Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Journal Journal: Meta-Meta-Moderation

I think Meta-Moderation is a nice idea, and should be considered wherever there are moderators wielding power, even if it is over fairly innocuous domains such as message posting.

Personally I agree with the vast majority of decisions, over 95%, which is probably not a surprise to anyone who has done a lot of Meta-Moderation. But I wonder about some immature kid who gets his kicks marking things "Unfair" (or whatever the appropriate term is for that message). Which gives rise to the concept of Meta-Meta-Moderation, where the Moderators rate the Meta-Moderators.

The idea is that every Meta-Moderator would be ranked by the percentage of the time they disagreed with the Moderator. If a Meta-Moderator disagrees with a huge fraction of moderator choices, they are probably not that serious about their duties. Isn't it reasonable to expect that most moderations are fair?

Meta-Moderators with a high percentage of "disagreeable" responses would have their Meta-Moderations derated, i.e., not count as much as those who tend to agree with the Moderators' opinion. That way, the one time in 50 I say a rating is "Unfair", it would carry more weight than the vote cast by a kid who always says every rating is unfair.

This seems to be a way to filter out the noise and make Meta-Moderation more accurate, in my view.

Slashdot Top Deals

System checkpoint complete.