3 ms·

Does this have something to do with the strike? (E.g. you think the moderation is still ongoing despite the supposed strike, or worse than before?) Or is this

by jsnell 3y ago

Does this have something to do with the strike? (E.g. you think the moderation is still ongoing despite the supposed strike, or worse than before?) Or is this just a generic SO complaint?

ftxbro 3y ago
I feel like you are itching to get his hacker news answer nitpicked over its relevance, downvoted, and finally removed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jsnell 3y ago
  I mean, yes. Wouldn't it be pretty nice for the top comment to be relevant to the article rather than the 500th rerun of the same SO moderation complaints?
  - ricardo81 3y ago
    Understandable comment. To be fair, the SO community (and moderation) clearly play an important role in the utility of the site, in the same way Wikipedia editors are held to high scrutiny for their objectivity. Surely if enough people have reasonable objections based on past experiences, that is relevant.
berkle4455 3y ago
These “generic” complaints are why SO is a dead platform and also why nobody really cares about the moderator strike. It’s not that we don’t empathize with them (moderating a deluge of chatGPT garbage is impossible), it’s that we just don’t care about SO. It’s dead like Quora.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  Calling SO 'dead' like Quora is not only extremely dramatic but also have you looked at Quora? Ever? I still find SO extremely valuable even if some parts of it can be extremely nitpicky. To some extent you need a hardass moderation team and community in order to prevent it from being destroyed over time. See: Wikipedia.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    Agreed. I visit stack overflow every day. It's usually helpful, concise and correct.
- geysersam 3y ago
  > moderating a deluge of chatGPT garbage is impossible Why do you think that? I see quite a lot of garbage produced by the more meaty intelligences on the internet. And I don't understand why it'd be intrinsically more difficult to moderate ChatGPT content than any other.
  - codetrotter 3y ago
    Because ChatGPT: - multiplies the rate at which people are able to produce content by many orders of magnitude, and - uses sophisticated sounding language with a lot of correct statements, sprinkled with a few hallucinations that can be anywhere from slightly off-base to dangerously wrong, and - doesn’t even need a human much in the loop on the producing side. Certainly there are karma farming bots posting answers written by ChatGPT right as we speak So content produced by ChatGPT takes more time to review for the people looking into factual correctness of the answer while at the same time is able to be submitted at a much higher frequency than before.
fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
The predilection of SO moderators to overzealously remove answers seems clearly relevant to the question of whether it’s a good idea to give them the power to remove any answer because it has an AI vibe according to inaccurate AI detection tools.
- oliwarner 3y ago
  It's important to highlight that SO mods remove very little. Almost the whole community can contribute and in my experience (as a mod) it's usually the enthusiasm of non-mod users that causes the problems you're describing. They gamified community moderation. When you reward people for taking action, expect people to take lots of action.

by jsnell 3y ago

Does this have something to do with the strike? (E.g. you think the moderation is still ongoing despite the supposed strike, or worse than before?) Or is this just a generic SO complaint?

ftxbro 3y ago

I feel like you are itching to get his hacker news answer nitpicked over its relevance, downvoted, and finally removed.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jsnell 3y ago
I mean, yes. Wouldn't it be pretty nice for the top comment to be relevant to the article rather than the 500th rerun of the same SO moderation complaints?
- ricardo81 3y ago
  Understandable comment. To be fair, the SO community (and moderation) clearly play an important role in the utility of the site, in the same way Wikipedia editors are held to high scrutiny for their objectivity. Surely if enough people have reasonable objections based on past experiences, that is relevant.

berkle4455 3y ago

These “generic” complaints are why SO is a dead platform and also why nobody really cares about the moderator strike. It’s not that we don’t empathize with them (moderating a deluge of chatGPT garbage is impossible), it’s that we just don’t care about SO. It’s dead like Quora.

fzeroracer 3y ago
Calling SO 'dead' like Quora is not only extremely dramatic but also have you looked at Quora? Ever? I still find SO extremely valuable even if some parts of it can be extremely nitpicky. To some extent you need a hardass moderation team and community in order to prevent it from being destroyed over time. See: Wikipedia.
- geysersam 3y ago
  Agreed. I visit stack overflow every day. It's usually helpful, concise and correct.
geysersam 3y ago
> moderating a deluge of chatGPT garbage is impossible Why do you think that? I see quite a lot of garbage produced by the more meaty intelligences on the internet. And I don't understand why it'd be intrinsically more difficult to moderate ChatGPT content than any other.
- codetrotter 3y ago
  Because ChatGPT: - multiplies the rate at which people are able to produce content by many orders of magnitude, and - uses sophisticated sounding language with a lot of correct statements, sprinkled with a few hallucinations that can be anywhere from slightly off-base to dangerously wrong, and - doesn’t even need a human much in the loop on the producing side. Certainly there are karma farming bots posting answers written by ChatGPT right as we speak So content produced by ChatGPT takes more time to review for the people looking into factual correctness of the answer while at the same time is able to be submitted at a much higher frequency than before.

fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago

The predilection of SO moderators to overzealously remove answers seems clearly relevant to the question of whether it’s a good idea to give them the power to remove any answer because it has an AI vibe according to inaccurate AI detection tools.

oliwarner 3y ago
It's important to highlight that SO mods remove very little. Almost the whole community can contribute and in my experience (as a mod) it's usually the enthusiasm of non-mod users that causes the problems you're describing. They gamified community moderation. When you reward people for taking action, expect people to take lots of action.