3 ms·

You're very right that Slashdot developed an underappreciated system for community moderation. Too many people treat this like a new problem when it's one of th

by mapgrep 10y ago

You're very right that Slashdot developed an underappreciated system for community moderation. Too many people treat this like a new problem when it's one of the oldest out there (see, for example, http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enemy.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enem... ) That said, I've always assumed the Slashdot system was too elaborate and hard to understand for anything other than the highly technical, highly dedicated (in its heyday) Slashdot community. Maybe I'm wrong.

basch 10y ago
I think tagging your upvote/downvote with metadata describing WHY you voted that way is not complicated. Upvote - important Upvote - funny Upvote - informative Upvote - consensus Downvote - spam Downvote - rude Downvote - inaccurate Downvote - disagree Randomly assigned metamoderation as civic duty is not too much to ask of readers and contributors. I also think the complication should reside in the algorithm and not be handed to the userbase. If metamoderation algorithms can figure out which moderators I agree and disagree with, let me favor the data those moderators i prefer contribute to the system. A well written algorithm will be able to figure out when a person is polluting the system with noise and trying to watch the world burn. Disagreeing with consensus moderation is different than being disruptive. That is a challenging and complicated prospect, but that complexity lies on the backend, not the user facing interface.
- mapgrep 10y ago
  Sure, but commenters are going to ask questions like "who is moderating me" and "why am I allowed to moderate sometimes but not other times." On Slashdot, the answers to these seemingly simple questions are quite complex, but generally understood and embraced by the audience. I'm not sure that would be the case on a site like the Guardian. That said, you may be right that the benefits outweigh the confusion and that this could work fine at Guardian. (Although, even as a longtime Slashdot user, I have no idea what "upvote - consensus" means...)
  - basch 10y ago
    fresh accounts woundnt experience metamoderation upvote - consensus = i agree poor wording maybe

by mapgrep 10y ago

basch 10y ago

I think tagging your upvote/downvote with metadata describing WHY you voted that way is not complicated. Upvote - important Upvote - funny Upvote - informative Upvote - consensus Downvote - spam Downvote - rude Downvote - inaccurate Downvote - disagree Randomly assigned metamoderation as civic duty is not too much to ask of readers and contributors. I also think the complication should reside in the algorithm and not be handed to the userbase. If metamoderation algorithms can figure out which moderators I agree and disagree with, let me favor the data those moderators i prefer contribute to the system. A well written algorithm will be able to figure out when a person is polluting the system with noise and trying to watch the world burn. Disagreeing with consensus moderation is different than being disruptive. That is a challenging and complicated prospect, but that complexity lies on the backend, not the user facing interface.

mapgrep 10y ago
Sure, but commenters are going to ask questions like "who is moderating me" and "why am I allowed to moderate sometimes but not other times." On Slashdot, the answers to these seemingly simple questions are quite complex, but generally understood and embraced by the audience. I'm not sure that would be the case on a site like the Guardian. That said, you may be right that the benefits outweigh the confusion and that this could work fine at Guardian. (Although, even as a longtime Slashdot user, I have no idea what "upvote - consensus" means...)
- basch 10y ago
  fresh accounts woundnt experience metamoderation upvote - consensus = i agree poor wording maybe