Journal FortKnox's Journal: Unread: Anonymity Result 18
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.
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.
thoughts (Score:2)
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?
Re:thoughts (Score:2)
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.
Re:thoughts (Score:1)
So, 501 think it's appropriate? It's a little early to be messin' with my mind.
Re:thoughts (Score:2)
D'oh
Re:thoughts (Score:2)
I still like my idea (Score:2)
Re:I still like my idea (Score:2)
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.
Re:I still like my idea (Score:2)
Re:I still like my idea (Score:1)
whatever makes users "trusted" is what should allow them to post incognito.
or do it your way. you're the new taco.
Re:I still like my idea (Score:2)
Which means you don't have to take any crap from us. :)
Use mode not median (Score:2)
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.
Re:Use mode not median (Score:2)
Re:Use mode not median (Score:2)
Re:Use mode not median (Score:2)
Re:Use mode not median (Score:2)
Modding (Score:3)
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.
Re:Modding (Score:2)
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
Re:Modding (Score:3)
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