4 ms·

Slashdot meta-moderation was fantastic for this. I'm curious why it never made an appearance elsewhere - it really was a great idea.

fnordsensei 9y ago
Could you elaborate on how it works/worked? Or is it as suggested above: a downvote + a reason?
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  Well there are actually two ideas in the parent comment. On Slashdot, upvotes and downvotes each came with a label. So upvote wasn't just an up-arrow, it was more like "+1, Helpful" or "+1, Funny". And downvotes weren't just a down arrow, the options were like "-1, Off Topic" or "-1, Abusive". Don't hold me to the actual labels, but you get the idea. There was also a cap; each post could only go so far down (can't remember) or up (pretty sure that was 5). Overall, this system was called moderation. There was also meta-moderation, where people had to review someone else's votes up or down, and verify them. This way, people who were making bad votes could get caught by the community. The ability to moderate or meta-moderate was hooked into the karma score, but I can't remember exactly how. Meta-moderation was like a chore you had to do sometimes to maintain the right to moderate, as I recall. I'm sure there is a write-up somewhere that could do a better job than my off-teh-cuff remembering.
  - prawn 9y ago
    The labels were insightful, interesting, informative, funny, overrated, underrated, redundant, troll, flamebait, offtopic, etc. Comments maxed out at +5. You could set a threshold so you'd only see +2 and higher, etc. At some point, you could adjust your personal measure for the categories of positive or negative moderation. e.g., threads turned into boring rushes to post memes for +1 Funny, so at one point I made Funny worth zero and Insightful worth +2. It was an interesting way to influence how a thread appeared for you. But around that time, I lost interest in the site and quit it for HN. You couldn't vote all the time (like on HN), but you periodically received 5 mod points to use, so you would tend to pick the most deserving to boost or demote. From memory, periodically, you might get meta-moderation points. Say, 10 chances to assess whether a post's moderation was fair or unfair. It was half-chore, half-interesting so it was often a happy distraction. More info for those with too much time on their hands: https://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml
    - fnordsensei 9y ago
      Interesting, thank you both. I read up on online reputation systems a while back while consulting on a project, and it's been an interest since. This is a worthwhile video to watch on the subject if interested: http://buildingreputation.com/writings/2010/07/5_reputation_missteps_video_go.html http://buildingreputation.com/writings/2010/07/5_reputation_...

fnordsensei 9y ago

Could you elaborate on how it works/worked? Or is it as suggested above: a downvote + a reason?

snowwrestler 9y ago
Well there are actually two ideas in the parent comment. On Slashdot, upvotes and downvotes each came with a label. So upvote wasn't just an up-arrow, it was more like "+1, Helpful" or "+1, Funny". And downvotes weren't just a down arrow, the options were like "-1, Off Topic" or "-1, Abusive". Don't hold me to the actual labels, but you get the idea. There was also a cap; each post could only go so far down (can't remember) or up (pretty sure that was 5). Overall, this system was called moderation. There was also meta-moderation, where people had to review someone else's votes up or down, and verify them. This way, people who were making bad votes could get caught by the community. The ability to moderate or meta-moderate was hooked into the karma score, but I can't remember exactly how. Meta-moderation was like a chore you had to do sometimes to maintain the right to moderate, as I recall. I'm sure there is a write-up somewhere that could do a better job than my off-teh-cuff remembering.
- prawn 9y ago
  The labels were insightful, interesting, informative, funny, overrated, underrated, redundant, troll, flamebait, offtopic, etc. Comments maxed out at +5. You could set a threshold so you'd only see +2 and higher, etc. At some point, you could adjust your personal measure for the categories of positive or negative moderation. e.g., threads turned into boring rushes to post memes for +1 Funny, so at one point I made Funny worth zero and Insightful worth +2. It was an interesting way to influence how a thread appeared for you. But around that time, I lost interest in the site and quit it for HN. You couldn't vote all the time (like on HN), but you periodically received 5 mod points to use, so you would tend to pick the most deserving to boost or demote. From memory, periodically, you might get meta-moderation points. Say, 10 chances to assess whether a post's moderation was fair or unfair. It was half-chore, half-interesting so it was often a happy distraction. More info for those with too much time on their hands: https://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml
  - fnordsensei 9y ago
    Interesting, thank you both. I read up on online reputation systems a while back while consulting on a project, and it's been an interest since. This is a worthwhile video to watch on the subject if interested: http://buildingreputation.com/writings/2010/07/5_reputation_missteps_video_go.html http://buildingreputation.com/writings/2010/07/5_reputation_...