Coffeehouse Thread

46 posts

Slashdot style moderation?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    shreyasonline wrote:
    

    "Ignore This Thread" would be better. Here only the SPAM/Racist like threads can be ignored instead of ignoring the user(s) totally.

    Shreyas Zare



    But the problem for me isn't ignoring complete threads. The problem is the "hijacked" threads that were perfectly valuable until trolls bring them down into flame wars. I want those threads (and any other) to live longer by content management of the thread itself. Simply ignoring threads wouldn't suffice for me because then a perfectly valuable thread would be gone simply because of trolling.

    blowdart wrote:
    

    What I think would be useful is a slightly cut back slashdot moderation; where you can mark comments as spam (and those marked enough they hide from those with the default view), whereas the rest of the options are positive (interesting, insightful, another blowdart post etc.) Perhaps the only other "negative" would be "off topic", where someone posts a technical question in the coffeehouse etc.



    I like this idea. Of course, I also like the more complete /. idea. I'm for anything that lets the community moderate itself and will help contribute to threads living longer, remaining on topic, and discouraging trolls.

    To do this though, I agree with jsampsonPC that you would need to find a way to prevent trolls from merely creating 10 different accounts and voting themselves up. OTOH, maybe this could be accomplished by weighting the various values. Meaning, a "SPAM" vote would only be negated by five "Interesting" votes or something like that. But my fear with that (talking to myself here Tongue Out) would be that anyone who posts about a good "opposing" feature could be bashed into oblivion by someone like DarthVista (I love ya' man, but I don't want your prevalent "message" becoming all we see on C9, sorry). I for one like the opposing opinions and viewpoints.

    Regardless of all that though, I think _some_ kind of community-based moderation would be a good thing. If the C9 community is moderating itself, it's merely one less argument that MS is tightly controlling the content here to push its own agenda (why do I fear that a troll is going to pick up that comment and derail this thread Embarassed).

  • User profile image
    Human​Compiler

    shreyasonline wrote:
    
    Rory wrote: 
    Massif wrote:
    We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.



    Yeah... the problem with ignoring is that you'll still see posts from the user mingled in with the thread - you just won't see posts directly from the user you're ignoring.

    It can make things a bit strange.

     

    "Ignore This Thread" would be better. Here only the SPAM/Racist like threads can be ignored instead of ignoring the user(s) totally.

    Shreyas Zare



    Ignore this thread is something we've been thinking about for a while.  We need a really good way to do this and need to think about it, but we believe it would be useful.

    LaBomba wrote:
    I don't know who mentioned it (maybe adam or duncan..) but when you vote to ignore a user their posts aren't completely lost but rather become minimized and you would need to click to expand; to view the post(s) from that user.

    So because we agree that darthvista is a troll; albeit an entertaining one. While his posts won't show up by default it's still there for you, if you are looking for a laugh.



    This is basically what we're thinking.  But thanks to Rory spawning this thread, it helped refine the idea (at least in my head) a bit.

    So how I'm picturing it as a feature where you can say "ignore user".  That is ALWAYS is applied to conversations and shows their posts grayed out, but you can click expand if you REALLY must see what they're saying.  Then, the number of ignores is tallied per user that then fits into a rating (0 through 9 maybe?  Wink).  Users can then opt in for how high of a rating they want to ignore, so then their ignore list becomes a combination of who they think should be ignored, combined with who the community thinks should be ignored.  And if there's a lot of abuse to that system, people will most likely just opt out.  So the true control is there for each individual user, while giving the community control as well, but still up to each person on how much "advice" to take from the community.

    What do you all think?

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.

    My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.

  • User profile image
    Human​Compiler

    JasonOlson wrote:
    My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.


    Ignoring at the thread level is completely up to you and on a thread by thread basis and unrelated to ignoring users.

    JasonOlson wrote:
    
    My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.


    This is exactly what we're planning.  You'll have to wait until Adam posts the the screenshots, but the idea is and ignored comment by someone on your ignore list shows up as grayed out and only has an "expand this comments" link and the user's name.  You will not be able to see what happens beneath that comment unless you explicitly click on the expand link.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    I have mixed opinions about it.  In some ways I like it, others I dont.  But when trying to keep trolls like DarthVista, FDisk and others from ruining the forums.  I also like OSNews style of moderation and would be much more in favor of that.  The threshold, where a user visibility is based on his score, where basically if he trolls too much he goes into negative numbers and is not visible based on the readers settings.

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    HumanCompiler wrote:
    
    JasonOlson wrote: My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.


    Ignoring at the thread level is completely up to you and on a thread by thread basis and unrelated to ignoring users.

    JasonOlson wrote: 
    My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.


    This is exactly what we're planning.  You'll have to wait until Adam posts the the screenshots, but the idea is and ignored comment by someone on your ignore list shows up as grayed out and only has an "expand this comments" link and the user's name.  You will not be able to see what happens beneath that comment unless you explicitly click on the expand link.


    Ahhh. If that's the case, it sounds good to me Smiley.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    JasonOlson wrote:
    The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.


    What about the ability to ban a specific user from a thread? That way a person, or persons, can be removed from a thread if they are dragging it down. Their previous posts in that thread would remain, but they would not be able to create any more. Then (hopefully) the thread might be able to get back on track. They would still be allowed to post elsewhere, though.

    Whether this is better done by moderators, or by a "kick vote", I'm not quite sure yet.

    Edit: Their previous posts in the thread should be uneditable as well.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Favor ignoring trolls, posts, threads, videos, and whatever does not interest you.

    Oppose moderation of forums.

    Favor representative republics.

    Oppose democracy.

    Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    Cool 

  • User profile image
    ronin1855

    I for one welcome our mod point awarding overlords. Also, I think there is a little FUD going on about community based modding. It isn't that bad is it? Sure it can be abused, but so can most systems, but it allows for feedback & more granualar moderation.

  • User profile image
    Oberon

    I think the main reason /. needs the moderation system it has is because of the volume of posts. When a single topic can generate over 500 posts, it becomes impossible to read every response unless someone is paying you to do it full time. You have to have some system to help people decide what is worth reading.

    The problem with their system is, as others have pointed out, that people end up modding down posts just because they disagree with what was said. When I used to read slashdot regularly, it was common for anyone who posted a comment critical of Linux or supportive of Microsoft to get modded down as a troll.  But if you were pro-open source, pro-Linux, anti-Windows, anti-Microsoft you could get away with making insulting , inflammatory posts. There was a huge double standard.  That was one of the things that made me stop reading Slashdot. Maybe things are better now. But I doubt it.

    I would vote to stay away from Slashdot style moderation, unless your goal is to eliminate unpopular opinions.


Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.