3 ms·

> Ever been to r/science? 8/10 comments are deleted and those posts can't be read ever again Note that this is clearly spelled out in the subreddit rules, and

> Ever been to r/science? 8/10 comments are deleted and those posts can't be read ever again Note that this is clearly spelled out in the subreddit rules, and is by design. 8/10 comments on reddit as a whole are jokes, anecdotes, off topic, or simply low quality. /r/science tries to promote high-quality discussion of actual science, does so by heavy moderation, and doesn't pretend they're not deleting most comments. Personally, I am very happy all the cruft is deleted there. I'm not saying there's no abuse of power, but /r/science is bad example to put forward when the rules are clearly spelled out and enforced.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> 8/10 comments on reddit as a whole are jokes, anecdotes, off topic, or simply low quality. I would guess that is a significant underestimate. I had one post become reasonably popular, and I was amazed at how awful, low quality, and incredibly redundant the replies were. 99% of all the top level replies were some version of the same low-effort comment.
- function_seven 6y ago
  This is what I miss from the old Slashdot. There you didn't just up- or down-vote comments. You specified if it was "funny" or "insightful" or "redundant" etc. [0] I could then filter comments by what I was looking for. Between that and the meta-moderation, they did a great job. I would love to see something similar on reddit. Instead of mindless updoots. Or maybe let me filter out comments that aren't at least n characters long? (Or, maybe train a classifier to detect puns and hide them :) [0] https://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml https://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml
  - dunnevens 6y ago
    I liked the old Slashdot moderation system. I wonder how it would scale to Reddit's traffic. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't scale well at all, but I could easily be wrong about that. The biggest problem would be bad actors. Internet discussions in the late 90's probably had more good faith participants. People chosen for moderation would be more likely to take it seriously. In ways both good and bad, the culture was very different then. I (possibly naively) still think the majority of people online are acting in good faith according to whatever they believe. But, with the massive online population increase comes an increase in the absolute numbers of people acting in bad faith. Even if they're still a small percentage of the whole. A Slashdot moderation system would give those trolls, bots, and astroturfers some considerable power to shape the direction of a discussion. Probably would increase the number of bot or sockpuppet accounts in order to snag a greater percentage of the randomly assigned moderation slots. But, that's just my assumption. Would be interesting to see it tried as an experiment. Maybe for the next Reddit April Fool's project.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      > Internet discussions in the late 90's probably had more good faith participants Not probably. I think definitely. There were tons of trolls back then, but they were trolling in good faith as well! (I mean that. They just posted shocking and vile things, for the lulz. They didn't promote their corporate brand or try to influence other nations' elections. They were good faith assholes :) I think you're right. It's a really hard problem to solve; anonymity and reputation are difficult to combine. And meta-moderation itself could be seen as giving even more influence to the power users of these platforms (i.e. /u/gallowboob). I kick around some ideas now and then about alternative rating and voting systems. Usually in the context of fake Amazon reviews, but the same general problem exists here. What if users were limited to just 1 vote (up or down) each day? Or x ups and y downs? Whatever. Would that limit the votes on silly one-liner puns and encourage people to spend their precious vote on something more interesting? If you combine that with minimum account ages and maybe some minimum karma, I think it could work. Hell, you could vote more than once if you're willing to spend it out of your own karma. I'm sure I'm missing some aspect that tanks my idea. (Is there something for this like there is for spam-fighting ideas? [0]) If I don't stop tying now, I'm liable to bring up some sort of blockchain solution. And nobody wants that. [0] https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
bobcostas55 6y ago
The moderation in /r/science is mostly about removing politically incorrect but true posts, nothing to do with "cruft".
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Source?
jcims 6y ago
I personally think they should rename the sub. /r/science is way too generic of a name, and unless folks study the sidebar as they are coming in from /r/popular or /r/all, they have no indication that their questions and anecdotes are completely unwelcome and will be deleted. It's an incredibly frustrating experience and I think it just damages the perception of 'science' by those that are trying to wade into it.

rootusrootus 6y ago

> 8/10 comments on reddit as a whole are jokes, anecdotes, off topic, or simply low quality. I would guess that is a significant underestimate. I had one post become reasonably popular, and I was amazed at how awful, low quality, and incredibly redundant the replies were. 99% of all the top level replies were some version of the same low-effort comment.

function_seven 6y ago
This is what I miss from the old Slashdot. There you didn't just up- or down-vote comments. You specified if it was "funny" or "insightful" or "redundant" etc. [0] I could then filter comments by what I was looking for. Between that and the meta-moderation, they did a great job. I would love to see something similar on reddit. Instead of mindless updoots. Or maybe let me filter out comments that aren't at least n characters long? (Or, maybe train a classifier to detect puns and hide them :) [0] https://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml https://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml
- dunnevens 6y ago
  I liked the old Slashdot moderation system. I wonder how it would scale to Reddit's traffic. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't scale well at all, but I could easily be wrong about that. The biggest problem would be bad actors. Internet discussions in the late 90's probably had more good faith participants. People chosen for moderation would be more likely to take it seriously. In ways both good and bad, the culture was very different then. I (possibly naively) still think the majority of people online are acting in good faith according to whatever they believe. But, with the massive online population increase comes an increase in the absolute numbers of people acting in bad faith. Even if they're still a small percentage of the whole. A Slashdot moderation system would give those trolls, bots, and astroturfers some considerable power to shape the direction of a discussion. Probably would increase the number of bot or sockpuppet accounts in order to snag a greater percentage of the randomly assigned moderation slots. But, that's just my assumption. Would be interesting to see it tried as an experiment. Maybe for the next Reddit April Fool's project.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    > Internet discussions in the late 90's probably had more good faith participants Not probably. I think definitely. There were tons of trolls back then, but they were trolling in good faith as well! (I mean that. They just posted shocking and vile things, for the lulz. They didn't promote their corporate brand or try to influence other nations' elections. They were good faith assholes :) I think you're right. It's a really hard problem to solve; anonymity and reputation are difficult to combine. And meta-moderation itself could be seen as giving even more influence to the power users of these platforms (i.e. /u/gallowboob). I kick around some ideas now and then about alternative rating and voting systems. Usually in the context of fake Amazon reviews, but the same general problem exists here. What if users were limited to just 1 vote (up or down) each day? Or x ups and y downs? Whatever. Would that limit the votes on silly one-liner puns and encourage people to spend their precious vote on something more interesting? If you combine that with minimum account ages and maybe some minimum karma, I think it could work. Hell, you could vote more than once if you're willing to spend it out of your own karma. I'm sure I'm missing some aspect that tanks my idea. (Is there something for this like there is for spam-fighting ideas? [0]) If I don't stop tying now, I'm liable to bring up some sort of blockchain solution. And nobody wants that. [0] https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

bobcostas55 6y ago

The moderation in /r/science is mostly about removing politically incorrect but true posts, nothing to do with "cruft".

colinmhayes 6y ago
Source?

jcims 6y ago

I personally think they should rename the sub. /r/science is way too generic of a name, and unless folks study the sidebar as they are coming in from /r/popular or /r/all, they have no indication that their questions and anecdotes are completely unwelcome and will be deleted. It's an incredibly frustrating experience and I think it just damages the perception of 'science' by those that are trying to wade into it.