3 ms·

Slashdot has a basic solution to this: moderation votes with a category. You can vote up or down, in a specific category: Insightful, Interesting, Informative,

Slashdot has a basic solution to this: moderation votes with a category. You can vote up or down, in a specific category: Insightful, Interesting, Informative, Irrelevant, Flamebait, Funny, etc. If your comment has a -2, you usually know why. I've suggested it about 50 times here. Not the same categories, but some form of metadata associated with the vote. As soon as you click the arrow, it can prompt a list of tags to click. You could very quickly express yourself along with your vote and move along. My suggestions for categories would be emotional (angry, happy, funny, confused, indifferent, stupid, crazy, awesome) and non-emotional (citation needed, seems right, false, morality, ethics, expert, novice, etc). This way you get a good picture of why somebody voted: what their emotional state was, and what their (perceived) intellectual position was. Perhaps one reason it doesn't happen is it would fundamentally change the dynamics of the ingroups here. You'll notice that on some posts, it seems like everyone is parroting the same opinion as if it's an established fact. Or they upvote someone's comment because they have a high reputation. If you had to add a qualifier to your vote, it may quickly become transparent why these people are voting, and then the algorithm would have to change so as not to expose these defects in group social dynamics. Or the algorithm would stay the same, and people could see that the structure of the forum is based on a lot of crappy human heuristics and not strictly adhering to "the rules".

bawolff 6y ago
I'm not sure /. moderation should be used as a model - for whatever reason, the moderation system at hn seems to produce much more mature discussion than /. ever did.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  The effects of any moderation system are to encourage what the moderators want and discourage what they don't. The norms on HN are very different from the norms on Slashdot, and most of Reddit, which is why you get mature discussion here and not always elsewhere. You can see how the literal moderation system has not much to do with the type of discussion by going into some of the more heavily moderated Reddit subs. Believe it or not, there are lots of subs that are not full of jokes, puns, general unseriousness, and/or toxicity. It just depends on the crowd you attract (which is highly determined by the rules and moderation policy of the sub), what the moderators tolerate, and what they discourage.
onecommentman 6y ago
Is there a way to prototype the idea on a smaller set of postings? Perhaps have a setting by user name. When making a downvote, you would be presented with an option for reason if the poster has that setting for their account. I think of this forum as a well-moderated “put a penny in the pot” sort of place. You say your piece and move on. You put your penny in because you’ve gotten pennies in the past. Nice to know you’re generally making a positive rather than a negative contribution, but ultimately it’s just pixels on a screen. But others quite reasonably want more feedback. Perhaps to refine their ideas, or to improve on their presentation or persuasion skills. Be nice for them to have the option to get that feedback. Perhaps the setting would also be enforced on the first five postings from new accounts, or if the user is an obvious troll or shill. For the new account, the feedback should be softened as they ease into the culture. Perhaps with helpful tips. In-groups are everywhere, sadly. Easier to address if you have a solid sense of self-esteem and a proven track record in life to support you if you are swimming against the stream. Perhaps the movie “Twelve Angry Men” might be of service. Outsider status can be quite powerful in its own way...

bawolff 6y ago

I'm not sure /. moderation should be used as a model - for whatever reason, the moderation system at hn seems to produce much more mature discussion than /. ever did.

pmiller2 6y ago
The effects of any moderation system are to encourage what the moderators want and discourage what they don't. The norms on HN are very different from the norms on Slashdot, and most of Reddit, which is why you get mature discussion here and not always elsewhere. You can see how the literal moderation system has not much to do with the type of discussion by going into some of the more heavily moderated Reddit subs. Believe it or not, there are lots of subs that are not full of jokes, puns, general unseriousness, and/or toxicity. It just depends on the crowd you attract (which is highly determined by the rules and moderation policy of the sub), what the moderators tolerate, and what they discourage.

onecommentman 6y ago

Is there a way to prototype the idea on a smaller set of postings? Perhaps have a setting by user name. When making a downvote, you would be presented with an option for reason if the poster has that setting for their account. I think of this forum as a well-moderated “put a penny in the pot” sort of place. You say your piece and move on. You put your penny in because you’ve gotten pennies in the past. Nice to know you’re generally making a positive rather than a negative contribution, but ultimately it’s just pixels on a screen. But others quite reasonably want more feedback. Perhaps to refine their ideas, or to improve on their presentation or persuasion skills. Be nice for them to have the option to get that feedback. Perhaps the setting would also be enforced on the first five postings from new accounts, or if the user is an obvious troll or shill. For the new account, the feedback should be softened as they ease into the culture. Perhaps with helpful tips. In-groups are everywhere, sadly. Easier to address if you have a solid sense of self-esteem and a proven track record in life to support you if you are swimming against the stream. Perhaps the movie “Twelve Angry Men” might be of service. Outsider status can be quite powerful in its own way...