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]
Keep Story Moderation Stats

By TON in Meta
Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:16:07 AM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

I would like users to have easy access to moderation information. I think this may help to improve the quality of voting.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Lately, there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the quality (or lack thereof) of submissions in the queue and the lameness of what comes out. Let's leave aside whether or not users are getting stupider, writing is getting shabbier, MLPs are getting out of hand, or any of the other complaints. If moderation works well, we should see good stories to read and discuss.

As it stands now, moderation is a throwaway. Stories, comments, diaries and comment ratings all last. Anyone can look them up in User Info. You can't run from these things. If you just flail about mindlessly, it looks that way. Moderation is a quickie that you can forget about in the morning. After the story leaves the queue, who knows what the moderation was? After awhile I can't even remember how I moderated some stories.

Let's keep the moderation stats around after stories come out of the queue. I'd like to see them on the User Info page, just like "View comment ratings by ...". It might not be a bad idea to keep them on the story itself, just like when it goes through the queue.

This would have a few benefits that I can think of:

  • People would have to stand by their moderation. This is a discussion site. Too much "-1 Dump it!", and then commenting when it comes out of the queue anyway, should look a bit inconsistent. If users want to dump a submission for editorial reasons, they can make an editorial comment. This should help to improve the quality of writing. This kind of criticism has certainly helped me. It would cut down on any "-1, 'cuz I hate this" moderation.
  • It would help to show patterns of moderation. Vadim has already written a diary similar to this. I have a feeling about how people vote, but I'd like to see it in black-and-white. It might give people new to K5 a feel for how to moderate as well.
  • Think about those +1 FP's. Do you really want your name next to one? Thinking twice isn't a bad thing.
  • I'm lazy. I'd like to keep track of my own moderation. I think I have a "default" and a method, but do I really?
There may be a few drawbacks. Here are two I can think of:
  • It might be a pain to code, or a drain on the server. I don't know about these things. If you do, please comment.
  • It might start vendettas. This is a possibility, but if you are paranoid, you can watch who votes down your submissions anyway.
I've read enough Meta submissions to know that most suggestions are not adopted. Most perceived problems with K5 are chalked up to social, rather than technical forces. I'd guess that's about right. I'm not suggesting a change in process, just a little more open, easy access to information. Transparency in moderation should improve how it works.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
Keep story moderation stats...
o just as they are. 17%
o on the User Info page. 10%
o on the story after it comes out of the queue. 25%
o on both. 30%
o away from me. I don't care! 17%

Votes: 76
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o diary
o Also by TON


Display: Sort:
Keep Story Moderation Stats | 72 comments (71 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
I agree (3.20 / 5) (#1)
by enterfornone on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 01:12:49 AM EST

Often I'll submit a story, go away and come back later to find it's been voted down, often with little comment. It would be nice to be able to see whether the dump was unanimous, or whether there was some support for the story. That would help decide whether to bother re-submitting.

Most metas are never implimented because the Scoop developers only have so much time on their hands. And Scoop is such a bitch to install that it's not worth it if you just want to hack the code without running a site.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
Time is tight (2.50 / 2) (#3)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 01:19:29 AM EST

Most metas are never implimented because the Scoop developers only have so much time on their hands.

Yeah. I just figured that was a given.

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

Gut feeling (4.20 / 10) (#2)
by lordsutch on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 01:17:45 AM EST

In general, I like the idea. At least cumulative stats (of both story and post moderation) would be nice, if only to look at. (For example, I virtually always +1, section MLP unless it clearly sucks, because that's what MLP is for. I probably vote 0 more than anything else... including on this story, I'd have to say.)

My personal, gut feeling is that what K5 really needs to do is separate +1 from FP. First figure out if the story is good enough to put in a section, then FP based on either activity (more trusted users reading/posting) or maybe a second vote. And no MLP as FP :-)

I'd also require a minimum queue time for stories; I suspect if I submit a story about something fashionably Euroleft at 0500 GMT it'll be on the FP by 1200 GMT, but the same post at 1600 GMT would probably be canned, languishing around +15, or maybe in the sidebar by 2330 GMT or so (and switch "Euroleft" with "US-centric" and the times if you like).

Linux CDs. Schuyler Fisk can sell me long distance anytime.

Discussion site? (4.66 / 9) (#4)
by UncleMikey on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 01:45:13 AM EST

This is a discussion site.

I'm not against the idea of users' voting records being persistent, but I do take issue with this statement. This is not a discussion site, or such is not how everyone here perceives it. This is a news-and-editorial site where the readers are also the editors (in the sense of selecting content) and hence, also assistant publishers. It's a modern day pamphplet press, in which one can get extremely rapid feedback on one's writing.

But while the discussion is a key part of what makes this site superior to the printed pamphlets of old, the focus really should be on producing (and moderating up) good articles. This is why MLP irritates me more and more; and why many people are irritated by articles that ask questions rather than doing a proper journalists job and finding the answers and then writing up the results.


--
[ Uncle Mikey | Radio Free Tomorrow ]

Point taken (3.50 / 4) (#5)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:03:26 AM EST

I guess I should have added a "partly" in there. You are right that good articles are the goal. As an example, the recent piece on voting mechanics was very interesting. I didn't have anything to add, but I learned quite a bit.

I hope that better moderation will yield better articles. That is why I dislike the "-1 because I hate this" moderation. I'd like to see "-1 and here's my ed comment" moderation. I need it to help me write better. I hope more transparent moderation might generate more of that kind of discussion.

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

I'm with you on that one. (3.00 / 5) (#7)
by UncleMikey on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:12:36 AM EST

A vote of -1 should automatically lead to the comment-entry page, rigged for editorial only, and the vote shouldn't register until a comment is entered. People who enter lame comments can then get those comments modded down, with the attendant effects on their mojo.

Actually, now that I think of it, any vote should lead straight to the comment-entry page...
--
[ Uncle Mikey | Radio Free Tomorrow ]
[ Parent ]

Redundancy? (4.20 / 5) (#10)
by mattw on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:24:22 AM EST

Won't this lead to a lot of redunancy? How many people have to post, "-1, we don't want a flamewar", or "+1, wow, this is awesome"? Voting can be a time drain during heavy times, and that may lead people to pass on it, trust their fellow users and read what comes out of the queue. By requiring entry, you increase the time requirements, which decreases size of your voting block relative to the readership total. Moreover, there's not anything necessarily wrong with a -1 article -- maybe its just not your bag and you're raising the bar while you wait for even better ones because you feel the queue was too loose lately. Certainly, having an editorial comment per vote is excessive.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
If it's simply not your bag... (3.25 / 4) (#14)
by UncleMikey on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:36:19 AM EST

...then you should vote 0 or pass on it entirely. -1 should be reserved for articles that suck, or non-articles (e.g. contentless MLPs, questions, and spam), not articles you don't like or don't agree with.
--
[ Uncle Mikey | Radio Free Tomorrow ]
[ Parent ]
even so? (3.00 / 3) (#15)
by mattw on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:46:30 AM EST

I could see a system where you voted -1 only if you actively disliked something, and simply reserved a certain threshold for posting, ergo the vote 0/pass concept for an article you are unintereted in. But why would you then force all 95 people voting for it to comment editorially?


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
Editorials (4.20 / 5) (#13)
by twodot72 on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:35:58 AM EST

A vote of -1 should automatically lead to the comment-entry page, rigged for editorial only, and the vote shouldn't register until a comment is entered.
Hm, I'm with you as far as the problem goes, but requiring an editorial for each and every -1 vote would lead to a lot less -1s; it'd be too much work so people wouldn't bother. This would mean even more crap stories voted up. Also, if you vote -1 for the same reason as someone else who already wrote an editorial, it's redundant to write another one just like it.

[ Parent ]
Moderation policy (3.20 / 5) (#6)
by nr0mx on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:03:39 AM EST

Let's leave aside whether or not users are getting stupider, writing is getting shabbier, MLPs are getting out of hand, or any of the other complaints. If moderation works well, we should see good stories to read and discuss.

Surely, moderation is not independent of the points you mention ? Instead why don't we tighten up the moderation policy by clearing up which criterias are valid to be used, and which are not ?

Let us take MLPs for example. Is it valid to 'Dump It!(-1)' because they are MLPs ? Many think so, they admit they are biased against MLPs. As a community policy, is it acceptable or not ? If we could clear such things up, and put them in the FAQ for example we could maybe avoid many flame-wars. Atleast we could have a standard 'RTFF' response to these things.

The other main controversy seems to be the demarcation between a diary entry and a story submission. This one's even trickier, and I for one wouldn't want to start on this now. If people feel it merits discussion, let us.



No, not independent (2.60 / 5) (#8)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:15:16 AM EST

I just didn't want to go in a million directions. I just said "Leave aside", not "forget about". Clarity of moderation practices as they exist might help to clear up to what "community policy" is. Or, at least you would know who is always voting up all the crap you hate.

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

K5 self-redefinement (3.71 / 7) (#12)
by mattw on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:29:02 AM EST

K5, as a community, gets to self-redefine every time you vote. And there's the thing -- no one is getting their vote taken away, regardless of their reasons. So if people all voted -1 MLP on EVERY piece of MLP, we'd eventually just drop the category. In this sense, K5 doesn't really NEED an faq for these sorts of things. You do what you want with the tools provided -- the tools themselves adjust. Actually, I think that might be an ideal moderation system -- one where the most articles please the most people, and the voting mechanics adjust to people.

Some people have, for example, pointed out that some people conscientiousless rate 1-5, whereas others dole out 1s or 5s almost exclusively. Such a system might weight ratings so that a 1 from a person who only gave them out 20% of the time was worth more than one from someone who gave out a 1 50% of the time. So one might debate the utility of the system, but K5 is good, in my opinion, partially because it does not have any hard and fast rules.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
Partly agree, but still ... (3.25 / 4) (#21)
by nr0mx on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:42:15 AM EST

Please take a look at this comment where I went through my point in more detail. And the response to the comment, which sums up exactly what I feel -- that there are two separate user communities which view k5 differently. And both are trying to pull it in their own directions.

So if people all voted -1 MLP on EVERY piece of MLP, we'd eventually just drop the category.

Do you see the argument for why this will not happen ? Some will keep voting -1 MLP on every piece, and some will keep voting it up. This is the conflict I am referring to. This is beginning to occur on every single post these days. The Elitist/Non-Elitist argument too is basically this. I am sure we can live with it, but it is visibly polluting the atmosphere around here.



[ Parent ]

spank me! (2.60 / 5) (#26)
by etherdeath on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 05:18:10 AM EST

Yeah... I'm kinda new here and I already find myself giving people a lot of 5s when I'm feeling particularly spiffy. Percentages sound good, but perhaps some other way too. I recently posted in someone's diary, as somewhat negative comment, and their friend (MisterQueue) set all my posts to 0, even though all the but the first were replies to other people. Another friend of the diary author kindly moderated my posts to 5, so I wound up with 2.5 for each one. Not really sure why either of them did what the did.

I looked at some other diaries and it looks like a lot of people rate the diary comments high. This is especially frequent in the diaries which seem to have build a little community of frequent readers of that diary. It looks like the old "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" way of doing things. Do diary comment ratings weight as much as comment ratings on real stories? I didn't think I saw anything about this in the FAQ, but please let me know if I've missed it.

[ Parent ]
irrational voting (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by mattw on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 09:29:01 AM EST

Some people vote irrationally, but it is usually corrected later. Even if you constantly get 1s, the only thing you're missing out on is moderating to 0, or moderating up hidden comments, and the former is incredibly rare, and the latter is no fun.

I believe diary ratings DO count as much, but you're really likely to get 5s in diaries. I lapsed back to lurker for a few months, but last year, a lot of diary authors habitually moderated anything remotely intelligent to 5 automatically if it was a reply to their diary entry. Sort of a "thanks for reading me". Actually, diaries make for fun threads, because it seems a lot less confrontational. In primary threads on posts, a lot of people feel bound to vehemently correct tiny errors.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
Actually.. (none / 0) (#56)
by MisterQueue on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:30:54 PM EST

thank you for assuming..but I have not yet rated any of your comments. before you start slinging mud n00b, check your facts!

-Q
-------
"So, from now, remember: every time you are interacting with an acquaitance and you think you caught them smirking while they thought
[ Parent ]

re: actually.. (none / 0) (#57)
by etherdeath on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:49:38 PM EST

I guess His Excellency (that's me) was wrong. Sorry about that.

[ Parent ]
Appology accepted (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by MisterQueue on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:52:56 PM EST


-Q
-------
"So, from now, remember: every time you are interacting with an acquaitance and you think you caught them smirking while they thought
[ Parent ]

How I Vote For Stories (3.60 / 5) (#9)
by snowlion on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:23:16 AM EST

The general ideology I have is to pass stories. I like to pass stories, and I generally think the more content we have here, the better.

If I think a story looks all right, or merely OK, I say "+1, Section!".

If I really like the story, or think it deserves some special attention, I say "+1, Front Page!"

If I am in a bad mood, or I just really don't care for the story, or if it's kind of lame and sickly, I say "0, Don't Care."

If I hate the story, or disagree with it's viewpoint, I say "-1, Dump It!"

If it's pitifully written, "-1, Dump It."

Age: I make consessions to pitifully written stories written by the high school crowd if they show signs of life & friendliness. Section, maybe even front page if it's beautiful or interesting. But bragging, or anything really obnoxious, and I say "Dump It!".

I voted -1 for this story, because it strikes me as obnoxious, and I disagree with the viewpoint, namely, my general ideology for Kuro5hin: I like to pass stories. This article is written from an elitist perspective:

Lately, there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the quality (or lack thereof) of submissions in the queue and the lameness of what comes out. Let's leave aside whether or not users are getting stupider, writing is getting shabbier, MLPs are getting out of hand, or any of the other complaints. If moderation works well, we should see good stories to read and discuss.

I mean, I like what I see on Kuro5hin. I think Kuro5hin stories are neat, if a bit addicting.

Okay, and look particularly at that last sentance: "If moderation works well, we should see good stories to read and discuss."

I really don't believe that. First, I think that the stories are already good. And I also believe that moderation is working fine. So the statement should be "If moderation records are publicly available, and we all work together to put peer pressure on people who rate unfairly, we should see better stories to read and discuss."

(Incidentally, I don't have anything against publicly available moderation records. I'm just describing why I think this reasoning is lame.)

I don't think that publicly available moderation records will change a thing. I'm still going to vote my way. I don't think any amount of peer pressure is going to affect me. Indeed, any such pressure would probably change my moderation strategy. My strategy has never been secret, and I think that it's pretty fair. I don't expect everybody, or even most people, to agree with it, but, this is a democracy, and they can vote like they like to vote.

If we have a problem with people with multiple accounts logging in and voting stories up or down, this will be marginally helpful. Rusty already has the records, and can deal with those things already.

Anyways, just letting you know how I vote, and why I'm voting this story -1: Because it promotes the obnoxious idea that Kuro5hin stories are only for Elite authors.


--
Map Your Thoughts
First, I think that the stories are already good. (4.25 / 4) (#24)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:04:52 AM EST

Me too. I'm here every day. Please substitute "even better stories" for "good stories" in my article.

Also, I hope this doesn't have to be all about peer pressure. The feedback from moderation can be good. I've noticed that more than a few folks whose writing on K5 I respect have voted this submission down. That gives me some food for thought. I'll be able to think at leisure if the stats hang around.

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

I voted against (3.00 / 1) (#40)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:13:43 AM EST

You got my "-1: Posted a Meta-article when you should have just emailed me" vote. But you got your feature anyway, so don't say I never did nothing for ya. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Watcha gonna do? (none / 0) (#52)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:09:26 PM EST

*sigh*

I guess I'll consider it a learning experience. I did think about just dropping you an email about this idea, but I didn't want to bother you. Figured you get enough mail. I know, I know, I know. That's moronic. Following this story was far more time consuming. OTOH, in the spirit of openness, I thought a story was the way to go. It felt odd to ask for open site information in an off-site, direct email.

I'd been reading a few comments and diaries here and there that seemed to add up to a consensus that moderating the queue needed some help. There was some idea that the submissions were just fine, but that moderation was getting slack. I'd also been mulling over that recent North Korean Coup/ South Korean Military Alert hoax. So many people seemed to mod it up without even looking at it. I hoped the discussion would be profitable. It seems there was some good thrashing out what moderation is for.

Thanks for setting up the stats, much appreciated.

Maybe I should have just emailed this...? :-)

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

Interesting discussion (none / 0) (#67)
by rusty on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:21:43 AM EST

To my surprise, the discussion has turned out interesting and useful, so I'm not complaining. My vote was wrong, as it turns out, and the whole affair would have been much less profitable via private email. I was just explaining why I voted against it to start with. I tend to be overly critical of Meta stories anyway, and especially lately. There've just been so many submitted.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
You've described... (4.87 / 8) (#25)
by ti dave on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:23:46 AM EST

what I personally see as a problem here on k5;

If I hate the story, or disagree with it's viewpoint, I say "-1, Dump It!"

It may be all fine and good to "hate" a story, but I believe it's really mentally healthy
to vote up quality stories that may represent a view you don't hold.

Sometimes that's not easy to do, but sometimes it's good to walk in someone else's shoes.


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Re: You've described... (4.75 / 4) (#42)
by Rk on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:16:25 AM EST

While I agree insofar as you shouldn't mod down just because you don't agree with the posters viewpoint, I find there are a lot of people on K5 that believe everything should be voted +1, section unless it is terrible. K5 was never intended to be a BBS where everyone posts what they like. There diaries, and there *thousands* of other forums out there.

There are a few things a mod down by default. One is political propaganda or posts with a tone of propaganda. I believe that posts on political issues should either by 1.) in the form of question or 2.) and opinion, clearly stated as such 3.) a article of news about a relevant theme. However writing articles which state something on the lines of "Globalism is evil, down with the facist pigs!" are going to be modded down, by default. I don't like the use of inclusive first person plural, so making a statement like "*We* all know that the world is heating up, but Dubyah is too stupid to realise" is also a good reason to be modded down.

I also personally would like to see more science/technology articles on K5, not just political ones. As much as I find the DMCA a fascinating piece of bad legislation, I am not an American and am not overly concerned about it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't by discussed, but that is shouldn't be discussed exclusively. Slashdot, while many posters here despise it, is IMHO a generally better source for science stuff than K5, although posts there aren't always accurate. They aren't always accurate here, either.

On the topic of incorrect articles, if an article is obviously incorrect, I will vote it down. Some posters have expressed the view that it should be voted up and refuted. The exception here is articles on highly specific topics, where the errors might not by so obvious, such as the article on brain chemistry that was posted a while back. I believe it's better to correct the errors and then post an article that won't pulled apart entirely by other readers. Spelling and punctuation errors ought to be voted down and resubmitted, as should minor grammatical errors, but consistent use of incorrect grammar simply gets voted down. While I can sympathise with people who don't speak English as their first language, this is intended as an English speaking site. There's always the possibility of setting up a scoop based foreign language site.

Finally, there is the issue of stories that don't interest you at all. Generally a 0 is best here, unless the article is 1.) way out of context for K5, which is unusual, since this site covers a lot of topics ("Variety is the spice of life") or 2.) about a topic that has become boring and repetive, unless the article brings soemthing new into the discussion, such as an item of news, but *not* some piece of statistics dug up by the poster.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I do that. (none / 0) (#59)
by snowlion on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 05:40:18 PM EST

If it's really well written, even though I disagree with it, I'll let it pass: +1 Section.

I agree; It's a Golden Rule thing.


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
I will vote a story up to +1... (3.33 / 3) (#32)
by Rocky on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 09:10:24 AM EST

...if there's a wicked argument going on, even if I don't agree with what the story says.

I keeps the site more interesting.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
[ Parent ]
Inconsistent? (4.77 / 9) (#11)
by Sunir on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:26:27 AM EST

Too much "-1 Dump it!", and then commenting when it comes out of the queue anyway, should look a bit inconsistent.

Why? If you vote against a submission, yet it gets posted anyway, your only recourse at that point to disagree or disdain the submission is to comment on it. Would you rather prevent those who voted against an article from commenting?

I often comment on a submission I voted agaisnt before it leaves the queue. -1 is just a number, but a comment is much more substantive. As far as you know, a -1 might just be for bad grammar. You can actually put a detailed criticism in a comment so the author understands why you voted against him or her for next time.

After all, I believe that voting is evil.

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

Or perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 06:50:42 PM EST

>your only recourse at that point to disagree or
>disdain the submission is to comment on it.

Maybe you vote -1 because one doesn't think the story is worthy of K5. Enough people disagree to get it posted anyway.

Later, through boredom or curiousity, you check out the story again, and find that the discussion is actually pretty intresting, even if the story isn't. So you comment anyway, even though you voted -1 on the story.

I've done this plenty of times. In fact, I'm doing it right now.

Plus, it's not uncommon at all to see editorial comments of people +1'ing a story "for the comments", but not the story itself.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

A couple of points. (4.25 / 4) (#16)
by Inoshiro on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 02:55:34 AM EST

"Lately, there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the quality (or lack thereof) of submissions in the queue and the lameness of what comes out. " replace lately with every 2-4 months, going back 2 years, and it's an accurate statement. The grass is always greener on the other side ;)

The best solution I could think of would be enforcing that people write a comment when they vote, and their vote choice be put into the top of the message -- like the Scoop code originally did Jan 2000 through mid 2000. It may have seemed a bit "odd" back then to the few of us who used tho site, but as we've scaled up, we need more social conventions. It's how society works when you go from a small group to a large group, and you can't guarantee that everyone knows everyone else :)

I think it could work, provided everyone knew that their comment would be posted with the story (for better, or for worse). (As an aside, the vote stats are kept -- but only admins see them once the story has been posted; perhaps changing the box to show to all users would fulfil what you wish?)



--
[ イノシロ ]
Um... (4.33 / 3) (#18)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:17:18 AM EST

The best solution I could think of would be enforcing that people write a comment when they vote

Don't you remember why we got rid of that?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Vote/comment discussion (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by jasonab on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:41:07 AM EST

The best solution I could think of would be enforcing that people write a comment when they vote
Don't you remember why we got rid of that?
Actually, since I wasn't here then, I'd be interested in seeing that discussion.

[ Parent ]
Redunancy (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:00:36 AM EST

Basically, it led to lots of people posting the same comment over and over. The way it used to work was you couldn't see scores or comments before voting. You would vote, and you could also post a comment at the same time. Only then could you see other people's comments, and the story's score. What happened was that we'd end up with 10 or 20 comments all pointing out the same flaw in the article, or all making the same point, since no one could see what anyone else had said until after they voted.

All in all, it wasn't a very good system.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

200 worthless comments (4.66 / 3) (#22)
by delmoi on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:42:32 AM EST

IIRC people mostly just said "I'm voting this up" or whatever. Not particularly high-value commentary.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Ok (4.83 / 12) (#19)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:35:49 AM EST

I don't think it'll make any difference, personally, but according to the overall principle of "more open == better" I don't see any good reason why not. It will probably be a little harder on the servers, but not too much. If it causes problems, I will disable the box and look for a better way to implement it.

The "Moderation Stats" box should now remain on stories like it does in the queue, for the rest of their life.

____
Not the real rusty

Now all we need (2.00 / 8) (#28)
by ennui on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 08:01:00 AM EST

is clear indication of what editor decides to section or FP stories that don't even make it close to meeting the post threshhold and what the hell they were thinking.

I suggest radio buttons as follows, to make life easier for the editors:

  • Sadistic
  • Insane
  • Forgot medication
  • Nepotism
  • YARWEAAR (You Are All Wrong, Editors Are Always Right)
  • Inoshiro


"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone
[ Parent ]
Ignorant fool. (2.50 / 6) (#29)
by David Quartz on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 08:53:46 AM EST

It's an automated system that decides what to do with a story when it's reached 350 votes. Dig back into the meta section for the story, and quit making a jackass of yourself.


Call your mother, she's worried!
[ Parent ]
Heh (4.50 / 2) (#35)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:51:47 AM EST

I would have put it a little more kindly, but yes, it's an automated system that has been quite thoroughly described elsewhere.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
You are missing the point. (3.28 / 7) (#38)
by ennui on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:58:55 AM EST

This is an example of something that had editor intervention. I know how scoop works, I have several generations of scoop source, I installed scoop on one of my home machines, I can read perl but prefer not to write it.

The post threshold at the time the submission in question hit 350 votes was 80. The "current score" after 350 votes was 24. There was editor intervention. I think in those cases it should be clear an editor exercised a fiat.

"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but no (5.00 / 5) (#39)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:10:07 AM EST

I know how scoop works... The post threshold at the time the submission in question hit 350 votes was 80. The "current score" after 350 votes was 24. There was editor intervention.

You obviously don't know how Scoop works. Let me explain it yet again so as to put your mind at ease:

Stories can be posted or dropped by reaching a "hard score threshold." Currently, on K5, those are 95 and -20. Any story that reaches one of these total scores will be posted or dropped immediately.

There is also a voting cutoff. Here, it's 350 votes. When a story reaches that number of votes, and has not acheived a "post" score or a "drop" score, the automated posting system kicks in. Here's what it does:

  • Look at the current voting total. If it's negative, drop the story.
  • Convert votes to a 1-5 scale (to match up with comment ratings). +1FP=5, +1=4, 0=2, -1=1.
  • Total the converted vote scores, and divide by number of votes, to get the "Voting score," which is now on a 1-5 scale.
  • Total the current ratings on topical comments, and divide by the number of comments or 20, whichever is higher, to get the "Comment Score." The 20-comment thing is to adjust for stories that have one topical comment rated 5. Basically, the idea is, if no one has anything to say about it, it's probably not that interesting.
  • Average the comment score and the vote score to obtain a final score.
  • If the final score is 4 or greater, post to front page. If it's 3 or greater, post to section. Otherwise, drop it.
I hope that clears things up for you.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Blech (4.00 / 1) (#46)
by ucblockhead on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 12:13:27 PM EST

No offense, but I absolutely hate that feature. It means that if someone submits something really lame and stupid, every comment that is given a five because it says "This is lame and stupid" makes it more likely for the story to actually post.

I know that the theory is that the comments themselves are valuable, but I'm not sure that is really the case.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

The case (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 12:41:10 PM EST

It's not always the case, but it works pretty damn well. There's some bias toward posting, which I'm fine with. Typically there aren't nearly as many as 20 topical comments pointing out how lame and stupid a story is, if it is. Note especially that ed comments don't count.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
well, why aren't they voting to dump it? (none / 0) (#51)
by andrewm on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:03:37 PM EST

If it's lame & stupid, post an editorial comment as to what's wrong, and vote to dump it. Then it just goes away.

[ Parent ]
Apology (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by ennui on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:25 PM EST

It would appear based on your explanation of what happens at the voting cutoff and my tallying of scores of votes that there was no intervention. Please forgive my jumping to conclusions based on a borderline story.

"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone
[ Parent ]
No problem (none / 0) (#62)
by rusty on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:30 AM EST

Do not attribute to underhandedness that which can be adequately explained by software complexity. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I wonder (4.00 / 1) (#61)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 12:43:20 AM EST

if the soft threshold is too low? One of the things I noticed when I recently started reading regularly again after an absence of two months or so is that the number of posted stories has skyrocketed; I suspect that this feature, introduced to solve the problem of stories languishing in the queue, has resulted in a high turnover rate for stories.

How much tweaking has been done to the soft threshold to test its optimum position?

[ Parent ]

Turnover rate (none / 0) (#64)
by rusty on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:13:03 AM EST

There are more stories lately. I think the rate has remained about the same, there are just a lot more submissions. One effect has been at least one new front page story pretty much every day, and often two or three, which I'm just thrilled with. The sections tend get filled out a lot with auto-posted stories. I think that's OK.

My thinking is that auto-posting often posts stories that cach the eye of a minority of readers, but that a larger majority don't care that much about. I think the bias should be towards posting more rather than less, because it should tend to keep more people interested and participating, and more people participating means a more diverse range of viewpoints. I think if we only posted the stuff everyone agreed on, it would be a bit bland, and eventually tend to refine the audience into a too-homogoneous group, which would make the whole thing a pointless exercise in me-tooism.

Some will argue that that's already happened, but I still find it hard to believe. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Thoughts .... (none / 0) (#72)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 10:05:50 PM EST

There are more stories lately

Indeed. And it feels to me like the average quality of research and information has gone down --- eg., especially in the political ones, that there is now a lot more noise. Still, I can't prove that. :)

I think the bias should be towards posting more rather than less, because it should tend to keep more people interested and participating, and more people participating means a more diverse range of viewpoints

That's reasonable to a point --- but the flip side is that if the stories all scroll in 2-3 days, it's more difficult to have a continuing conversation, and new ideas stop being introduced into discussions faster.

Some will argue that that's already happened, but I still find it hard to believe. :-)

Indeed. :) I actually think there is less me-tooism than there was, say, last summer; and there's more whining about me-tooism than there is actual me-tooism. *grin*

[ Parent ]

Some suggestions. (1.50 / 6) (#41)
by David Quartz on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:15:05 AM EST

1. Pull your head out of your ass.
2. Read this.
3. Quit fucking whining. It has nothing to do with the posting threshold, and the simple fact is that you don't know what you're talking about.



Call your mother, she's worried!
[ Parent ]
Calm down (3.66 / 3) (#44)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:54:01 AM EST

Thank you for finding the link to the announcement. But can you please try to remember that there is an actual person behind that "ennui" nick? Your tone is really way over the line in hostility.

Course, you're probably just ennui arguing with himself for amusement. If so, disregard this comment. But on the off chance that you're not, comments like "Pull your head out of your ass" are extremely unnecessary. Thanks.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Actual person (2.25 / 4) (#48)
by David Quartz on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 12:27:50 PM EST

Trust me man, he'll recover.

But hey, you the boss.


Call your mother, she's worried!
[ Parent ]
Why I think it makes no difference or is even bad: (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by theR on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 08:56:37 AM EST

Because it doesn't really matter how anybody voted on most stories that don't get posted. Most people will not remember the story if it hasn't been posted.

Also, I don't see the point. This person seems to want to somehow hold people accountable for how they vote on stories. But, as you have often pointed out, we should vote for or against stories based on whether we want it posted. We don't have to give any reasons why we vote the way we do. What, exactly, about this suggestion makes it good? What does being held accountable mean? Are we going to get hunted down if we don't vote the correct way?

  • "People would have to stand by their moderation." What does that mean? Stand by it in what way? I'm not allowed to post a topical comment in a story I think is crap? Of course I can, and if people start harassing me or criticize the way I vote because they see that I do that, they have problems.
  • It would show patterns of story voting (for this article's author, btw, it's not called 'moderation') but you can't extract anything useful about whether you agree with voting down the dead stories unless you can see them somewhere or remember them.
  • "Think about those +1 FP's. Do you really want your name next to one? Thinking twice isn't a bad thing." I vote most stories down, but presumably if people are voting +1 FP then that is to show that they want the story on the Front Page. It has nothing to do with whether one wants one's name associated with the story or the "(FP)" next to one's name, nor should it.
  • "I'm lazy. I'd like to keep track of my own moderation. I think I have a "default" and a method, but do I really?" He's lazy, so rusty should do some work to make him happy. ;)


[ Parent ]
Openness (4.33 / 3) (#36)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:54:52 AM EST

My thinking is that it's the same idea as making ratings open, more or less. I don't intend for things to be done in secret here, and the point is valid that once a story is posted, the voting becomes secret. That's my only justification for opening it. Well, that, and it was literally a two-line change to a box, so it seemed pointless not to. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
That's cool (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by theR on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 12:23:25 PM EST

I don't really care, either way. I just felt like arguing. Nodody to argue with, though. >:\



[ Parent ]
This takes me back (none / 0) (#68)
by kraant on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 02:08:19 AM EST

Heh, I don't seem to participate much around here no more, (I've even let my subscription lapse *guilt*).

But I had to go straight back and check out my old stories and see who'd voted for them and against them.

Which brings me to my point.

I bet none of us from back then thought that our story voting would become public knowledge. k5 from back then didn't have the whole openness in all votes thing going for it. It was actually fairly secretive about who'd voted what etc...

Remember how the Anonymous posts were from the "Anonymous Hero"? ;)

But anyway my voting history doesn't bother me too much but I'm sure there's a couple of other old crustys squirming a little right now.

Daniel - Who still hasn't managed to grok perl
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
another idea (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by Kellnerin on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:09:59 AM EST

How about making the Moderation stats box toggle-able via Display Preferences like "Related Links", etc? That way those who are interested have the information available, but those who aren't don't have to wait for it to load.

On another note, is the idea of rating stories 0-5 a la comments and having different (possibly personalizable) threshholds for FP, section, etc. dead, or just resting?

--got to be a way to make it sweeter, little more like lemon meringue--
[ Parent ]

Rating stories (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 10:57:42 AM EST

I can make the mod_stats togglable, but if you turn it off it won't show up even when a story is still in the queue. I guess if you don't care about voting, you don't care about voting. I'll do that in a minute.

The idea of the 0-5 story rating is not dead. I still think it has several potential benefits over the additive voting we have now. On the other hand, I also think additive voting is still working fine, so I'm not overly eager to change it, since there's lots of other things we need too.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

get parameter (none / 0) (#63)
by jesterzog on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:08:16 AM EST

I can make the mod_stats togglable, but if you turn it off it won't show up even when a story is still in the queue. I guess if you don't care about voting, you don't care about voting. I'll do that in a minute.

Thanks for allowing this -- it's great. If it might be hard on the servers, how about handling it in a similar way to the comment ratings? Don't show the box by default and don't bother with a display preference, but maybe have a get parameter to the page that will display the ratings if it's turned on.

This way most people wouldn't be burdening the servers with requests they don't need, and for slow connections there wouldn't be unnecessary bandwidth from saturated select boxes on contriversial stories, either. Anyone who wanted to see the votes for a particular story could just click a link on the side somewhere.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Optional (none / 0) (#66)
by rusty on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:16:48 AM EST

Yeah, I was thinking about perhaps adding it as a link in "Related Links" instead. I might do that still, so if it disappears, look for a link there.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
My voting policy... (3.75 / 8) (#27)
by wiredog on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 07:52:05 AM EST

For most stories my default vote is going to be "0". The modifiers: If the submitter has never posted comments or diaries, the story is "-1, dump it" unless it's very well written and interesting.

Certain subjects are on the "default -1" list, including Sept 11 and terrorism in general (though the economics of terrorism piece is interesting), globalization (anti and pro), conspiacies (unless funny), US is Evil (or Good). Any other subject which shows up here on a daily basis.

Actual tech stuff is now default "+1, section" unless it's horribly written.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"

Moderation and queue quality (4.80 / 5) (#31)
by jabber on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 09:07:02 AM EST

I completely agree on keeping story voting stats available after a story posts. I would go a little further in fact, and allow seeing from a user info page which stories the user voted for, against, FP or 0.. Just as with comment ratings, it would be nice to see the pretty patterns.

As for the quality of the queue.. Well, there has always been dissent about the quality of the submissions, there has always been wailing and gnashing of teeth about whether something should be MLP, or is in the wrong section.. There has never been a solution other than getting off of our duffs and actually posting something into the queue that we think is better than it's current contents..

One of the neatest things about K5, in my mind, is that it takes on the personality of its readership. If you want the site to go a certain way, contribute in that direction. Just complaining that something is wrong is not enough.. We have to get off of our Democratic asses and take some responsibility for the content here. Just bitching about it will fill the site with bitchy malcontents.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Something needs tweaking (2.50 / 2) (#43)
by epcraig on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:28:16 AM EST

The moderation totals on older stories are not believable. Current scores of 3 or 60?
There is no EugeneFreeNet.org, there is an efn.org
As noted below (4.50 / 2) (#45)
by rusty on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 11:56:12 AM EST

First, remember that really old stories may have been posted when the thresholds were very different than they are now. Second, read this or my short version below on how the auto-posting system works.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Lingering in the queue (4.75 / 4) (#49)
by wiredog on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 12:36:45 PM EST

The problem that fixed was stories "lingering in the queue fo a few days" without getting posted. The problem now is stories don't linger hardly at all.

I know, I know, if it's not one thing, it's another, and Ya Just Can't Win!

(Isn't that one of the Laws of Thermodynamics?)

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

What's Next? (none / 0) (#53)
by Hillgiant on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 03:33:18 PM EST

Let me guess, next we are going to want to see who voted for what option in the polls?

Kinda a "ha ha, only serious" idea. Might be interesting and/or a rude awakening for most dairy readers. Is this information even stored?

On the griping hand, I think there are other things that rusty & co. can squander thier time on. Like a spell checker, maybe? Or why one in every five of my diary submissions gets munched while I am trying to preview it?

-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny

That's already happened (none / 0) (#55)
by TON on Tue Feb 19, 2002 at 04:03:04 PM EST

This diary raised that idea.

"First, I am born. Then, the trouble begins." -- Schizopolis

Ted


[ Parent ]

Munched? (none / 0) (#65)
by rusty on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 01:15:43 AM EST

Can you be more specific? What happens when you preview? What browser and platform? We do listen to bug reports.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
BTW. (none / 0) (#70)
by ambrosen on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 08:26:29 AM EST

I just posted one here. (In this story, just so you can see the context)

Should be a nice quick fix.

--
Procrastination does not make you cool. Being cool makes you procrastinate. DesiredUsername.
[ Parent ]

Curses, I knew I should have written it down.... (none / 0) (#71)
by Hillgiant on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 10:13:36 AM EST

I cannot recall the specific error, but in the process of previewing I get some kind of "no worky" error message. I hit back to try again and *poof* half or more of the entry is toast. Maybe a browser issue, I suppose. I promise I will be a good boy next time and submit a proper bug report instead of bitching about it in an unrelated story.

-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny
[ Parent ]

Who gives a shit? (4.75 / 4) (#69)
by Nickus on Wed Feb 20, 2002 at 05:36:09 AM EST

Sometimes sites like k5 and slashdot are to obsessed voting, scores, points.. whatever. Do people really care who voted for what story and how they rated comments? This site is about discussing stories, not about discussing whoever voted/rated -1/+1 for a particular story. What are going to do if you find out that someone doesn't follow a "legal" voting pattern. Sue them? Send them an email and ask them to explain in public why they didn't vote according to the k5 model of staticstics from year 1999-2002?

If people want to see how I vote then be my guest. You obviously have too much time.



Due to budget cuts, light at end of tunnel will be out. --Unknown
Keep Story Moderation Stats | 72 comments (71 topical, 1 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!