Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Should we moderate story submissions before posting them?

By krogoth in Meta
Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 05:58:13 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

Should we be voting on stories before they are posted? At first, the difference between Kuro5hin and slashdot was that you could read stories before they are posted, vote on them, and post one comment. Now you can post multiple comments and reply to comments...


A discussion can start before the story is even posted, so it makes little sense to wait to post the stories. I think kuro5hin should work more like another weblog that was announced a while ago (i forget the name): if the user has enough points, they can post a story straight to the front page or section page. This could cause some problems, but by limiting this to registered users who have already recieved some ammount of positive moderation and adding a few more requirements, it would make a lot more sense.

The discussion is starting to happen in the story submission queue, and unless that's the way kuro5in is intended to be - have discussions for stories that might still be thrown away - it shouldn't be that way.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Should it be possible for good users to post stories directly?
o Yes 18%
o No 81%

Votes: 175
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Kuro5hin
o Also by krogoth


Display: Sort:
Should we moderate story submissions before posting them? | 67 comments (60 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Lock people out? (3.71 / 14) (#1)
by Redeemed on Fri Oct 20, 2000 at 11:37:51 PM EST

The trouble with that is, you're assuming that because people haven't been around long enough to contribute points, they have nothing worthwhile to say, and if people have been here a long time, they have something worthwhile to say. I'm sure both of these things aren't true, and really don't provide much of a solution to the "problem" of early discussion, anyway. They just limit the number of stories that get posted.

It seems to me it isn't a problem that discussion gets started before an article gets posted. Why is that bad? People who don't read the submission queue can rather easily catch up with the 15 or so comments that occasionally pile up on a story before it makes it to the front page or section page. I'm afraid I don't understand where the harm is...

It could get out of control (2.00 / 7) (#2)
by krogoth on Fri Oct 20, 2000 at 11:39:33 PM EST

This doesn't make much sense and unless Rusty wants kuro5in to be like this, i don't think it's a good organization. I'm not saying new people don't have anything good to say, but i am saying that some protection against spam and junk is necessary.
--
"If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
:wq
[ Parent ]
There *is* protection against spam! (3.25 / 4) (#8)
by Andrew Dvorak on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 12:27:09 AM EST

There is protection against spam.. That is where the moderation system comes into play. In addition, the Admins can remove or promote items directly to the front page. If there is any such spam, as the warning displayed to those who post to the website indicates, spamming is a crime punishible by execution (of the criminal username).

FOR REFERENCE:

"Spamming is not tolerated here. Any comments may be deleted by a site admin, and all spammers will be deleted. This is fair warning. If you don't know what spamming is, then you're probably not about to do it, so don't worry. But you can read the definition in <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/spam.html">The Jargon File if you were wondering (particularly number 2). :-)"


[ Parent ]
but back to what i was saying... (2.33 / 6) (#3)
by krogoth on Fri Oct 20, 2000 at 11:40:25 PM EST

if the current arangement is wrong, then where will it go from here? By letting one inconsistency in, you're preparing for more.
--
"If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
:wq
[ Parent ]
That's how stories get posted (3.83 / 12) (#4)
by El Volio on Fri Oct 20, 2000 at 11:55:55 PM EST

The point of K5 is exactly what it says near the top of the main page: "The best stories of the day, chosen by you." The users get to vote on the stories to shape the feel of the site. No one person (except for the admins, I guess) has the ability to decide whether a story is worthy of being posted to the "main" site. Lots of stories I've voted for didn't make it, and lots of stories I voted against did. That's fine; I'm not the only one with an opinion.

And yes, the discussion is intended to start in the queue. After all, if a story generates a good discussion there, it's most likely to be posted, though certainly not always.

You have a low UID; it seems to me that, by now, this should be clear to you. I'm puzzled. Haven't you noticed this before? Isn't it obvious that if the admins add the ability to discuss stories in the queue, then they want discussion in the queue?

I've been registered for a while.... (2.00 / 1) (#30)
by krogoth on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:01:49 PM EST

but i'm just starting to really read kuro5in. I also noticed that sinece i've started reading it at least once a week, there haven't been many stories on the front page. Maybe they're in the section pages, but i just don't care to go that far.

Don't use a complex system when a simple solution works.
--
"If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
:wq
[ Parent ]
That's funny... (2.00 / 1) (#50)
by El Volio on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 09:40:24 AM EST

A few weeks ago, there was a big debate about too many stories getting to the Front Page. If you read it so infrequently, and just started so recently, then you don't have much of a baseline to figure out if something is "broken".

All those "problems" you describe are characteristics that were put there for a reason: That's the way Rusty & Crew wanted it, and that's the way the K5 community wanted it.

[ Parent ]

Speaking of moderation ... (4.07 / 14) (#7)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 12:10:23 AM EST

First off, its not really moderation, it's rating. Moderation implies the ability to remove posts. Rating is simply ranking a post on how well it is put together.

Secondly, somebody (at least one person, perhaps more than one) apparently went through a couple different threads in politically oriented discussions and rated every post he, she, or they didn't agree with to 1. This behavior really gets on my nerves. If you don't agree with a post, don't rate it to 1, reply to it with a sensible argument.

I don't really care whether or not my posts get rated. I'll admit I get something of a vicarious thrill when I get enough posts rated high enough to get the "you are a trusted user" message when I look at my user info. But for the most I don't really give a crap about what most other people think of what I spout off about. What does bug me is that if people disagree, rating my posts down without responding as to why they rated my post down I lose the opportunity to potentially have my views changed.

I've rated posts I entirely disagree with to 4s and 5s before because they were well thought out and raised points worthy of further discussion. My understanding is that the rating system is for rating the quality of the posts, not for making known whether or not I agree with the posts.

Re: Speaking of moderation ... (2.33 / 3) (#29)
by loner on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 01:38:35 PM EST

Agreed. As it's been pointed out before, the problem is the that numerical rating system is too open for interpretation. While some users might see a 5 as "intelligent must-read comment", others might see a 5 as "totally agree." A possible fix would be to use some well-chosen words instead of (or in addition to) the numbers.

[ Parent ]
wouldn't work (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by omegadave on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 06:26:34 PM EST

I believe rusty and Inoshiro are avoiding putting words next to the numbers because doing so would be like The Other Site and even more importantly, most of the time the words next to the numbers don't make sense (i.e. insightful, et al.)

[ Parent ]
Split rating, editorial and righteousness (3.50 / 2) (#42)
by maynard on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 10:15:30 PM EST

How about this: Split the rating system so that users would have two drop boxes with a set of numbers. One is used to rate the comment on editorial issues such as spelling, grammar, and overall writing style. The other is to rate the comment on whether a reader happens to agree with it's content.

Those rating comments seem determined to let their opinions out through their rating. However, I'd really like a rating system which allows for some basic editorial feedback. We'd all like to know the difference between "this comment was a good addition to the forum," in contrast to "your opinion sucks."

Cheers,
--Maynard

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

how would it be displayed? (2.00 / 2) (#43)
by omegadave on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 10:40:20 PM EST

where would you put the editorial comment of each user that rated the comment? there isn't enough space to implement it practically (spelling?). if you could think of a way to do that in a clean, userable way, i'm sure everyone would like to know.

[ Parent ]
Please read first paragraph (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by maynard on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 08:16:28 AM EST

You see the drop box for rating comments? Well, add a second one and split the meaning between the two: one for editorial quality, the other to contrast the author's opinion with your own. That simple. --M

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
I /did/ read it (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by omegadave on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 12:10:46 AM EST

what I would like to know is, seeing as there are XXXXX amount of K5 users, how would we be able to see what each thought of it? I hope I'm making this clear enough...

[ Parent ]
No, I don't understand your point at all. (2.00 / 1) (#56)
by maynard on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 10:57:46 AM EST

This thread is about rating comments, not voting on submissions. Currently, you can't see who rated what comment; I don't propose changing that. But since people seem determined to let their political and personal opinions through by rating certain comments poorly or highly depending on how well they agree with the writer's comment, it seems reasonable to add a second drop box specifically for this purpose. Add a second one to each comment, then one is used to rate a comment editorially (how well is it written, if is it an positive addition to the K5 community), and the other is used to gauge how well individuals in the community agree with the comment. That's all I said.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

*sigh* (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by omegadave on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 04:40:29 PM EST

I /understand/ that we're talking about comments. I /understand/ why you want to add the second drop box and frankly, I agree with you. /however/, I do not see a way that it could be implemented, as in, actually be done rather than talked about.

[ Parent ]
Example (none / 0) (#59)
by loner on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 06:42:10 PM EST

Is this what you're looking for?

[ Parent ]
sorta... (none / 0) (#63)
by omegadave on Thu Oct 26, 2000 at 12:42:53 AM EST

that's sorta what i was talking about, only i was thinking more in terms of after it was rated. say, after i rate it as something, and 50 other users rate it as something, how are we going to show what everyone rated it as? something like: insightful-15 flamebait-7 et al. also, what's with my comments being rated 1.0? is that jerk going around still rating everyone's comments for no reason?

[ Parent ]
Re: Split rating (3.00 / 1) (#57)
by loner on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 03:31:59 PM EST

That sounds like a rather good idea. Taking a step back, I can see at least three uses for the comment rating (perhaps you can add others I've missed):
  1. As a light-weight commentary/critism of a comment.
  2. As a value used to calculate a user's mojo.
  3. As a value used to sort comments.
Point 1 is not that big a deal since it is only cosmetic. Although personally, I always wonder if my comment was rated 2.0 because people think it's badly written, or because people disagree with the statement.

For point 2, since the rating system is open to interpretation at the moment, a user's mojo is basically governed by a combination of whether people think the user's comments are well-written + whether people agree with the user's comments. Perhaps this is the way it's intended to work. After all, at present the mojo only governs whether or not one can score a comment 0. And for just that, it is not that big a deal if a user loses such a privilege just by making controversial comments.

For point 3, at present there is no way to sort just for the well-written comments, any sorting ranks equally both style and opinion.

By introducing a double-rating system, points 1 and 3 are better implemented. One can rate each comment wrt both categories, and can sort comments using one or the other category as well. As far as point 2, the admins now have to either pick which category influences the mojo, or create a new formula to take into account both ratings.

The negative sides I can see:

  • Users now have to rate each comment twice and that may be too much for some and will make them stop rating altogether.
  • Category creep: once one starts splitting the ratings, people will start asking for even more categories: humour, typo/grammar, etc.


  • [ Parent ]
    New comment rating mechanisms (3.00 / 1) (#60)
    by maynard on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 06:48:50 PM EST

    I won't comment on your reasons for why you perceive this as a good idea, simply because we both agree. :-)

    On the negative sides:

    The negative sides I can see:
    • Users now have to rate each comment twice and that may be too much for some and will make them stop rating altogether.
    • Category creep: once one starts splitting the ratings, people will start asking for even more categories: humour, typo/grammar, etc.
    This is a good point. Rating comments is such a PITA right now that I often see individual comments rated only once. If we were to add a second rating drop box to each comment it might further reduce community involvement.

    But some people are determined to use the comment rating system to let their personal biases and opinions through, rather than for it's intended purpose. This is no different from moderation on /. and is exactly why M2 was put in place over there. I think M2 has been a failure for the most part because it presumes that people will somehow subvert their personal agendas during meta-moderation; if that were the case, why implement meta-moderation to begin with? We need to accept this fact of human psychology and provide a mechanism for those who demand to let their opinion out through the rating system.

    Splitting up a rating between whether a comment is a well written contribution to K5, with a second for personal agreement seems like a reasonable choice. I like your idea of using words instead of rating numbers in order to present a more complex assessment of a comment beyond "bad" to "good". Even though Rusty and the other scoop authors would prefer to swipe as few ideas from /. as possible, this seems really attractive to me -- but only to rate personal opinions, not mojo. So, how about a 1-5 rating system for a comment's value to the community (its mojo score), and words to reflect the reader's opinion in the second drop box?. One could imagine "Agree Somewhat" "Agree Strongly" "Disagree somewhat" "Disagree Strongly" "Funny" "Not Funny" "Abusive" "Factually Incorrect" as being possible contenders for rating agreement and other subjective opinions about individual comments.

    One thing I'd like to see is a mechanism to show various stats generated from comment ratings. Imagine seeing not only the average mojo score, but also the variance... that is, what's the largest and what's the smallest score this comment generated? How many people agree compared to those who disagree? Those sorts of things could be generated on the fly in a little PNG graph (oh... talk about server side load, one graph per comment -- I dunno if that's feasible) and displayed next to the comment.

    Now, from a cosmetic standpoint I would prefer two sets of radio boxes horizontally stripped across each comment, instead of the dropboxes. I'm not a big fan of drop boxes simply because they're more difficult to negotiate with the mouse... and they're also prone to leaving little graphic turds within Netscape which you have to scroll to clean up (though arguably this is a bug in Netscape, not a problem with K5). However, I use 1600x1200 on a 21" head, horizontal radio boxes across the bottom of each comment could pose a problem for those with small displays.

    Oh well, I've rambled enough. Got to go make dinner... :-)

    Cheers
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Single scores (4.00 / 1) (#61)
    by loner on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 07:02:27 PM EST

    As far as comments that are rated only once: personally if I see a comment scored the way I agree with, I don't rate again. I only rate a comment to change its current score. I.e. if a comment is scored 4.5 and that's relatively how I would rate it, I don't submit a rating for it, but if the same comment is scored 2, I'll rate it as 5 to make it rise towards the 4.5 it deserves.

    If many others are like me, you'll probably see a 5-star comment rated once as 5. Everybody else will see the 5 score and won't bother rating it further.

    [ Parent ]

    On rating comments with a score you agree (3.00 / 1) (#62)
    by maynard on Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 07:19:02 PM EST

    Just a quick note: I think you may be doing a disservice to the writer with this policy. If a comment has a score close to your opinion, I think it makes sense to re-rate the comment again. That is, if you see a comment with a 3.00 rating and you agree with it's value, then it makes sense to re-rate it at a 3.00 again because that adds to it's overall average score. This makes it less likely that a single user could affect the score based on personal biases and such. JMO. :-)

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm.... (3.66 / 9) (#9)
    by skim123 on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 01:07:55 AM EST

    So is your objection that even stories that suck (and get moderated down), still have discussions? It seems that if you don't want to participate in discussions that aren't going to graduate from the submission queue, then don't vote on stories... just keep your eyes peeled on the main page and discuss on those stories...

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    i thnk this makes a VERY good point (3.11 / 9) (#11)
    by el_guapo on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 03:02:47 AM EST

    i have seen stories that NEVER got posted ANYWHERE languish for loooooong periods of time in the queue - and generate a TON of discussion. Any way to make the fact that A)it hasn't been dumped, and B) the fact that it is generating a lot of dialogue, count towards at LEAST posting it to section???? Otherwise, you need to knwo to keep checking the queue for potentially intersting stories...
    mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
    Automatic posting (2.20 / 10) (#14)
    by Nickus on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 04:24:31 AM EST

    How about that a submission automatically got posted when there has been 15 or more comments. That way if a story gets popular in the submission queue it would get on the frontside and generate more discussion.

    Due to budget cuts, light at end of tunnel will be out. --Unknown
    Re: Automatic posting (3.66 / 1) (#18)
    by Sigma 7 on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 08:41:30 AM EST

    How about that a submission automatically got posted when there has been 15 or more comments. That way if a story gets popular in the submission queue it would get on the frontside and generate more discussion.
    IMHO, that would make it easier to spam Kuro5hin. All someone has to do is to create enough accounts, and post topical comments with each of the seperate accounts.

    Posting when the comments reach a certain number would also make the stories leave the queue much more quickly, before most of the moderators could decide whether it should be placed in the section only, or be placed on the front page.

    Using the number of comments on the story is not recommended. It could be used to reduce the posting threshold for that story, but it may cause confusion to why the story was posted before it reached the posting threshold.

    [ Parent ]

    Why dumb it down? (3.00 / 3) (#21)
    by itsbruce on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 09:11:42 AM EST

    What if the comments are all "This really stinks, dump it now!" - straight onto the front page it goes, with that mechanism.

    The only factor in acceptance of a story should be the votes it gets. If the discussion influences that, this is good. If the discussion doesn't influence it, that is wierd but interesting.

    --

    It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]
    No... we should support editorial flexability (2.33 / 3) (#28)
    by maynard on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 12:56:30 PM EST

    I disagree itsbruce,

    While that may make for a good general rule, if the editors of K5 wish to push a particular story up from the submission queue into a section page, or even the top page, that should be their right. Though I agree that this step should be taken sparingly.

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    how about only allow editorial in queue? (3.40 / 10) (#15)
    by enterfornone on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 04:34:37 AM EST

    how about only allowing editorial comments in the queue, and when the story is posted dump all the comments and start over.

    Not that I think having discussions in the queue is a bad thing, but if people think it's a problem that's a suggested solution.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    Doesn't work (2.80 / 5) (#16)
    by Dacta on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 04:42:17 AM EST

    That's the way it used to be - all comments in the story queue were editorial, and not shown once it was posted. That didn't work, because people want to discuss the story (and fair enough, too - we are the consumers as well as editors of the stories).



    [ Parent ]
    A VERY BAD IDEA (3.87 / 16) (#17)
    by Carnage4Life on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 04:49:53 AM EST

    A discussion can start before the story is even posted, so it makes little sense to wait to post the stories. I think kuro5in should work more like another weblog that was announced a while ago (i forget the name): if the user has enough points, they can post a story straight to the front page or section page. This could cause some problems, but by limiting this to registered users who have already recieved some ammount of positive moderation and adding a few more requirements, it would make a lot more sense.

    I can't see any benefits of this idea except creating the same kind of elitist cadre of high-karma/high-mojo users that are despised by the general readership that slashdot has and is trying to deal with. I am currently a trusted user but in my opinion this doesn't suddenly mean that my articles are so golden that any brain fart that I write should jump to the front page.

    Kuro5hin is currently a rather well functioning democratic system, attempting to create an elite within the community is fraught with peril and will cause more problems than it will solve.

    Frankly I see nothing wrong with comments to story submission. Instead of just voting a story down without the author knowing why, people get to give their opinions on the story and critique it, thereby creating an open editorial process. Who cares whether there are a lot of editorial comments? So what? A majority of the stories that get voted down and still get comments usually get editorial comments detailing exactly why the story is inappropriate for kuro5hin and what flaws exist in the logic, grammer and spelling of the article.

    Can anyone please explain to me why the system should be changed?



    I'm not saying this.... (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by krogoth on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:06:51 PM EST

    I don't mean this:

    "Kuro5hin is currently a rather well functioning democratic system, attempting to create an elite within the community is fraught with peril and will cause more problems than it will solve. "

    If you see a better solution, i'm not stopping you from posting it, but if anyone can post to the front page, you will get spam.

    --
    "If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
    :wq
    [ Parent ]
    Purging the user base (3.71 / 7) (#19)
    by Defect on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 08:50:47 AM EST

    As far as i know, the threshold for getting an item posted or hidden is a function of the total user count. Is there anything in scoop that deletes users after a certain amount of time? Every once in a while, most likely, there'll be a surge of new users to k5 because of a link from another high traffic site, but only a handful of those users will actually stick around for any amount of time. This makes the threshold for getting a story posted higher without enough "real" users to justify the raise.

    If scoop deleted users after 3-4 weeks of not visiting k5 at all, then it will probably reduce the amount of stale articles that sit around in the queue.
    defect - jso - joseth || a link
    Good point! (3.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MoxFulder on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 10:35:35 AM EST

    It's true that there might be a large bunch of nonactive users, but I don't think they should be automatically deleted after only a few weeks. (On very rare occassions I haven't visited K5 for a week or two :-)

    Perhaps a better strategy would be to simply stop counting users for moderation/posting purposes if they haven't visited the site for a few weeks?

    "If good things lasted forever, would we realize how special they are?"
    --Calvin and Hobbes


    [ Parent ]
    The Scoop Function Considers This (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Carnage4Life on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 11:16:04 AM EST

    As far as i know, the threshold for getting an item posted or hidden is a function of the total user count. Is there anything in scoop that deletes users after a certain amount of time? Every once in a while, most likely, there'll be a surge of new users to k5 because of a link from another high traffic site, but only a handful of those users will actually stick around for any amount of time. This makes the threshold for getting a story posted higher without enough "real" users to justify the raise.

    Not really, the function needs a small fraction the readership to be active to determine thresholds. Consider that K5 currently has over 6000 users but only 67 votes are needed to post a story to the front/section page. This means that even if only a 10th of K5's readership(600 users) is active then there will be enough people to make the voting process worthwhile. No matter how much K5 readership grows, I am rather certain that the percentage of active users will not drop to below 10 percent.



    [ Parent ]
    But even still (2.50 / 2) (#25)
    by Defect on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 11:59:02 AM EST

    The amount of stale users will still continue to grow. Maybe the scoring threshold should be relative to a more complex function, like a percentage of active users of that week, or month even. Why should the threshold be higher just because of a thousand users who most likely won't even read the story because they haven't visited k5 in a month?

    I'm not saying only count people who've posted 10 or 25 comments each day, just those who visit the site. Why should scoop take into consideration people who won't even be reading the articles?
    defect - jso - joseth || a link
    [ Parent ]
    The function works fine (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Carnage4Life on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 12:22:50 AM EST

    I'm not saying only count people who've posted 10 or 25 comments each day, just those who visit the site. Why should scoop take into consideration people who won't even be reading the articles?

    You seem to have missed what I just said. For a story to be posted to the front/section page it only needs positive votes from 1 percent of the total users.

    Considering that it is highly unlikely that the number of active users will ever drop to even 10 percent of the total number of user accounts let alone 1 percent, it is needless to add unnecessary complexity to the scoop functions to worry about inactive acounts. After all, as all software developers know, unecessary complexity leads to bugs.



    [ Parent ]
    If it worked (which it wouldn't) it would be bad. (3.87 / 8) (#20)
    by itsbruce on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 09:06:45 AM EST

    The whole appeal of Kuro5hin to me is it's egalitarianism. Anyone can submit a story and stand a chance of it's being accepted, you can become a trusted user very quickly (and lose it just as fast) and most of all the whole process is entirely transparent. Contrast this with another site where stories are almost always by a priveleged core (whatever they say, the only way to get a story published is to send the idea to them and let them write it up), where the actual mechanics are an arcane mystery and blatantly tweaked to fit the prejudices of one or two.

    Besides, the points system doesn't work the same way here. When I first came here I made a few points that were popular in the particular stories and they were all marked up. After 2 days I was a trusted user. And on the third I wasn't, having wandered into other discussions where nobody thought I had anything special to say. I worked out quite quickly that there was simply no way to be a karma whore here. The points any person has simply reflects the approval of their recent comments and could be wiped out tomorrow. I think that's great, since it encourages people to value the discussions themselves. Gaining trusted user status is more of an unlooked for bonus than a goal, for most people. Any modification that invested extra significance in Mojo would threaten that happy state.

    The discussion is starting to happen in the story submission queue, and unless that's the way kuro5in is intended to be - have discussions for stories that might still be thrown away - it shouldn't be that way.
    I think that's a good thing, for these reasons:.
    1. If I mark something down for technical reasons, an editorial comment helps the author know why.
    2. If I mark something down because I feel the idea simply lacks merit, further discussion can either back me up or shout me down.
    3. The debate that grows up around a story in submission actively affects it's chances of acceptance. This is a good thing since it helps filter crap and, conversely, encourages people to think before voting to dump. I know I've initially thought "dump" and then changed my mind on reading the existing comments.
    4. All stories get at least some discussion, even if they are dumped. From what I have seen, this leads to far less bitterness on the part of the rejected authors.
    Because every story receives at least some debate and consideration, I don't think your proposal is necessary at all. As it is, I voted for - it's worth discussing the issue - but I completely oppose the proposal. The current set-up allows me to express that contradiction even if the overwhelming decision were to dump your story. Isn't that a good thing?

    --

    It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    Voted +1, though I disagree with author's opinion (3.00 / 4) (#27)
    by maynard on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 12:49:31 PM EST

    As it is, I voted for - it's worth discussing the issue - but I completely oppose the proposal.

    I concur. I voted up on this because it was different from other meta articles I'd seen posted. As such I consider it an original idea which deserves discussion... It's ironic that the very point of this article, that we've having full blown topical discussions for articles that haven't even made it out of the submission queue, is borne out right here.

    That said, I happen to believe that this issue would be better resolved by barring voters from reading editorial and topical comments until after they've voted. Mostly just to prevent very popular and well known persons from killing or pushing certain submissions without merit. And I do agree that it doesn't make much sense to have these discussions only to kill the article by popular vote; I mean, if the article has generated this much discussion it ought to make it into a section page by default.

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Artificial restraint (3.20 / 5) (#36)
    by itsbruce on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:49:06 PM EST

    That said, I happen to believe that this issue would be better resolved by barring voters from reading editorial and topical comments until after they've voted.
    Why? This isn't some kind of panel game where you win a prize for guessing correctly. As I said, sometimes the comments of others have made me rethink and vote for a story I was going to dump.

    You seem to think that people will go with the herd if they can see the arguments of others - if that's your argument, we'd better ban rating altogether, as the ratings given might influence others to give similar ratings. I mean, where do you stop?

    I'd rather be credited with intelligence, as the current rules do, than treated as a spineless herdbeast.

    --

    It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]
    My opinion as to why voters shouldn't see comments (2.75 / 4) (#37)
    by maynard on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 03:37:17 PM EST

    Why? This isn't some kind of panel game where you win a prize for guessing correctly. As I said, sometimes the comments of others have made me rethink and vote for a story I was going to dump.

    You seem to think that people will go with the herd if they can see the arguments of others - if that's your argument, we'd better ban rating altogether, as the ratings given might influence others to give similar ratings. I mean, where do you stop?

    That's exactly why. Yes, I'm concerned about the herd mentality. We don't see it as a serious problem right now as the K5 userbase is still somewhat small. However, look at /. and consider what happens when a comment forum scales up. I consider this a Tyranny of the Popular vs. Tyranny of the Majority conundrum, one where the editorial staff must somehow find a balance between both opposing social forces.

    Pundits have a very powerful influence on our society. It's a very real threat to those who hold dissenting views. For K5 (or any comment forum) to survive it must promote the creation of new content, even heretical content, and popular individual users should not sway the vote to suppress such opinion. The article should stand on its own without support from, or disagreement by, the popular community.

    That said, a tyranny of the majority could lead us to the very same problem; a stale discussion forum. It's a philosophical fence the editorial staff must somehow straddle.

    Finally, it just doesn't seem fair to me. We don't allow readers to view the vote tally before voting because it's presumed to affect the outcome of the vote. For the same reason, swaying the audience with editorial and topical comments seems to me to bypass that rule. JMO. I think it's wrong... even though I've been guilty of this behavior.

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Show us some respect (2.50 / 4) (#38)
    by itsbruce on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 04:20:12 PM EST

    The article should stand on its own without support from, or disagreement by, the popular community.
    Then there shouldn't be any voting at all, everything should go straight through.

    I just don't accept it. I am quite capable of making a mature judgement and I resent your bald statement that I am not.

    --

    It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
    [ Parent ]
    Now the flip side, or why voting is good... (3.33 / 3) (#41)
    by maynard on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 09:43:09 PM EST

    Bruce,

    You're taking an all or nothing approach here; very polarized between one or the other. The point I was trying to make was that success for a forum like K5 is to be found in the balance of opposing forces from popular opinion to the unwashed masses. As such, voting on story submissions by the K5 user community is a tool to help control the signal to noise ratio on the primary message board, not necessarily a statement of right or wrong WRT a particular story submission.

    However, a popular vote can also suppress unpopular opinion. If a particular highly popular member decides to attempt a shift in the popular vote to control editorial content we could well see one user manipulating the vote by throwing support or dissent against individual stories, thus managing editorial policy without consent from the K5 staff. Both are equally dangerous given our current system.

    Which is exactly what the author of this submission suggests. It's a complete overhaul of the votintg system to hand editorial power over to popular community members. By definition those who are popular will have the highest rated comments; those with the highest rated comments, one would assume, would get their stories posted without editorial review under his/her guidelines. Because of this I see it as a capitulation to the popular, and not a fair solution.

    I think the real question is not how to procedurally embed "fairness" into the scoop codebase, but whether such systems are possible at all. The K5 community, just like the /. community, must face the fact that we're dealing with human psychology and group dynamics -- a political system not an egalitarian fantasy. The first step was for Rusty to put his foot down and say NO to the trolls. No "First Prost" crap, no commercial SPAM... -1 means getting your post yanked. But the next step, that is embedding fairness into the story submission queue... well that may not be possible. This is the most difficult thing to face; politics is not about spreading power among those with who you disagree; by definition it's about convincing others that they agree with you. There's nothing egalitarian about that. Yet, a forum like this succeeds by spreading unpopular opinion among the many... we're truly a forum of diversity of opinion. Otherwise it's a stale bore.

    I don't know how to fix this problem... but it's a REAL PROBLEM. Something this deep is probably outside of Rusty's abilities. If Ghandi and MLK couldn't solve this problem of going against popular opinion when their causes were MOST CERTAINLY RIGHT in order to show injustice to the community as a whole, how can we expect Rusty to succeed? No offense to Rusty, but Ghandi he ain't. :-)

    Cheers
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    ghandi shmandi... (4.50 / 2) (#48)
    by rusty on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 04:21:17 AM EST

    I *do* spin my own loincloth, you know. ;-)

    I think you're right on here. I don't think any system is inherently fair. It might interest some of the commentors to know that I think the system as it is now, with comments, is mor fair than it was before, without. Originally, voters were totally blind -- until you voted, you could see neither comments nor the story's score. And while it was interesting in a roulette-wheel kind of way to see where your take stood w/r/t everyone else, it led to a few major flaws:

    1. Repetetive comments. 90% of people had the same thought, and posted it with their vote. Debunking an article of course did no good because no one could see your debunking until they'd already voted. Generally stories would post with a dozen or two dozen of the exact same comment. That sucked.
    2. Misinformation got through more easily. Someone posts somehting they think is true, but really just isn't. No one could point that out before it was too late. Stories that seemed plausible would post, even though there were five or six people pointing out that it was a load of crap. This was bad.
    3. No useful revision/editorial discussion. Comments were standalone, not threaded, so there wasn't any useful editorial discussion. The current system is way better for revision discussion.
    I've watched carefully for signs of "herd mentality" in voting, and I haven't seen any. I was worried that having real comments in the queue would lead to this, so I had an eagle eye out for it, and I haven't seen it happen. If anything, the good face of herd mentality has been revealed, in cases where someone points out a serious flaw in a posting, and it gets voted down for revision. This isn't a herd, this is a distributed editorial board! I think that's a big plus.

    Now, as for popular opinion ruling with an iron fist, I don't know if I can, or should, do anything about that. It's a voting system. Sometimes the unpopular view will lose, when presented in a forum where it's unpopular. Let's admit it, shall we: sometimes the unpopular view is wrong. Often, that's why it's unpopular. If I posted a story: "Earth Proven Flat, and God Planted Dinosaur Bones for Shits 'N' Giggles", and proceeded to defend both of these views, well, you'd all, I hope, knock it down on ground of being a pile of crap. No matter if I do own the site, it would deserve it.

    And no doubt someone would whinge about the unpopular view being suppressed. Well, I'd respond that sometimes, the unpopular view is obviously wrong to everyone but a handful of lunatics, and no one is interested in explaining to them, yet again, why they are wrong. Thus it's not appropriate material for the site, thus voting is doing it's job.

    Bear in mind that story voting is not designed to promote Maximum Freedom For All Posters, but is designed to promote maximum reading and commentinjg satisfaction for the majority of readers. That is, we will post what the majority of voters are interested in talking about, by definition. HTTP and HTML are open standards, and I urge those with radically unpopular views to take advantage of that and post their views on any available web server. There are a number of excellent free homepage services. :-)

    So to summarize this pile of ramblings, I do think the system does largely what it's supposed to be doing, I don't think it wouldn't benefit from some tweaks and improvements, and I don't think that the proposal in this story would be an improvement. And it worries me less that some stories aren't posted, than it would if many readers weren't happy with what is posted.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    General reply to Rusty, itsbruce & carnage4life (3.66 / 3) (#51)
    by maynard on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 10:31:53 AM EST

    First, I think the proper spelling is Gandhi... and yeah, I'm guilty of the first misspelling in this thread. :-) Rusty: got to admit, I'm glad to hear you're not spinning and wearing your own loincloth. YUCK! <g>

    OK, so when the forum maintainer comes out and says "I don't think we're going to implement your suggestion" take it as a clue...

    But I do want to respond as it's an interesting discussion:

    Now, as for popular opinion ruling with an iron fist, I don't know if I can, or should, do anything about that. It's a voting system. Sometimes the unpopular view will lose, when presented in a forum where it's unpopular. Let's admit it, shall we: sometimes the unpopular view is wrong.
    Sometimes the unpopular view is right. This was why I brought up MLK and Gandhi, their views were highly unpopular to the powerbrokers of their respective countries; to the point of inciting violence. But only a few "lunatics" would today call their causes unjust.

    You brought up a simple straw man with your "Earth proven flat" hypothetical story submission. Frankly, I consider this a weak argument because the story would obviously be factually incorrect; you address this issue in point two. Even if a story like that made it through the submission queue I'd argue that the editorial staff would be right to remove the story for lack of evidence. Unfortunately, this means manual intervention instead of some procedural check in the scoop codebase.

    However, you did bring up one argument that struck me as quite a problem for my proposal:

    1.Repetitive comments. 90% of people had the same thought, and posted it with their vote. Debunking an article of course did no good because no one could see your debunking until they'd already voted. Generally stories would post with a dozen or two dozen of the exact same comment. That sucked.
    Since my proposal would effectively block voters from seeing these comments before voting it would encourage redundant editorial comments. Point one and point three are effectively the same (where you argue for threaded editorial discussion); you're right on both counts. One possible way to solve that problem (given my proposal were implemented) would be to show through highly rated comments... which waters down the proposal dramatically. Another solution would be to allow editorial comments after voting, but not before. But I think this is your killer debunking point against my proposal, Rusty. (JMO) A note: I'm not saying this to either defend or debunk my proposal, I'm actually trying to debate this as "objectively" as possible.

    ----------------

    I want to address another issue here, that of both Carnage4life and itsbruce responding with a condemnation of my proposal with a seeming presumption that implementing my very proposal in some way diminishes their intelligence and/or individuality. Here are some quotes:

    "I'd rather be credited with intelligence, as the current rules do, than treated as a spineless herdbeast." -itsbruce

    "Your suggestion seems to imply that people are sheep and thus must be protected from their own stupidity." -carnage4life

    First of all, I don't want to discuss you personally, because that's not the point. I'm not writing this to offend individual users such as yourselves, but to present an opinion (an opinion with which you apparently disagree) on the relative merits of allowing voters to read editorial comments before casting their ballots. You should not take this as a personal insult.

    But to deal with the "herd mentality" issue of humans in general, I think that group psychology experiments have more than borne this out as true. As an example I offer the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was conducted many years back. The gist of this is that normal legitimate citizens (mostly students) were placed in a mock prison setting. Some of them were assigned the role of "inmate" while others the role of "guards". It was quickly determined that those who fell into the role of guards accepted the role and behaved accordingly, with sadistic gusto. Those who accepted the role of "prisoner" fell into the opposite state... beaten and psychologically broken. It's important to remember that these people were normal individuals; mostly college students.

    Another good example of this type of study was the famous Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority experiment conducted at Yale in the early '70s. Basically, Milgram took regular folks off the street and offered them the opportunity to electroshock an individual the experimentee had never met behind a screen. With the hidden person screaming in pain, at the cajoling of the experimenter the experimentee would either raise the voltage and continue the torture, or break down and finally say "NO." to the authority. The point of this experiment was to find out how often individuals would stand up to authority even in a presumed life or death situation and do "the right thing", which here is defined as refusing to torture a complete stranger. Unfortunately, what they found was that very few people were willing to stand up and refuse. This experiment was originally conducted in an attempt to explain how an entire population could have accepted (and even welcomed) Nazi mass murder. What they found is that the vast majority of individuals follow orders from an authority like members of a herd even when faced by a most difficult ethical choice.

    Now look, I'm not saying this to offend you personally. You've taken the opinion that I'm calling into question your personal individuality by suggesting that preventing voters from reading editorial comments might help control "herd voting" by the whole community (should one popular member attempt to shift the vote with a comment). Don't take this personally, I don't mean it as an insult to YOU. However, you should realize that there's quite a bit of experimental evidence backing my claim of "herd behavior" among humans, whether you like the results or not. I'm not suggesting that these findings in general back up my specific assertion that the current voting system is skewed to the popular and is thus unfair, well I won't go that far. I'm simply bringing up those studies in order to prove my point; that humans are strongly manipulated by the social pressure of peers.

    However, I do think there's good evidence for the assertion that the popular who write well can easily manupulate the general community. I point simply to Karma manipulation ("karma whoring") on Slashdot. Some people have learned to manipulate moderation on Slashdot to their advantage, and gained a hell of a reputation in the process. I'm not saying that's bad, or even good, just that it's true. And it's the justification I use to present my proposal. Some of those folks might even be hanging out here *cough* (fleeing the noise of Slashdot). And this is in many ways a good thing. Certainly it would be wrong to ban Signal 11 (an example, no offense sig11) just because he's a popular and well spoken member of the community; I'm personally pleased to read his comments here. But he is an example of someone with significant peer authority because he's so well known. Certainly others among the community have the same level of "peer authority."

    Look, continue to think I'm wrong if you like. Rusty has already said he doesn't think my suggestion would work well on K5; which is good enough for me. Should I ever implement a comment forum like scoop of slashcode I might change the voting system in the way I write. It's an editorial policy issue. From this perspective, if Rusty says "No" to this idea, since he's one of the editors he sets policy. Really, I'm not complaining and I don't mean to offend either Rusty or other readers with these comments. But I will speak my mind, damn the ratings! :-)

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Why Voters SHOULD see comments (4.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Carnage4Life on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 12:46:07 AM EST

    Pundits have a very powerful influence on our society. It's a very real threat to those who hold dissenting views. For K5 (or any comment forum) to survive it must promote the creation of new content, even heretical content, and popular individual users should not sway the vote to suppress such opinion. The article should stand on its own without support from, or disagreement by, the popular community.

    Whatever... Recently I have noticed a few articles slipping through the submission queue that contained factually incorrect or misleading information. This article and this one are examples of such submissions. I have noticed that most of these stories get a surge in votes as long as no one points out that the article is B.S. or shows that the article is misleading or unclear.
    With the current system, voters do not have to be experts in a given topic to vote on it because there is always a chance that a clueful user will post corrections or clarifications if any are needed.

    Your suggestion seems to imply that people are sheep and thus must be protected from their own stupidity. I cannot see any advantage to hiding comments from voters and the only disadvantage I see is that it means that B.S. articles that hoodwink people into voting them up with baseless rhetoric may have their voting trends reversed and then get voted down. That's a disadvantage I can live with. :)



    [ Parent ]
    The case that something's broken (4.70 / 10) (#26)
    by rusty on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 12:15:05 PM EST

    Other comments here have made the case against this suggestion, and for the record, I agree with them -- I don't think this is the way to go.

    However, all is not completely well. What bothers me is that there are stories that get a significant amount of discussion, but never make it into a permanent archive anywhere. I don't think that's "wasted" discussion, but I do think it's knowlege that's not being saved, which is bad.

    I think the straight voting system may need to be modified somewhat, to account for some other factors. Voting will always play a strong role, obviously. But I do think the amount and quality of discussion should also play a part. If a story has a score of 55, but also has 100 comments with an average rating of 3.5, well, then it probably should be posted, because by any measure, that's a damn good discussion going on.

    I'm currently pondering how to make the posting system more attuned to the reality of the site, but I'm not going to change anything until I'm pretty sure it would work better than what we have now. What may happen is there could be a "posting range" for scores, where once a story gets within the postable range, then discussion comes into play and makes it possible for a story to be posted without getting the hard "Post" score. If it's discussion is good enough, there could be some flexibility to the scoring. Other factors may also apply.

    I don't think that story posting should be based on user points though. I've seen stories that absolutely suck come from the keyboards of people who are well respected and trusted on the site, and I've seen fantastic gems from people I've never heard of. I think content should be considered on its own merits, not those of the poster. But I am aware that voting needs some fixing (as always! :-))

    ____
    Not the real rusty

    Do we need a vote at all? (2.25 / 4) (#39)
    by BlckKnght on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 05:53:28 PM EST

    I wonder if we need voting at all?

    I think a queued story should be posted if it is generating a significant topical discussion. This can simply be measured by the number of topical comments it gets. Editorial comments could be given a value by their poster of either "don't care" or "dump it" as appropriate. Maybe this would need to be limited to make it one vote per commenter, to keep it to "one person, one vote" if that is important.

    This would fix a little thing that I find slightly irritating, that the "Rate All" button doesn't also submit a vote on the original story...


    -- 
    Error: .signature: No such file or directory


    [ Parent ]
    rate all and voting (3.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rusty on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 03:55:37 AM EST

    Comment rating and story voting are totally separate, in function and design. It never occurred to me that the Rate buttons would be seen as affecting the story itself. The only place you vote on stories is from the little voting console underneath the story, while it's being moderated. Did anyone else have this issue?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Example (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jason H. Smith on Sat Oct 28, 2000 at 01:53:49 PM EST

    Agreed. If a story gets submitted and somebody posts a good reason why it shouldn't go up, I want to give it a high rating. I certainly do not want to contribute to its chances of getting posted.
    Ants. (two by two)
    [ Parent ]
    Don't count editorial comments in this... (3.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Erf on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 01:38:16 AM EST

    I realize you've probably already thought of this, Rusty, but it's worth mentioning: the number and rating of editorial comments should not impact whether the story gets posted. Other than that (probably obvious) point, letting topical discussion tweak the "effective vote" is a Good Thing IMO.

    -Erf.
    ...doin' the things a particle can...
    [ Parent ]

    Or a "Stories that didn't make it" secti (none / 0) (#52)
    by katravax on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 10:37:07 AM EST

    One alternative could be a section for stories that fell out from low ratings, grouped by topic area and then by discussion generated...

    [ Parent ]
    recycle bin (4.00 / 1) (#53)
    by rusty on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 12:37:46 PM EST

    I don't know if I remembered to mention this anywhere else, but I do plan to add a "recycle bin", off the submission queue where you can go look at stories that weren't posted. It'll probably be a simple list, not a whole subterranean site, but generally people seem to want the option of seeing dead submissions, and I don't think there's any harm in it. At the very least it might convince some people that the voting process works better than they think it does. ;-)

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Meta Meta (was Re: recycle bin) (4.50 / 2) (#54)
    by kjeldar on Sun Oct 22, 2000 at 05:12:31 PM EST

    I like the idea, just please don't call it the recycle bin. Dead Letter Office (or something) would be much more k5ish.

    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile... (4.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Calamari Indigo on Fri Oct 27, 2000 at 01:49:36 PM EST

    How about, "The Kitchen", because as everyone knows that's where
    the really interesting conversations take place during any good party.



    [ Parent ]
    Replies to comments (2.60 / 5) (#33)
    by krogoth on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:13:24 PM EST

    I know that some people disagree with my opinion, but I noticed this, and thought that it didn't sound right. For everyone who thinks i'm on the right track but there's something wrong with my ideas, you can always post and alternative.

    From the comments people have posted, I see that my suggestion might not be perfect for everyone, altough some people would like to see it. I have come up with an alternative solution: allow people to see the moderation queue as part of the front page. This wouldn't solve the problem of lost discussions that Rusty pointed out, but it would, IMO, be an improvement for some people without forcing anyone to use it.

    --
    "If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
    :wq
    just found a problem in the polls: (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by krogoth on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:15:53 PM EST

    I can't change my vote. I see that no stories should be posted directly to the front page, unless a much better system is found. I would change my vote to no if i could.

    --
    "If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
    :wq
    [ Parent ]
    And stories should be editable by the author.... (3.75 / 4) (#35)
    by krogoth on Sat Oct 21, 2000 at 02:17:24 PM EST

    ...before they are posted. I would edit this and repost it, but then all the discussion would be split up.

    --
    "If you've never removed your pants and climbed into a tree to swear drunkenly at stuck-up rich kids, I highly recommend it."
    :wq
    [ Parent ]
    Put all the comments in one place. (3.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Sunnanvind on Sun Oct 29, 2000 at 09:16:25 PM EST

    Here is an idea that I've been toying with (in my mind). I'm really sorry if someone else has already thought of it, but I didn't see anyone with something similar so here goes...

    Let there be full discussion in the story submission queue, and if the story makes the front page, have the discussion continue there.
    With the wonders of comment databases and generated html, a comment posted to one place would show up at the other and vice versa. It would essentially be the very same discussion.

    This way, people who want to be sure that they see all stories can just hang in the story submission queue, and casual surfers can read the front page.

    Of course, this way the discussion would have to be separated from the voting on the story, like two different "threads" or maybe post attributes, one discussing the story itself as if it had been put on the front page (and the very same discussion can continue there regardless of whether the story does go to the front page, in which case more people will be involved [meaning those who doesn't read the submission queue] or whether the story doesnt go to the front page), and one discussing whether the story actually should get on the front page or not.

    In essence (and summarized for those who cannot decipher my confused point [hey, I'm tired..]), the reader would see one discussion per story, but the story could be reached from two places, the front page and the submission queue (or only the latter if it doesn't get accepted).

    I think it would be the best solution, but I might've missed something.

    Sunnanvind.



    why is there a queue at all? (4.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Jim Madison on Fri Nov 03, 2000 at 10:16:42 AM EST

    why should there be a "front page"? why should there be a queue at all? why can't you just submit articles and then have people comment and rate them. if they become hot and popular, they rise in prominence. over time the articles decay. it seems to me that the queue is a rip-off from /. and not part of the core idea here to have a competitive market of ideas.

    and then you can use the user preferences in conjunction with the votes to create a unique "front page" for each user...

    Got democracy? Try e-thePeople.org.

    Should we moderate story submissions before posting them? | 67 comments (60 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!