Assorted Slashdot Updates 156
As the dust is settling around my recent coding frenzy, here is a bunch of updates to the system:I've added a field for users to store their Public Keys on their User Info page. The M2 page is now linked into the system (if you have access anyway). The Comments on the M2
page also link the story that the comment is attached to (and please read the notes on the page: duplicate comments are not a bug!). I
removed the sig from Logged in AC previews (it only affected previews,
but it was scaring people). Both the FAQ and the Moderation Guidelines have been updated. And the grand Slashbox Poo-Bah
CowboyNeal reports that
AuctionBeagle, Security Focus, TheNextLevel, Gnotices, and WomenGamers are the latest additions to the SlashBoxes. Enjoy.
Re:Karma (Score:1)
Re:MetaModeration (Score:1)
Re:MetaModeration (Score:1)
Public keys on slashdot is a horrible idea (Score:2)
Re:MetaModeration (Score:3)
P.S. I HAVE AN ID but I refuse to log in. I am protesting the SNOBS at /. and their views of AC's...
Hmmm... I've been frequenting this site since January, and until now I've seen it as open, fun, and interesting. But since the deal with trolls and the W. Richard Stevens story, this place has become rather elitist.
It seems now that if you're an Anonymous Coward, you're somehow "bad," your posts aren't worth reading, and you don't deserve any respect. But if you have an account, people listen to you, moderators look favourably on you, and you're "part of the club." In fact, that's the way it seems. Slashdot is becoming a sort of exclusive club.
Now, on the other hand, requiring an account to post messages is not asking a lot. On many other website discussion groups, you need an account (like on MP3.com [mp3.com], for instance). An even better example would be this: In my city, we have a "FreeNet," where people can get free email and newsgroup access. There are also private newsgroups, exclusive to the FreeNet, in a variety of topics, where you can chat with local residents, post want ads, etc. It's actually a very nice service. But you need an account to post messages on the newsgroups and use the service to its fullest. Without an account, you can log in as a guest and read the newsgroups, but you can't post. Membership is free. (Though they beg you for money like mad...)
But having Anonymous Coward posting on Slashdot does have its advantages -- like inside information employees of a company could give that would get them fired if their identities were revealed. Even showing their IP address would be dangerous in this case. There is also the fact that it prevents newbies from feeling alienated when they first use the site, and it allows them to get a feel for it before getting an account.
Now, I read some of the offending W. Richard Stevens comments. That stuff is disgusting. But if you feel so strongly about this, why didn't you delete the obscene comments? How hard is that?
But back to my original point -- this is starting to become an exclusive club, of sorts. I've started to see less and less Anonymous Coward posts lately. Maybe you won't have to remove anonymous posting -- it'll die out by itself.
But then again... I'm just an Anonymous Coward -- what in the world do I know?
MetaModeration (Score:2)
People are NOT Moderating the comment, rather the Moderation it recieved.
On the same moderation issue, one of the most important things to do is to know who anonymous posters are. (for Rob)
Here is an example of a way to do it:
Like many newspapers, the New York Times publishes anonymous letters to the editor, however the editors of the paper verify the identity of the writer, they just don't publish it. Rob has moved in that direction and I applaud it.
Think about this:
1) Rob never needs to look at who posts anonymously, but he can if a problem arrises.
2) It leaves the possibility to change cowards karma despite being anonymous. (not sure how that would work out)
just my $.02,
-Davidu
Let me clarify (Score:1)
And yeah, I guess being able to opt out would be nice. I just think it'd be nice to write an email to anybody who's registered at
Re:and spammy (Score:1)
LDAP directory of users? (Score:3)
Re:Karma (Score:1)
So I checked and I'm Official Slashdot Addict #132.. I didn't know I was that far up.. but now that I think about it I think I signed up the first day the user system was available.
As for deleting, there is no way I know of.
Re:MetaModeration (Score:2)
Yes, but wouldn't it be better if he had no way of knowing who posted something libellous or whatever? That was he can't be subpoenaed or in anyway responsible, which I'd say is better.
Re:Karma cheating? (Score:1)
---
Re:Let me clarify (Score:2)
Obsequious gushing of praise (Score:1)
Damn, I hate to gush, but this is cool. I just had a go of the M2 (after working hard over the last couple of days to overcome a mysterious -1 karma I'd somehow acquired, despite never having been moderated in either direction, to my knowledge), and it was good fun. And Security Focus and Gnotices are two very welcome additions to the Slashbox collection!
Three cheers for Slashdot!
Re:Let me clarify (Score:2)
Public key box is nice, but please use key servers (Score:5)
--
Yes! (Score:2)
I never expected such quick service from Rob. *big grin*
Anyhow, the above comment is exactly what I was hoping would happen.
The people who were a bit hesitant about the idea yesterday have a very good point: you should use keyservers. I have had my keys up on keyservers for some time.
But I still think that having a Public Key display on Slashdot is a useful thing, and am glad Rob thought so, too, if only for further publicity of PGP and GnuPG.
Thanks, Rob!
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
first impression: the system works (Score:1)
I have one desire: could we have an option to sort responses by the author's karma rather than the post's rating? I think that would be, in the very least, an interesting option with which to play.
The amazing disappearing karma (Score:2)
And it creeps back . . . (Score:2)
Hmm, is a penta-thingy handling this?
Karma should keep (Score:1)
Communicator problem with M2 (Score:2)
Flo
My questions about M2 (Score:3)
I have tried two days of meta moderating now and I came up with a couple of observations and questions about the process.
First of all, I must admit that I hit the back button and rehit the meta moderate link a couple of times until I got a batch of moderations I felt comfortable with. There were always one or two questions I didn't feel sure about, and I feel that leaving them unrated is just a third choice indicating neutrality. Like when you feel a moderation isn't really unfair, but perhaps just unnecessary. Maybe I gave the whole thing too much thought in general, I looked at the parent link 7 out of 10 times or so.
I proceeded carefully, I just didn't want to ruin my chance at getting normal moderator status. In a way, the whole meta moderation worries me a bit.. it seems, you can lose eligibility to moderate if you do badly, but you don't win anything noticeable for doing well. Or do you? The way I see it, now, it seems best to do it just once and try to do it best you can.
At times I wasn't sure about distinctions between several positive or several negative moderations. Unfortunately I can't go back to the moderation page to get the link for an example because I've already done a meta moderation today. But I'll try to describe it.
For instance the question would be "is this +1 for 'insightful' a good moderation" and although the article moderated on provided an anecdote that I would certainly have qualified as 'interesting' or maybe 'informative', it was not an article that provided a good overview of or new insight into the larger topic, i.e. what I would call an 'insightful' article. It was just a description of a real life example implementation of something that was being discussed.
I did agree with the positive moderation in general, and I might have rewarded the article with moderation myself if I'd had points, but I would not have put it in the category 'insightful'. For that reason I should've judged the moderation 'unfair', but I agreed with the general sentiment and didn't want to be overly critical so I left them unrated.
Am I taking things too seriously? Maybe I'm just not a good meta moderator. I don't find it to be an easy thing to do. Often I'm not satisfied with just clicking the buttons and I want to add a commentary of my thoughts on the moderation. But that's probably taking the moderation issue too far, it's really more interesting to just discuss a real article instead.
Flo
Re:Public Keys? (Score:5)
The private key you keep for yourself, and don't allow anyone else access to. This is what you use when signing something, or when decrypting something that is encrypted with your public key.
Your public key you can post on a website, publish to a keyserver, or even send via e-mail. This is what is used by other people to encrypt things. Something encrypted to your public key can only be decrypted by your private key.
I know this is a really basic explanation, but for information, check out http://www.pgp.com, http://www.gnupg.org, or do a search on your favorite search engine for PGP or public key cryptology.
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
I think, you get Karma, if a comment of yours is moderated up and if your moderation of a comment is meta-moderated as "Fair".
--
bye, Frank!
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
"can your karma dwindle (i.e. expire)? "
I do not think so. I really hope not. However, that FAQ and the Moderator Guidelines are less than illuminating.
The FAQ says:
Many people look at the comments they have posted and don't see anything with a negative score, but yet they have negative karma. Remember that slashdot is only showing you a few weeks worth of comments on your user info page: that negative karma could have come from 6 months ago.
I'd say, this means, that Karma doesn't expire, at least for a long time :)
--
bye, Frank!
Re:M^2 and its implications (Score:1)
Try not to worry about the total Score of the comment, but concern yourself with the individual moderation at hand.
Rob's wording is too weak: try not to worry, but it's still clear enough.
I'm a little unclear... (Score:5)
There's already a robust and well-supported infrastrucure in place for the network storage and retrieval of PGP/GPG public keys with the existing public keyserver network. The most compelling feature of the keyserver network is that it promotes the web-of-trust model of key trust, allowing users to sign and update trusted keys. This means that the web of trust continues to spread and become ultimately more useful.
The collection of pgp keys is not static data and should not be treated as such. It's a corpulent, growing, interrelated lattice of identies and trust relationships that changes continuously.
A redundant, and static storage of public keys in slashdot is nice and geeky, but not as useful as the public key networks. Key storage will not be beneficial without update capabilities, and I think we all can agree that such function is well beyond the scope of the slashdot engine. There is already a tool in place which is nearly ubiquitious for retreiving public keys on the net -- let's support that and not try to re-invent the wheel.
Rather, I think what would be useful would be a way for slashdot users to store and display their PGP Fingerprint and Key ID. Not the key itself, but simply the unique fingerprint of the key.
This is, I think, much closer to the usage philosophies of the public keyserver system. In fact, with a more rigid entry format (i.e. a field for just the key ID), Rob could even code links to the public keyservers to retreive a users current key in a dynamic manner.
For instance, if there were a place in my profile to enter my key ID: 0xE43C5FC3 there could easily be a link in the header above my comments linking to a keyserver using the url: http://pgp5.ai.mit .edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE43C5FC3 [mit.edu]
Plus a line for verification of my fingerprint:
D50C 1ABB 0D80 CC78 2939 FBE4 B379 C4A5 E43C 5FC3
to add yet another datapoint in people's ability to evaluate whether the key 0xE43C5FC3 really belongs to me.
A much more useful solution, I think. It Still allows slashdot to further promote the use of encryption while not attempting to address problems which are already solved.
I'm not sure I get it... (Score:2)
Incidentally, I was surprised by Rob's statement that he thinks 2-3 of 10 comments are mis-moderated. Personally, I think the system works superbly, except when it gets swamped with trolls. My greatest difficulty when moderating is that everything I go to mark up has already been promoted.
Karma cheating? (Score:1)
Or Hemos's [slashdot.org], for that matter?
Hrm...
(This is meant to be funny, kiddos...)
Re:Karma cheating? (Score:1)
Or Hemos's, for that matter?
ahem [slashdot.org]
Who are meta-moderators? (Score:1)
Does this have the same selection criteria as regular moderation, or is every (logged-in)
Also, as I've just been reading what Hofstadter [indiana.edu] has to say about recursion and meta-stuff in Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid (meta-genies in his case, Chapter V and thereabouts), how long before there's meta-meta-moderation, and so forth?
How deeply into this self-checking are we going to go before the moderation is really no more effectual than the posting? I mean, how many people actually read any given
On a separate-but-related note, when I explained
My only response was "Well, yeah, in a publicly-held sort of way."
Hrm.
Re:Karma (Score:2)
So true! Those comments get moderated up, generate most of the replies, and get the most attention. So this is one of the drawbacks to a scoring/moderation system, you can miss out on some good stuff that just didn't get posted in time.
I've been making a concious effort to read the newest, lowest scored posts when I have points to try and promote articles that others missed. But even then, I only hit new articles. And if the M2 system means anything, other moderators are much worse than me.
New Slashbox - the Karma scorecard! (Score:2)
Regarding the Slashboxes, (Score:5)
Could we have a way to specify the order our Slashboxes appear? I was thinking instead of checkboxes to pick them, we could enter a number indicating where in our sequence we wanted that Slashbox. That way I wouldn't have to spend a bunch of time re-ordering them when I add new ones or my preferences get lost.
On a side note, anyone notice that the ArsTechnica box is always well behind the site? Other Slashboxes maintain concurrency a bit better, can the ArsBox be made to do so also?
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
What I didn't get is, he said the reward for meta-moderating would never put you over the top for (I assume he meant) moderator access or the initial 2. In that case, what's it good for? Unless karma has some additional meaning, I don't get it. If this reward is not counted toward the things that karma is good for, then it doesn't serve any real purpose. Just seeing a bigger number on your profile page would be a psychological reward, but it would also cause confusion if the number stopped corresponding to the actual value used to calculate the other things.
I think having it count is fine. Moderating and meta-moderating are really "community service", since they are activities that take time and thought and aren't as rewarding as posting. This is even more true of meta-moderation, since its results are not as visible and it cannot be done as part of ordinary reading, but requires going to a special page. However, it's right that the reward should be small, since otherwise it would be too easy -- it's hard to get unearned karma by having one's posts upgraded, since someone else's decision is involved, but this would be easier to abuse.
It also wasn't quite clear (or maybe I missed it) what effect meta-moderation has. If a moderator's decisions are found to be unfair, is his access revoked, or does he lose karma (eventually making him ineligible), or what? Such punishments should not be on a hair-trigger, but it makes sense to have some such system. (What else is the point, right?)
How do these sound for karma awards:
Using all granted moderator points: +1
Since it's perfoming a service, and you had to refrain from posting in order to do it.
Meta-moderating for a particular day: +1/3
Also a service, and takes extra time, but easier to do, and hence easier to abuse, so smaller amount.
Having one's moderations judged ("fair"/"unfair"): (+/-)1/10
I assume this is the whole point of meta-moderation. For symmetry, there should be both a reward and a punishment. They should both be small to keep the total effect reasonable.
I'm not so sure about having karma expire -- the problem is that it is unfair to infrequent posters, who might always make good comments, but never enough within the time window. Of course, I recognize that the alternative greatly favors longtime members, Maybe the best would be to use the average score, or base the expiration on "the most recent n comments", instead of "the past m months." Plus, I like the idea of having it be a cumulative history of one's participation. It would be better for the threshold to be incrementally increased for older members, instead.
David Gould
A Simple Message (Score:1)
--
Re:Karma (Score:1)
incidentally, one of the reasons a new account doesnt start accumulating karma immediately is probably to avoid situations like yours...you just happened to have bad timing i guess...
--siva
Keyboard not found.
Re:LDAP directory of users? (Score:1)
If it can be disabled I am all for it.
A 'download vCard for this user' button on User Info would be tres nifty also (again only if optional). Finding your long-lost brother-in-law's contact info would never be a primary function of the Slashdot directory, but if it saves a trip to the Hell that is Sixdegrees [sixdegrees.com] it's worth doing.
Yet Another Moderation Idea (Score:1)
weird bug (Score:1)
Re:not a bug (Score:1)
So, offtopic, eh? I thought that maybe what I was expriencing had to do with the topic, maybe not. H'mm, I wonder if it had to do with me breathing the evil words 'mac os'.
Well, M2's changed my behavior. (Score:2)
Why? If somebody M2's all positive moderation on pro-microsoft remarks and all negative moderation on pro-Linux remarks as unfair, while M2ing all positive moderation on pro-Linux remarks and all negative moderation on pro-Microsoft remarks as fair, it may very well not get caught by whatever heuristics Rob is using.
Thus, this M2er is unfairly zapping good moderators in the pursuit of his biases, while the moderator doesn't even know for what he's being zapped. And there isn't even the corrective of the M2 being flagged in disco threads like moderation is. At least unfair moderation could be reported as an abuse to Rob, but you don't even have that option for unfair M2, because you don't even know when or to what it happened!
Can Moderators Delete? (Score:1)
When moderation was introduced first to 25
It is up
Thus, the
Baggio
Time flies like an arrow;
Meta-Moderation & "Redundant" posts. (Score:2)
Is "unfair" == "inaccurate"? (Score:3)
and spammy (Score:1)
These geeks will guy anything if it looks like it might be a cool gadget..."
I think you get the idea.
Too many slashboxes! (Score:1)
Re:Another slashbox is needed: (Score:1)
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
It makes me wonder what I've done wrong. Ouch!
D
----
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Public Keys? (Score:1)
Re:Public Keys? (Score:1)
Public keys are part of PGP and GPG encryption. In fact, GPG encryption was covered in this story [slashdot.org] just yesterday.
The public key is what you give to others so that they can encrypt something that only you can read. It also allows others to verify stuff that you've signed.
There is also a private key, which, as you might have guessed remains private. This allows you to decrypt and sign stuff. It is also passphrase protected.
Now that /. has a spot to put your public key, I may just have to get GPG and start using encruption again.
-Brent--
Re:MetaModeration (Score:1)
We are not being elitest becuase we don't check your blood at the door, and we can't delete comments. I like to think of moderations as "crowd control" at a big concert.
Your welcome to come the party, but we will lock you in the closet if you don't behave reasonably. Otherwise, here's a free beer!
Article Moderation (Score:3)
I got rotated into moderation recently and am seeing how it really does work. With only 5 points it really makes sense to boost good posts rather than flaming them. I also like the 3 day term; I already ready /. too much and as much as I'd like to contribute I initially groaned at the idea of spending time reading un-moderated posts. I never used to read comments because they were useless before moderation; afterwards it has so much value.
Amusing that those most interested in moderation will post to this topic, meaning that they can't moderate it; lol
Re:Funny Disable User Pref (Score:1)
That last paragraph is a totally kick-ass idea!!!
---
Have a Sloppy day!
Pref needed for default setting of "No Score +1" (Score:2)
Add a pref so we can select whether the "No Score +1 Bonus" is, by default, checked off or not. I have some karma, but I feel pretty guilty when I post a flame at an accidental score of 2. ;-)
Oh, better yet, get rid of the +1 Bonus checkbox, and give us a .. um .. (I don't know the name of the widget) a menu-thingie so we can select our own score from the range of -1 through the karma default. i.e. In a situation where I know I'm going off topic, instead of getting to pick a starting score of 1 or 2, lemme pick -1, 0, 1, or 2. Then give us a pref so we can pick the default setting.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
Re:Karma (Score:1)
Re:Karma (Score:1)
Seconded: Let's All Mirror (Score:1)
Re:Karma (Score:1)
Re:Karma (Score:3)
Is there any way to delete an account? There isn't an obvious one. And it's not mentioned in the FAQ.
Taco talks a bit in the FAQ about there not being Karma tracking implemented. I sure would appreciate it. He even almost admits that it's kind of crappy to only show recent posts but count old posts in your Karma. I really think there should be a statute of limitations on karma...after a while, old posts stop contributing to karma, and it fades. Yes, I know that doesn't really follow what real karma would do, but this ain't really karma.
most downward moderation isn't malicious (Score:1)
The MetaModeration system should take care of the odd misguided moderator who downs something for arbitrary or malicious reasons. I think it's a pretty good idea. Making downward moderation more expensive would make junk posts even more noticeable for those who read
Slashbox update frequency... (Score:1)
I'm assuming the person at Ars Technica who is supposed to update the
I have to admit I've been guilty more than thrice of updating my main site without putting anything on the Updates page. It happens, people get busy.
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
If you don't post for a while, can your karma dwindle (i.e. expire)?
I hope not. Personally, I think it should work like an uncursed luckstone in NetHack -- negative karma will expire (at a rate of, say, 1 point every two weeks), but positive karma will not expire.
Justification: once someone has negative karma, there are two possibilities -- (a) the person is a troll, or (b) the person is actively disliked by one or more moderators. Now, the M2 system will (at least theoretically) discourage bad moderation, but there are probably a few people out there who fall into category (b) due to moderator activity long ago. But in either case, people tend to mature over time -- and on the Internet, they tend to mature rather more quickly than in real life. (Or maybe I'm just naive or optimistic....) But anyway, I think that people who have misbehaved in the past shouldn't be punished forever -- by being stuck with bad karma for a while, they're "paying their dues", and when the "sentence" is over, they should be back to normal.
Re:Should we start signing our posts? (Score:1)
Does this mean that we should start clear-signing our posts?
I'd do it -- but only if I could hook external programs into my web browser's textareas. I wrote a "Mozilla wishlist" item in another slashdot post a few weeks back -- I want to be able to use an external text editor instead of the built-in text editor when writing in a textarea. If we extend this into a generic external program hook, then we could bind keystrokes to clear-sign textarea contents, or spell-check it with ispell, or invoke a real text editor (one that's more than 50x10..), etc.
Maybe I'll look into adding this into Bugzilla. They must have some sort of wishlist section. At least I think it would be an incredibly useful feature.
Re:Questions about karma (Score:1)
Personaly, I'd like to see a one time bonus point for registering your public pgp key
It's impossible to confirm that the PGP key is valid. Someone who wants that point could fill in random text.
(The key validation issue is actually a deeply important one. If you download my PGP key [kellnet.com] from my home page, how far do you trust its accuracy? How do you know my web page/account hasn't been cracked? That my Slashdot account hasn't been cracked? These are deep issues.)
Re:sorta offtopic, but I need help! (Score:1)
How do I enecrypt emails and stuff
For e-mail: use a mailer that supports PGP (I use mutt [mutt.org]) if you can. If not, then you can save the message as a file and then encrypt it manually.
For general use: pgp -ea filname will create filename.asc which is a PGP-encrypted version of the file. You will be prompted for the recipient -- i.e., who will be able to read the file. Now, this is for PGP 2.6.3 -- I can't help with the other ones. You could try reading the manuals which came with the software....
how can I add a public key i got from someones webpage or something?
If the public key is in a file called key.asc then type pgp -ka key.asc . That's "key add".
everything is in PDF format and i HATE acrobat reader
PGP 2.6.3 predates PDF. The documentation that accompanies PGP 2.6.3 is in ASCII text format.
the network associates one
I recommend against using this. PGP 2.6.3 is the de facto standard -- the newer versions can read PGP 2.6.3 keys, but not vice versa (PGP 2.6.3 cannot read PGP 5 keys). If you don't want to use PGP 2.6.3, I recommend GnuPG.
Of course, you might want to create a PGP 2.6.3 key pair, but actually use the PGP 5 (or newer) software -- that way you can handle keys from both versions, and people who only have the older version can still handle your key. Last time I checked, PGP 5 could not create a PGP-2.6.3-compatible key pair -- you actually had to download and run the old software if you wanted to generate a PGP 2.6.3 key.
GnuPG can't create PGP-2.6.3-compatible key pairs, either, but that's because of patent restrictions on the RSA algorithm.
Re:Communicator problem with M2 (Score:1)
click a parent link and then use the back button to come back to the same 10 questions, with Netscape Communicator 4.51 I'd get a new set every time
If you want to ensure that you won't lose the data you're looking at, open the parent link in a new window. On the Unix/X versions of Netscape, this is done with the middle mouse button (or emulation thereof, for those of us who have 2-button mice). On the Win32 versions of Netscape, this is one of the options on the right-mouse-button menu.
Then, when you're done looking at the parent link data, close the window (Alt-W in X, Ctrl-W in Win32). The original window will still be there untouched.
The behavior you're seeing is the browser-dependent handling of pages which have no Last-Modified or Expires header. Slashdot doesn't put either of these headers on its dynamnic pages, so the browser gets to decide whether they should be fetched every time, or whether going back to them can use an old copy.
Re:and spammy (Score:1)
Personally I think the average registered slashdot is useless. [...] Spam is marketting directed to newbies.
Well, we geeks know that, but do the spammers know that? To the "average spammer", the "here's a collection of 500000 geek e-mail addresses" argument may actually look enticing.
Re:MetaModeration (Score:1)
Moderation too complex! (Score:2)
What is different between 'interesting' and 'insightful'? 'troll' and 'off-topic'? Is 'over-rated' a -1, 'under-rated' a +1?
Why not drop the meaningless ratings and just go with hard scores (+1, -1)?
Re:Public Keys? (Score:1)
Re:Should we start signing our posts? (Score:1)
Re:Slashboxes Needs "New Boxes" section. (Score:1)
Re:M^2 and its implications (Score:1)
Re:Addition to M2 (Score:1)
"appropriate/inappropriate" or "fair/unfair"? (Score:1)
It's still difficult to know how to respond. For example, one of the posts I was asked to meta was a totally pointless, homophobic racist rant. The moderation that I was asked to comment on was "-1; Offtopic." That was weird: do I say it was "fair" because it was a negative moderation point, or "unfair" because "Flamebait" was more accurate than "Offtopic"?
Is the purpose of M2 to comment just on whether a piece should have gotten positive or negative moderation? In that case "fair/unfair" may be okay.
I do like it, and it's a very clever solution to a tricky problem. But if the metamoderators don't fully understand what they're being asked to do then it may be very bad.
M^2 and its implications (Score:3)
I found that, as I was reading the posts moderated up to +4 and +5, most of them didn't really deserve to be there. For quite a few of the +5s (almost all, in fact) I had to say the rating was unfair, since it is my belief that Rob intended +4 and +5 to basically include information that the post left out, so when comments were sorted by score the reader could see any last-minute additions. For that reason, pretty much every +5 "Insightful" post or +5 "Funny" post seemed like an unfair raise to me, like the moderators were too lazy to look for the other gems deep in the comment page and so merely moderated already-high posts up. I also noticed that, of the ones I said were unfair, a large percentage were in the first 20 posts of that thread. In one of the rare instances where this didn't seem to be as true (the story about black figures in technology, for instance) quite a few very good posts had very high id numbers. Still, many of these were rated to +4 or +5, but I only found one that was so truly "Insightful" and which so beautifully incorporated the basic arguments inherent in the story that it deserved a +4 or +5, and I gave it a very hearty "Fair" moderation rating.
My general feeling, as well, is that +3 is fine for "Funny", but it sometimes seems that I'd like to filter them out. Some stories get funny posts moderated up, but the content of the story doesn't really lend itself easily to humor. A way for users to select which moderation reasons to view would be very good.. sometimes I'd like to just not see the "flamebait" or "troll" posts.. or just a few others. But enough personal choices.
Anyway, I think it'd be more than interesting to see a graph of the results of at least the past two days of MetaModeration, because I would be truly interested in seeing whether M^2ers agree with me that most +4 and +5 posts deserve to be also deemed "Overrated"..
Regards,
-efisher
---
Re:Slashboxes Needs "New Boxes" section. (Score:2)
Re:Public key box is nice, but please use key serv (Score:3)
Oops, I think I should reduce my caffiene intake.
Re:LDAP directory of users? (Score:4)
What does everybody think of an LDAP directory of all registered slashdot users ala the Netscape Directory? I, personally, think it'd be kinda useful, and neat!
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of annonymous contributors by revealing their identities? Before people jump in with the suggestion of using their slashdot handle to redirect mail, I would note that many people value their privacy (ie have been overwhelmed by spam) and more email is often the last thing we need in busy lives (pause for mass amen). If authenticity is required, I would like to see at least one level of screen, if nothing else to control the information overload. Some suggestions
- Rob creates handles along the lines of name@slashdot.org for registered users
- a local private/public key is generated (optional) that on receipt and validation of the user's real PGP key (whatever that means), substitutes the slashdot key.
- a user controlled mechanism for carrying conversations beyond the normal termination of threads, ie default of ignore direct messages unless allowed (think 2 way matrix which if you look up a user's info, gives directions for further communications if on the allowed list)
The weakness is that
LL
Funny Disable User Pref (Score:5)
It seems like one of the top posts is always a joke of some kind. While they might be relevent and even amusing sometimes, I hate consistantly seeing them among the very top posts.
Taking that idea one step further, why not allow us to select the adjustment in points for each catagory? e.g. Offtopic: -1, Flamebait: -2, Insightful: +2, Funny: 0, Informative: +1, etc.
Re:and spammy (Score:3)
Another slashbox is needed: (Score:2)
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
M2 issues/suggestions (Score:3)
Problems are:
- Fair/Unfair works well for negative moderation, but not for positive moderation. (Appropriate/Inappropriate would be better).
- Negative moderation should be more important to M2 than positive moderation, but, at least in the sample of 10 I had, it was mostly positive moderation I was meta moderating. Should be 80/20, I think.
- I may feel that moderating a post to +2 was appropriate, pass on the moderation to +3 and +4, and feel that +5 was entirely inappropriate. That's the only sort of decision that really makes sense for M2ing positive moderation, but you currently don't have the information to do that. Having the effect of the moderation visible (+4->+5, e.g.) would be helpful.
- I have personally used my moderation points to moderate up posts I felt were inappropriately moderated down, but I would hate to see an M2er M2 me down because of that. Again, having some indication of the effects and context of moderation would be helpful.
Whew..., the meta discussion gets difficult to phrase. I like M2, but I do think it needs the tweaks suggested.Different periods of time (Score:2)
Slashboxes Needs "New Boxes" section. (Score:3)
Should we start signing our posts? (Score:3)
----
=======
Discussion xor Moderation? (Score:2)
on the contrary it is an indication that you will probably do a good job of peer review. Obviously, I won't kill a paper that comes to me because I need to get my paper in. But I find it very strange when this exclusivity is applied on
So long as we do not moderate our posting up, which is obviously unethical, most of us would be able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion and moderate as well.
The other problem is that a post can catch an eye of a moderator in the first hour or so and then it dwindles for obvious reasons. To alleviate this difficulty, the moderator must have some mechanism to be able to view sections of comments based on time intervals. ("give me the discussions in the last half an hour.")
Finally, "funny" is used rather funnily by many moderators. No "funny" commment should raise above a score of 2 if it has no other intrinsic merit.
Meta Moderation (Score:2)
For normal comments, it should show the score the comment had before the moderation, and after. As it is now, you can be looking at a 5 point comment marked overrated. You don't have a clue whether it was called overrated at 2/3, and bumped down one, which would be Unfair, or whether the comment was at 5, bumped down, then marked up again.
Same thing goes for Underrated.
Redundant has been discussed by other people, funny is subjective... It's harder to be able to give good answers than you may think.
As to normal comments:
I had one show up three times on my list of ten... Two times for interesting, once for overrated. If at all possible, give us before and after scores. Please. This would make for much more confidence in the process. (For anyone who cares, I think I left all three in the middle.)
------
Questions about karma (Score:2)
Just wondering.
Re:LDAP directory of users? (Score:3)
Re:I'm not sure I get it... (Score:3)
Right. The one at the top in parentheses is only the latest moderation, not necessarily the one you're asked to judge.
If I think it deserves a 5, but not Insightful, do I criticize the moderation?
Yes. Though if you're just being nitpicky (like you think it should have been "Interesting"), I'd say you should leave it in the middle.
If I think it deserves Insightful, but not a 5, do I criticize the moderation?
Read the top of the metamoderation page. You're not supposed to metamoderate the score, just the single moderation.
Which moderation gave it the 5, the Interesting or the Insightful?
Well, according to the instructions, it shouldn't matter. I agree that there could be a comment that should have been moderated up, but not when it was already at 4... however, remember that two moderators might hit the page at the same time.
Could there be anything geekier than this convoluted system?
Remember what people were saying about Mn moderation and the Slashdot RPG?
CmdrTaco continues to do a fantastic job of giving us what we want, and we all appreciate it tremendously.
I concur.
--
Re:MetaModeration (Score:4)
I got the chance to try MetaModeration and I really enjoyed it.
While MetaModerating I saw a +5 Comment today that I hadn't seen before. If anything, I felt that this Comment deserved an even higher rating (but I gave it a "fair" realizing that this was topped out).
It got me thinking. Perhaps you could allow people to give their points to a Comment even after it was topped out at 5. The Comment itself would stay at 5, but you could keep this surplus attached to the Comment, but not visible to readers. Then, every week or perhaps every few days, you could have a feature which would capture the top, or perhaps the top few Comments of the week based on surplus points. I would recommend never displaying the surplus points as it might lead to Moderator abuse with people trying to support some cause or another at the expense of objectivity. Perhaps these featured Comments could be displayed with some MetaComments containing the Comments that this one was in answer to or about the background context surrounding the Comment (like the background of the Author if this person is famous). I know that I would enjoy such a feature. As it is, I'm not able to keep up with very much of /. and even if I had read the featured Comment, I'm sure that I would enjoy reading these really good Comments again.
Maybe this would work go along with allowing Moderators more points to assign too, as many are requesting. In fact, it might be nice to assign Moderators points on a sliding scale. Moderators who just make the minimum criteria, like first time Moderators, could get 5 points to assign, while old hands with extremely high Karma would get 10. Such a scheme may help to improve Moderation in a number of ways.
Perhaps I'm odd, but I think that I've become more thoughtful in my posts since I'm now aware of my Karma. I would guess that others feel the same way. Tying Karma together with getting extra Moderator points, and allowing those with higher Karma to Moderate (and MetaModerate) more often might make it kind of a prestige thing. Pride before your peers is a powerful motivator.
Re:Questions about karma (Score:3)
I don't think so. As I understand karma, it is affected by moderation and M2.
"or when you meta-moderate?"
From the FAQ [slashdot.org]:
and meta moderation done to your moderations.
"What other factors can/should contribute to your karma?"
Nothing else can, AFAIK. I think that submitting good stories that are published ahould contribute to karma. I also think that generally being active in discussions (subjective at best) should contribute.
"can your karma dwindle (i.e. expire)? "
I do not think so. I really hope not. However, that FAQ and the Moderator Guidelines are less than illuminating.
Slashdot considered harmful (Score:2)
Argh! Just think how many man-hours of work time is already lost to the behemoth Slashdot! How much worse will it be if users are encouraged to compete for karma, having to read and reply to articles as soon as they appear to accumulate the best high score?
All over the world, productivity will slump, causing a global stock exchange crisis! Unattended nuclear power plants will go critical! The moon will blow up! And the French will take over the world!
Or something.
--
Re:Public Keys? (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons PGP only works really well when a lot of people are using it. If a substantial web of trust isn't developed, you have to verify a whole lot of public keys yourself. Or live in fear.