posted by Michael on Fri 23rd Mar 2007 21:02
Conversations Problem: Moderation does not always seem fair, and modding down is misused. I have two suggestions: 1: Allow modding down, for any reason, comments with a score of 3 or more. OR 2: Rebalance the mods, keeping unlimitedly high scores but only displaying a rank - say, 5 for the top 5% of comments, 4 for the next 5%, 3 for the next 15%, 2 for the next 30% and 1 for the remaining 45% of positively scoring comments. Leave negaitve scores alone. Discuss.
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Modding is overrated
by RandomGuy on Sun 25th Mar 2007 00:36 UTC
Member since:

Imo modding is overrated.
First I thought (like you) that an elaborate modding system would raise the quality of OSNews significantly.
I even proposed things like the option to ignore users.

Now I've come to browse this site at -5. Why?
Because the amount of annoying and OT posts is quite low.
Furthermore you simply can't solve social problems with technical means, imo.
The need for an elaborate modding system - which does not exist currently - almost always indicates that the site has attracted too many trolls and that the editors have been too forgiving.

The simpler and more transparent the modding system the better.
But it needs to be anonymous, of course!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Modding is overrated
by Michael on Mon 26th Mar 2007 19:19 in reply to "Modding is overrated"
Michael Member since:

You make a good point.

However, I don't think browsing at -5 is an ideal solution either, unless it's the default. And while you can't solve social problems through technical means, you can cause them. I have recently had to defend someone who was being modded off the map for a perfectly valid, but pro-windows comment.

Besides, if you're going to have a mod system, it may as well work, and this one clearly doesn't. You can say you agree with someone or you can say they're spamming but that's it - nothing in between. And because modding is annonymous and unmoderated(!) it gets misused without correction (I assume).

I have to admit though, that I posted this, more because it entertains me to try and solve these sorts of problems, than because it's an important problem to solve ;)

Reply Score: 1