Can we rate comments like slashdot? November 16, 2001 1:21 PM Subscribe
What do people think about a ./ -like feature allowing you to rate comments made by others, and then a filter feature allowing you to ignore comments below a certain threshold?
I think it stinks, because I dislike the tyranny of the masses. The fact that an opinion is unpopular doesn't mean it is unworthy of being read.
And yes, this has been discussed (and rejected) many times.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:29 PM on November 16, 2001
And yes, this has been discussed (and rejected) many times.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:29 PM on November 16, 2001
what about moderated threads (say, by subject matter experts who take turns on a rotating daily, weekly, or monthly basis), or do you think that this is just a waste of time and would rather see every single post?
posted by purplecow at 1:35 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by purplecow at 1:35 PM on November 16, 2001
Greg, you're new and seem enthusiastic, but you're asking a lot of questions and starting a lot of threads here. Why not just email me a summary of things on your mind and I'll point you to the tomes I've written on why exactly the site is non threaded, non moderated, not categorized, not sorted by topics, et al.
Everything has a purpose here, and I'm not trying to make this site appeal to every user and every idea on earth.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:42 PM on November 16, 2001
Everything has a purpose here, and I'm not trying to make this site appeal to every user and every idea on earth.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:42 PM on November 16, 2001
Also check out kuro5hin.org if highly structured, filtered information is what you are looking for. They take the slashdot approach to the next level. Personally, I like it, but I'm not planning on incorporating those kinds of features anytime soon.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:46 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:46 PM on November 16, 2001
howd purplecow get two posts in...or is it one post in mefi and one in meta and the system just limits us to two posts a day?
posted by clavdivs at 2:26 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 2:26 PM on November 16, 2001
I think MeTa is still unmoderated in that respect. Maybe this will change things, though -- he actually had three posts, but one was deleted earlier.
posted by j.edwards at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by j.edwards at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2001
Moderation is a nice idea that doesn't usually work. Especially not by mob rule. It would require a small number of people which would only support the stupid "cabal" idea, so no.
Tangentially, my favorite Slashdot tagline:
You're a shitty moderator.
posted by Su at 4:08 PM on November 16, 2001
Tangentially, my favorite Slashdot tagline:
You're a shitty moderator.
posted by Su at 4:08 PM on November 16, 2001
It would require a small number of people which would only support the stupid "cabal" idea, so no.
Yes, it would require a small number of (trusted) people, and yes, it would 'support' that cabal nonsense. However, it's the only way to distribute the administrative duties. Of course Matt would only pick people he knows and trusts for such a responsibility. People would whine about it, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit.
What's the difference between moderation by Matt and moderation by Matt and a few trusted friends? To Matt, it means less work, less worry, etc. To us, it should be a minimal difference. If you feel someone is abusing their power, you can always email Matt.
posted by gleemax at 4:47 PM on November 16, 2001
Yes, it would require a small number of (trusted) people, and yes, it would 'support' that cabal nonsense. However, it's the only way to distribute the administrative duties. Of course Matt would only pick people he knows and trusts for such a responsibility. People would whine about it, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit.
What's the difference between moderation by Matt and moderation by Matt and a few trusted friends? To Matt, it means less work, less worry, etc. To us, it should be a minimal difference. If you feel someone is abusing their power, you can always email Matt.
posted by gleemax at 4:47 PM on November 16, 2001
gleemax: I'm going out on a limb here - I think only Matt can do what Matt does - but there are, to us newbies, a number of people who can indisputably be trusted to be fair. Of course, whoever Matt trusts is foremost. But perhaps it would help if we users gave him an idea. I advance these names, off the top of my head, knowing they'll probably be decried but, hey, from(my limited) past experience, all these users seem very equitable to me: rebeccablood; holgate; tamim; waxpancake; fooljay; rodii; mattpfeff; y6y6y6; Marquis; gleemax; rushmc; bragadocchio; postroad; rcade; kindall; Su; Doug; randy...and some others. I just realized how long my list was; sorry. I realize it's weird to name names but people have been beating about the bush for too long, IMO, and perhaps it's time to get the ball rolling, if we sincerely want Matt to have more time to
Gleemax's proviso, though - that there be a mechanism for warning about abuses of power - seems all-important.
There should definitely be a democratic voting system if this plan - carefully monitored - is to go through. But. as I said, if Matt is willing to carry on, then that's perfect, as there's nothing wrong - and a lot right - with MetaFilter. Any change would only be for the worse. So we're talking about minimizing damages here, in essence.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:42 PM on November 16, 2001
Gleemax's proviso, though - that there be a mechanism for warning about abuses of power - seems all-important.
There should definitely be a democratic voting system if this plan - carefully monitored - is to go through. But. as I said, if Matt is willing to carry on, then that's perfect, as there's nothing wrong - and a lot right - with MetaFilter. Any change would only be for the worse. So we're talking about minimizing damages here, in essence.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:42 PM on November 16, 2001
Miguel: paragraph breaks. ;)
posted by solistrato at 5:44 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by solistrato at 5:44 PM on November 16, 2001
Correction: If we sincerely want Matt to have more time to himself.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:45 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:45 PM on November 16, 2001
consider - how much time would matt have to spend coding and maintaining admin tools for moderators to use in their acts of moderation?
afaik there is no web interface for pruning and editing threads - any such manipulation is done directly with queries to the database
i have a feeling that if this sort of scheme was to matt's liking he would of implemented it....
posted by sawks at 6:22 PM on November 16, 2001
afaik there is no web interface for pruning and editing threads - any such manipulation is done directly with queries to the database
i have a feeling that if this sort of scheme was to matt's liking he would of implemented it....
posted by sawks at 6:22 PM on November 16, 2001
sawks: "if this sort of scheme was to matt's liking"
Well, perhaps the idea is growing on him. From a post on the 14th:
mathowie: "...keeping the squirrels in the background running the site takes a lot of work. It's a lot of hassle and a lot of work sometimes, and I really need to start farming out the admin duties, which take the most time."
posted by Marquis at 6:52 PM on November 16, 2001
Well, perhaps the idea is growing on him. From a post on the 14th:
mathowie: "...keeping the squirrels in the background running the site takes a lot of work. It's a lot of hassle and a lot of work sometimes, and I really need to start farming out the admin duties, which take the most time."
posted by Marquis at 6:52 PM on November 16, 2001
Miguel: all these users seem very equitable to me: ...
I bet Matt would choose only people he lives near. That way, if they do something stupid, he can kick their ass.
sawks: how much time would matt have to spend coding and maintaining admin tools for moderators to use in their acts of moderation?
Good point. However, it's a one time thing for the tools. Any bugs would likely represent less work than how much time he spends moderating MetaFilter (I bet).
posted by gleemax at 9:23 PM on November 16, 2001
I bet Matt would choose only people he lives near. That way, if they do something stupid, he can kick their ass.
sawks: how much time would matt have to spend coding and maintaining admin tools for moderators to use in their acts of moderation?
Good point. However, it's a one time thing for the tools. Any bugs would likely represent less work than how much time he spends moderating MetaFilter (I bet).
posted by gleemax at 9:23 PM on November 16, 2001
i am utterly crushed that i do not seem like moderator material.
posted by moz at 9:37 PM on November 16, 2001
posted by moz at 9:37 PM on November 16, 2001
i am utterly crushed that i do not seem like moderator material.
Stick with hall monitor.
posted by y2karl at 10:04 PM on November 16, 2001
Stick with hall monitor.
posted by y2karl at 10:04 PM on November 16, 2001
Another problem is that someone might surreptitiously delete or modify old posts. This could be handled in a number of ways.
1. Notify Matt of any non-recent changes.
2. Don't let them moderate any more than the most recent 24 hours (I like this one).
3. Nofity Matt of all changes (this might be too bothersome, I'm not sure).
However, it might be nice to let people fix ancient HTML errors, fix broken links, and (perhaps) weed out completely useless posts. This would unfortunately require supervision or the approval of more than one moderator.
Has anyone proposed something like that yet? Let the underlings (deputies, whatever) vote or require at least two or three people to make a change. That could actually be a more elegant solution to the first problem.
posted by gleemax at 12:13 AM on November 17, 2001
1. Notify Matt of any non-recent changes.
2. Don't let them moderate any more than the most recent 24 hours (I like this one).
3. Nofity Matt of all changes (this might be too bothersome, I'm not sure).
However, it might be nice to let people fix ancient HTML errors, fix broken links, and (perhaps) weed out completely useless posts. This would unfortunately require supervision or the approval of more than one moderator.
Has anyone proposed something like that yet? Let the underlings (deputies, whatever) vote or require at least two or three people to make a change. That could actually be a more elegant solution to the first problem.
posted by gleemax at 12:13 AM on November 17, 2001
I like MeFi as it is. I feel like having people address each other directly in the thread by pointing out double posts, etc., makes for a better community than something impersonal like having your comments modded down by an anonymous moderator, without so much as a "hey, interesting link, but it's been done." Sure, with the recent influx of new members, that results in a spike in the noise in the channel, but I think it's a more human approach, and I kind of like that.
posted by MonkeyMeat at 12:44 AM on November 17, 2001
posted by MonkeyMeat at 12:44 AM on November 17, 2001
However, it might be nice to let people fix ancient HTML errors, fix broken links, and (perhaps) weed out completely useless posts. This would unfortunately require supervision or the approval of more than one moderator.
Maybe something similar to what bugzilla does but for corrections... someone posts a correction request, at a page setup for that purpose (listing post #, reason for correction, etc.), for approval by a moderator who would verify or decline the correction and mark it accordingly and then another moderator could approve or disallow the correction?
just an idea???
posted by tilt at 9:48 AM on November 18, 2001
Maybe something similar to what bugzilla does but for corrections... someone posts a correction request, at a page setup for that purpose (listing post #, reason for correction, etc.), for approval by a moderator who would verify or decline the correction and mark it accordingly and then another moderator could approve or disallow the correction?
just an idea???
posted by tilt at 9:48 AM on November 18, 2001
I've misplaced my clavdivs-to-English dictionary. D&D reference? Something about Bloom self-gratifying on the beach? C'mon, throw me a bone here.
posted by gleuschk at 9:59 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by gleuschk at 9:59 AM on November 18, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by solistrato at 1:25 PM on November 16, 2001