Lots of moderation options. No. See my moderation backgrouder, as well as Rusty's comments here. Explicit multidimensionality falls apart. Without explicity, the relevance of multidimensionality becomes ambiguous. Even with multidimensionality, the relevence of what to do becomes unclear. Moderating is based on the principle of asking the question "is this post worth reading". We're relying on human intelligence (and, yes, bias) to collapse the logic for us.
There are two exceptions I'd make to this rule. Troll/spam posts might be considered less as being on a continuum than as being a categorical distinction. Though, that said, the current method for dealing with them seems to work fairly well -- few trolls are rated above 1, and few trolls are posted in the first place. Likewise, few legitimate posts are rated as trolls. I would like to know all posts which have had at least one zero rating, though, rather than those which are currently moderated below 1.
The other exception is the submission queue. Unlike moderation, here the objective is to fix problems. Categorical ratings may be appropriate. Essentially:
- Unredeamable. This story ain't worth thinking about.
- Major rewrite. Decent idea, but needs a hell of a lot of help.
- Minor rewrite. Fix mechanical issues.
- Post as is. Great job.
It's also possible that specific issues might be added as "fix it" items: spelling, grammer, links/tags, facts, bias. Though ultimately this gets rather open-ended. No need for complexity where it doesn't exist.
Section. IMO this should be dictated by the moderators in queue rather than the submitter, thoughh a section suggestion might be made.
Finally, an overall score. This is partially redundant, but also serves to establish story placement (front page, not).
Different ratings. No. See above. Specifically WRT additional metrics, many of these are emergent from the moderation system itself if it's analyzed in different ways. Particularly interest (number of moderations) and controversiality (standard deviation of moderations).
Vetoing factual errors. Maybe. I'd certainly like to address this in the submission queue, but don't know that it's necessary in comments. For the most part, though, it's easy enough to follow up a post with a statement "Wrong", supported by arguments and/or links. And, sometimes, you just have to read the follow-ups and make up your own mind.
Your point about readers' areas of expertise is well taken. This is a core weakness of the existing moderation system. I'm strongly inclined toward a topical basis for mojo, moderation, and content-submission. Also better means for evaluating a particular moderator's own cluefulness. Being able to set your own preference rating for how much you do (or don't) want to credit a particular user's moderation suggestions (on a +/- scale -- there can be negative corrolations).
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]