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]
Accountability in Ratings

By rusty in Meta
Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:27:38 AM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

If you've been paying attention, you'll note that there are some differences in the way comments look today. In addition to the average score of a comment, the system now displays how many ratings are contributing to that score, and, if you click the rating display, it will show you specifically who rated the comment, and what their rating was. Also, there have been some changes in how ratings affect Mojo. These will not be immediately obvious, and the effect of the changes will take a few days to filter in, but I'll describe all the below as well.


Rating Accountability

This is a two-part change. Part one is simply making the number of ratings visible along with the average score. This ought to provide some sense of how "reliable" a rating is. The more ratings contribute to it, the more accurate it will tend to be.

Where the rating alone used to be displayed (next to a comment's subject), there are now two numbers. The format is: ([rating] / [number of ratings]). So if you see something like: (3.75 / 5), that means the comment has been rated by five different people, and their scores average to 3.75.

The second part is making individual ratings visible. I've been talking about this for a while, so if you track Scoop development it should come as no surprise. But ratings (past, present, and future) are now visible to everyone. When you're looking at a comment, just click on the "(3.45 / 15)", and you will get a page that displays the comment, alone, and below that a box showing the list of who rated that comment and what they rated it.

Some trusted vs. normal issues came up. I chose to make zero-ratings hidden for non-trusted users. You may occasionally see something like:

...list of ratings...
Zero ratings: 2
That means that in addition to ratings in the list, there were two ratings of "0" given by trusted users. In the interests of accountability, trusted users will see the details of zero ratings by other trusted users.

Of course the social ramification of this is that anyone can see what you rated their comment. I am fully aware that "vendettas" are now possible. I urge you all to recognize the fact that if you go on an "unfair rating" vendetta against someone, they can do it right back to you. So, please, exercise some restraint, and understand that no one is rating you, they are rating a comment.

Mojo adjustments

The other change, which is less obvious, is an adjustment in the way Mojo is calculated. Previously, the algorithm went like this:

Get the rating from the last 30 rated comments you have posted, 
or all comments from the last 60 days (whichever comes first).

Initialize:
weight = 30 # The time-decay weighting factor
count  =  0 # The weighted total number of comments
rtotal =  0 # The weighted total of ratings

For each comment:
    rtotal += (rating * weight)
    count  += weight
    weight -= 1
	
Mojo = rtotal / count
Pretty simple. It just used a decaying weighting factor to value new comments more than old ones. Other than that, it was just the average of ratings.

Now, it takes into account the number of ratings, counting comments with more rating "data points" more heavily than those with less. The idea is that a comment that's been rated 12 times is likely to have a more accurate rating than one that's been rated once.

So, the adjusted algorithm is:

Get the rating *and the number of ratings* from the last 30 
rated comments you have posted, or all comments from the 
last 60 days (whichever comes first).

Initialize:
weight = 30 # The time-decay weighting factor
count  =  0 # The weighted total number of comments
rtotal =  0 # The weighted total of ratings

For each comment:
    rtotal += (rating * weight * num_ratings)
    count  += (weight * num_ratings)
    weight -= 1
	
Mojo = rtotal / count
So, in effect, a comment with 12 ratings counts 4 times as much as a comment with 3 ratings (leaving aside the time-decay weight). This should tend to make Mojo slightly more accurate, by putting a greater emphasis on the data we believe to be more trustworthy when calculating it.

This change will only take effect when comments get rated; I haven't gone through and recalculated everyone's Mojo with the new algorithm. So some of you may find yourself unexpectedly getting or losing trusted status over the next few days. Please do not be alarmed. :-)

There's been a lot of concern and meta-commentary about ratings lately. I hope this begins to address some of the problems with it. We're still quite a long way from "the perfect sorting scheme" (if there is such an imaginary beast), and yes, the system does have it's weaknesses. I hope everyone takes it with a large grain of salt, and doesn't get too attached to the idea that your comment ratings reflect your value as a human being. Use it as a guidepost, not as a source of Truth.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
The changes:
o Like 'em 66%
o Hate 'em 10%
o Don't care 8%
o K5 and all it stands for is evil 13%

Votes: 101
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
Accountability in Ratings | 161 comments (156 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
I voted this up but... (3.14 / 21) (#1)
by SbooX on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:38:27 PM EST

...how do I know you are the real rusty? :-)

All good ideas though, glad to see that you are listening to everyone!

---

god is silly. MGL 272:36

Click on his name .. (3.50 / 4) (#2)
by Eloquence on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:40:11 PM EST

.. and check his comments. There can be only one :)
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
heh (2.20 / 5) (#3)
by rusty on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:45:21 PM EST

Yeah, it's really me. Here, I'll prove it. "Whee!" :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: heh (2.14 / 7) (#5)
by SbooX on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:46:41 PM EST

Well, I'm convinced! Now if only I could figure out who the hell I am!

---

god is silly. MGL 272:36
[ Parent ]

That was funny. (3.00 / 3) (#12)
by pb on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:16:46 PM EST

All those accounts were fake! I was so confused...

The "fascist slashdot solution" to that problem is to stick a User's UID in or around their User Info; I'd be #835 on Kuro5hin.

But, since this isn't really a problem yet, and I have no special fondness for the number 835, I suppose it can wait; I'm far more happy about the added rating info.

P.S. Does Bruce Perens have an account here yet?
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
How about over-mojo? (3.50 / 22) (#4)
by Latrell Sprewell on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:46:37 PM EST

Have you thought about addressing issues of "mutual admiration societies", as worded by kmself (I believe)? In situations like this, people give all their cronies +5, thus making the rating system worthless and giving them Trusted user status. While I agree that Trusted user status isn't that big a deal, it seems as big a deal as people complaining about losing it :p

It's not about "over-mojo" (3.55 / 9) (#11)
by pb on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:12:34 PM EST

It's about getting appropriate ratings for comments. Modding someone's post up to 5 in a thread that no one will see harms no one. (if a post falls in the forest and there's no one there to read it...) I'm sure they could adjust mojo to deal with this, but I don't see it as a big problem.

Personally, though, I'd either like to have "Trusted User Status", or not have it; gaining or losing it at random is very disconcerting.

But modding down someone's posts for a reason that has nothing to do with the content of the post harms the rating system, and generally pisses people off. That's what I'd commonly call a "grudge". And modding down someone's diary entries for no discernable reason... When they're talking about how weird it is that someone has been modding down their posts for no discernable reason... And not even having the courtesy to post... Well, that's just rude.

In my opinion, of course. I could be wrong. Have I wronged you greatly, "Latrell Sprewell"? Feel free to e-mail me if you don't want to post a reply to this; if you explain yourself, maybe I'll understand.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Also (3.36 / 11) (#13)
by enterfornone on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:38:25 PM EST

People with second accounts for the sole purpose of modding their own posts up.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Hey now... (2.80 / 10) (#14)
by Latrell Sprewell on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:58:59 PM EST

That's my girlfriend's account, who _actually_ reads K5 about once/day (her computer is next to mine). I can't help it if she mods my comments up. I'd do the same to hers if she'd only be brave enough to post. heh.

[ Parent ]
fair enough (3.40 / 5) (#17)
by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:14:45 AM EST

Just looked a bit sus, since it looks like the account is only ever used for mods...

It's not that hard, I've done it <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=user;tool=info;uid=10795">myself</a> just to see how easy it would be. I know there are quite a few others with multiple accounts.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
hmm.. (1.33 / 3) (#55)
by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:58:55 AM EST

i thought i hit preview, oh well..

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
How can a post be modded down? (none / 0) (#143)
by rdskutter on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:21 PM EST

How can a post be modded down? I don't understand - The choice of mod points is none 1 2 3 4 5 . Even a mod of 1 is modding up. This isn't like <spit> Slashdot where posts can have negative ratings - correct me if I'm wrong.


BEEN A BIT CARELESS HAVEN'T WE? - Mr Death.
[ Parent ]

Default is null (none / 0) (#145)
by Sunir on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 10:30:45 PM EST

Not rating is not the same as getting a 0. A rating of 0 is definitely a rating down. A rating of 1 is a rating down because it isn't a 5.

See KuroshinRatingIssues, section Comment rating is entirely negative. for my opinion on this.

"Look! You're free! Go, and be free!" and everyone hated it for that. --r
[ Parent ]

And... (4.50 / 2) (#123)
by 11223 on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:29:17 PM EST

*why* exactly have you been going around modding comments of mine 1 that get hit with a 4 or 5 by everybody else, with no explanation? That's being a K5 coward!

--
The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.
[ Parent ]

Isn't this adressed? (3.14 / 7) (#16)
by Elendale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:12:41 AM EST

In the same way that 'rating snipers' have been dealt with (rating all of someone's comments '1's) i think this has been semi-adressed. The '5' won't count as much toward mojo, although this requires people to rate to rememdy i think it will work under the new system.

-Elendale (lost trusted status after a month of 3.5+ only posts on 1 lame comment, love ya rusty :))
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
Heh. (4.00 / 4) (#36)
by rusty on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:02:31 AM EST

The '5' won't count as much toward mojo

Not entirely true. Only if you use the same account to post in your "mojo club" and on public stories. The issue with rings of uprating is still pretty much unaddressed.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Really hypocritical of you. (3.00 / 7) (#21)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:28:53 AM EST

So, you even *dare* post a reply to this story, seeing that it's addressed to somebody who is evidently a major perpetrator of systematic "1" rating against a particular k5 poster (which shall remain nameless, but it's not tough to guess)? This is really hypocritical.

Also, the person who has been marking a sizable percentage of my comments 1 or even 0 (you know who you are), can you fucking stop it?

--em
[ Parent ]

Actually, it's somewhat tough to guess... (4.00 / 5) (#34)
by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:59:03 AM EST

Not just one, apparently; several. And I thought *I* had free time.

However, I for one would appreciate a reply. I don't understand this sort of behavior at all, and I'm somewhat curious. I guess I'll just consider it a lost cause.

However, could you stop rating *all* my posts to '3'? Somehow that seems even more hypocritical, now! ;)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Actually, it can be fairly obvious. (4.33 / 3) (#37)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:05:20 AM EST

You just have to look through the relevant "Comments by" page, and find the comments which are both lowly rated and have a small number of raters. The patterb becomes quite obvious. There is a user which is systematically rating himself up with one account, and rating trhurler and me (and possibly others) down with ones and even 0s (an abuse of trusted status).

However, could you stop rating *all* my posts to '3'? Somehow that seems even more hypocritical, now! ;)

Who is this addressed to? I hardly ever rate. I don't care for ratings. I do care about people starting childish, anonymous vendettas against me, tho

--em
[ Parent ]

Sorry, em... (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:08:15 AM EST

I was talking to my stalker, there. :)

Yes, there has been a lot of abuse of the system lately, but at least now we know what's happening.

And I agree with you about the "childish, anonymous vendettas"; I don't know how that works, but it's bizarre.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
no need to be sorry (3.50 / 2) (#45)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:15:19 AM EST

I never assumed you were addressing me, it just was absolutely unclear who was the addressee...

--em
[ Parent ]

aargh, *here* I say what I meant. (3.50 / 4) (#47)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:18:33 AM EST

So, you even *dare* post a reply to this story, seeing that it's addressed to somebody who is evidently a major perpetrator of systematic "1" rating against a particular k5 poster (which shall remain nameless, but it's not tough to guess)?

This is utterly unclear. I shall make it clear. I am accusing you, Latrell Sprewell, of abusing the rating system by going into a vendetta and consistently rating down one person's posts. And, I'm accussing you of being hypocritical by participating in this discussion.

--em
[ Parent ]

Half-right (4.00 / 3) (#50)
by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:36:28 AM EST

I believe that's supposed to be "I accuse Latrell Sprewell, In the living room, with the rope."

And I was saying that he didn't just rate down one person's posts, although I searched back further, and think that he probably holds some very different views than the rest of us. It's too bad he doesn't like to talk, although I can see why he might get intimidated. :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
For that matter... (none / 0) (#103)
by Zarniwoop on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:59:46 AM EST

His girlfriend seems to have extremely similar views as him- to the extent that if they have both rated a comment, it will be the same. It could be just that they both rate the same way, but still...

Curious.

[ Parent ]

That's what I thought. (none / 0) (#125)
by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:53:06 PM EST

Like I said, they must be close; apparently she adores his posts and shares his views on Carnivore, and his vendettas against random people having a conversation in a discussion forum...

Go figure. :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Here come the slashdot kiddies (3.00 / 4) (#90)
by 0xdeadbeef on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 08:54:09 AM EST

Not tough to guess? I am I that popular? :-)

He's done it to me too. The interesting thing is that he actually took the time to read my posts. The better ones get "2", and the more antagonistic ones get "1".

Is this going to cause rating vendettas? Or will the open nature of all ratings discourage that behavior? My first impulse was to retaliate, but I thought better of it seeing how my ratings would be visible too. Besides, he must spend a great deal of time doing this, especially if he has a second account, and I wouldn't want to take all the joy out of his life.




[ Parent ]
yes, you're right. (none / 0) (#93)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:13:18 AM EST

Not tough to guess? I am I that popular?

I was not aware to the extent he'd done it when I wrote that. He's done this to quite a number of people.

Is this going to cause rating vendettas? Or will the open nature of all ratings discourage that behavior? My first impulse was to retaliate, but I thought better of it seeing how my ratings would be visible too.

If by "retaliate" you mean "go and rate down all his stuff", I never considered that. However, I consider flaming to be a perfectly fine form of retaliation.

As to the vendettas, I think it all depends on how the readers take this. It's certainly possible that the whole thing could degenerate thusly. But, if most people take rating seriously, spot problem raters, and take collective action against them, then vendettas can be very discouraged-- if it comes to a "rating war", and isolated spiteful rater is outnumbered.

A problem would be if spiteful raters ganged up, or if two sizable groups of k5 regular formed "gangs" that rated each other down indiscriminately.

However, the vendetta problem can be reduced by restricting the range of comments that can be rated to proper stories (thus eliminating targets in diaries/sids). The vendetta attackers have been targetting these kind of post (and posts in old stories).

--em
[ Parent ]

Where to flame? (none / 0) (#97)
by leviathan on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:06:25 AM EST

If you mean e-mail flames, the user doesn't have to have set up an e-mail account.

If you mean make a reply to your comment that s/he rated 1, surely that would just look bizarrely off-topic.

Otherwise, what? Comment on their diaries they might not have? Put a list of those you've spotted in your bio? Or your sig? That could be fun...and very very messy.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Right here. Diaries. Sids. (none / 0) (#100)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:24:17 AM EST

If you mean e-mail flames, the user doesn't have to have set up an e-mail account.

A person very much in question didn't. Anyway, the proper way to respond to a k5 attack in on k5.

Otherwise, what? Comment on their diaries they might not have? Put a list of those you've spotted in your bio? Or your sig? That could be fun...and very very messy.

Check my diary. Check my posting history. I thought about the sig idea, and see no reason why to do it so far, though.

--em
[ Parent ]

A little Buddhistic detachment helps sometimes (4.00 / 3) (#121)
by marlowe on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:17:26 PM EST

In other words, just don't give a damn.

I learned long ago that there are only a few people whose opinions of me matter, and an awful lot of people whose opinions of me don't matter, although they seem to think otherwise.

That works both ways, of course.


-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm an Atheist, so realize my confusion... (4.50 / 2) (#126)
by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:58:39 PM EST

I could care less what the ratings are; I'm far more curious about the rationale.

Or rather, I value some people's opinions, but I always want to know why people hold differing ones. If they gave me a good reason, maybe I'd change my mind. :)

...and the quote I always saw was this (from the Rick Cook "Wiz" books):

If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
If life hands you a hemlock, DON'T make hemlockade.
Know the difference between a lemon and a hemlock.

---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Then, just for the record... (none / 0) (#150)
by 11223 on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:05:07 PM EST

I rated yours a 5 because I like that quote, and it certainly applies to any rating system or even commenting system. Does that help you at all?

--
The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.
[ Parent ]

You are the guy I've been looking for (3.00 / 1) (#122)
by Scrag on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:20:48 PM EST

I feel the urge to misquote a line from the Princess Bride:

My name is Scrag Noth, you rated all my comments to one. Prepare to die.

Seriously, why did you do that? I know they don't all deserve 5's, but rating them at one is just stupid. You've never even responded to one of my comments. I've never heard of you until I saw the people who rated my comments. If you keep abusing the moderation system, I hope your account is removed. It's this kind of thing that will bring K5 down to the level of another site I could name.

"I'm... responsible for... many atrocities" - rusty
[ Parent ]
Two Points (3.87 / 31) (#6)
by Malicose on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:52:34 PM EST

First, I love the changes! The value added to the ratings with more votes finally made me a trusted user. Two things I'd like to see made available:
Your Ratings
This option should be available with "Your Comments," et al. It would allow one to view the ratings made by a particular user, making the search for abusing users easier and allowing one to easily change ratings they've recognized as incorrect or unfair.
Report Abuse
An interface that would allow reports to be made against offending users. Decisions should be made by one of the site's operators or voted on by trusted users. I'm undecided as to the outcome that should result.


Club Mod (2.00 / 2) (#141)
by jlbispotsyiskissisanneiscp on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 09:17:39 AM EST

http://members.aol.com/imanangstpoet/street.txt

Try that with html Club MOD

This is kind of pathetic. I didn't go thru the whole listings, but just enough to get the point across.

And, yes, I did make a new account to post this to keep from getting lashed out at by Club Mod members.

Oh, and don't flame me for the AOL account, I keep it for mom and my little bro ;)

P.S. I knew you weren't rating everyone at 1 or 2, because, although you did rate one of mine that way, you also rated one of mine at 5. It happened to be a good post 8)

[ Parent ]

Don't post about what you don't know about (none / 0) (#156)
by pb on Sun Dec 24, 2000 at 03:51:49 PM EST

Your speculations are pathetic; for a little insight about what you obviously don't understand, send me e-mail.

In the meantime, save us all from your pointless ramblings.

P.S. Signal 11 really isn't Anne Marie, but everybody is Bruce Perens, and spiralx is everybody.

Thank you.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Re: Don't post about what you don't know about (none / 0) (#158)
by jlbispotsyiskissisanneiscp on Thu Dec 28, 2000 at 06:36:29 PM EST

> Your speculations are pathetic; for a little

What? That they like to mod eachother up? It's obvious. I've seen one line Meee Toooo!!1!!!!1!!! posts from that group with each of the MOD Squad rating it 5. It's pathetic. It's, IMHO, the k5 version of karma whoring.

> insight about what you obviously don't understand,
> send me e-mail.

Done.

> In the meantime, save us all from your pointless
> ramblings.

The subject was "Accountability in ratings". I'd say it was very topical.



[ Parent ]
Thanks for listening .. (4.00 / 27) (#7)
by Eloquence on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:55:22 PM EST

As the author of the suggestion on Scoop.K5, I thank you for implementing this. I'm not sure whether making the names of the people public will lead to flamewars, but it should at least make workarounds like "unfair_rating_alert!" superfluous (which I, frankly, found quite annoying after the third or fourth time I saw it).

At this point I want to say something that I've been meaning to say for some time. No, it's not a confession of my secret and forbidden love for Rusty's housecat, it's some general commentary on the way I rate comments.

It has been said that you shouldn't rate comments based on whether you agree with them or not, rather, whether the argument is good and consistent or not. I disagree, strongly even. I always rate comments based mainly on whether I agree or disagree.

The reason for this is that I want the rating system to allow users to find valuable information quicker. What I see as valuable is of course determined by my individual worldview, which I try to keep as open and fact-based as possible. I believe that being confronted with alternative worldviews and arguments is a good thing, however, if I'm looking for facts and good discussion, I would rather see the arguments I agree with to come up first. If the argument is considered truthful by others, they can rate it up in turn.

This leads me to rate comments as follows: 5 if I agree completely, 4 if I agree except for some minor point, 3 if I agree with some parts or don't care much, 2 if I disagree with most of the content, 1 if I disagree with all of it. I think I have never used 0 to vote something down just because I disagree. I do make some exceptions: If an argument is good and well thought-out, I might rate a 1 a 2 or a 3, and a 2 a 3 or a 4, but it is unlikely that I would give it a 5. I would only do this if I would be willing to change my own view on the subject. This has happened rarely, although it has happened.

Furthermore, I do sometimes give extreme ratings if I feel like the current rating is totally unjustified. E.g. if a post is at 4, and I think it's a 2 at best, I might rate it 1 just to get it closer to the goal. I think rusty has at some point expressed that he does it similarly. Given the fact that ratings are still sorted according to the average, the new system will probably not change this practice.

I do not rate based on user name, country or any other frivolous standard. I do think, however, that it is the logical thing to rate a comment based on whether it reflects your own view or not, with exceptions for interesting and well-formed arguments. Now I realize that many would rather have a reply instead of a 1.00 rating, but sorry, I can't do that for all comments. I think I already contribute to the quality of the site by quickly checking & rating some comments.

In other words, if you agree with this comment, please rate it up, if you disagree, feel free to vote it down ;-).
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

Idea (3.53 / 13) (#10)
by Malicose on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:06:09 PM EST

Perhaps an advanced rating system could be implemented that would be optional to employ based on user preference. Those wishing to take (extreme) care of their ratings could enable this mode and be allowed to do an eBay-esque style of rating a comment. A user could enter a number ranging from 0 to 5 inclusive with as much precision as two places after the decimal point. This would be that user's true rating; furthermore, a "minimum bid" would be used to give more extreme ratings that would work to cancel out others' ratings automatically. As an example, you think this comment is a 3.25 and rate it as such. But since three people voted it unfairly (in your opinion) as 1s, Scoop would automatically raise your vote to 5. This rating would stand until the score reached 3.25, and the system could even automatically lower your vote to help the average reach 3.25. I just came up with this so I do not know the feasibility of such a scheme.

[ Parent ]
Minority Rules (3.85 / 7) (#58)
by mdxi on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:06:07 AM EST

If i follow correctly, your "minimum bid" scheme would always favor one person voting /against/ the trend. You are giving dissenters more weight simply for dissenting and doing away with the apparent expressed will of the masses.

--
SYN SYN NAK
[ Parent ]
I totally disagree, but I rated it up anyway (3.40 / 10) (#33)
by maynard on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:55:52 AM EST

And that's because I believe that if a comment is relevant contextually, if it's well written, if it follows logically, then even if I disagree with the content these things are more important. Personally, I think ratings should be about contribution to the thread and not agreement. Otherwise, all we'd learn from a rating is a convergence of agreement and consensus instead of a comment's value to the discussion at hand. You must agree that discussion forums rely on disagreement without which no commentary could occur. Don't you?

However, I respect you opinion. And since Rusty has made it quite clear that he won't tell people how to rate, other than to be fair to one's own sense of integrity, then you are perfectly within your right to rate as you see fit. And yes, I rated your comment up because I consider it a valuable contribution to this story submission, and therefore even though I don't agree with your position, I still think it deserves a good rating.

--Maynard

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

Precisely (3.00 / 7) (#69)
by Rainy on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:56:13 AM EST

I never understood people who say 'if the comment is good, rate it up, even if you disagree'. Why do you think it's good if you disagree? If you disagree, you think it untrue, and how can untrue be good? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any kind of sense to me. For me, it works like this: let's suppose that I hate quake (true) and I see a comment that amounts to the view that quake rocks. First of all, I think we can all agree that if this is all this comment says, it doesn't really stand as a comment - it should be a poll entry. Now let's imagine that this comment gives some argumentation - then I can judge it and if I agree with it, I will change my opinion on quake, and rate comment up, if I disagree with arguments given, I will (and should) rate it down. If I agree with some and disagree with other, I'll give it a mixed rating. Does anyone think this approach is wrong? If I agree with your arguments, I'll change my rating policy and mod your comment up :-).
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]
In my opinion, this approach is wrong (4.00 / 3) (#92)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:09:04 AM EST

Working with your example, if I where to give an accurate evaluation of why people enjoy Quake, citing research into game theory and adolecant behavioural research, would that still be a "bad" comment?

You cannot, in my opinion, judge a comment on opinion, with regards to the views expressed. To judge a subjective opinion is to silence discussion.

By moderating this way you are saying that other people shouldn't read opinions that are different to yours.

When something is factually incorrect, then it should be moderated down. When opinion is pressented as fact, then it should be moderated down. When the writting is so bad its an effort to read then it should be moderated down. When there is no content, it should be moderated down.

But don't get me started on moderating up/down, there is, in my opinion, no such thing. There is just Rating, that is all. But thats a whole other discussion...
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#154)
by Rainy on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 05:17:49 PM EST

If I find your argumentation convincing, I will change my opinion on the subject. If I find it unconvincing, I will try to find flaws in it and point them out - and if I fail to do so I will not moderate it at all (i.e. I will say - I have a gut feeling the guy's wrong but I have no right to moderate him down unless I have something more than gut feeling). Oh yeah, my example has been rather bad, cause it has to do with taste, not facts/logic. However, unsubstantiated tastes shouldn't be on discussion boards, i.e. a post saying that someone likes quake over UT without giving some objective reasons is not something I want to read (and I don't think anyone wants..).
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]
The art of debate (4.50 / 4) (#98)
by leviathan on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:10:50 AM EST

The art if debate between two or more people is to influence a third person's views (your audience).

I could rate down people who I'm having an argument with, but then their posts would tend to be hidden. The best way of making a point is to lead someone else into saying something stupid, following their own principles.

And damnit, I also enjoy a good argument!

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Formally unprovable propositions (4.33 / 3) (#114)
by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:41:57 PM EST

This repeats what's written elsewhere, I'll be brief.

Factual, well-argued, intelligent, succinct, coherent discussion will almost alway get a favorable rating from me. Poorly written or thought-out comments that I agree will I'll tend to mod down.

There are both formally and practically unprovable propositions -- read Kurt Gödel for the rigorous argument. In the less defined space, we've got the typical alt.* fare: Is there a God? Is abortion moral? Should there be a death penalty? Is animal experimentation ethical? Should gay marriage be legal? Did Bush win the election fairly? Is K5 better than Slashdot? There isn't going to be a final concensus answer on any of these questions -- they transcend truth. Aside from preferring to avoid these sorts of debates entirely, I tend to favor well-formed arguments to poor ones on either side. Yes, I could moderate up something I fundamentally disagree with, if it moves me to think on an issue.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

um.. (3.00 / 1) (#153)
by Rainy on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 05:11:58 PM EST

If it's well argued and factual, I *will* agree with it. If an argument is of the time that I can't either agree or disagree (like some of the ones you shown), i.e. if it says abortion is moral, I will rate it down because it doesn't say anything new, but if it shows a particular example from writer's experience that shows that in some case it is, say, moral, I will rate on basis of how good the example is, while not agreeing/disagreeing absolutely on main issue.

If you see a post that you disagree with, you cannot conscientously refer to it as 'factual and well-argued'. You disgaree with it - you think his argument goes wrong somewhere, or alternatively you can't pinpoint the problem but you have a feeling that something's wrong - in that case you shouldn't moderate at all until you can say where exactly the guy went wrong. The quake example I used is a rather bad one, cause it has to deal with taste mainly (although I have some logical reasons for not liking 3d first perspective games).
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]

Re: Rating down when you disagree.. (3.00 / 7) (#87)
by Zukov on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 08:08:10 AM EST

I make the assumption that this is how you approach life. Given that assumption, how do you (or how will you) expand your breadth and depth of knowledge and insight?

If you reject things you don't like without giving them consideration, how will you develop a well rounded understanding of the world? And if you only associate with people and ideas you already like, how will you discover much that is new?

In other words, how will you grow intellectually?

In my opinion, new ideas come from being exposed to and thinking about things you might at first completely reject.

I'll give you an off-the-wall examples

  • Eating Snails*. Yes, those things soft things that live in shells. Now, it turns out that snails, cooked in garlic butter, are delicious. (be sure to peel of the sole of the snail foot before eating!)

    If you disagree, and reject the idea of eating snails outright, you will never discover how good they really are (or even if you like them or not)

    * I will postpone my advocacy of eating raw oysters for another time


    ¿ëë±È¶ ±Hæñ ¥ØÜ (§^Ð

    Yes, I have just bumbled upon Gnome Character Map. Please ! me.
    [ Parent ]

  • Don't jump to conclusions. (3.75 / 4) (#96)
    by Eloquence on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:01:11 AM EST

    I make the assumption that this is how you approach life. Given that assumption, how do you (or how will you) expand your breadth and depth of knowledge and insight?

    All modesty aside, I consider myself one of the most open-minded persons I know. Some of my views are among the most radical you will ever find, strictly because I have found them to be the best approximation to the truth. I try to examine all viewpoints and compare them to my own. After years of evaluation I have reached fairly stable views on some subjects. If you want to shatter my views on these subjects, you'll have to give me facts. If you don't, I will ignore you. That doesn't mean that I haven't considered your viewpoint, I have, and rejected it. Sometimes I may care to explain the reasons -- especially if I believe that you yourself are open enough to change your mind -- but usually I don't have time to do so.

    If you reject things you don't like without giving them consideration

    Wrong, and insulting. Of course I do consider the things I reject.When I moderate down a comment, delete an email, vote down a post, it is because I have thought about the subject intensely, checked the facts, and come to a conclusion, and the poster has not made an argument or presented facts eligible to change that conclusion.

    Let me give you a rather extreme example (and I'm neither trying to be a smartass nor do I want to invoke Godwin's Law). Imagine a K5 discussion about a Holocaust memorial site, and one poster says that Auschwitz was mainly an invention of allied propaganda. "The Auschwitz gassing story", says he, "is based in large part on the hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread."

    He presents further "facts" as evidence that the extermination of the Jews has never taken place. All in all, his argument is sincere, well thought-out and in itself consistent. Of course you could pull yourself out of the whole affair by calling it "flamebait" or "trolling" and modding it down to zero, but that doesn't change the fact that such beliefs are honestly held by many people. According to your moderation standards, I would have to give it a 5.00, to expose as many people as possible to this interesting, albeit highly controversial viewpoint.

    Well, I would give it a 1.00. Same (or at most 2.00) for people who claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer, that the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist, that the HI-virus isn't sexually transmitted, that the Jews control the media, that everyone needs a gun, that abortion is evil, sex/porn is bad etc. etc. In all cases, I could present many arguments and facts for my own view, but in many cases, I would simply not have the time or motivation to do so.

    And if you only associate with people and ideas you already like

    Of course I associate mainly with people and ideas that I like, don't you? That doesn't mean that I'm not exposed to views contradicting my own. That doesn't mean that I reject all views contradicting my own. Sometimes it happens that someone presents a view different from my own in a way I find convincing, and I change my own opinion. As my worldview becomes more rounded and, hopefully, closer to "the truth", this happens less often.

    By rating ideas I agree with, I try to make it easier for those who are still unclear about their own views, by exposing them more to the ideas that I found to be valuable and true. They may agree with them, they may disagree, they may be convinced by them and moderate them up, or remain unconvinced and moderate them down.

    You shouldn't confuse uncertainty and ignorance with open-mindedness. They are not the same. As Carl Sagan has so eloquently pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Or, in the (paraphrased) words of Signal 11, "you would be surprised how easy it is for me to change my mind if you give me the facts".

    Eating Snails [...] If you disagree, and reject the idea of eating snails outright, you will never discover how good they really are

    I do not really think that culinary taste is as open to debate as other subjects. In the case of eating snails, out of disgust, I prefer ignorance to possible bliss. May I make another extreme but fundamentally similar argument? How do you know that having a sexual relationship with your mother is bad if you have never tried it? No, I don't like the idea any more than you do.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    "Fact" and "opinion" are two d (3.50 / 2) (#116)
    by Zukov on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:32:54 PM EST

    I think you realize that I did not mean that well written posts about the earth being flat, with the sun orbiting around it, or the "man will never fly society" should be moderated up.

    And just as clearly, It is not necessary to experiment with absolute taboos such as incest, murder, causing harm to others, other forms of violence.

    The majority of posts on K5 do not deal with any of these subjects. Rather, the majority of posts deal with issues and topics on which reasonable people can have different opinions, *hopefully* based on _trying_ them or _exploring_ them. (ie, having some actual data)

    So to return to the snails, a subject on which reasonable people with _data_ can reasonably disagree:

    You are apparently saying (trying not to jump to a conclusion here) you find the idea of eating them disgusting. You apparently have never tried them (you have no data on what snails are like). You intend to vote down any posts which praise the culinary virtues of the snail, because you want to "help" others find the idea of eating snails as disgusting as you do.

    How is this an open minded position? It sounds more like you want to filter the information that undecided people can obtain so that they will end up thinking just like you do. (Apologies for any conclusions I may have jumped to without data)


    ¿ëë±È¶ ±Hæñ ¥ØÜ (§^Ð

    Yes, I have just bumbled upon Gnome Character Map. Please ! me.
    [ Parent ]

    First hand information isn't free.. (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by marlowe on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 04:05:12 PM EST

    and may cost more than it's worth.

    I've never eaten a snail. So no, I don't know for a fact that snails are disgusting. But I know something about mollusks, and I know people who've eaten snails.

    I strongly suspect that snails are disgusting. I'm willing to entertain the notion I may be wrong, but only in an abstract sense. I'm not willing to put it to the test. It's just not worth it.

    And before anyone overgeneralizes: if there were a very great promised benefit from swallowing slimy mollusks, such as eternal salvation or something, that would tip the balance of the equation a bit. But nobody's claiming that.

    -- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
    [ Parent ]
    Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? (4.00 / 1) (#128)
    by marlowe on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 04:08:54 PM EST

    Who's to say just what is extraordinary, on either side of the equation?

    There's an element of subjectivity in all such calculations. That can't be helped, but do have the good grace to own up to it.


    -- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
    [ Parent ]
    worth reading vs not worth reading (3.75 / 4) (#101)
    by speek on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:26:01 AM EST

    IMHO, ratings should be an indication of whether a comment is worth spending the time to read. Thus, I believe in the simplicity of a binary rating system - two radio buttons, one to indicate the comment was worth reading, another to indicate that it wasn't.

    Furthermore, a response to a comment is indicative that, in the reply'ers opinion, the comment was worth reading, and an implicit rating of such should be given to the comment.

    The overall rating of a comment is simply the total of it's score (+1 for "worth reading" and -1 for "not worth reading").

    Also note, that such a rating system makes it very sensible to allow readers to see who rated what. After all, rating a comment as "worth reading", but not replying explicitly, is equivalent to replying and simply saying "good post". You don't specify why it was a good post, but that's essentially what you are saying, and there's no problem allowing others to see that you had that "comment" to say about the post.

    Ditto for "not worth reading". You're just saying "bad post", and nothing more.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (3.00 / 1) (#137)
    by odaiwai on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 12:08:51 AM EST

    The rating system should be for the quality of a comment, not how much you agree with it. For instance, your comment above is articulate and coherent. I don't agree with it, but I'd still rate it up.

    I think that encouraging a high standard of discourse is more important than wanting only your views up at the top. It's a better reflection on a site and its users if there is clear and cogent discussion of issues which would degenerate into flaming elsewhere.

    dave
    -- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
    [ Parent ]

    BUG! (3.16 / 18) (#9)
    by pb on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:04:42 PM EST

    When I reply to a comment, I see their comment instead of mine; bug?

    And Rusty, I would have posted here earlier, but I was fascinated by the new feature, and unmasking our stalker!

    I couldn't have been more surprised; I feel like I'm in Clue: The Movie, and I just got the Scooby-Doo ending instead.

    Oh yeah, and thankyouThankYouTHANKYOUThankYouthankyou...
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    I think it's fixed now (4.00 / 5) (#24)
    by rusty on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:46:08 AM EST

    I guess this comment will be the test, eh? :-)

    About the "stalker" thing-- don't be too hasty to jump to conclusions, or to try to get revenge. It would just be destructive all around. And do remember that sometimes people over- and under-rate to affect the score in a certain way. Don't assume that the rating is what they necessarily thought the actual score should be.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, no... (3.75 / 8) (#31)
    by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:53:06 AM EST

    Revenge is pointless; the moderation system is supposed to judge the content of the posts. If I'm not moderating based on that, then the system is broken from the start.

    However, for the first time in my life, I've wanted a killfile. I'd settle for a simple explanation, but I probably won't even get that. I can guess about half of it--I stumbled upon a natural born "Trollbuster" without a clue--but I still don't understand it.

    Also, I really don't want to have another moderation sig on Kuro5hin; I thought that was only for loser sites, like Slashdot. :)

    Anyhow, here's to the next Meta/Op-Ed moderation-bitchin' essay: "Society's Ills For The Future"; Jon Katz and Carl Sagan star in this bluthering epic about the human condition, geeks, lurkers, and bizarre tales of post modern^Hation...
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]
    + 4, Funny (3.66 / 3) (#74)
    by Lode Runner on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:12:31 AM EST

    post modern^Hation

    That was pretty damn funny... although I don't associate Carl Sagan with postmodern flakiness and whining malaise.

    In fact, it can be argued that physicists are an antidote to postmodernism. Example: Alan Sokal and the Social Text Affair.



    [ Parent ]

    While we're on meta (3.47 / 17) (#15)
    by Wah on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:11:11 AM EST

    it's time to implement an automatic posting algorithm based on the number of comments. There are stories in the submission sandbox that have 30 and 40+ comments. If the point is to have discussion, shouldn't stories that generate a good level of comments be posted to the site proper regardless of their overall score?

    P.S. I love the new improvements, hopefully we can make troll accounts like unfair_rating even more unnecessary that I already think they (it) are (is).
    --
    Fail to Obey?

    Good point, but... (3.33 / 6) (#25)
    by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:46:42 AM EST

    I don't know if we necessarily get that many more comments after a story gets "posted to the Front Page". I'm guessing that the people who make most of the comments make them while the story is languishing in the queue.

    ...and maybe some of the other people feel intimidated by the new story that's already full of posts.

    I'm hoping that an Editorial Queue will fix some of that, but let's give Rusty some time; I think he deserves it. :)
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]
    actually (3.40 / 5) (#49)
    by Wah on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:29:57 AM EST

    I was thinking more along the lines of good discussion being banished from general discussion if a story languished too long. A general positive rating and good discussion should both be used as a criteria for what what gets posted, IMHO. With the growth of the community raising the threshhold of when a story gets posted, we can end up with interminable stories in the queue that generate over 100 comments...and yet might not get "officially" posted.

    Actually I only brought it up because the queue seems especially stuffed tonight (maybe that's a weekend thing..), and I was thinking of a simple (for me) solution.
    --
    Fail to Obey?
    [ Parent ]

    Irony (3.60 / 5) (#53)
    by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:50:39 AM EST

    You just missed it; it got dropped from the queue.

    You're right, Wah, that is a shame.

    The lost comments are here, but we can't see the story.

    Considering the amount of decent discussion, it's a shame it didn't get posted *somewhere*, even if not on the main site.

    However, Rusty was saying that these stories were still visible to the admins and the author. Naturally, I can't verify that. :)
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]

    Er, what? (4.42 / 7) (#26)
    by Inoshiro on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:47:13 AM EST

    Unfair_rating is not a troll account. Maybe creating that account, and posting comments after each 1 or 2 rated comment (I mean, everyone can rate.. so people who spot unfair ratings could just rate it as they felt it should be! [simplified a bit, yes]) wasn't the best solution. But it's what they felt they had to do to get some attention drawn to the problem.

    Naturally, in any system where humans are involved, there's the potential for abuse. Breakins by skilled attackers and script kittens alike are through the failures of either admins or users (more often it's cluess admins which fall prey to script kiddies..). A lot of people think that Slashdot is just horrible because of the moderation there, and I've seen abuses a few times.

    I don't think labelling the person's responce to some abuse as a troll is beneficial. It's a lot like calling a child delinquent if they've learned that hitting people is a way of dealing with stuff from their parents. They did what they felt they had to do. Hopefully, with this change, they won't have to do it again. People will be able to see that the 'unfair' 1 or 2 (which I find partially funny since I don't take any ratings seriously, and don't filter based on them :)) is the act of one or two odd people who perhaps use a different standard to judge things.

    And if you've ever hung out on #k5 IRC, you'd know that more often than not, people end up saying "weird.. I just rated this guy who disagreed with me to 5!" or something similar. I'll stop now as I'm starting to rant :)



    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    [ Parent ]
    ahem (3.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Wah on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:07:38 AM EST

    Unfair_rating is not a troll account.

    "This comment was provided by unfair_rating_alert!, a troll account created strictly to look for intelligent comments unfairly rated below 2.00."

    And then I found this, which looks like abuse to me. (although I'm sure someone with the same alias as a certain Tool frontman wouldn't want to abuse k5 in a negative manner)

    I wouldn't have used the label "troll" if s/he hadn't, but the first time I saw an alert I thought it caused more damage to the s/n ratio than it could possibly help. I think the system (especially with improvements) works fine without that type of effort, IMHO.
    --
    Fail to Obey?
    [ Parent ]

    Nah (4.25 / 8) (#44)
    by rusty on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:13:43 AM EST

    I know who ufa! is, and he's very much trying to improve the ratings, not cause trouble. He's said, several times, that he'll stop the second I ask him to. Pehaps these changes will make that unnecessary... we'll see. I'm not sure why he labeled it a "troll" account. I think he just meant "not my real account".

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Potential for abuse... (4.50 / 2) (#110)
    by kjeldar on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:54:53 PM EST

    Moron posts idiotic story. Before more sensible k5ers can blast it out of the queue, moron posts N comments from his own accounts. Story gets posted contrary to The Will of the People™.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong solution (4.50 / 2) (#117)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:35:14 PM EST

    The proper solution is to:

    • Fix the voting mechanism so that stories don't languish in queue.
    • Disable topical posts in story queue.

    The voting mechanism proposed is to set thresholds for post, dump, and quorum, say 50, 20, 70, with whichever is met first being the deciding action. Quorum counts all votes, so a "don't care" vote is a proxy for don't post if the quorum is met. This was suggested by someone else (bmetzler?), don't give me credit. The current vote mechanism is wrong.

    The argument against killing topical posts is that people will make them anyway. My response is that they'll learn not to as the editorial posts won't be visible or responded to in a posted topic.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Fascinating! (3.90 / 21) (#19)
    by maynard on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:26:34 AM EST

    Wow, I've always suspected that there were a few folks who had it in for me in with ratings. I had my ideas, and figured a few characters I'd had some slightly heated debates with before, were rating every one of my comments down that they could find. So in my mind I expected that some well known community members were secretly rating down almost every one of my comments.

    Well, I was wrong. There does appear to be one particular individual who regularly gives me a 1 or a 2 throughout a bunch of comments. But I've never debated with this guy, nor do I know him. And ironically, the people I assumed were knocking me down were doing no such thing! In fact, looking back I consider their ratings quite reasonable.

    So, OK, I could be dealing with someone who has multiple accounts, but I doubt it. I guess I just happen to present views this guy doesn't like, so he rates me down. Fine by me. The wonderful thing that I now know is that there's no group of inside community members out to rate my stuff down, and now I know my suspicions were unfounded and a bit paranoid. And even better, I know that those community members I had suspected have actually been quite honest with me. This is a great thing!

    Thanks Rusty,
    --Maynard

    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

    Question (3.80 / 15) (#20)
    by Elendale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:27:17 AM EST

    You count the last 30 comments made for mojo calculation, but maybe shouldn't you count the last 30 ratings instead? Now that individual ratings count, it would seem to be a better picture to count the ratings instead of the comments. Maybe i'm wrong about this, but it appears that when counting last 30 comments, some comments will contribute to mojo much more than others (for example, ten ratings count as one comment toward weight, while one rating also counts as one comment). Now it may be that my math mind is suffering from meltdown and the current method takes this into account, but if we use the last 30 ratings instead of the last 30 comments it would be better.

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    Then he couldn't factor in # of ratings / comment. (4.16 / 6) (#22)
    by maynard on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:34:37 AM EST

    No, I think you're missing a central point here. If you accept the assumption that the greater the ratings per comment the more accurate any particular rating, then you have to follow an algorithm similar to what Rusty has implemented. Some problems with your idea: one comment with 30 ratings could assign Trusted or Untrusted status, and that's not enough writing to judge a user by. One user could rate thirty old unrated comments and then change a user's Trusted or Untrusted status. What this doesn't solve is the potential for mischief with multiple accounts. However, Rusty has argued that there is really no way to authenticate that a particular user has multiple accounts, especially considering that many users could be connected to K5 from one multi-user host.

    --Maynard

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

    Hmm... (3.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Elendale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:50:05 AM EST

    Ok, i guess the 30 ratings == trusted would be bad... There needs to be enough content to be trusted as well as high quality content, this is something i neglected

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    Also a data issue (4.33 / 6) (#63)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:30:37 AM EST

    Haven't checked lately, but IIRC, moderation events aren't datestamped in the Scoop database. So you have to track comments rather than moderation.

    Tracking past 30 moderations would probably be too thin a dataset, as a typical post may have 2-10 moderations -- this could be the last six posts, hardly representative. IMO 30 comments is as well. But this is something which could be fixed with an extended sample.

    This also provides a bit of a safety valve against abuse -- for a user with a very large number of outstanding comments, there is a potential liability in the sense that a vendetta could target these former posts. By moderating down 30 comments with few or no prior moderation, a user's system status could be affected. Limiting moderation effects to recent comments reduces the likelihood of this happening. It also makes searching for abuse easier. And since the idea of Mojo is to be reflective of recent user actions, it doesn't make sense to look at moderations to stale content.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    This is Worse than Karma (3.59 / 22) (#23)
    by yuri on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:41:50 AM EST

    Let the flames begin!!!!

    This addition is worse than the Karma solution at that other site. There will be many ill feelings, by many--toward many, on this site because of the opening of previously personal info. Most people thought no-one would ever see their mods unveiled for all to see. They made those mods with the assurance (perhaps mistakenly) that their ratings were private. Now that all is out in the open, people will be afraid to down mod anybody for fear of losing their trusted user status or worse, getting into a grudgematch with anybody else.

    OTOH it was very interesting to see who modded my comments up and down...I almost felt guilty seeing that, knowing that the people who entered those ratings never suspected that I would ever see them.

    Overall, I have to predict that this feature will hurt the good will of this site.

    I think the ratings info should be removed.

    Let the cowards be exposed! (3.63 / 19) (#28)
    by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:51:29 AM EST

    We don't allow anon coward posts here for a reason. For that same reason we should not allow anon ratings.

    Of course, this all means I have to come up with a new sig, but it will be worth it. Feel free to mod this down without replying. I'll find you, I'll hunt you down, you will all pay! Bwahahahah!!

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    [ Parent ]
    Double standards, posting vs. voting (4.60 / 5) (#67)
    by flieghund on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:43:46 AM EST

    The lack of anonymous posting on k5 certainly does seem to raise the intellectual level of the discussion. However, I don't believe posting and rating comments are as similar as you suggest -- at least here on kuro5hin.

    On slashdot, they are very much the same thing. You rate based on your opinion of the post -- was it useful, funny, or a pointless troll? In contrast, k5's rating system (at least in theory) is based on value added to the discussion. That is, you're supposed to set aside personal opinions and rate the comment based on objective criteria like coherency and relevancy. I'm not sure I like some of the side-effects of this system (discussions seem to be a lot more serious -- I miss the humorous posts on /.), but overall it seems to have raised the level of discussion. Troll/flamebait posts are quickly rated down because you don't have a limited number of rating points to spread around. (A k5 user -- I apologize profusely for not being able to recall exactly who -- has an execllent .sig relating to the negative effects of limited moderation ability, namely that every point spent to moderate a lame post down is one less point available to moderate a great post up.)

    My point is that moderating on /. is based a lot on your personal POV about the comment. Moderating a /. post in an odd way (e.g., moderating down a +4 Informative post as a -1 troll) without giving an explanation would be perceived as an odd thing, definitely worthy of some explanation. However, slashdot moderation and kuro5hin ratings are not the same thing. If I rate a k5 comment as a 1, that should be an indication that the comment doesn't add much to the discussion. Should I have to justify this by posting a reply? "Sorry, your comment is meaningless." How hypocritical! Perhaps if you could post editorial comments once a story gets out of the submission queue -- I dunno, maybe this is possible now -- it might be worthwhile.

    Okay, so I digressed a bit from the original subject of this post, which was double standards. Posting is by nature a public act -- you're putting your comment up for the world to see, with the explicit understanding that everyone who reads it will know who wrote it. This largely applies to comments made in Real-Life, too. Voting, however, is a different matter. In every case I can think of (which I freely admit is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination), voting implies a high level of secrecy and the inherent privacy that comes with it. Though it may seem like it, I'm not really arguing against the new system on k5. Rather, to be a devil's advocate, and to encourage further discussion, I just want to point out that there exist double standards between commenting and voting, and one should not confuse the two or draw too many parallels between them.


    Using a Macintosh is like picking your nose: everyone likes to do it, but no one will admit to it.
    [ Parent ]
    Quite the opposite... (3.50 / 2) (#68)
    by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:52:17 AM EST

    On /. you have to justify why you are modding something down (ie because it's a troll or because it's off topic). You also have metamoderation to stop abuses of the system.

    Here you can give a 1 without needing to justify why (was it a troll, was it off topic, who knows?). This allows people to use it as an "I agree" or "I disagree" vote. Looking through my comments it would appear that this is how the majority use it.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    [ Parent ]
    Well... (4.33 / 3) (#75)
    by flieghund on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:14:05 AM EST

    ...I hate to admit it, but I can see your point. Maybe I'm just tired. :-p

    I disagree, however, that metamoderation stops abuses of the /. moderation system. I lost karma once for rating "Unfair" a very obvious troll post (something about Natalie Portman, petrification, and grits) that had been moderated as "Informative." I don't metamoderate any more; I *very rarely* moderate at all, having spent approximate two points out of 20-or-so available over the last two months. If anything, metamoderation on slashdot is like sticking a band-aid on a shotgun wound to the chest. Way too little, way too late, both procedurally and historically.

    I did mention in my first comment that people were supposed to vote objectively with k5 ratings. But just like with slashdot moderation, k5's ratings system is open for abuse. I would say that the freedom for anyone on k5 to rate a comment acts as its own "metamoderation" feature, minimizing the abuses of a few people. Of course, as others have mentioned, there isn't much defense against a group of people banding together for mutual "whoring."


    Using a Macintosh is like picking your nose: everyone likes to do it, but no one will admit to it.
    [ Parent ]
    k5 humor (3.50 / 2) (#113)
    by fester on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:27:02 PM EST

    (discussions seem to be a lot more serious -- I miss the humorous posts on /.)

    I totally agree with this sentiment. I've been reading Kuro5hin for quite some time (pre-DoS) and I don't need *any* fingers to count the number of times I've laughed out loud at a post. It's kind of pathetic, actually. Are we becoming a breeding ground for the Future Humorless Nerds of the World? Ugh, there are few things worse than a know-it-all geek without a sense of humor.

    Hmm, maybe part of the reason is because we don't have a way to label a post (funny,insightful, etc). I mean, when I skim through a /. article and notice a +4, Funny, maybe I'm more inclined to laugh at it because it's been labelled as such? In any case, moderating posts on k5 has always seemed rather pointless to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Secrecy and ill feelings (4.12 / 16) (#30)
    by rusty on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:52:58 AM EST

    There will be many ill feelings, by many--toward many, on this site because of the opening of previously personal info.

    If people thought ratings were "personal", that was their mistake. They were most assuredly not. A few (a very few) people were taking advantage of the fact that they could rate in secret, and rating people based on presonal bias-- i.e. going through someone's whole "comments_by" list and rating every comment 1. Is that right? Should that be tolerated?

    On the contrary, before, if you were the victim of someone's vendetta, you would have no idea who it was. You would naturally feel suspicious of everyone, because it was all being done in secret. Now, you know exactly who it is, and if you want to have ill-will and a silly pissing match, you can do it between yourselves. That's the point of this.

    Now that all is out in the open, people will be afraid to down mod anybody for fear of losing their trusted user status or worse, getting into a grudgematch with anybody else.

    It does create a disincentive to rate downward. I think that's a good thing. If you want to rate someone down, you ought to think about it, and consider whether you really feel comfortable putting your name behind that choice. I hope people will do less down-rating and more up-rating.

    And I haven't yet had anyone who's trusted actually express any fear of losing that. I don't expect that to be much of a problem. I did build in some protection against "anti-trusted-user rampaging" though not all that much.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Advocating flames = bad (IMHO) (4.50 / 6) (#79)
    by jesterzog on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:02:50 AM EST

    Now, you know exactly who it is, and if you want to have ill-will and a silly pissing match, you can do it between yourselves. That's the point of this.

    I like the idea if not being able to rate anonymously. If I rate someone, I don't care if they see it. If they ask, I can tell them why I rated it the way I did.

    The problem is that if and when people start flaming each other by rating each other down, there's a lot of potential for it to boil over. It could mean a lot more troll posts from people trying to get even with each other and get into public flame wars when the comment ratings no longer have an effect.

    eg. Someone logs in with a fake account and uses it to under-rate all the good comments of someone else. There's not a lot the second person can do through rating, because the first doesn't have many comments and doesn't care what happens to them. Result: More public flaming.

    I'm all in favour of making ratings more public, but are you sure it's a good idea to actively advocate using ratings as a threat?


    jesterzog Fight the light


    [ Parent ]
    Not what I meant (4.00 / 3) (#108)
    by rusty on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:21:10 PM EST

    What I meant was that hopefully people will see the pointlessness of targeted misrating. What good comes of the above scenario? You make a fake account, and rate someone down a lot. They post a diary, point to all your misrating, and others feel bad and rate everything they posted up in defense. My point was that people with information are empowered to act, and that power cuts both ways. Maybe they can't punish the offender (and it should be clear that it would be just as silly to do so as to be the offender in the first place), but if someone is stalking you, you can prove it to sympathetic bystanders.

    It's basically the "nuclear weapons theory" of rating. The light of public scrutiny ought to act as a deterrent to these kinds of silly shenanigans, precisely because of the possibility of infinite escalation. We all watched WarGames, right? "The only way to win is not to play the game." That was what I meant.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Viewing raters (3.46 / 13) (#32)
    by Elendale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:55:52 AM EST

    While i, too, am quite apprehensive about this i cannot find any logical reason (that is, its just a hunch- though that can sometimes be quite reliable) why it would be bad. I think people won't get into grudge matches specifically because the other person can now take retribution against them. We'll have to see how it works out, i guess. Maybe in a month or two we should look at how the site has changed due to this. Another thing, this is somewhat similar to how the story voting works AFAI can tell.

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    I guess the Cold War taught us something. (none / 0) (#146)
    by spectra72 on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:51:22 AM EST

    Great, the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is alive and well. Don't screw me, because if you do, I'll screw you.

    I know I'm posting this way late in the game, but I for one am against this. I see two roads that this is going to lead down. 1) Spineless suckups. No one is going to want to take a controversial stand anymore, no one is going to want to do the hard moderation for fear of reprisials. This board gets bland enough without the ability of the "thought police" to come knocking on my door. Cmon folks, I've seen more spirited discussion at my local PTA meetings, this is just going to make things even more vanilla. 2) Retributions. Face it, people do NOT like to be disagreed with and paybacks are a bitch. You moderate my lengthy treatise on the affects of Japanese scat pr0n on 3 year olds down? Fine, I'm coming after your soliquoy on Lesbian Vampire Nuns. You have been warned.

    Hey, why don't you just give out my home address when I moderate something. I'm sure the poster and I could have a nice chat about it on my porch.

    [ Parent ]

    But WHY!? (4.00 / 14) (#48)
    by Inoshiro on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:19:55 AM EST

    Why does it matter? It's just a number on a comment, for crying out loud! Your self-worth should not be determined if your comments are rated low!

    I don't think I'm way off base here by saying this. It doesn't matter if people abuse the system, and if people take it personally, they're a bit odd. Who wants trusted user status anyway? All it does is let you see the absolute and utter shit comments, mean-spirited or otherwise non-beneficial spam.. why do you want that? Because it gives you power to rate below 1? If that's the reason, you're more than a bit odd.

    I'll still rate comments the same way I used to. I doubt I'll check on the ratings of the comments, unless really curious. But this'll help those people who are paranoid that others are "out to get them" by showing them that it's not true. It's kinda neat feature, let's see it in use before we crucify it.



    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    [ Parent ]
    Ahhh, your self worth! (4.44 / 9) (#52)
    by yuri on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:47:21 AM EST

    I just went through most of the low rated posts on "who are you part2" to see who had been rating people down. I was particularily appalled at the time to see many peoples entries getting such low ratings when they were pouring out their souls for everyone to look at. People would tell something about themselves and others would give it a 2 or worse! It was very interesting to see that 3 or 4 people + "zero votes" made most of the ratings. Are the "zero votes" from trusted users or admins?

    My point is that people will take these ratings personally even though most of the time its inconsequential, sometimes a post can mean alot to a person. Think of how all the political discussions would have gone if everyone knew who was voting as republican/libertarian/democrat. It would have gotten messy.

    Anyway, I can see how if this system were in place at the time there would have been less abuse in the "who are you" ratings but at the same time it prevents people from saying how they feel in their ratings. There is a good reason that most voting structures are anonymous. It is to protect the individuals rights to vote as their conscience dictates without worrying about repercussions.

    I do not care one bit about my ratings or about getting "trusted user status" but I do care that people will feel free to say what they wish and vote as they wish without repercussions.

    And so you ask "what repercussions could possibly arise from this?"

    Silence....lack of rich discussion.....fear of creating enemys.

    My 4 cents

    Cheers,

    Y

    [ Parent ]
    A couple of things. (3.14 / 7) (#56)
    by Inoshiro on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:59:32 AM EST

    First off, I don't think ratings in stuff like "Who are you" and diaries are really applicable. They shouldn't be around anyways. As for repurcussions, I think there are enough people around that the peer-review works. No comments where hidden in the "Who are you" threads, right?

    As for who can rate 0, it's only trusted users. Rusty and I are among them, yes, but you can verify that we didn't do it now ;)



    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    [ Parent ]
    I understand the benefits but weigh the risks (4.42 / 7) (#59)
    by yuri on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:12:51 AM EST

    I see some of the benefits of this system, but I am trying to point out a risk....That people will take this rating shit personally.

    As far as verifying the "voted zero" stuff goes. I have no idea who cast those votes as the "trusted user" is anonymous. If you want to make the site open, identify the trusted users too. Identify all ratings done by you, rusty and any others.

    I am not trying to have an argument with you. I just want to express my opinion that identifying those that have rated comments, will have some negative effects as well as positive effects. I personally believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive.

    Y

    [ Parent ]
    Minor nit: Only trusted can see 0 rates (3.33 / 3) (#60)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:14:18 AM EST

    The hoi polloi just have to trust us. We have naught to fear but the wrath of Rusty and his attack cat.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (3.50 / 2) (#85)
    by Eloquence on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:57:47 AM EST

    Many comments in Who R U 2 have been rated 0 by a certain user. Before I call "Trusted User Status Abuse", though, I would like to point out that many people probably don't know how the rating system works. They may see the 0, even as trusted users, as a "Don't Care" option or something like that. Of course, they might want to read the FAQ.

    With all the talk about fair & unfair ratings, perhaps it's time to think about the instant messaging via K5 idea again. It would be good if you could just type "/msg user Why did you rate me X?" in something like a chatterbox. Perhaps it would be nice to have a small entryfield next to the rating box, to enter a short reason (not a complete reply). Not like /. labels, just optional.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    What ever happened to anonymity on the internet? (3.80 / 10) (#62)
    by mattc on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:23:31 AM EST

    Also, if someone rates me down, I can see their name and go read their diary. I've noticed people put a lot of personal information in their diaries... it wouldn't be hard to track down where a person lives or find out their real name and prank call them at all hours of the night for example. I usually use a fake name on these forums (Matt is not my name), but most people do not...

    [ Parent ]
    What anonymity? (4.25 / 4) (#115)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:20:14 PM EST

    It exists, but it's nowhere near as prevelant as many think it is.

    One interpretation of Scoop/K5 is that they are really cool discussion sites. Another is that it's an extremely fine-detailed behavior and activity tracking system. Both interpretations are correct.

    It might have been a bit fairer for Rusty to have pre-announced this action, but (see the Fame in Fifteen Minutes article) you should tend to act under the assumption that your real identity will be uncovered rather than that it will not.

    If you have any remaining questions, read Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    closer to slashdot (2.90 / 20) (#29)
    by matman on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:52:30 AM EST

    This, in my opinion, is a Bad Idea. These new features add little, and will attract 'karma whores' and 'trolls'. People like to be rewarded, and will go out of their way to be rewarded - expect to see more people posting just to get modded up and more meta-talk about 'mojo whores' and trolls. I fear that this is just rusty/whomever being bored, adding new features to keep him busy.

    far better than slashdot (3.75 / 8) (#38)
    by pb on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:05:53 AM EST

    Of course you have a right to your opinion. However, let me say that not only was this feature desired here, and may also help smooth out abuses in the moderation system, it's also a feature I always wanted, even on Slashdot, and I'm thrilled that it's implemented here.

    I could show you links if you really missed the reasons behind this; Rusty has talked to quite a few people about this, and there has been a lot of interest in it. But basically it's about accountability for your moderations. Just as Kuro5hin doesn't have an anonymous user account anymore, it doesn't have anonymous story voting, or anonymous moderation.

    And that's the way I like it.
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (3.00 / 8) (#41)
    by gregstoll on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:10:26 AM EST

    I don't understand - how will this lead to more karma whoring? All rusty did was add accountability for moderation, which is a Good Thing (tm).

    [ Parent ]
    suggestion (4.00 / 21) (#42)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:11:35 AM EST

    Restrict rating to a subset of the stories. Certainly, no rating on secret sids. Perhaps no rating on queued stories that never get accepted. And possibly, no rating until a story breaks a certain number of comments and/or posters (e.g. most diary posts shouldn't be rateable, but a few have worthwhile discussions people might want to rate and join, e.g., my ongoing discussion in trhurler's diary.

    These would essentially stop stalkers from going into obscure places to rate harldy visible posts down. And it would stop rings that depend on rating comments up in secret sids (which I have no use for. Check my mod history. I hardly ever mod.)

    --em

    and... (3.66 / 12) (#43)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:13:42 AM EST

    What about a way to promote diary entries to queued stories? Not against the author's will, of course-- essentially, people can vote a diary entry for story status, and if enough people do so, the author can choose to have it go to the queue.

    --em
    [ Parent ]

    I like this -- How about a BoD feature? (3.14 / 7) (#65)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:39:39 AM EST

    There are several reasons for this, one of which is that IMO much of what's being posted to the general submission queue is far better dealt with in Diaries, but diaries are a bit of a ghetto. I'd like to see story moderation (not merely queue voting, but rating of stories once posted), including moderation of diary entries. A sufficiently highly moderated diary could get promoted to a "best of diaries" list. Some work to figure out time decay, etc., but it's something to think about.

    Sufficiently highly rated diaries could get promoted to the submission queue or front page.

    Of course, there's nothing to prevent someone from doing a cut'n'paste from their diary to a submission queue.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Cut 'n paste preferable. (4.16 / 6) (#89)
    by Merekat on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 08:18:11 AM EST

    If a diary contains something that may be suitable for a submissions queue, I think people are doing a very good job of asking the diarist to post it as an article. That way, the diarist has explicit control and a chance to refine something for submission, whereas they might not have done so to their satisfaction because it is just in a diary.

    There is something quite abhorrent about rating diaries, I think. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it is something to do with leaving thoughts not aimed for review open to it. It alters the anything goes perameter. I think I would stop writing mine under those circumstances, because even though I'm not stupid enough to think that diaries really are private, they are *different*. A best of diaries option is slightly less horrible but still unpleasant - hey, his thoughts are 'better' than hers mentality etc. Maybe filter on the amount of discussion attatched to a diary (which is an issue for articles in the submission queue too), but not on the diary itself.

    ---
    I've always had the greatest respect for other peoples crack-pot beliefs.
    - Sam the Eagle, The Muppet Show
    [ Parent ]

    Interesting, need to think about this (3.71 / 7) (#76)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:17:45 AM EST

    My initial inclination is to not prohibit moderations in odd contexts, for perverse reasons that frankly, disturb even me. If we allow moderation of comments in typically out-of-the-way locations, there is a possible benefit served of identifying useful content. At the same time, we've created a situation in which those who are inclined to abuse the system will find that the tactics they are using are fairly readily observable.

    For better or worse, Scoop is a pretty effective police state -- or at least a den of spies. Rusty's elected to make much of the data available to most users, which IMO is a Very Good Thing ™. It's possible to study behavioral trends of users and groups of users in a number of statistical ways to identify patterns and clusters of behavior, whether directed from a given user, to a user, or among a group of users. Tools to deal with this in near real time remain to be developed.

    If this is done transparently, in an open fashion, IMO it would be a good thing. We'll see where it leads us.

    Comment WRT submission queue. My solution: faster voting, with a first to post/drop or quorum (equivalent to dump), during which only editorial comments are allowed (and perhaps required to post). I'm strongly in favor of an editorial queue, and would even see the submission queue dropped in favor of article rating.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    I think (2.66 / 3) (#120)
    by Elendale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:13:42 PM EST

    Allow rating to diaries/hidden sids/whatever but don't make it count toward mojo. This (to me) seems to be a superior solution.

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    Obverse problem (2.00 / 2) (#134)
    by kmself on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:46:36 PM EST

    You're then open to the possibility that Diaries become a breeding ground for spam, troll, etc.

    IMO -- allow moderation, count it toward Mojo, and have tools to check for abuses in either direction.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    What if (4.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Elendale on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 09:15:43 PM EST

    Its true that without mojo diaries would become easy prey for trolls/etc but what if the owner of the diary gets trusted status in their diary and is the only one who can moderate? True this doesn't solve the hidden sid problem (i can only imagine trolltalk...) but who knows.

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    How about editor status? (none / 0) (#151)
    by kmself on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:06:58 AM EST

    Rusty's cooking up something along these lines anyway. Scoop-as-publishing-tool sort of thing. It would involve localized zones of control, and this sort of thing might fit in.

    Diarist-as-editor has a certain ring to it, I think it might work. I do strongly believe there still needs to be some oversight, and think that with the right statistical tools and monitoring, abuse can largely be trapped (it's an excuse to weed out bad eggs).

    You still don't want people (even diarists) going entirely hog-wild in Diaries -- so if there's a collective moderating down of specific diary entries (assuming there is moderation of entries), this might be cause to focus on what's going on more closely.

    --
    Karsten M. Self
    SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
    Support the EFF!!
    There is no K5 cabal.
    [ Parent ]

    Semi-Random Self-Rating Idea (3.08 / 12) (#51)
    by AdamJ on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:47:05 AM EST

    One thing that I've seen a couple times is a comment of mine get rated much higher than I think it deserves. Would it be possible to allow users to rate their own comments, but only lower than the current average?

    (So if one of your comments is averaging 3.5, you could rate it 0,1,2,3, assuming you were a trusted user.)

    Adam

    and while we're at it (2.83 / 6) (#54)
    by Wah on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:53:19 AM EST

    when can I start cutting off my own fingers. Some of them are too long. :-)

    Sorry, but I couldn't think of a single reason why you would want to do that, outside of a fetish for self-mutilation. Take it as a sign that you need to readjust your self-esteem in a positive manner.
    --
    Fail to Obey?
    [ Parent ]

    uh huh (3.50 / 6) (#57)
    by AdamJ on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:05:19 AM EST

    Sorry, but I couldn't think of a single reason why you would want to do that, outside of a fetish for self-mutilation.

    Single reason: I think that some of my comments are not as valuable as others make them out to be, and I would like the chance to rate them fairly.

    Personally, I think I could handle being allowed to rate every comment of my own on the regular scale and not abuse it, but unfortunately I don't think we can say that of everyone.

    Take it as a sign that you need to readjust your self-esteem in a positive manner.

    I can't remember the exact quote, and I'm not about to go search through my stack of old Spin magazines at this time, but I believe it goes like this: "Even I know that my own shit stinks." - Madonna

    Adam

    [ Parent ]

    er.. (3.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Rainy on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:10:40 AM EST

    The difference being that you don't have a choice on whether to shit or not, but you do have a choice on whether to post a comment or not ;-). I never post anything that I myself wouldn't rate at least 4 - and if someone overrates it to 5, it's not that big of a deal, imnsho. Oh yeah, I do realize that I may be wrong and this comment for instance may not deserve a 4 - I'm just saying that I myself would not post a comment that I think deserves lower score..
    --
    Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
    [ Parent ]
    Hilarious (2.94 / 19) (#61)
    by antizeus on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:17:27 AM EST

    I've been of the belief that I've been the target of one or more people rating my comments at 1. After seeing this story posted, I decided to check out the list of my comments. Imagine my surprise when I saw that my average comment rating has show up significantly! Almost as if one or more people had scrambled to rerate my comments after learning that they might now be held accountable!

    I decided to look at the people who rated my comments. I didn't keep track of actual ratings, but I did count the number of ratings by each individual. Here's a list of those who rated two or more of my comments:

    • 22 total comments before this one.
    • tewl - 20 ratings - by far my most prolific rater
    • zek93 - 11 ratings
    • chuckles - 9 ratings
    • Latrell Sprewell - 9 ratings
    • Smiling Dragon - 3 ratings
    • Arkady - 2 ratings
    • Refrag - 2 ratings
    • Beorn - 2 ratings
    • Carnage4Life - 2 ratings
    • earthling - 2 ratings
    • kraant - 2 ratings
    • Perpetual Newbie - 2 ratings
    • ZanThrax - 2 ratings
    Very interesting indeed.
    -- $SIGNATURE
    spelling (3.20 / 5) (#66)
    by antizeus on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:42:00 AM EST

    That should be "shot up significantly"... and yes, I did Preview, but not well enough apparently. Also, the chuckles and Latrell Sprewell accounts seem to be sources of a lot of "1" ratings. I see from other comments that Latrell has been dishing out a lot of "1" to others as well. Very interesting.
    -- $SIGNATURE
    [ Parent ]
    Thoughts... (3.40 / 10) (#64)
    by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:36:48 AM EST

    It seems only trusted users can view 0 ratings, so they are still pretty much a law unto themselves.

    I'd like to see untrusted users with the ability to view 0 ratings and posts (only if they really want to). This would stop much of the abuse.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    Some stuff... (4.75 / 4) (#70)
    by Zarniwoop on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:57:13 AM EST

    I found this post from the Boarding School article very interesting. Yeah, it's a rather controversial opinion, but it is not spam, and that's what rating comments to 0 is supposed to be for. I know that not everyone likes Signal 11, but 10 zero ratings? Seems like abuse of the system- a rating of one might have been more reasonable if the raters disagreed, IMHO. Or even better- reply. :P

    Also, I'd be curious to see just who rated my post in the "Who are you" story down to 0 (before getting rated back up...). Ah well...

    [ Parent ]

    Actually.. (3.00 / 3) (#72)
    by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:02:38 AM EST

    That was a parody on the "US is not the world" posts that pop up when an election or other US centric story is posted. It could be considered a troll (even if it wasn't Sig 11).

    Still, I guess he had a point, and shouldn't have been modded to 0.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    [ Parent ]
    Not a good example (3.00 / 1) (#138)
    by bigbird on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 01:51:22 AM EST

    There were a lot of 1's as well - 23 in total- the lowest that users without trusted status could provide. I recognized the names of most of the "0" raters; many are rather prominent on k5, and I personally respect most of them (disagree on occasion, but still respect their judgement).

    Of 42 ratings, 10 zeros and 23 ones is what I would call a significant trend. Plus, it was a pretty clueless comment - the story was about a US boarding school in the first place.

    bigbird

    For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16
    [ Parent ]

    How long... (2.71 / 14) (#71)
    by k5er on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:58:46 AM EST

    How long before everyone will be able to see what I voted for?
    Long live k5, down with CNN.
    Polls should remain anonymous. (4.00 / 5) (#83)
    by enterfornone on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:11:21 AM EST

    I don't think that will ever be neccessary. For one, I don't think anyone takes the polls seriously. And for two, many polls need to be anonymous in order to get honest answers. For example in my latest story (currently in the queue) I have a poll on sexual preference. Many people would prefer to keep this private, but we still want them to contribute to the poll.

    So I for one think polls should remain anonymous.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    [ Parent ]
    I would place a bet (2.50 / 2) (#119)
    by aphrael on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:07:35 PM EST

    that the information needed to keep polls from being anonymous is already available in the system, or that it would take only minor code tweaking to make it available. The system has to know who has voted in which poll, as otherwise it wouldn't be able to prevent double-voting.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, but... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Spinoza on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 03:32:26 AM EST

    It wouldn't need to record which option was voted for, would it?

    [ Parent ]
    curiousity (3.20 / 10) (#77)
    by chale on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:32:35 AM EST

    i usually only check my comments to look for replies, but reading this story prompted me to check what the differences were like. i don't rate comments and generally don't care what my comments are rated. seeing how many people rated my comments might be useful and will probably be instructive. i don't know that i have to see who rated my comment. i do feel that this will probably be a good thing for the sense of community on k5. while i value my privacy, when i do speak out i don't have anything to hide. please continue trying to improve this forum, it is the reason that i still read and occasionally post.
    When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. -John Muir
    kuro5hin mafia (3.26 / 19) (#78)
    by swr on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:00:11 AM EST

    <hypothetical>

    I like being rated up. My friends like being rated up. It's good for our self esteem. Rate me up and you can be my friend too. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, if you catch my drift.

    On the other hand, I don't like being rated down. It makes me angry. If you mod me down, me and my friends will get medieval on your posts. Capiche?

    </hypothetical>

    (Note: Don't rate me expecing me to rate you in return. I don't need to play such games. I already have "trusted" status.)



    Flame wars (4.17 / 17) (#80)
    by Beorn on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:05:31 AM EST

    A community is defined by the number of people who recognize each other, who associate a nick with the things this person has written before. In a mature community it's natural that people start to like or dislike each other, and personal feelings will affect the ratings. I see how these changes might lead to, or become weapons in flame wars.

    But a flame war is honest. Backstabbing, trolling and whoring is not, and I prefer an honest flame war to what's been happening the last week. Now that I know who my secret admirer was, (though the evidence is disappearing rapidly), I can ignore him, and get on with what I'm really here for. Please, no more k5-centric stories for a while!

    Btw, I don't think it's a good idea to hide 0-ratings for non-trusted users. My (and apparently everyone elses) secret admirer abused his trusted user status on several of my comments. Because a 0 can have a very large effect, accountability is even more important for trusted users.

    - Beorn, (too self-conscious to rate anything in this thread)

    [ Threepwood '01 ]

    Trusted Accountability (4.16 / 6) (#81)
    by driph on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:39:52 AM EST

    Fortunately, trusted users are held accountable by other trusted users. This means that trusted users can see 0 ratings, and apply their own corrective ratings or report an abuse if need be. Furthermore, there is a menu for trusted users to view comments that have already become hidden(as a result of the total score for the comment being below 1) where they can do the same.

    Granted, the system isnt perfect, but for now I think it does a pretty decent job. Personally, I dont base my reading off of comment ranking, and I doubt many others do as well. For now, hiding the occassional garbage post seems to be enough to keep the signal to noise ratio at an acceptable level..

    --
    Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
    [ Parent ]
    Trusted users (3.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kagaku_ninja on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:58:50 PM EST

    The problem is that a concerted attack (using alternate accounts) can remove enough mojo so that a user is no longer trusted. Then they cannot observe the 0 ratings.

    Are 0 ratings really hidden? I see no reason for it. Besides, with some quick math, the presence of a hidden 0 can be deduced.

    [ Parent ]
    Hidden ratings (4.00 / 2) (#135)
    by driph on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:37:59 PM EST

    The objective isnt to hide the 0 ratings, but to protect the trusted user from those who would retaliate against someone who has the potential to hide their comments. Yes,if someone rates your comment a 0, you'll know it happened. You just won't know who it was that did it.. It should really be a worry, as the only time anyone should rate a comment 0 is if its truly spam or garbage.

    Personally, I also tend to keep an eye out on the currently hidden comments to make sure that nothing has been unfairly hidden, and so far I'm pleased to say that hasnt been the case.. Of course, with more users the potential for abuse goes up, so it's something that will have to be watched.

    --
    Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
    [ Parent ]
    Re: Hidden ratings (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by kagaku_ninja on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 11:20:57 PM EST

    I see no reason why a 0 rating deserves anonymity, but a 1 does not.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Why hide 0 and not 1? (4.50 / 2) (#139)
    by driph on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 04:08:21 AM EST

    When someone rates a comment a 1, the most they can do is lower the score of that particular comment. Other users can then adjust that rating by giving the comment their own ratings, perhaps to raise its rating if it had been given the 1 unfairly. While someone COULD become upset that someone else has rated their comment unjustly, it's not as much of a worry because in the end, nothing can really happen to the comment. And by more users rating the comment, it's rating will eventually average out to where it should be(in theory).

    However, by rating a comment a 0, you have the ability to hide that comment. Assuming that 0 zero comments are either spam or trash, the owners of those comments may be more inclined to target a rating user if that user has the ability to knock their comments out of site. Therefore, the names of those who rate the comment a 0 are hidden, to protect them.

    And that leads to the accountability issues we dicussed in the comments previously in this thread.

    --
    Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
    [ Parent ]
    Save us from the mod witch hunt, please. (4.36 / 19) (#82)
    by duxup on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:07:09 AM EST

    First I'd like to say that I think these changes are very good. I'm glad to see more information about how comments are being moderated made available. I believe that these changes will make moderation decisions in the future much more reliable. Previous to these changes I think there was far too much of "I think there's someone moderating me down just to be mean!" and such speculation.

    One concern I'd like to voice is that many users have been calling for some sort of retribution directed at people who abuse the rating system. I'm very concerned with such a plan. I don't believe that we can reliably yet identify moderation abuse. I know now we will be able to see who moderated what comment at what level, but I do not believe that alone is enough to prove any kind of abuse.

    Many people on k5, including myself, came here from Slashdot, and have very strong feelings about how moderation and moderation abuse should be handled. I worry that moderation is becoming almost as big a discussion point as the sites regular topics. So much emphasis is being placed on how we're moderated that we're in danger of starting a moderation witch hunt where the solution to our current problems are worse than the problems themselves.

    No Warning! Purposeful or just Lazy SQL coding? (4.40 / 27) (#84)
    by TuxNugget on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:57:34 AM EST

    I have to disagree with exposing previously scored ratings that were made with an expectation of secrecy. While Rusty has dismissed this above without much discussion, I think he is wrong to do so because he fails to put himself in the place of the average user. His site copyright statement only mentions comments and posts, not ratings. Similarly, the privacy policy does not address this either. I think, in the lack of a specific policy, the answer to the question of 'what is right?' has to be the impression of the average user.

    Worldwide, there is a long history of the use of anonymous ratings to insure quality. People know of this, and when they see their name or nick is not listed, learn to expect privacy. Practically every university and academic journal uses anonymous expert review to insure quality, and often the anonymity is just as important as the reviewer's expertise. Although K5 is not such an organization, it seems reasonable to think the average user had formed, in their mind, an expectation that ratings were secret. Note, I am talking about the average user, not some coding guru working on the Scoop software that drives this site.

    Since Rusty owns and manages the site, policy matters are in his hands. But we can vote with our voices, and if necessary our feet, so it is not a dictatorship. Should Rusty have announced the policy change to be effective as of a certain date? An alternative policy would have been to warn people that after 12-18-2000 (or any other date), that all ratings will be public information. Why wasn't this considered?

    No doubt I'll can get a ton of rationalizations and speculation from such a question, so I am going to propose a somewhat more candid explanation and see what happens. I am going to suggest that this was lazy SQL coding rather than purposeful decision making. Sql is used to build the list of ratings, and that sql code is a bit shorter and simpler if it doesn't need a (posted > policy_change_date) stuck in it from place to place so that the code only lists personal identification for ratings of articles posted after a certain date.

    Commercial vendors often suggest that people working on hobby software don't take that extra step with their code that would occur at the workplace. Or that the hobbyist admires the beauty of an algorithm over whether it is the correct algorithm (this is to rebut an argument that putting all those dates and stuff in for a policy change would make the code messy!). Usually I shrug off such complaints about my projects, and I am as much a free software fan as anyone. However, in this case, it is clear a few lines of code would help a lot of people save face and avoid accusations that K5 has violated its trust inherent in anonymous review.

    And oh, while I am being so pointedly cynical - I would also like to thank Rusty for the time he takes to run the site. This is not a 'K5 sucks' post, but rather an attempt to get at the heart of a problem.

    So, fellow readers, which do you think it was, a purposeful policy to expose abuse, or just lazy coding?



    Ex post facto (2.85 / 7) (#88)
    by dj@ on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 08:17:23 AM EST

    This is a fantastic idea!! I am really impressed that the people behind the site are so good at picking new features and advancing the interface and user experience. However, if it's possible without too much work, please do not implement this retroactively. People acted based on a certain expectation, which makes it feel like a carpet has been pulled out from under. I don't happen to care at all, but it's more the principle. I know this makes it hard to implement changes, and there's always a balance between the new and the old and disruptions happen as a result, but I thought I would echo this person's sentiments. If it's too much work to do this, I will understand. Also, would it be possible to allow a comment associated with a rating? That might give a nice way to tell why you did or did not like a post, while facing the person and not doing it behind her back. Thanks for all the great and hard work!

    [ Parent ]
    Tough to rate.. (3.16 / 6) (#91)
    by ignatiusst on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:00:26 AM EST

    Since reading Rusty's article last night, I realized I needed to be more judicious in my moderation..

    With that in mind I set out this morning to read the comments and, as best I could, rate them fairly. Some I mod'ed up, some down. I worked my way up from the bottom, so your's was the last in the stack.

    I think you have good ideas in this post, but an offhand suggestion that Rusty is/was lazy about his coding (with nothing but speculation to back you up) is pretty damn rude.

    You made several valid points and had a good idea.. I just feel like you besmirched your own credibility with needless speculation.

    When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]

    maybe blinding code glamour then... (3.40 / 5) (#94)
    by TuxNugget on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:18:26 AM EST

    You know, if I code up something neat, I want to show it off. Even an early version. Maybe that is what happened here.

    Since Scoop is open source, I can see one argument being that the code can't be "polluted" with crap, like the dates various policies went into effect at a particular site. It has to be "clean" code that everyone can use. And oh, yeah, no if/then's for kuro5hin specifics, either :-)

    But that would be using the wrong algorithm just because it is prettier. Is that more 'polite' than calling it "laziness"? I don't know.

    Anyway, I think it'd be fun to read through kuro5hin specific scoop code for stuff that had to be done as the site evolved. It would sort of tell a story.

    Thanks for ranting (or more fairly, replying) rather than rating, because then we could have a discussion. Isn't it amusing how ranting and rating are only different by one letter?

    [ Parent ]

    Why, you little... (3.92 / 13) (#86)
    by slaytanic killer on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 07:57:19 AM EST

    I think showing the raters is a good idea; I know that I once unfairly rated something (which made me feel more guilty than maybe I deserved..); and it would be good that such actions would bite me in the ass.

    That said, I imagine it would become a little more common to use dual accounts, but since most people are using a single computer, this seems like a pretty decent speedbump... Only if someone is feeling particularly vindictive, would they be unfair. I just hope it doesn't become like that Simpsons episode where the Simpsons were free to shock each other, and the expectation was that everyone would play nice out of self-preservation...

    Why this is a Bad Thing... (4.17 / 17) (#95)
    by lucas on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 09:35:21 AM EST

    There are features that should not be added except to administrators.

    The main question I have is: why? Why do we need to be able to see these ratings? So someone doesn't slap us with a negative review? Who cares?

    Now that I've seen pretty much every person who has ever given me a 1, I can say this: they are entitled to their voice, and they are entitled to moderate as they see fit. Why is it important that I see who it is?

    How many people really troll on Kuro5hin, anyway? Is this a problem?

    Let's break it all down into small pieces.

    1.) if you reward people for following a certain community paradigm, they will tend to follow.

    2.) if you allow people to moderate and they are within a community paradigm, they will moderate down those who do not follow its ideologies.

    3.) if you allow an aggregation of rewards for following over time, there is incentive to continue.

    4.) if you have a community in which the aggregation of rewards is praised, there will be many (not all) people striving toward this.

    5.) if you allow dissenters to be listed amongst their peers as having moderated something down contrary to the community paradigm, they will gain a reputation of dissention.

    6.) Dissenting members will face challenges in becoming "trusted" when their reputation is tarnished with dissention.

    7.) Singled-out dissention by trusted members who can see low scores leads to vendettas just as singled-out praise leads to posting "clubs" (thanks for modding me up, i'll mod you up), etc.

    8.) The idea that posting clubs and vendettas can exist will dissuade people from getting involved, and will further mean that moderation is ineffective.

    I don't often moderate stories because I don't want to place a dissenting -1 to something that I don't believe is that bad but, on the other hand, doesn't fit with the flow here.

    Yet Stories (major issues) are one thing, postings (discussions) are another.

    When you are discussing, you need to have the ability to freely talk without the burden of knowing who is talking negatively about you and jumping on your words. Stories you post for the review of the community; apart from filtering out trolls, you should not have to hear the comments of people as you discuss. It's like watching two people make faces as you're giving a speech. You don't have to look at them, but the fact that they are there is harmful.

    Basically, guys, it's like this: you moderate your board and filter out the articles you don't want or you leave it to the people to decide your content, but if you're going to do the latter, do it right and consider the consequences.

    Saying to people, "Check out who modded you down, oh, and play fair" is naive.

    As an example of how stupid this system is, what would happen if I said, "I'll be taking down the names of everyone who mods this below 3. Expect a 1 from me on your next 5 postings." I mean, what are you going to do now, limit the amount of 1's and 0's people can give?

    What would happen? (4.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Michael Leuchtenburg on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:19:31 AM EST

    I would say to rusty, "rusty, this displaying rating things has problems. Look at [URL], for example." He would probably say "hmm." But until there were problems, nothing would happen.

    Oh, and I'd also rate that comment a 0 (or 1, depending on if I'm trusted ATM). Horrors, some of my comments will be getting rated down. Oh well. Follows your initial reasoning, too. Who cares?

    The idea behind this is to allow people, if they so desire, to catch abuses of the system. I think it could be better done by admin (or TU) review of the "extreme" cases, as determined by statistical analysis (the 10% at the extremes of the bell curve for rating: a given person, all posts, and so forth). This would catch a lot of abuses, I think, and be more "safe" than the current method. It'd be processor intensive, but it's a batch job. It's okay if it takes a while. Nice to catch the abuses early, but not really neccessary. Once a statistical base is established (we're doing pseudo-statistics here), we can easily tell if a given user is way out there by looking at previously collected and analyzed data, stored in an easy to use format (a function).

    [ #k5: dyfrgi ]
    [ TINK5C ]
    [ Parent ]

    Early thoughts (4.20 / 5) (#102)
    by slaytanic killer on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:44:25 AM EST

    It's a bit too early to make any real comments before seeing how well Kuro5hin matures with this new change.. But I would just like to point out that if are too preemptive, to the point where we collect statistics, then the two problems may be:

    . People will not be able to make mistakes, and have enough time to learn from them.

    . We homogenize comments.

    Let us take Slashdot as an example. Discussion filters not only apply to the low end (trolls, etc) but to the high end. The best comments are often not from the regulars, but from the random person who knows her subject & wants to make a post to a large audience without worrying about logging in or observing artificial protocols. So for information, Slashdot has the very high signal I like, and I use their tools to aid me in filtering my way to them. It is not moderation's fault if I don't find all the high signals; it's mine, because I didn't take the effort needed to get all of them and just leaned on my tools too much for convenience.

    Therefore, as a pure information gatherer, Slashdot's system is very good.

    For conversation and deeper analysis, it is not.

    Also, take notice of the dangers of cleaning too hard. Peoples' posts & moderations remain the inputs. Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how much the system cleans it up. Too much cleaning, you start wearing down the system and introduce bacteria (which are both real-world consequences of cleaning & maintaining too much).

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I agree... (2.33 / 3) (#105)
    by lucas on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 11:57:02 AM EST

    >Oh, and I'd also rate that comment a 0 (or 1, depending on if I'm trusted
    >ATM). Horrors, some of my comments will be getting rated down. Oh
    >well.

    Yeah, I also wouldn't be too frightened of a threat like that from someone, were he to say it... like you said, until something happens that validates these theories, then nothing will really happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Does this mean that all token-based mods fail? (3.16 / 6) (#104)
    by TuxNugget on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 11:21:38 AM EST

    or just the non-anonymous ones?

    Maybe the problem is the monopoly on moderation. If there were multiple moderation schemes, administered by different people, then in theory there would be competition between moderation schemes.

    Different people might have different opinions about which mod scheme works best, but if it is out there, they could use it. They wouldn't be stuck with one system.

    [ Parent ]

    Rating transparency (3.60 / 5) (#106)
    by Beorn on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:08:21 PM EST

    As an example of how stupid this system is, what would happen if I said, "I'll be taking down the names of everyone who mods this below 3. Expect a 1 from me on your next 5 postings."

    The purpose of accountability is not to stop silly rating fights, (although this might be a side-effect), but to bring them out in the open, where you can ignore or participate in them whatever way you want to.

    Your fear of backrubbing and group vendettas may be justified, but now that the system is transparent, you yourself give the ratings whatever meaning you want them to have. You might care very much about all ratings, or all but a few, or only a few, or none at all - it's all up to you. Transparency makes that choice possible, it gives power to humans rather than fancy algorithms, and therefore it is a good thing.

    - Beorn

    [ Threepwood '01 ]
    [ Parent ]

    heh (2.75 / 8) (#107)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:15:38 PM EST

    As an example of how stupid this system is, what would happen if I said, "I'll be taking down the names of everyone who mods this below 3. Expect a 1 from me on your next 5 postings."

    Gee, that would make for such a nice sig... ;)

    --em
    [ Parent ]

    sweet... (2.88 / 9) (#109)
    by 31: on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:47:28 PM EST

    Now I can punish all of those who have cursed me with occasional 'trusted user' status by ruthlessly moderating them all to 5...

    ha ha! Feel the wrath as you plunge into the pits of 'Review Hidden Comments'

    -Patrick
    Ratings (2.85 / 7) (#111)
    by brent on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:05:18 PM EST

    I like the idea behind the ratings. Why not let others see who was here? However, the down side to showing everything is that no one can predict how a negative comment will be taken, so can you "shut it off"? and maybe add it to the preference section of some kind. Not necessarily the USER PREFERENCE but, one that would be by MAIN PAGE only and not the section pages.

    One suggestion that would be cool to see is the current number of users that are in this community. Such as (x)are currently registered and growing by (y) daily. Maybe a MOST RECENTLY created user ID list or MOST RECENT COMMENTS section. Along those same lines see if some kind of count can show how many are logged on right now.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Spendocrat on Thu Dec 28, 2000 at 01:35:01 PM EST

    However, the down side to showing everything is that no one can predict how a negative comment will be taken

    Especially when people rate comments to a 1, and don't bother to reply. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Hypocrite (none / 0) (#159)
    by Malicose on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 12:18:25 PM EST

    Especially when people rate comments to a 1, and don't bother to reply. :)
    Kind of like what you did here?

    [ Parent ]
    Ooh, sorry about that. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Spendocrat on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:35:03 AM EST

    Thanks for reading through my comments though :)

    Problem solved.

    [ Parent ]

    why not? (3.12 / 8) (#112)
    by mircrypt on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:26:39 PM EST

    Not having been on k5 for any exceptional length of time, I've been struck by two things. 1) Stories posted are for the most part interesting and well written. 2) Comments tend to be more on-point than off-topic or personal attack oriented. I could care less about ratings. I enjoy logging on to see new stories to moderate, and commenting on them...I enjoy reading what others have to say about what I write. Basically, it's nice to be part of a community that cares more about the issues than who the hell gets better ratings...at least that's what I thought. In the grand scheme of things, ratings matter little to not at all. My suggestion is to stop bitching about the new system. It appears there were some probs. with the old one, not all of which have been addressed by rusty's modification to mojo calculation. At least now, though, you can see who's being a pain in the ass and who's giving fair ratings to comments. For those who want to post themselves or their friends up, I would encourage trying some other way to boost what must be pathetically low self-esteem and confidence if they are driven to go to such great lengths to make themselves look better. For those who have to put up with the annoyance of low ratings by one or a few, why not ignore it? The less attention you give these people, the less material they have to continue on one would hope. If it doesn't turn out to work like that, there are always other discussions that can be started on it if it continues to be a problem. I feel like this comment just keeps on spinning on, so I'll end it before I repeat myself anymore. What I'm trying to get at is that the rating system is not the be-all and end-all of this site. Echoing the words of those before me who fled from /. don't focus on the ratings, focus on the issues.
    "Experience is not what happens to you; it is what you do with what happens to you". - Aldus Huxley -
    Okay, I have a question. (2.50 / 6) (#118)
    by ghjm on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:54:18 PM EST

    I haven't been using kuro5shin very extensively or for very long, so there are probably obvious answers that I just don't happen to know, but I'm a bit puzzled by all this mojo stuff. I understand that mojo is karma, but what exactly is "trusted user" status? What capabilities does it give you? How do you get it? How do you know if you have it? Is gaining "trusted user" the only reason for mojo to exist? Can you see your own mojo rating? Can you see other people's? Are story or posting ratings affected by mojo? Etc etc etc. Is there a FAQ on this somewhere? I'd love to RTFM but I can't find TFM...and I don't have time to RTFSC.

    -Graham

    looked at the layout of K5? (3.00 / 3) (#129)
    by cetan on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 04:35:16 PM EST

    right next to the "your account" link in the big blue bar that runs all the way across the page? yes, that's 2 over from "submit story..." it might be, it could be, it IS! It's a link to the FAQ.

    Sarcasm aside. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to find things here...also, there is a search box on the bottom of every page.

    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to disappoint you cetan... (3.50 / 2) (#140)
    by ewan on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 08:11:31 AM EST

    But if you had disengaged sarcasm mode a little earlier, and actually read the faq, you'd notice that it doesnt actually say what "Trusted user" status is.

    In the section about Karma/Mojo is does mention that if your mojo reaches a certain level you gain the ability to moderate an item down to 0 instead of the 1 normal users are limited to, and do to undo moderations down to 0. Now maybe thats trusted user status, but maybe it isn't.

    Typing in "trusted user" to the search at the bottom of the page finds exactly 4 results, none of which include an explanation of what the status actually is.

    You're right, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to find stuff here, but the stuff has to be here first to find it...

    Ewan

    [ Parent ]
    RTOP? (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cetan on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 11:07:22 AM EST

    From the original post I was replying to:

    I'd love to RTFM but I can't find TFM

    No where did I qualify the content of the FAQ as accurate or even helpful.

    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]

    trusted user? (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by cetan on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 11:12:00 AM EST

    "Returned more than 50 results"

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=search&offset=0&type=comment&topic=§ion=&string=trusted+user&search=Search&count=50&next_page=2&next_page=2

    If users can't use the search tool as provided, why is that my fault?
    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]

    and just to show you further.... (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cetan on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 12:28:27 PM EST

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2000/9/18/115116/125

    that's an easily found item in search as well.

    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]

    Confirms what I thought (4.33 / 6) (#124)
    by kagaku_ninja on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 03:49:56 PM EST

    ...that responses to comments get fewer ratings. This means the opinion of 1 or 2 people have a disproportionate influence on the rating (but you knew that already...)

    My habit from usenet is to respond to messages. This can create a thread of discussion, which may veer off topic. But that's half the fun.

    What I see in K5 is everyone posting comments at the root level, rather than forming threads, since that will give them better exposure (like what I am doing now...)

    Overall, I think making the count visible is a good idea. Identifying individuals doesn't really serve any purpose, other than encourage retalliation. Does this really help K5?

    Rating quantities (none / 0) (#161)
    by Elendale on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 05:41:19 PM EST

    There is definately less rating now than before. Its a bit like meta-moderation: people can get burnt for bad ratings so they take the safe rout. As to the thread replys, this is (IMHO) one of the big things about K5. When the author says he rates tangent discussions to '1', what he is doing is stifling 'conversation'. While K5 doesn't really have discussion in the strict sense of the word, there is definately an exchange of ideas through lingual medium. A real conversation doesn't stick to one topic. True, there are different 'discussions' happening on K5 at one time but if we are to take everything offtopic to a new place to finish the conversations get fractured. Its similar to having a building with hundreds of rooms set up specifically for discussion, but everytime you stray off on a tangent (such as talking about religion in a strictly political 'room') you have to leave and move to a new room. Add in the fact you can't 'see' the other people (as in, to tell where they are going) and it gets interesting. The 'deeper' the threads, the 'deeper' the conversation goes; the fewer deep threads there are, the 'shallower' the conversation gets. Oh well, enough of my opinions.

    -Elendale
    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    Confirms what I thought (2.85 / 7) (#130)
    by kagaku_ninja on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:23:07 PM EST

    ...that responses to comments get fewer ratings. This means the opinion of 1 or 2 people have a disproportionate influence on the rating (but you knew that already...)

    My habit from usenet is to respond to messages. This can create a thread of discussion, which may veer off topic. But that's half the fun.

    What I see in K5 is everyone posting comments at the root level, rather than forming threads, since that will give them better exposure (like what I am doing now...)

    Overall, I think making the count visible is a good idea. Identifying individuals doesn't really serve any purpose, other than encourage retalliation. Does this really help K5?

    Whoops... (1.00 / 4) (#131)
    by kagaku_ninja on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:25:06 PM EST

    Not sure why this got posted again. I pressed the "refresh" button in IE...

    [ Parent ]
    A simple perl script (3.33 / 6) (#133)
    by raelin on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:20:29 PM EST

    Maybe we need a simple perl script to show the connections between people and their stalkers? Or admirers? I think this'd be interesting at least. If anyone else does, I'll give it a swing. --Wes

    revenge bait (3.33 / 3) (#142)
    by aschafer on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 09:18:08 AM EST

    I like the idea of admirers, but I think the stalker connection would spark more vendettas. It might be cool to make everyone's mojo factor visible...

    [ Parent ]
    Accountability in Ratings | 161 comments (156 topical, 5 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!