points). I think fewer posts would get pumped up as high if the moderator saw that someone else moderated it already. Then again, there's the herd mentality whereas one post marked "insightful" might get 2 or 3 "me too" moderators boosting it up, instead of actually reading and judging the post in its own merits without the first moderator's judgement tainting the environment.

    • Re:Sorry (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1

      you appear to have misunderstood my goal. i was not attempting to write a critique of the /. moderation system. that's been done, for years, and it has been counterproductive at best. for instance, the 'mongolian clusterfuck' problem you just described (where a million moderators accidentally mod a single post at once, causing it to receive scores like +17, Informative) was one i mentioned to CmdrTaco in a meta discussion about a year ago. i proposed a few solutions, one of which was allowing a moderator to pick a target tier when moderating (if the comment has already reach the tier, their point is withheld) and another of which was just a simple check to block a moderation if a comment has been moderated in between when it was viewed and when it was moderated. i believe his response was 'this problem does not exist'.

      i'm trying to say that yes, you must jump through absurd, poorly constructed hoops to be a good moderator. that's why most people don't. in lieu of seeing any of it fixed, i decided the most constructive thing i could do is document the hoops so that people don't have to discover them by trial and error. so help me out and link to my document so more people will read it.

      don't give up hope, though. Krow claims in a comment below to be working on some aspects of moderation, including adding a 'moderator view' to the comment viewing code. provided he's given the leeway to implement changes, things could actually improve. never thought i'd say that, but given the recent removal of $rtbl and the journal/tabbed UI changes, i'm beginning to actually believe it.

      - -s.
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
      Comment: i am sllort [slashdot.org] and i post AC [slashdot.org]

      iD8DBQE9uRelKpz2COjVE3YRAhC2AKCiMD7h9Zk6oP2Gh9r/ KT lzZQ9y+gCg4mpK
      2mK9YlRCe7vzwaIcUxMmmTk=
      =fIBO
      - ----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...