http://www4.osnews.com/top
Also, to coincide with this, I will be extending the number of elligible moderations SIGNIFICANTLY to offset the potential large number of upvotes or downvotes. This is all very experimental. I have major changes planned for the moderation system of OSNews, and this is just step 1.
Post a Comment
In reply to a previous question from you: I can't mod admins, neither in v3 nor in v4. In v4 the moderation option is simply invisible for me when it comes to admins.
Another matter: in my profile I have: 82% positive moderations. This never changes, which is a bit odd considering that I hardly ever mod anybody down.
I'm looking into this. This will be fixed (at least in v4) today.
88 unknown votes (first months of moderation, before we record direction)
131 down mods
997 up mods
997/1216 = 82%
You need several more up mods - more than 50 straight - before it will switch to 83%.
I understand that this is only the first step. But doesn't this pretty seriously skew the whole average comment score thing? Some people have thousands of posts limited to +5, and new people are coming in and getting 25+ on their posts. Isn't that going to make the old timers look bad for a long time to come?
If you *did* want to retain some sort of "score" for users, an exponentially smoothed weighted moving average might be the best way to do it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_smoothing
The wikipedia article is a bit dry. I actually prefer John Walker's explanation in his essay "The Hacker's Diet".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html
New users' scores could be proloaded with some number of virtual comments at some value. Perhaps the overall system average. As they post more, the effect of the loading would gradually go away. Existing users could be preloaded with the same number of posts at their current average.
Just a thought. And it might be fun to implement! ;-)






0 