4 ms·

What about attaching a 'reputation' score to the flagger? E.g. something like: - if there are sufficient flags, trigger a moderator review - flaggers who corr

What about attaching a 'reputation' score to the flagger? E.g. something like: - if there are sufficient flags, trigger a moderator review - flaggers who correctly flagged content get +1 score or -1 score if not that would make it harder for people to consistently flag content maliciously. Like age-old moderation systems such as calling 911 or police. If you abuse calling 911, you can get fined. I imagine this has been tried before, and am genuinely curious why this is worse than flawed ML.

defertoreptar 7y ago
Yep, I believe there is a way for sure. YouTube can evaluate users by how likely it is that their flag results in long term removal of a video. If a user cries wolf too many times or flags videos later marked as not controversial at all, then that user probably should not have flag powers.
viraptor 7y ago
Have a look at some of the organised voting/flagging campaigns originating from *chans. Those can range from just manual action to automated scripts + account takeovers. Also if you can both post comments and flag them from a different account - free karma.
techdragon 7y ago
This concept reminds me of the “meta-moderation” that happened/happens in SlashDot. It’s good to have a second order effect to damp down excessive fluctuations in your first order mechanisms.
prometheus76 7y ago
The problem with that plan is "correctly" flagged content is subjective. You've only added a layer of moderation to the original problem.
username90 7y ago
You don't think they tried everything already? Youtube did that with Youtube Heroes a few years ago: https://www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-heroes-will-let-users-earn-rewards-by-flagging-videos-more/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-heroes-will-let-users...
- vintermann 7y ago
  They have far from tried everything. It's true, they have tried one variant of the "just anoint the power users and be done with it" model, which with a few variations is used on everything from reddit to wikipedia 4chan to stack overflow. But it didn't work. YouTube is too diverse and too popular, it has no clear "naturally" anointable moderator types.
vintermann 7y ago
People were asking such questions since at least 1997. Slashdot had the (imo, great) idea of rotating various voting privileges randomly. Raph Levien's Advogato used a network of trusted users and certification which was designed to be resistant against attack. Kuro5hin also had some novel ideas about what was needed to create robust high quality discussion (which turned out to be an obvious failure, but potentially something one could learn from). But at some point, sites decided that experimenting with stuff like that was unimportant compared to just bringing in more users. Letting everyone vote all the time obviously has huge issues, but it's emotionally satisfying to downvote, so it keeps users engaged. The people most prone to dominate the site with voting on everything and coordinating efforts, are also the ones which will complain most loudly if they don't dominate the discussion. So just give them what they want. It worked. Experimenting with self-moderation mechanisms went extremely out of fashion.
- pixl97 7y ago
  One thing I dislike about most current voting/moderation systems is they are one dimensional, you get up or down (or in the case of FB they only have a point dimension of upvote). I'd love a system were you could get 2 vote choices per post and then have 8 or more vote options. Like/dislike (or agree/disagree), off topic/on topic, factually correct/factually incorrect, funny/hateful, user is a prick/user is a swell guy, or whatever seems like a good option for the discussion forum. I mean, something can be funny, but off topic at the same time. Or something can be factually correct but the person making the post can be a real jerk about it.
  - Faark 7y ago
    Valve added a "Funny" button to steam reviews, since many top reviews were great jokes but had little substantial in them. I feel like it helped at least somewhat. I also have a hard time believing the GP that there is no experimentation anymore. Probably a lot more subtle, but you can do a lot of stuff behind the scene without giving feedback to the user. I'd be shocked if there is not at least some form of shadowbanning bad actors.

defertoreptar 7y ago

Yep, I believe there is a way for sure. YouTube can evaluate users by how likely it is that their flag results in long term removal of a video. If a user cries wolf too many times or flags videos later marked as not controversial at all, then that user probably should not have flag powers.

viraptor 7y ago

Have a look at some of the organised voting/flagging campaigns originating from *chans. Those can range from just manual action to automated scripts + account takeovers. Also if you can both post comments and flag them from a different account - free karma.

techdragon 7y ago

This concept reminds me of the “meta-moderation” that happened/happens in SlashDot. It’s good to have a second order effect to damp down excessive fluctuations in your first order mechanisms.

prometheus76 7y ago

The problem with that plan is "correctly" flagged content is subjective. You've only added a layer of moderation to the original problem.

username90 7y ago

You don't think they tried everything already? Youtube did that with Youtube Heroes a few years ago: https://www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-heroes-will-let-users-earn-rewards-by-flagging-videos-more/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-heroes-will-let-users...

vintermann 7y ago
They have far from tried everything. It's true, they have tried one variant of the "just anoint the power users and be done with it" model, which with a few variations is used on everything from reddit to wikipedia 4chan to stack overflow. But it didn't work. YouTube is too diverse and too popular, it has no clear "naturally" anointable moderator types.

vintermann 7y ago

People were asking such questions since at least 1997. Slashdot had the (imo, great) idea of rotating various voting privileges randomly. Raph Levien's Advogato used a network of trusted users and certification which was designed to be resistant against attack. Kuro5hin also had some novel ideas about what was needed to create robust high quality discussion (which turned out to be an obvious failure, but potentially something one could learn from). But at some point, sites decided that experimenting with stuff like that was unimportant compared to just bringing in more users. Letting everyone vote all the time obviously has huge issues, but it's emotionally satisfying to downvote, so it keeps users engaged. The people most prone to dominate the site with voting on everything and coordinating efforts, are also the ones which will complain most loudly if they don't dominate the discussion. So just give them what they want. It worked. Experimenting with self-moderation mechanisms went extremely out of fashion.

pixl97 7y ago
One thing I dislike about most current voting/moderation systems is they are one dimensional, you get up or down (or in the case of FB they only have a point dimension of upvote). I'd love a system were you could get 2 vote choices per post and then have 8 or more vote options. Like/dislike (or agree/disagree), off topic/on topic, factually correct/factually incorrect, funny/hateful, user is a prick/user is a swell guy, or whatever seems like a good option for the discussion forum. I mean, something can be funny, but off topic at the same time. Or something can be factually correct but the person making the post can be a real jerk about it.
- Faark 7y ago
  Valve added a "Funny" button to steam reviews, since many top reviews were great jokes but had little substantial in them. I feel like it helped at least somewhat. I also have a hard time believing the GP that there is no experimentation anymore. Probably a lot more subtle, but you can do a lot of stuff behind the scene without giving feedback to the user. I'd be shocked if there is not at least some form of shadowbanning bad actors.