posted by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 3rd Mar 2009 10:21
Conversations 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%.
Permalink for comment 1276
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
An idea...
by looncraz on Tue 10th Mar 2009 07:56 UTC
looncraz
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

Reply Score: 2