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]
Abusing the comment-rating system to help stories you like

By turmeric in Meta
Sat May 11, 2002 at 11:12:57 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

I really liked qon's recent story "The Stupidity Front". However, some people don't seem to like it so much and they are not voting for it. However, voting is not the only way I have to influence whether it gets posted. I can also simply +5 all the comments.


Background: how k5 stories get posted, or dumped

Many many stories sit around in the voting queue for ages. If the ages become 36 hours then something called 'auto posting' happens. There are two things that decide whether a k5 story gets 'auto posted' after this 36 hour mark. One is the 'voting score'. The other is the 'comment rating score'. This second score is a hocus pocus mish mash of trying to favor stories that have lots and lots of highly rated comments. The comment-rating score and voting score are given equal weight when it comes time to decide whether a story gets posted.

Comment-rating system influence

I posted a story about this a week or two ago, how certain 'troll' comments that are extremely offensive can get 30 '1' rated comments, and lower the comment-rating score of a story by a significant amount, such as 0.4 points in my case study. This led to -0.2 points in the final scoring.

Helping stories you like

So, if bad comment ratings drag a story down, then perhaps good comment ratings drag a story up? So, I simply click 'flat' mode, to show all comments, go through and rate each comment +5 without reading it or caring what is in it, then i click 'rate all'. Voila, I have increased the 'comment rating score' of a story I like by perhaps 0.2 or 0.3 points. The 'final score' may then be increased by 0.1 or maybe 0.15 points. This is enough to push the score above the threshold in some cases!

Conclusion: comment rating system messes up k5 a little bit

Now, some people say I shouldn't be doing this. Maybe they are right. On the other hand, maybe the comment rating system needs some modification. The way it is built makes it so that one person can control the final score way too much on their own, subverting the 'democratic process' of k5. Some people say comments should have no place at all in whether a story gets posted. Hey, whatever. But I promise I wont 'rate bomb' again, I will only rate comments thinking solely about how much I like the comment, not thinking at all about how it will subtly change the chances of a story getting posted, giving me an opportunity for a 'second vote'. I promise, no really I do. I swear I won't think about that nasty business. Don't you?

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o Also by turmeric


Display: Sort:
Abusing the comment-rating system to help stories you like | 118 comments (87 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden)
I've done this in the past (4.00 / 7) (#2)
by hulver on Fri May 10, 2002 at 09:53:42 AM EST

See the Why the USians hate the french story. It got posted with just a score of 10.

--
HuSi!
Pet peeve (4.85 / 7) (#15)
by dipipanone on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:10:22 AM EST

This is probably the thing that I like least about Kuro5hin. That story generated mountains of interest and controversy, but because it was controversial, as many people were voting it down as were voting it up and so it was going nowhere fast.

It's not hard to get a story published on K5 if you're prepared to play the lowest common denominator game and make uncontroversial points. However, anything that's relatively challenging tends to attract as much opposition as endorsement. As a result, you could have a story that 95 people hardly care about get published, while one that 600 people feel passionately about hits the bit bucket.

It seems a shame to have a site where you can engage in relatively civilized disagreements that doesn't actively encourage topics that facilitate debate. I know that many individual posters vote stuff up on this basis, but I do wish the tendency was more prevalent.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.25 / 4) (#18)
by hulver on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:17:55 AM EST

That's why I did it. It was a funny story, but a lot of people just didn't get it.

--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]
The problem with that story... (4.25 / 4) (#85)
by Skwirl on Sat May 11, 2002 at 07:57:32 AM EST

was that is wasn't designed for intelligent conversation. It was designed to provoke Americans and facilitate mutual masturbation amongst the UK cabal.

This is basically creating discussion by pitting lowest common denominator US against the lowest common denominator elsewhere. That's all fine and good, but it belongs on another site.

Incidentally, could you point out one particular quote from that story that made you laugh out loud? Was that particular joke so funny and original that you felt the need to wreck the usability of Kuro5hin for the rest of us by circumventing the intended rating and posting policies of the community?

And yes, apparently I do have a stick up my butt, if that's what you are about to imply.

--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]

It's not from the *story* (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by tzanger on Sun May 12, 2002 at 09:19:26 AM EST

But I particularly like this thread from the comments. This is another thread I like.

This thread is just funny, especially Porkchop d Clown's comment. Being Canadian I agree with both the original poster and Porkchop. :-)

Anyway there are more threads I enjoyed but the point I'm trying to make is that yeah maybe the story itself sucked rocks but the discussion generated makes it worth posting, if only to section. I don't think there is anything wrong with Rusty's comment-scoring-to-bump-story-score algorithm. If the discussion gets good on on otherwise poor story it should be posted.



[ Parent ]
Debate (3.57 / 7) (#30)
by Ken Arromdee on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:49:33 AM EST

I didn't vote that down because it was "controversial", I voted it down because it's a troll. The whole point of a troll is to get people to argue about it; just being "controversial" isn't automatically a good thing.

[ Parent ]
Trolls (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by dipipanone on Sun May 12, 2002 at 07:29:16 AM EST

OK, so that story might not have been the best example to choose. However, I think the principle still holds for other stories.

Personally though, I have trouble deciding that a particular story is a troll because I can't assess the author's motivation. As a result, I tend to vote on whether the story is interesting to me (or not) as opposed to some imputed motive.
 If you do believe that a story is a troll, then the best way to deal with it is surely not to take the bait.

There were plenty of people who clearly want to discuss the argument in that story on it's own terms, and clearly did so with some gusto. Were they all being trolled? I don't think so. I believe that they found it an amusing and entertaining subject for discussion. Rather than voting a story -1, simply to avoid all those people who rant about how such a story is a troll, or about how outraged they are that such a topic has been raised for discussion, it seems to me to make far more sense for both of these factions to simply ignore the story completely and allow those who are interested in discussing it to simply get on with it.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]

a troll is a troll is a... (none / 0) (#111)
by tps12 on Mon May 13, 2002 at 09:06:14 AM EST

I disagree. Motivation may differentiate a troll from a post by a well-spoken but insane or ignorant user. But the fact is that there are certain stories or comments that will generate a whole bunch of flamage and "controversy," but not in a constructive way. If this was the poster's intent, then he or she was trolling. If not, then he or she is an idiot. Either way, the story or comment would be better off not posted.

[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (none / 0) (#115)
by trane on Tue May 14, 2002 at 01:29:36 PM EST

But the fact is that there are certain stories or comments that will generate a whole bunch of flamage and "controversy," but not in a constructive way.

Are you sure you're qualified to judge?

Trolls often make me laugh out loud - that's supposed to have some medicinal benefit, at least...

[ Parent ]

Qualified to judge... (none / 0) (#117)
by dipipanone on Wed May 15, 2002 at 05:35:12 AM EST

Are you sure you're qualified to judge?

I guess that's my point. I just don't feel qualified to judge. As a result, I tend to evaluate stuff on whether I find something interesting or not, and try hard not to impute motive to others, though I'll admit to not always being successful in my attempts.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Me Too! (4.50 / 4) (#21)
by gazbo on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:20:57 AM EST

Yup - I came to the (I thought brilliant and unique) conclusion of rating everything 5 for that story. Seems I'm not as unique as I thought.

Still, that story should have been posted. Last time I looked it had more comments than any other story in any of the sections (on the browse page). On the other hand there was some article about secure authentication or the like which got to the front page far more easily, and yet had around 7 comments after several days.

Hmm...This seems like the real meta-article.


-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Why stop there? (4.22 / 9) (#6)
by kuran42 on Fri May 10, 2002 at 09:56:29 AM EST

It would take only a few minutes more to register several new accounts and hand out multiple rounds of 5's. Practically any story you like could post.

--
kuran42? genius? Nary a difference betwixt the two. -- Defect
You're forgetting one thing... (4.16 / 6) (#45)
by Kasreyn on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:48:14 AM EST

...what if the story is so boring or repellant that nobody comments?

At least it would necessitate a lot more work, logging on with your various uid's to post comments with each and then mod each other to 5's... Sheesh, if someone's willing to go to the effort that takes, I don't mind the fucking story posting, they earned it. =P


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Effort? (4.20 / 5) (#58)
by Miniluv on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:58:21 PM EST

Why expend energy when there is perl? This wouldn't be very hard with LWP.

Broken links suck, so this sig does too.
[ Parent ]
You've drawn the wrong conclusion (4.16 / 12) (#12)
by DesiredUsername on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:07:16 AM EST

The comment rating system is fine. It's the story posting system that's stupid. What the hell is wrong with simple voting??

The only answer anyone has ever given is that stories "hang around" in the queue too long. So? I can't see a damn thing wrong with that. It's going to "hang around" in its section for all eternity after that. How is the queue any different?

If people just don't like seeing stuff in the queue, why not an option to hide stuff they've voted on? That way we can do away with arcane and, as noted by turmeric and others, malfunctioning code and do it simply and cleanly.

Play 囲碁

Two things I'd like to see (4.83 / 12) (#29)
by wiredog on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:49:14 AM EST

Give the author an option to set a max length of time in the queue (from 6 to 24 hours sounds good), and an "if dumped, post in author's diary" option.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
I'd opt for 48 hours. Fine otherwise. n/t (3.25 / 4) (#38)
by jabber on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:30:10 AM EST


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

AMEN brother!!! (4.00 / 3) (#83)
by jcolter on Sat May 11, 2002 at 03:35:20 AM EST

Does controversy count for nothing?!  Witness that french humor bit a week or so ago.

Tons of comments, but the story never saw the light of day because many people didn't like it.

Diaries hang around forever, so why not default dumped stories there.  Ditching well thought out opnions due to a down vote is stupid.

[ Parent ]

When rusty introduced the changes (4.40 / 5) (#59)
by aphrael on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:59:44 PM EST

there would be ~20 stories in the queue *all of the time*, most of them more than a week old. It *sucked*.

[ Parent ]
First sentence is true (4.50 / 6) (#60)
by DesiredUsername on Fri May 10, 2002 at 02:12:23 PM EST

Second is subjective. What sucked about it? Would you have been happy if they'd been invisible to you?

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
Not a real worry (4.73 / 15) (#16)
by zakalwe on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:13:01 AM EST

Giving someone 1.1 votes instead of 1 doesn't seem too much of a worry in a forum where you could get 2 votes by registering multiple accounts.  When it comes down to it, the voting rules are there as a guideline for the process of deciding story posting.  The real thing that provides the framework is the community, and the social rules.

Sure you can bend the technical rules to give your vote more importance.  I would prefer you didn't though, and many may even disapprove to the degree of reversing your action by voting 1 on all comments, or -1ing any story you do this on.  All you've done is force a confrontation which involves more work for everyone to ensure they have equal say.

You'll never have a site that provides perfect technical restrictions without inflicting draconian restrictions which will greatly harm the openness and spirit of the site.  Its far better to treat users as responsible, and ask that they apply the same social courtesy they would apply to the countless minor circumstances they encounter in real life.

After all, if you manipulate rules like this, whats to stop others manipulating your rules - for instance,  I'm going to -1 this story - so you better rate this comment a 5 if you want any chance it will be posted :-/

The best part (4.22 / 9) (#17)
by gibichung on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:17:12 AM EST

Is that you can "5" all the comments, wait for the story to get posted, then change your ratings.

This article addresses a real problem, and it'd be nice to have some realistic solutions be proposed here. Here's mine:

Instead of the "autopost," stories that don't reach either threshhold should just go to a special section, not included on the "all stories" page, but accessable from somewhere on the site. Comment ratings on these stories would not count for "mojo." This should only apply to stories with more than say 50 topical comments; others would just be dumped.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

nice (4.20 / 5) (#20)
by turmeric on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:20:02 AM EST

thanks, ill have to remember to 1 all my ratings. wtf is 'mojo'? this place is too @#$@#$ complicated. trusted users shoudl not exist.

[ Parent ]
Trusted Users (4.50 / 4) (#25)
by gibichung on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:29:23 AM EST

The vanity of being a trusted user keeps many people from engaging in flamewars or posting controversial (or just unpopular) opinions. Sure, it enforces conformity as much as it does tranquility, but I like it. Not all that surprising, however.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Well, since we are being meta (3.33 / 6) (#27)
by streetliar on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:41:41 AM EST

What do you think of this idea for an ignore list - rather than "ignoring" a user by placing him on your ignoring list, and not being able to see his comments, you ignore him by not allowing him to see your comments.

I can see where you're going, but (4.33 / 3) (#28)
by gibichung on Fri May 10, 2002 at 10:46:44 AM EST

It just isn't a good idea. Since you can see everyone who has moderated your comments, people would simply use it to hide their comments from those they expect to rate them low.

Since only 5% of users or so actually rate comments, it'd be trivial to get away with posting crap that the other 95% will still see.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

That's not what he means (none / 0) (#94)
by whatwasthatagain on Sun May 12, 2002 at 04:14:48 AM EST

The author of a comment shouldn't be allowed to choose. A reader can choose not to view comments by a certain author.
--

With profound apologies to whomsoever this sig originally belonged.
[ Parent ]

One problem with this: (none / 0) (#114)
by ubernostrum on Mon May 13, 2002 at 11:22:22 PM EST

Google.


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]

I saw the reverse happen (4.63 / 11) (#39)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:31:55 AM EST

Not so long ago, Lonesome Cowboy Ernie crap-flooded a story by Loneseome Cowboy Burt. The resulting deluge of 0 ratings to hide the crap made the story auto-flush when the magical 36 hours were up.

At first I thought that this was a really bad thing.

Then I realized that if everyone rated comments, that this type of abuse would be really, really difficult. Unfortunately, most people simply don't rate comments.

Guess what this means. It is a social problem and not a technological problem.

The only change that makes sense to me to the current system is to not count hidden comments. When a comment is rated below 1.0, we are deeming the comment to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and, therefore, we hide it from most viewers. It seems to me that a reasonable extension to considering sub 1.0 rated comments is that we should not use them when considering the whether to auto-post or auto-flush a story.

Hence, if you don't like it, rate more often.

when technology ignores the way society works (4.00 / 6) (#42)
by turmeric on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:37:42 AM EST

it is technologys fault.

[ Parent ]
When society ignore what technology can do (4.66 / 6) (#46)
by zakalwe on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:51:45 AM EST

it is societys fault.

You can't just say "The technology is bad because it lets me get away with acting like an arsehole"
Its as stupid as claiming that its your phone's fault that it doesn't stop you from making prank calls.

The community of the site is not solely determined by the way the technology works.  The rules provide a guideline, and a system of operation but they are not intended, or capable, of forcing people to act reasonably.

The only way to completely stop abuse would be some kind of physical validation, or highly intrusive information gathering in registration, combined with awkward restrictions on what people can do.  Like it or not, the onus for defining the standards of the community is on the members of the community.

[ Parent ]

why k5 is better than slashdot (4.75 / 4) (#48)
by turmeric on Fri May 10, 2002 at 12:04:02 PM EST

because k5 has better technology that better takes into account how society acts.

sure, you could say slashdot has problems because of 'personal responsibility'. you could also say dictatorship is perfectly fine you just need 'personal responsibility' from dictators and their bureaucrats.

but i think k5 and its 'democratic social technology' are good answers to the problems that come from slashdot, just as i think democratic social institutions are good answers to the social problems encountered by dictatorships. in these situations the underlying system was changed to be more accomodating and accepting of how actual people behave, rather than trying to wait around till everyone magically becomes 'responsible people'.

[ Parent ]

There is a limit to what technology can do (4.66 / 6) (#50)
by zakalwe on Fri May 10, 2002 at 12:27:15 PM EST

I disagree completely.  I think many of the reasons I prefer K5 are related to the fact that it does not try to enforce everything through coded solutions.

By introducing things like karma, lameness filters etc as the first line of defence against abuse, Slashdot created a culture where those technological defences were the only thing that mattered, which just encouraged people to either exploit the system, rating themselves in terms of their accumulated Karma, or to find more and more ways to flout the rules.

The fact that K5 doesn't enforce things like this emphasises that it isn't "You vs the System".  The social rules and the way you interact with the other people in the community are what is most important.

Admittedly, a big part of this is the fact that the site is community moderated - you can't blame Rusty when a story you like gets voted down.  Certainly the rules of the site do influence how it is used, and provide a framework for the social rules, but adding to them unneccessarily will usually be counterproductive.  Its like booby-trapping your desk to stop people stealing your pens.

[ Parent ]

yeah, but comment ratings were 'added' (4.20 / 5) (#53)
by turmeric on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:04:50 PM EST

they are like one of those endless thingy ma bobbers you are talking about on slashdot.. that was pretty cool what you were saying about slashdot...

you know what i mean? the 'trusted user' and 'mojo' and all that, it gets in the way.. .. screws things up,

dude ok, so uhh, i guess i had not much of a point about technology and society.. but what was i trying to say, what was the point?

ok the point is i am optimistic, i think comment-rating is a problem in our system here, and i think it could use a little improving. and i dont think that this is 'meddling', i think it is 'counter-meddling' because comment rating was 'meddling' in the first place.

[ Parent ]

Too simplistic (5.00 / 6) (#47)
by gauntlet on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:58:00 AM EST

Yes, there are ways of setting up the technology so that certain traits of society can be accounted for, and worked around in order to obtain the desired result.

This is clearly not the case for all traits. If it were possible to come up with technology that totally eliminated sociological concerns, we would never have traffic accidents at controlled intersections.

What it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS comes down to is personal responsibility. Members have to agree to be responsible for their part in keeping the system working. On K5, that means rating. In driving, it means obeying the traffic lights.

If you can come up with a technology that requires less personal responsibility, feel free to suggest it. But personal responsibility is always present, and you have to know precicely where, and advocate that the responsibility be fulfilled.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

Immediate Gratification (4.00 / 7) (#61)
by joecool12321 on Fri May 10, 2002 at 02:45:15 PM EST

I, for one, generally don't come across too many coments that inspire me one way or the other (which probably means I should be rating them all threes).  However, I'm too lazy to click on the dropdown box.  If instead there where 5 radio buttons, I think I could find it within myself to click on the "3" radio button for most of the comments I read.  I think many people would, too.

Just a suggestion.

--Joey


[ Parent ]

Another thing (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by mattbelcher on Fri May 10, 2002 at 05:15:08 PM EST

I'd also rate more if the rating applied immediately. Oftentimes I go throughm reading all the comments and rating them accordingly, only to finally forget to push the last "Rate All" button. All my moderating time was just wasted. If I could just push a radio button and have the comment submit instantly (javascript?) I would be much more inclined to moderate.

[ Parent ]
I was thinking about this (4.50 / 2) (#81)
by joecool12321 on Sat May 11, 2002 at 01:10:53 AM EST

For those of us still on dialup, it'd be nice if it didn't refresh.  I'm still o.k. with the "submit" button. (And think, if you're constantly rating (because radio buttons are our friends) you'll be more likely to remember.)

--Joey

[ Parent ]

Doesn't have to refresh (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by vectro on Sun May 12, 2002 at 01:50:00 AM EST

The webserver can say "OK to a form submission and not provide a new page. Just you won't see the new score.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Moderation in moderation (4.00 / 6) (#67)
by Nick Ives on Fri May 10, 2002 at 04:13:43 PM EST

More people moderating wouldnt stop this kind of abuse because the crap deserves to be 0, and all they have to do is post enough of it to cause the story to tank. Of course, if 0 comments arent counted anymore then the obvious solution for the crapflooder is to modbomb all the other comments in the article, in which case then yea, the only solution is for everyone else to moderate.

I think that would happen naturally anyway, I mean, if an article got modbombed so all the comments were at 1 people would naturally go "eh? whats this at 1 for?" and fix it.

--
Nick
Foooood.....

[ Parent ]

hmm... (4.25 / 4) (#71)
by mattbelcher on Fri May 10, 2002 at 05:38:02 PM EST

It is a social problem and not a technological problem.
Something about that just hit a nerve with me, and it took some mental mastication to figure out what it was. The issue I have is that some social problems can be solved with technology. Perhaps you meant to say "This problem requires a social solution, not a technological one." Even then, I would counter that Scoop is a social solution. Sure, it's based on technology - computers, the Internet, programming - but it is a social construct. Figuring out how to set up Scoop's data structures and debug it is technological, but figuring out the rules that should govern it is social. The problem, in this case, is that certain features of the k5/Scoop rules seem to subvert the goals k5 is trying to accomplish. Changing those rules is a social act, not a technological act, even though technology must be employed to change those rules (namely, Rusty getting in there with the code).

Think of it this way, k5 is like a community organization with a charter. This charter states the community goals etc. Its a social document. Now, since we are an online community, the only means with which we can enforce this charter is through our technology, in this case Scoop. Scoop is currently enforcing the charter perfectly (I'm not aware of any bugs that keep stories off FP despite meeting the requirements), however, the community charter is flawed, in that it subverts the goals of the community. So, as you said, we need a social change. However, we also need to change our enforcement agent (Scoop) so that it reflects our new social rules. If we aren't going to use Scoop to enforce our "community charter," then why do we have it at all?

[ Parent ]

i've done this (3.20 / 5) (#41)
by infinitera on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:33:46 AM EST

There was this moronic use-fee tax system story - like two days after another tax story, and with the same flamewars, but this time, people got trolled even more. Thing is, I didn't rate everything; just comments I would normally rate low, and left everything else alone. It died, with a 60ish score in the queue, if I remember correctly. Some stories though, get FP for this very same reason, when the stories suck (Death of West, Lomborg story).

That was (3.00 / 3) (#90)
by medham on Sat May 11, 2002 at 09:19:39 PM EST

The best story posted on K5, hands down. What you denigrate as "trolling" is more properly referred to as zesty discussion of real issues that affect us in our daily lives. We're not going to let you turn this into a transhumanist weblog, where you can rave about singularities and the computational power of the universe.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

i think you have me confused with greenrd [nt] (3.00 / 1) (#102)
by infinitera on Sun May 12, 2002 at 10:37:16 AM EST



[ Parent ]
funny (1.83 / 6) (#49)
by Your Moms Cock on Fri May 10, 2002 at 12:22:29 PM EST

I usually -1 nearly every story I get. Only one account though, SUCKAS.


--
Mountain Dew cans. Cat hair. Comic book posters. Living with the folks. Are these our future leaders, our intellectual supermen?

Coward (3.50 / 2) (#75)
by deefer on Fri May 10, 2002 at 08:22:33 PM EST

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

I've clicked between K5 TU and labelled ubertroll more times than I care to remember.

I'm still posting. Think about that.


Kill the baddies.
Get the girl.
And save the entire planet.

[ Parent ]

I have a cock? {n/t} (3.00 / 2) (#110)
by Your Mom on Sun May 12, 2002 at 09:51:01 PM EST



--
"As far as I'm concerned, Osama bin Laden can eat a dick." -trhurler
[ Parent ]
Democracy? (4.09 / 11) (#51)
by /dev/niall on Fri May 10, 2002 at 12:57:39 PM EST

I'm a firm believer that any democratic process should be open to subversion.

-- 报告人对动物
The solution is obvious... (3.20 / 5) (#52)
by deefer on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:02:19 PM EST

Stop comment rating in stories counting towards mojo.

That way, there are less chances for 0 modstorming of stories.

Or at least, that was the "solution" applied for diaries.


Kill the baddies.
Get the girl.
And save the entire planet.

Why even have Mojo? (3.50 / 6) (#54)
by Lonesome Cowboy Burt on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:09:25 PM EST

What good is Mojo at that point?

--
This account has been censored by Rusty.
[ Parent ]
Why not? (4.66 / 3) (#62)
by joecool12321 on Fri May 10, 2002 at 02:47:48 PM EST

It seems usefull to me -- 0 comments throw out junk about once a day.  But I'd hate to not be able to see what's going on in there, too. I think it has it's place -- I'd be interested to hear an argument for why we shouldn't have it.

--Joey

[ Parent ]

Alrighty then... (4.00 / 3) (#74)
by deefer on Fri May 10, 2002 at 08:19:55 PM EST

Wait until you can't see who the hell modded you to 0 for a series of challenging posts. I can remember when a challenging post on K5 was replied to, argued with, repudiated or proved, not modded to 0 by a /. refugee with a blinkered attitude because it's easier to hit that 0 than explain why.


Kill the baddies.
Get the girl.
And save the entire planet.

[ Parent ]
Hrm (4.50 / 2) (#82)
by joecool12321 on Sat May 11, 2002 at 01:13:56 AM EST

I'm not sure what "challenging post" you're referring to.  Browsing the < 1 posts reveals mostly personal insults.  I didn't do an exaustive search, but on the whole people do tend to argue a point, not mod 0 because they disagree.  If it has happened, it definately isn't a widespread problem.

--Joey

[ Parent ]

I'll have to take your word for it (4.50 / 2) (#84)
by jcolter on Sat May 11, 2002 at 03:43:19 AM EST

I comment some, but not enough to become a trusted user in the year that i've been posting.

What bothers me is the idea that you all "trusted users" are hiding something from me (this concept is only magnified in my diary).

I'm an adult, and a "good" contributor.  Why can't i at least see comments rated zero?  

The need to rate said comments is not nessary.  I am just worried that I'm missing something based on my observation of zero comments that I would like to see.

[ Parent ]

Not sure of the logistics (4.50 / 2) (#88)
by joecool12321 on Sat May 11, 2002 at 06:24:17 PM EST

Here you'd need someone more familiar with Scoop code, and k5's implementation, but I'm pretty sure the weight doesn't take temporal time into account, but mainly posting chronology.  For example, I've gone for some time without commenting, and maintained trusted user status.  However, if I'm having a particularly dumb streak of posts, trusted status goes away.  Anyone should be able to have trusted user status, there is no cabal (and I'm so not in the cabal I probably can't even refer to it).  

"I'm an adult, and a 'good' contributor.  Why can't i at least see comments rated zero?"

Because you don't capatalize 'I'.  Just kidding, but I guess you don't meet the algorithm's definition of a good contributor.  As far as the question, "Why can't i" I suppose that's a good point.  Perhaps the main reason is to avoid long commentaries on junk comments (i.e. rusty doesn't want to maintain flame threads).  But it seems like they could be set to "stale" and not allow voting or commenting or something.  I dunno, but it seems like just completely isolating them and being dictatorial about it is better than trying to make everyone happy.

Just in case you're worried you're missing something, all you miss are coments like, "I'll just keep this brief / Take the corn cob out of your ass," posted in response to http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/5/7/224356/0391/72#72.

--Joey

[ Parent ]

The fact of the matter is (1.00 / 1) (#107)
by Lonesome Cowboy Burt on Sun May 12, 2002 at 04:13:33 PM EST

That there are people who will 0 you just because they don't like you, totally without regard to what you're actually saying. This happens often, and not just to me.

--
This account has been censored by Rusty.
[ Parent ]
Surely you mean... (none / 0) (#106)
by Elendale on Sun May 12, 2002 at 03:28:46 PM EST

Stop comment rating from counting until a story hits FP/section :P

I think this has been suggested before, however. In reality, it isn't terribly important though. The only problem is when some troll goes through obviously doomed stories and hits every comment with a 1.

-Elendale
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
Discussion Reference (3.87 / 8) (#55)
by miah on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:13:48 PM EST

This is already being discussed at scoop.kuro5hin.org.

Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
SLAVEWAGE
A bit on a tangent (4.25 / 8) (#56)
by streetliar on Fri May 10, 2002 at 01:17:55 PM EST

People drag karma around with them. Take Reginald Johnson. Everybody hates him, so his articles have a hard time passing through the queue.

I suggest making an anonymous story posting mode, which doesn't go to the edit queue, so that it can be voted down in case it is crap. Of couse, only registered users can use this.

What bout that?

That would certainly make it easier for me to (4.75 / 4) (#73)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri May 10, 2002 at 07:12:31 PM EST

be objective with turmeric's stories.


--
I feel like I've lived my live in screensaver mode....


[ Parent ]
What should happen... (3.14 / 7) (#63)
by dram on Fri May 10, 2002 at 02:50:48 PM EST

is that we should only alow editorial comments in the queue and not alow people to rate ed. comments.

-dram
[grant.henninger.name]

used to be that way (4.60 / 5) (#66)
by delmoi on Fri May 10, 2002 at 03:47:28 PM EST

But it didn't stop people from making regular comments.

Besides, most of the desucssion these days goes on in the queue anyway.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
no (4.25 / 4) (#80)
by blakdogg on Sat May 11, 2002 at 12:50:38 AM EST

Most of the stories that make it out of the queue are tripe. The queue is much more interesting, and does not reflect the consensus of the kuro5hin users ... which is a very very good thing
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
-1 Just Because I Can (3.22 / 9) (#64)
by thelizman on Fri May 10, 2002 at 03:19:10 PM EST

My vote, I'll do what I want with it.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Well (4.25 / 4) (#65)
by J'raxis on Fri May 10, 2002 at 03:33:43 PM EST

At least you didn’t vote by zero-rating all our comments. ;)

— The Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah! (4.20 / 5) (#76)
by thelizman on Fri May 10, 2002 at 09:23:58 PM EST

Thanks for reminding me /me furiously clicks all the rating boxes...
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
From the Stupidity Frontlines: I agree (3.80 / 5) (#70)
by mami on Fri May 10, 2002 at 05:27:54 PM EST

I promise, no really I do. I swear I won't think about that nasty business. Don't you?

I will only rate comments thinking solely about how much I like the comment/story

I promise too. -1

Heheheh (2.60 / 10) (#72)
by wji on Fri May 10, 2002 at 05:59:06 PM EST

The solution is to offset that by posting really stupid comments like this one. Problem solved.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
I would not recommend doing this (4.60 / 10) (#77)
by swingspacers on Fri May 10, 2002 at 09:25:48 PM EST

I sometimes rated all the comments attached to a story '1' and then they turned off my comment rating privileges. Therefore I would not recommend that you rate all the comments attached to a story to any one number like this.

super voting tokens (4.16 / 12) (#78)
by martingale on Fri May 10, 2002 at 11:06:45 PM EST

Thanks turmeric for posting this. I think it's an important issue to discuss.

What I really like about the queue is the democratic process. IMHO, it works really well for the extreme stories, those that are obviously good or obviously crap. In that case, the story doesn't hang around in the queue for too long. The difficult case is only when the story hangs around until the automatic decision is made. What you point out is that the automatic decision can be abused by fiddling with the ratings. Since the purpose of the ratings is to describe quality, not help post the story, that bothers me.

Looking at my comment ratings recently, I've been getting quite a few of the 5s you describe, and I don't like it. It ruins my ability to learn if my comments are perceived as good or bad, and to improve them over time. So I'd like to propose a modification which I think decouples this problem, while keeping the democratic aspect.

Suppose that every trusted user gets a "supervote" which he can use once a month. No user can have more than one supervote at any given time. As a trusted user, if I like the current story, I "supervote" for it and it gets automatically accepted. Then I loose this privilege for 30 days. Here's how posting decisions get made: for the first 36 hours, the story is voted on normally, and if it crosses the threshold, it gets accepted or rejected. If after 36 hours, no posting decision has been made, the supervotes come into effect. The story is accepted if and only if somebody used up his supervote, rejected otherwise.

Supervotes should be displayed as +1FP during voting so that people don't know if others have already supervoted the story. Since there are more trusted users than stories each month, that would prevent obvious patterns of supervoting collusion.

Why give the supervote only to trusted users? If all users get it, then it would be easy to create throwaway accounts just for supervoting. If only trusted users get the supervote, then if you have several accounts you must expend a lot of energy producing quality comments to obtain several supervotes.

Since supervoting is only allowed at 30 day intervals, it's a valuable asset which should make people think twice before using it. Moreover, when you supervote a story, you don't know who else (if any) has also supervoted. So you can't save up your vote because you know someone else used up his.

Why allow supervoting in the first place? Clearly we all find stories which we would really like to see posted. If I know I can supervote for it if it's really worth it, then I won't bother looking for clever ways of influencing the vote in my favour.

So I think supervoting preserves the democratic voting process. Since it only applies after 36 hours if the ordinary voting process failed, it extends rather than preempts the voting system we all like. For example, even if I supervote for the story, if it crosses the dump threshold due to ordinary voting before the 36 hours are up, the story is dumped and I'm out of a supervote for the next 30 days. But if I've invested a lot of comments into the story during the 36 hours, and if the k5 community is divided about it and no decision was obtained, my supervote (if I have it) guarantees me that my work doesn't disappear after 36 hours.

Why is it better than placing the story automatically in your diary? If every possible story that gets submitted ends up in people's diaries, we'll have a huge diary system without guarantees of quality, which undermines the regular high quality k5 sections. Why bother writing good articles if you can advertise it in the queue and lure people into your diary afterwards?

Well those are my current thoughts, comments anyone?

supervotes (4.66 / 3) (#87)
by rodoke3 on Sat May 11, 2002 at 04:19:13 PM EST

The only problem I could see with this is the fact that there are almost 30,000 users. How many trusted users out there. How many of those are trusted users?

Why should we only use supervotes to vote up a story? Some stories are complete crap and a supervote would sink them faster. Yes, some will be killed by regular negative votes, but we could make a negative supervote have the effect of banning the user from posting stories for a specified amount of time.

As a trusted user, if I like the current story, I "supervote" for it and it gets automatically accepted.

If after 36 hours, no posting decision has been made, the supervotes come into effect. The story is accepted if and only if somebody used up his supervote.

Which is it, it seems to me that you are proposing two completely different systems.

Supervotes should be displayed as +1FP during voting so that people don't know if others have already supervoted the story. Since there are more trusted users than stories each month, that would prevent obvious patterns of supervoting collusion.

Wouldn't this create supervoting collision? If no one could see that someone has used up his supervote, there is nothing to stop them from supervoting also, which under your proposed system would be a complete waste.

I think that your solution would work better if we raise the requirement for supervoting from trusted user to something higher. Also, I think that a "negative supervote" could do a lot of good to prevent trolls from people posting stories just for the purpose of starting massive flamewars.


I take umbrage with such statments and am induced to pull out archaic and over pompous words to refute such insipid vitriol. -- kerinsky


[ Parent ]
some precisions (4.50 / 4) (#89)
by martingale on Sat May 11, 2002 at 08:30:55 PM EST

The only problem I could see with this is the fact that there are almost 30,000 users. How many trusted users out there. How many of those are trusted users?
That's why supervoting should be anonymous. That way, many people will supervote the same story, which offsets the large number of trusted users (don't have statistics handy, but clearly there are less than 30k trusted users).

Why should we only use supervotes to vote up a story? Some stories are complete crap and a
The trouble with veto powers are that they can't be mixed with supervotes. What do you do if there are say 3 supervotes and two veto votes? If you add them up and cancel out opposites, you'd end up with an ordinary voting system, which we already have now. And you'll have the same decision problem if there are as many vetos as supervotes.

Note that instead of supervotes, which are in favour of the story, there is a symmetrical system based solely upon vetos. Suppose we give each trusted user a single veto vote (but no supervote) etc. then the system would have the same properties. I chose supervotes because I think accepting too many stories is better than rejecting too many, but of course that's another debate.

Which is it, it seems to me that you are proposing two completely different systems.
Clearly, I didn't explain it properly. The time frame is 36 hours. During this time frame, ordinary voting rules are used, but some people may decide to supervote. At that stage,ie during the 36 hour frame, their supervote is only equivalent to +1FP by convention. If the ordinary voting is inconclusive after 36 hours, and only then, those votes are looked again to see if anyone used up his supervote. If so, the story is accepted, otherwise rejected. So the supervotes are only ever used to break up ties after 36 hours. If ordinary voting is sufficient to make a decision before the 36 hours are up, then that decision is taken. Again, the ordinary voting decision does not take into account supervotes (rather, it counts each supervote as if it was a +1FP ordinary vote).

Wouldn't this create supervoting collision? If no one could see that someone has used up his supervote, there is nothing to stop them from supervoting also, which under your proposed system would be a complete waste.
That's exactly the idea. There is no way around this given there are many more trusted users than there are stories submitted each month. But it's not a waste as such, because whenever someone supervotes, they do so because they feel strongly that the story should be accepted. And it will, provided it wasn't rejected by the majority during the 36 hour ordinary vote, which takes precedence.

I think that your solution would work better if we raise the requirement for supervoting from trusted user to something higher. Also, I think that a "negative supervote" could do a lot of good to prevent trolls from people posting stories just for the purpose of starting massive flamewars.
The system I'm suggesting loses all its interesting properties if we allow both (positive) supervotes and (negative) vetos. In that case, it reduces to normal voting between trusted users only, which is elitist and brings k5 one step closer to the Other Site.

With a one sided system, your supervote can mean only one thing: you unambiguously support the story. Of course this can be misused, but that's why there is the 30 day penalty. Due to the anonymous nature of the supervote, many people will use up their vote on the same story if it's a really controversial one, and then there won't be that many people left with supervotes to be used for subsequent stories within a 30 day period. So I don't think there can be a situation where every single story gets at least one supervote. And even if that were the case, the ordinary voting during the 36 hours has precedence, which allows the majority to throw out bad stories provided they can agree. And that's something we know already works for really bad stories.

Anyway, this is all theoretical of course, but I think I've addressed your points.

[ Parent ]

No thanks (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by jesterzog on Sun May 12, 2002 at 07:35:59 AM EST

Without meaning any disrespect to you, I don't really like this idea. Do we need to make the system more complicated? All that new rules and technical overrides will do is create new problems, and for the most part it's all working fine the way it is.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Let me just point out one obvious thing ... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by valeko on Sun May 12, 2002 at 05:48:45 PM EST

Looking at my comment ratings recently, I've been getting quite a few of the 5s you describe, and I don't like it. It ruins my ability to learn if my comments are perceived as good or bad, and to improve them over time.

Typically, unless your comment simply lacks any slant at all, the rating is more of an indication of how popular your opinion is. Actually, that's pretty much it.


"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

are you insinuating... (none / 0) (#113)
by martingale on Mon May 13, 2002 at 08:57:10 PM EST

...that my comments are slanted? I'll have you know they come out of the factory real straight. Any slant is due to packaging and handling, please complain to abuse@wepackageandslantcomments.com :-)

I'm not sure I believe you that most ratings reflect agreement rather than quality. Personally, I make an effort to ignore my own agreement when I rate and I think many others do the same. That doesn't mean I don't introduce other biases, for example through the fact that I don't rate every comment I read by far. I'll also admit some people do rate as you suggest, but don't think it's a majority. Actually, it would be interesting to have a k5 survey about this...

[ Parent ]

Comment Rating Score (4.14 / 7) (#86)
by webmaestro on Sat May 11, 2002 at 03:55:27 PM EST

It looks like roam already helped the comment rating score of this story, by going thru and marking every comment a 5.
--
Check out Worldofun.com. It's a world of fun.
Thank you, thank you (1.50 / 2) (#91)
by roam on Sun May 12, 2002 at 01:42:02 AM EST

It's nice to finally be recognized.

___
Are they like hamsters?
Specifically, can I tape up a chinchilla, slather him in axle grease, and shove him up my ass? - Patrick Bateman


[ Parent ]
that was weird. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by turmeric on Sun May 12, 2002 at 05:10:58 AM EST

isn't ironic, dont you think, its like posting a story about how to abuse the comment system, on your wedding day, its like then someone going and doing exactly what you describe on your own story, when you already paid, isn't it ironic dontcha think?

[ Parent ]
I wasn't abusing (4.50 / 2) (#103)
by roam on Sun May 12, 2002 at 11:36:55 AM EST

I just found all the topical comments in this story well written and insightful.

___
Are they like hamsters?
Specifically, can I tape up a chinchilla, slather him in axle grease, and shove him up my ass? - Patrick Bateman


[ Parent ]
hahahahah (2.33 / 3) (#104)
by turmeric on Sun May 12, 2002 at 02:00:22 PM EST

hahahahhaha

[ Parent ]
The answer is simple (4.25 / 4) (#93)
by roam on Sun May 12, 2002 at 02:28:58 AM EST

One person one vote. The guidelines should be "if you think the story would garner insightful comments, +1 it". Don't do any weird calculations based on mojo, phase of the moon, etc. Make it clear that the user should not be voting on whether they agree with the story or not, then just count up the votes. This is the only fair way, even though people will still vote on agreement with the story, but it would at least keep things fair, IMO.

___
Are they like hamsters?
Specifically, can I tape up a chinchilla, slather him in axle grease, and shove him up my ass? - Patrick Bateman


Why? (4.00 / 1) (#98)
by jesterzog on Sun May 12, 2002 at 07:31:55 AM EST

One person one vote. The guidelines should be "if you think the story would garner insightful comments, +1 it".

Is there any reason why a story should need insightful comments to be worth posting? Maybe it's so complete that there's no need for insightful comments.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
actually the way it works... is that.. (none / 0) (#105)
by turmeric on Sun May 12, 2002 at 02:01:42 PM EST

you may or may not get penalized for having very few coments. i cant remember which. know why? because the comment-rating rules are obscure and poorly documented and unclear. and hard to find.

[ Parent ]
Why is this so important? (4.50 / 4) (#97)
by jesterzog on Sun May 12, 2002 at 07:29:21 AM EST

I still don't understand what the big deal is. It's not as if these heuristics are taking away your control to write a decent story. If you don't like the way ratings heuristics work after 36 hours, write a story that people will want to post objectively before that. As soon as you can do that, and it's not that hard, comment ratings have no effect on the story's chances.

36 hours is a long time. If it's not posted or thrown out by then, maybe it's time to start thinking about why. Getting it through the heuristics will always be a lottery. It's supposed to be!


jesterzog Fight the light


Why I voted -1 to "the stupidity front" (1.25 / 4) (#100)
by boxed on Sun May 12, 2002 at 09:02:43 AM EST

The article in question was not posted in edit mode. This alone deserves a dump unless it does not need editing (I have yet to see this). Furthermore the article demonstrated the lack of fundamental knowledge in physics. Instead of asking this question to k5 the person in question should clearly start with learning basic physics.

You can trick the system (4.66 / 6) (#108)
by Nickus on Sun May 12, 2002 at 04:44:41 PM EST

Another person that confused k5 with life. This is just a discussion board after all. You can also trick the system in real life - you can talk to people and convince them to vote in a certain way. I wonder how many read the comments for a story in the queue before voting and therefore get influenced by the comments? Perhaps we should disallow commenting in the story queue ;-)



Due to budget cuts, light at end of tunnel will be out. --Unknown
..go ahead... (3.00 / 1) (#118)
by johwsun on Tue May 21, 2002 at 04:57:16 AM EST

..dont talk all the times! Nothing happens while talking.

Write your own code according to the changes you want to happen when posting a story. Post your code, side by side with the other people's code implementations. And lets vote for the best new implementation, or rollback to the old implementation created by our first god rusty. thats the solution...

Abusing the comment-rating system to help stories you like | 118 comments (87 topical, 31 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!