So, here I am again. It is, how many years since this moderation system was created? And how many zillion times I have complained? But basically the problem is still there, identical.
You don't get modded down because of one of the "legal" reasons, but because some A$$hole doesn't like your opinion.
Let's see the latest instance:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?351338
What is wrong with that? Is it trolling? Hardly, unless I am not allowed to say that I regret the rebranding of Firefox and Thunderbird and the disappearance of Seamonkey.
Is it off-offtopic? I can't see how.
Is it inaccurate? Again, I don't see how, considering that I am expressing only an opinion.
Or is it maybe that some *buntu kid can't stand me me calling Debian "the top distro, bar none"?
Whatever the explanation, the moderation system still gets abused.
No wonder when some people have less than 50% positive moderations.
For those who don't care to read my profile, mine is 85%.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
You can keep on complaining, and we'll keep on patiently explaining that the moderation system is designed to thwart stuff like this.
We have complex algorithms in place that deal with this sort of thing. Stop looking at your individual comments, and look at your averages. The system has been designed NOT to be influenced that easily. Personally, I know that a select number of individual routinely moderate down my posts, but I'm not freaking out because I know it doesn't matter, it doesn't change my average standing one bit.
The same applies to everyone else. User Kaiwai was systematically moderated down by a few individuals for weeks, maybe months on end - and it didn't have any effect on his standings whatsoever, because the moderation system detects such behaviour, and deals with it. The system is a lot more complex than you think.
Just because someone gave you one down moderation is no reason to start crying. The moderation system is working as good as it'll ever will, and if you can't handle a single measly downmod, then you have much bigger issues.
Member since:2005-07-06
I know that, and personally I find it wrong. I am used to the old, traditional methods where staff can't be moderated by users and where senior users get more respect. Eugenia didn't take it nicely, and she got a message of support from me.
As I have always said in such cases, it is about the principle. It is enough to shoot once in order to kill. A crime committed once (but I just mentioned the latest instance) ain't much better than a crime committed several times.
Besides, I don't post a lot here and I use self-censorship because of this moderation system, something I don't do in other forum. With other words, if I say in another forum that Ubuntu is overhyped crap, I'll be attacked and I know how to reply, but only a member of staff can mod me.
Odd enough, I find this idea of a "rule of the majority over the minority" profoundly undemocratic.
You, as a Dutchman, should agree with me about that.
Member since:2006-02-05
You are using really strong language to describe a number beside an exceedingly average post on an online forum.
Moderating is a time consuming, thankless, and fairly difficult process, crowd sourcing it makes sense when it is a small volunteer staff. Sure, the guy that modded you down was an idiot, but in the grand scheme of things the little number next to that post is exceedingly irrelivent.
Member since:2005-04-01
Look, we all get that you don't like the mod system. But it's not going to change significantly.
Here's where I think you continue to stumble: you can't outline what the ACTUAL problem is, because you are SO focused on the score of each comment you fail to see the big picture. I removed user average comment scores JUST FOR YOU. You reminded me how unnecessary it is. My next step is to remove percentage of moderation from all but admins, because it doesn't help you, the user.
One LAST time, to be clear: the GOAL of the mod system is to remove trash from the flow. It does that, and does it well. I don't really care if your comment is a 1, 2, or 3. It's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that, over long periods time, we can id the problem users and auto-locate them. We can. They get penalized with fewer mod points, or, eventually, suspension. PROFIT!
I don't understand what you want from the system. It appears the only thing that will make you happy is a person who is employed full time to work sifting through the comments for you. What ISN'T getting done today that a new mod system would fix?
BTW, if you can't make a very compelling case right now for what needs to be changed today, you should just let the issue die.
Member since:2005-04-01
On re-read:
How does that even make sense? It's more democratic to have a small group of admins with strong opinions than to have a much larger, much broader, much more diverse group of people modding? I don't think you understand what "democratic" means.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Odd enough, I find this idea of a "rule of the majority over the minority" profoundly undemocratic.
How does that even make sense? It's more democratic to have a small group of admins with strong opinions than to have a much larger, much broader, much more diverse group of people modding? I don't think you understand what "democratic" means. "
Good moderators should be like a democratic government, they should care for the needs of all.
If OTOH I can't say that "X" OS is shit without being attacked by its zealots, that is akin to belonging to a minority group (gay, black, foreigner) and being abused by the majority.
Regarding your previous post. How to change the moderation without too much "cost" for you?
Just like every other forum: engage trusted, volunteer moderators. People with a proven record of being impartial.
Member since:2005-07-06
If OTOH I can't say that "X" OS is shit without being attacked by its zealots, that is akin to belonging to a minority group (gay, black, foreigner) and being abused by the majority.
Regarding your previous post. How to change the moderation without too much "cost" for you?
Just like every other forum: engage trusted, volunteer moderators. People with a proven record of being impartial.
Democracy in the purist of meanings basically is the tyranny of the mob; wolves protecting the sheep - that is why the US was set up deliberately not to be a democracy but as a Republic.
Even a parliamentary democracy is not a democracy; with the move to individualism away from a collectivist identity, the purpose of politicians isn't just a matter of pandering to the mob but to also uphold the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the mob. Quite honestly, there is no democracy in the world in the purist of meaning of the word.
Member since:2005-06-29
Yes, and as soon as we find impartial people, we can all go hunt for unicorns, while sprinkled under fairy dust, in a land where the trees are made of chocolate and chocolate is made of trees.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I made two comments recently - the first was modded up to 3, the other was modded down to 1 (I start at 2). The funny thing to me, is that I am much happier with the comment that was modded down to 1, because it started a thread of 20 comments (many of them good comments). I don't like the comment that was modded up to 3, because there were no responses. For me, the goal is to start lively discussions, not see how many users give me the thumbs up.
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-08-29
I don't think they will change the moderation system, but any system that allows down votes inevitably turns into "i agree" or "i disagree" votes. If I were to design a moderation system, I would probably only allow up votes and have a report abuse link that would flag the post for an editor to look at. Then, just change the minimum comment threshold per story so that x posts show by default.
Member since:2005-07-06
That is also a good idea and it has been another suggestion of mine all along.
Member since:2005-08-12
Exactly. This is the solution. No feelings get hurt if you can only agree. The ability to quiet somebody because they voice an unpopular opinion is indeed detrimental to forming a sense of community, and community == ad revinue.
But an "agree" button doesn't have the added benefit of hiding obvious spam. So let's go through what kind of information you can derive from a simple "report abuse" link...
Say we have a user with tons of history, and randomly one of his posts gets flagged for moderation. It's safe to assume that whoever flagged his post was doing so in malice, because he is "trusted" due to his extensive history. If the post is only reported a few times, it can probably not even be shown in the "moderation queue" - maybe the person who wrongly flagged the post could even be punished! Perhaps if it is flagged more than just once or twice, it should be listed in the queue; that threshold is negotable.
Now let's say we have somebody who is newly registered with few or no posts, and a post gets flagged. It's likely that the flagging was genuinely necessary, so it should be listed as "high priority" in the moderation queue.
Etc. You should get the idea. I believe this presents a much fairer system than the one currently in place.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
What you don't understand is that we do not WANT to do moderation. Back when we did, it was a monumental disaster. Try running a large website with lots of comments every day, and you'll soon grow tired of people accusing you of unfair moderation, biased moderation, and whatnot. apart from that, it takes far too much time to sift through a moderation queue, read all the threads, and decide whether or not a comment should be deleted or not.
We don't want that. Our moderation system isn't perfect, but it does what it is supposed to do: automatically sift out spam, without hurting honest users.
I will repeat what I said before: if you feel the need to throw a fit every time someone gives you a downmod, then you have far bigger issues that no moderation system can fix.
Member since:
2006-01-23
Member since:2005-07-06
That is an extremely good point.
It is basically what is it all about: if you are a mature person, instead of modding down, you reply and explain why you disagree.
Member since:2005-06-29
Don't underestimate us. The system also takes care of this. Having multiple accounts on OSNews is very, very difficult, as we actively keep track of everything. I won't explain how we do it, but via our methods we prevent this from happening.
Member since:2005-07-06
I can't imagine how you would do that effectively. It's standard for web-based signup systems to disallow creation of new accounts that use an EMail that's already associated with an existing user account. But I've literally encountered middle school children who had multiple EMail accounts - so I doubt that would present any real obstacle to the typical OSNews reader.
And if you did it by IP address instead, then you run into the problem of false-positives - since having multiple computers behind a single IP address is the norm these days (E.g., I'm relatively certain that my roommate has an account here, and we both use the same internet connection).
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2006-01-23
Those are the people that ruin the internet.
Perhaps there aren't many but from the behaviour I've seen, I'd expect several but perhaps, it's a little clique. You'd think that they'd be 14 year olds but I think more likely that they're well into their twenties but as they say, Life happens.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I stopped caring long ago and I suggest you do the same. For me, those who moderate down my post basically just prove exactly what I state. If people feel the need to moderate down posts then it states more about their lack of rebuttal than any real valid contribution on the matter.
The only problem I have is, for example, if I make a post to a story - on a completely unrelated thread, I cannot moderate on a completely different thread on the same story. I can understand not moderating on the thread you're participating in but to stop moderation on the whole story after one post is pretty damn stupid.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
What attitude? The attitude that our data and experience shows that the moderation system is working perfectly? Our attitude that we are tired of explaining that that little number next to your comment means absolutely nothing at all? That it is the bigger picture you need to worry about? And that the biggest picture is protected by fancy algorithms which perform their duty so well that consistent downmods and mobbing-up against someone has zero effect?
Our attitude that we are tired of the same three people bringing forth the same three complaints every thee weeks, even though those three users rank among the top 20 of most trusted (and therefore, best-voted) commenters on OSNews?
Member since:2005-04-01
The funny thing is, when I saw you replied, I intended to leave a comment apologizing for being harsh when you had "come around," so to speak, but Thom nailed it. GET OVER IT.
The mod system does what we ask it to do perfectly, yet a few people are SO focused on each individual vote and appear to be unable to understand large numbers. In fact, it actually makes me laugh that anyone would suggest they have cut their entire use of the site for fear of the other users recklessly modding them. Puh-lease.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of mod points applied regularly, each individual one is meaningless. Do you think the one insignificant mod makes any difference at all? It's hilarious to me that the people who grouse the loudest are generally people with high trust. It's like you can't stand to be average: anything that threatens your ability to speak loudest amongst your peers is a personal offense.
Forget any apology - your problem isn't poor moderation (which does exist in small numbers from time to time), it's that you are unable to process that the mod system is about presenting a certain experience to our readers, and in that respect, it succeeds wildly.
Member since:
2005-07-24
I have an idea... I see it often on many other sites...
Have one 'grade' for how many people agree or disagree, and then another method to report abuse.
I'd just adapt the current model into this simplified model and leave it be.
[Reply] ... [Score: 1] [UP] [DOWN] [ABUSE: 0]
Here, the score reflects those who [dis]agree. Reporting abuse should be a bit more complex, and there should be an abuse index. The same complex algorithms currently used should be used with the abuse index, and the score should be left to simple math alone with false reports of abuse adding back to the average.
I'd hate to do the work, certainly, but once done it should be a end-all solution. Only the most abusive comments get moderated out of the discussion, with an automatic threshold which will be reviewed by staff at some point.
Heck, you can even bump up a degree of 'respect' for certain individuals to allow them to 'abuse' the rules a little more than average.
The possibilities are endless, but there is a big question as to the value :-)
Personally, I'd prefer this method over what is currently implemented - I get modded up because people agree, but I'm not technically supposed to be modded down unless I violate a rule.
Now, if need be, the score could be confidential, keep the current mod system but add a single negative selection : "Being Stupid." This could be a silent value, or could go 1/2 as strong towards the moderated score, whatever.
Many times I wanted to mod someone down because they were being completely stupid - but weren't violating any of the standard rules.
For that matter, a simple "Right On, Dude!" should be added on the positive side - of course the options keep growing... ;-(
Just my $0.31 ( used to be $0.02, but the dollar is collapsing more than most know ).
--The loon
Member since:
2005-07-06
The main problem I see with the current moderation system has more to do with its anonymity. I frequently see posts that are fairly mild / uncontroversial (to my eye, at least) - but are also modded-down and have no replies.
Based on that, I would guess that there are a decent number of users here who down-mod in order to anonymously "punish" or bury posts/posters they disagree with. I'm also guessing that said practice is contrary to the way that the moderation system is intended to be used (at least, I see no "Just to be petty (-1)" option in the moderation options).
If the admins here have no problem with that behaviour, then I would suggest giving up on the notion that it's a moderation system - rather than a purely-subjective rating system.
Member since:2005-07-06
If the admins here have no problem with that behaviour, then I would suggest giving up on the notion that it's a moderation system - rather than a purely-subjective rating system.
Exactly. But all they can say is that it must be me having God knows which psychiatric disorder.
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
1 
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.Glass is getting some love at Google I/O as well. New applications have been released - Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Elle, Tumblr, and CNN. Perhaps more interesting: the newly announced Google Glass Developer Kit will allow offline applications and direct hardware access - great for hacking and expanding Glass' potential. This kit will really allow hackers to put Glass through its paces."But Beck and Merrill decided that simply banning toxic players wasn't an acceptable solution for their game. Riot Games began experimenting with more constructive modes of player management through a formal player behavior initiative that actually conducts controlled experiments on its player base to see what helps reduce bad behavior. The results of that initiative have been shared at a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and on panels at the Penny Arcade Expo East and the Game Developers Conference." Absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm a League of Legends player, and to be honest, the community isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm happy Riot games has the guts to employ science to address the issue.