3 ms·

Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. That's what Slashdot did (does?). All users ta

Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. That's what Slashdot did (does?). All users take part in moderation [if they wish], and take part in meta-moderation. Using a statistical consensus, and correction of outliers, but doing so through the userbase such that as the community grows so too does the base of moderators. Making it statistical means that no one moderator can have undue influence (other than site owners). HN does some 2nd order stuff, flags/vouches from trusted users i think are weighted (?) but doesn't go to the next level of then decreasing the weight of votes for those whose votes were meta-moderated as 'wrong' (ie contrary to community consensus). In theory that should handle brigading, for example, because you don't know what you'll moderate before you say yes, and you can't choose to moderate - the site chooses you. Slashdot also had several dimensions to it's moderation and allowed users to choose to consume content contrary to the community norm - eg you can choose to see more humour, even if the community in general doesn't like to view humour. Still the best system, on paper (I have no idea if they have to constantly fix things!?!) that I've seen.

blast 6y ago
Slashdot was never close to "scale". OP is talking about FB numbers.
- jandrese 6y ago
  The Slashdot system won't work so well for Facebook because on Slashdot everything is public. On Facebook the meta-moderators would be either seeing only posts from their friends (defeating the purpose), or posts from total strangers that they might not want leaking out. It would break the encapsulation of your friends list. One thing I do like about Slashdot is that they limit the total amount of score a post can get and how much each person can moderate at once. This makes it much much harder to brigade content, which is the usual problem with community based moderation.
jasode 6y ago
>Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. Self-moderation is basically what Stackoverflow is and a lot of users are not happy with the outcome. Most of the votes that close questions as "duplicates" and "not constructive" are done by fellow users. I tried to explain this previously[0] but unhappy Stackoverflow users still insist there's an "us vs them". And consider that Stackoverflow's userbase is a much smaller scale than Facebook. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Under a Slashdot style system the "closed-duplicate" questions would be downgraded for those users who choose; you might like dupes and so you could choose to boost dupes for yourself. The community provides a default position (duplicates closed), provides the information ('this is duplicate'), but under a Slashdot style system you can choose that content that others 'hide'.
searchableguy 6y ago
I think HN works because it's small and focused enough to exclude many people who otherwise would have used HN if HN wasn't the way it is. General platforms however are different. Twitter doesn't have a defined purpose other than some vague tagline. What kind of people does it attract? Definitely a bigger brush than HN.

blast 6y ago

Slashdot was never close to "scale". OP is talking about FB numbers.

jandrese 6y ago
The Slashdot system won't work so well for Facebook because on Slashdot everything is public. On Facebook the meta-moderators would be either seeing only posts from their friends (defeating the purpose), or posts from total strangers that they might not want leaking out. It would break the encapsulation of your friends list. One thing I do like about Slashdot is that they limit the total amount of score a post can get and how much each person can moderate at once. This makes it much much harder to brigade content, which is the usual problem with community based moderation.

jasode 6y ago

>Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. Self-moderation is basically what Stackoverflow is and a lot of users are not happy with the outcome. Most of the votes that close questions as "duplicates" and "not constructive" are done by fellow users. I tried to explain this previously[0] but unhappy Stackoverflow users still insist there's an "us vs them". And consider that Stackoverflow's userbase is a much smaller scale than Facebook. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Under a Slashdot style system the "closed-duplicate" questions would be downgraded for those users who choose; you might like dupes and so you could choose to boost dupes for yourself. The community provides a default position (duplicates closed), provides the information ('this is duplicate'), but under a Slashdot style system you can choose that content that others 'hide'.

searchableguy 6y ago

I think HN works because it's small and focused enough to exclude many people who otherwise would have used HN if HN wasn't the way it is. General platforms however are different. Twitter doesn't have a defined purpose other than some vague tagline. What kind of people does it attract? Definitely a bigger brush than HN.