4 ms·
That's kind of how Slashdot used to work: you couldn't just up/down vote, you had to pick a reason why, from a list. "Insightful", "Funny", "Informative", etc.
by professoretc 5y ago
That's kind of how Slashdot used to work: you couldn't just up/down vote, you had to pick a reason why, from a list. "Insightful", "Funny", "Informative", etc. for upvotes, "Incorrect", "Trolling", "Off topic", etc. for downvotes. Of course, Slashdot also had meta moderation, where you could occasionally be given the job of up/downvoting other peoples' votes, which in turn influenced how often they would be allowed to vote in the future.
- nemo44x 5y agoI think it was the best system. Importantly - not having the power to moderate all the time. You were given a certain amount of moderation points at random times so you felt like you had to use them wisely. This prevents a site from being consumed by the same active up/down voters which creates an echo chamber. And yes, moderating the moderators was a decent idea too. I'd also support a system of moderation where you don't get to necessarily moderate whichever comments you want but rather are given moderation points and maybe a few comments within a topic are sent your way and it's you moderate those. This would prevent users from deliberately seeking out other users or topics to +/-.
- spiralx 5y agoThe top 10% of active users were actually prevented from getting moderation points at all, which helped prevent those users dominating the site. If you browsed /. a couple of times a week and read a few articles each time you'd likely get mod points each week, whereas I never once got them in a decade of reading the site because I was on there all the time.