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:

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 1277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by averycfay
by Alex Forster on Tue 10th Mar 2009 21:37 UTC
Alex Forster
Member since:

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.

ReplyParent Score: 2