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]
Diary Rating No Longer Counted

By rusty in Site News
Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 10:56:13 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

A small change that I'm trying out: ratings in diaries are no longer counted toward mojo calculations. Some explanation below of the thinking behind it. As always, comments encouraged.


So recently I've had some emails pointing out a few people who were giving out a lot of zeros and not contributing much to the articles. Where are they coming from? Why, the diaries, of course, which have a standing tradition of being a limitless "trust source" for anyone who cares to post there.

This is not at all meant to imply that everyone who spends most of their time in diaries is doing this. Not by a long shot. It's only a few people. I never minded before, because even when they were trusted, people generally reserved the dreaded zero rating only for those who really deserved it. But some of you have clearly decided that zeros are for anyone you disagree with, which just isn't the way it works.

So I added a quick patch to Scoop which simply makes it ignore diary ratings when calculating mojo. Basically, the idea is to require that trusted users earn it in the articles, which receive a lot more widespread scrutiny from everyone, as opposed to diaries. See, a lot of people read diaries, but no one reads all of them. It's easy to set up your own diary and generate lots of "counterfeit trust" quickly.

So I'm trying it out right now. A lot of you will probably notice your trusted status change, or have already. This isn't meant to be a "punishment" for those of you who will lose your trusted status. It's just basically a paring down of the ranks. Ratings in diaries will still work like normal, they just aren't factored in when calculating trust.

It's an experiment -- I can change it back if it's not working. I appreciate your comments.

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o Scoop
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
Diary Rating No Longer Counted | 273 comments (273 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Suggestions (4.19 / 21) (#1)
by Hong Kong Phooey on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 10:59:33 PM EST

If someone rates me 0, I want to see it. And maybe the "Owner" of a diary could get TU status in there in case of crapflood.

Anonymity (4.20 / 10) (#14)
by marx on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:12:34 PM EST

If someone rates me 0, I want to see it.

I think the reason for this is to prevent the inevitable modstorming of the 0-rater by the 0-ratee.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

That won't happen (4.36 / 11) (#18)
by Hong Kong Phooey on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:15:08 PM EST

If the 0 rating is reserved for what is supposed to be. It will actually decrese modwars if people will stop giving out 0's for people they don't agree with.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.60 / 10) (#26)
by eviltwin on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:21:13 PM EST

I find if i pull someone up for a clearly undeserrved 0- given on someone - like a certain brave soul who rated my own comments in my diary to 0 (no i don't mean you leviramsey !) then they slink back and fix it.

Too many 'brave' people use 0's as their own personal attacks against people as they can't be seen when your'e not a trusted user.

And i haven't noticed a lot of established people giving masses of zero's either - the ones i see are from new accounts or fairly new accounts - more of the slashdot effect i feel.

So remove hidden status on 0 comments. You can see who it is and if it is undeserved pull them up. Sure there may be a little modbombing from some people but that already happens with 1's and this way it would be hard to post people 0 for reasons other than content and get away with it.

All generalisations are false, including this one.
[ Parent ]
Did I miss something? (4.00 / 6) (#34)
by leviramsey on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:26:16 PM EST

like a certain brave soul who rated my own comments in my diary to 0 (no i don't mean you leviramsey !

I don't think I've ever given a 0...



[ Parent ]
naah (3.83 / 6) (#54)
by eviltwin on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:38:29 PM EST

wans't you - someone else - but it thought you might think i was talking about our disagreement that time and didn't want to give the wrong impression so i said it wasn't you :)

I was being nice !

Strange eh

All generalisations are false, including this one.
[ Parent ]
So what happens when you become trusted, anyway? (4.50 / 2) (#195)
by unDees on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:02 AM EST

So, when one has been groupthinking away like a happy little kurobot, or, preferably, posting such powerfully individualistic and insightful commentary that all who read are moved to rate 5s, what happens when at last the trusted user status is awarded? Do the clouds open up for a sunbeam backed by majestic choirs? Does a congratulatory e-mail message arrive in one's inbox? Does Ed McMahon arrive with a big check? Or is the only herald of this good fortune that comments silently start showing a zero under the ratings option?

Just a few curious questions from a user who doesn't expect (and frankly, doesn't need) trusted status anytime soon....

Your account balance is $0.02; to continue receiving our quality opinions, please remit payment as soon as possible.
[ Parent ]

Not much... (5.00 / 2) (#217)
by miller on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:17:41 PM EST

You get a new entry in your personal menu called 'Review Hidden Comments' which takes you to the search screen set up to search for hidden comments (duh).

In addition, if you go to your own user info page a message comes up:

You are a trusted user. K5 wants to have your babies, big boy.

P.S. Here's the secret to eternal life
[...]

...or something like that. I forget the precise wording.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

And, don't forget (3.00 / 3) (#218)
by theantix on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:23:41 PM EST

We trusted users also get the key to the pool on the fourth floor.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]
That's still stupid (4.22 / 9) (#20)
by theboz on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:16:11 PM EST

The same thing could be said of 1 ratings. Hiding it isn't as good of a solution as simply finding out who is going on ratings sprees and having an admin take away their permissions to rate comments. It's not that complicated, in my opinion.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Admin intervention (4.16 / 12) (#22)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:19:23 PM EST

Any solution that includes the phrase "and then an admin should..." is a bad solution.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I am breaking my silence just to reply to this! (4.00 / 8) (#127)
by johwsun on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:48 AM EST

Any solution that includes the phrase "and then an admin should..." is a bad solution.

Look at my story: The Terrorists took my vote !
Do you think that the solution of -20 and 95 in the post and Hide Thresholds does not require an administrator intervention?
Honeslty rusty, I think that you dont have either good memory or self-knowledge.

Iasson is falling to its silence again.



[ Parent ]

Compared to... (4.66 / 6) (#132)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:59:57 AM EST

Maybe I should have qualified that. "any solution that includes 'and an admin should...' is a bad solution provided there's a workable option that doesn't have that requirement."

By the way, manual post thresholds are also a bad solution. I just don't have a better one on hand.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

why do you think is not workable? (3.42 / 7) (#135)
by johwsun on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:03:50 AM EST

How can you tell that a food is not tasty before taste it? Do you think is not workable just because of the many fake accounts of k5? Or you think that is not workable in general, even in case all accounts here were real ones? You have tried many other possibilities and obviously they dont work. So why dont you give a chance to that? Why dont you let people vote on the initial values of your (badly imposed) algorithms?

I think you just dont have answers to my questions. You are just behaving like a God, claiming that you know whats inside the mind of people! You dont rusty! you dont!

Iasson cant stay silent anymore!

[ Parent ]

Actually (4.50 / 2) (#194)
by theboz on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:57:14 AM EST

There was an alternative or two tried out here before. I think it resulted in almost nothing being posted though. K5 is an experiment, which seems to be changing whenever a problem comes up. Sometimes this is for the better, other times it isn't, but I think rusty and co. are at least trying to do something. Of course, some of what they do I disagree with, but such is life.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

You already said: it was an ALTERNATIVE! (3.50 / 2) (#199)
by johwsun on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:30:44 AM EST

It was not what I proposed.
What I proposed was a vote on every imposed algorithm along with a vote on every initial value of the imposed algorithm(s).
And I made an example on my article, how this can be implemented on this (not voted, but imposed) +1,-1 algorithm on the queue in order to fix the queue, as better as is possible.

by the way, what was this alternative you are mentioning?
You dont even point to that alternative!


[ Parent ]
I am very depressed when people reject Democracy.. (1.50 / 2) (#203)
by johwsun on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:45:27 AM EST

this reject is the root of all violence and hate...

[ Parent ]
Democracy isn't necessarily voting (3.50 / 2) (#232)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:26:19 PM EST

You don't need to vote on every decision in life in order to be democratic. You don't get to vote on the colour of a Coke can, but your ability to buy Coke or not is democratic.

One democratic aspect of this site is your right to leave if you don't like it. If you prefer a site where you have more direct control, find one or found one. Rusty is only enjoined to make a site he wants to.

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

I think that rusty has similiar ideas with me... (none / 0) (#257)
by johwsun on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 02:37:42 AM EST

Thats why I am still here...
..he doesnt like administrator intervention, he likes democracy (for example he put a ballot about this 2$ diary fee, isnt this democracy?)

This direct democracy, representative system I have in my mind is similiar to the system rusty wants to built, the point is that is difficult to implement and rusty is lazy. and I am more lazy than rusty ( at least 10 times more!)

but I am trying hard to help , dont you think so?

[ Parent ]
I don't remember exactly (4.00 / 1) (#212)
by theboz on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:00:18 PM EST

There was something in place before that went on the total number of users. It didn't work because of all the non-voting accounts. I don't remember where to find information on it, and I believe it was removed even before the "Site news" section came into existence.

Also, the threshold was a lot lower before. There have been changes made over time but I can't remember all of them.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Curious (none / 0) (#220)
by miller on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:27:59 PM EST

I can't find a story recording it either, but I have found that it happened between here and here which probably puts it at May or June 2001 (the Site News section appearing towards the end of September that year).

It seems to me that the threshold hasn't changed much since then, though I don't watch it religiously.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

..old algorithms should not be deleted.... (none / 0) (#258)
by johwsun on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 03:15:28 AM EST

..also new algorithms should be placed near the current queue algorithm, in order to be judged, directly for the non lazy ones, and indirectly for the people who have choose the representative option.

Not all people should be forced to vote all the time. This has been prooved wrong by k5 experience!

Let people have by default a code representative, and let this representative by default be rusty, for honor reasons. But you should also give people the freedom to change their representative or even decide by themselves what code should be implemented,if they are good enough or if they think is necesary to do so.

This system is Democracy rusty! This does not require an administrator intervention!
You could sleep quietly and do nothing, as long another representative will take your votes and do the work for you.



[ Parent ]
Do you mean scoop or kuro5hin? (none / 0) (#263)
by miller on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 09:01:11 AM EST

If you're referring to Scoop, then the code is freely available, and admins are free to use whatever algorithm they please for any part of the site.

If you're referring to k5, then you're effectively asking for k5 to control its own source code. I assume you're suggesting that it'll run multiple algorithms (e.g. for story voting) side by side for users to judge and vote on. Users can't be allowed to submit algorithms since even if you could get these algorithms running in their own sandbox, they could still starve the rest of the system of processor time and so implement an easy denial of service attack. So it still relies on admins submitting new algorithms, and unlike the current system where they would have to report back the comparative results and implement the code change, scoop would do that itself.

Nice idea, how's your Perl? I'll await your patches to implement this, and from there it should only be a small step to make scoop self aware, decide the human race is worthless and start building T1000 terminators.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

code is freely available, but popularity isnt... (none / 0) (#268)
by johwsun on Wed Apr 10, 2002 at 03:45:17 AM EST

I assume you're suggesting that it'll run multiple algorithms

Wrong... I assume that a single voted algorithm for each purpose will run at a time. The other algorithms, for the same purpose, will exist into the code of scoop, but they will not run until voted. Everyone should be able to submit algorithms, as long as they will not run but they will just wait to be voted by people, direclty or indirectly through representatives.

I dont know perl. I know bourne-shell and java, can this help ?

[ Parent ]

Need...more...data (5.00 / 1) (#269)
by miller on Wed Apr 10, 2002 at 08:48:23 AM EST

If it'll only run the current algorithm, and people vote in new code, without it running that code and providing real data on how well it would work, how are the voters to know if they algorithm is going to work well?

And if the readership can submit and vote up random code patches to scoop, then a concerted effort using multiple accounts could upload any code - a virus, DDoS trojan, anything. The beauty of the current system is that people having multiple accounts doesn't really matter - the worst they can do is influence story voting or comment ratings and those attacks can be detected by peer review (and admin intervention).

I'm suggesting that what you're proposing would require a lot of coding that noone is prepared to do and introduces a massive risk. Whoever owns the box always has to be ultimately responsible for the code running on that box - I don't see any admin in their right mind ceding over that control.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

more data provided! (none / 0) (#270)
by johwsun on Thu Apr 11, 2002 at 02:35:41 AM EST

If it'll only run the current algorithm, and people vote in new code, without it running that code and providing real data on how well it would work, how are the voters to know if they algorithm is going to work well?

This is the responcibility of voting. When you vote a law, you are not sure that this law is the right one. This has always been a try and error procedure. As long as the voting system is valid and a backup is taken whenever an algortihm changes, we can always go back. After all, if you are not sure you should be able to hire a code representative to vote for you. you can even require by the representative to run a simulation of the law, present the results and if the results are ok then to give him your vote. The code may be also be signed too.

And if the readership can submit and vote up random code patches to scoop, then a concerted effort using multiple accounts could upload any code - a virus, DDoS trojan, anything. The beauty of the current system is that people having multiple accounts doesn't really matter - the worst they can do is influence story voting or comment ratings and those attacks can be detected by peer review (and admin intervention).

This is the difficult part of the story. Well first of all a backup is always required apon the change of the algorith. Secondly there are several methods proposed, in order to solve the fake accounts problem. I point to some of them:
1. advogato trust metric system
2. donate your pc
3. also the old good IP or MAC based authentication.

Look, maybe it is a worst thing to influence a story than temporarily and rarely broke the system. The stories are the products of scoop. Thats why the fake accounts problem must be elliminated somehow, for the good of the stories and for the good of this voting system I am proposing. We should give to everyone the ability to temporarily "destroy" the system if he is smart enought, similiar to the ability that the owner of the box has. This will bring popularity.

[ Parent ]

driptray said.... (4.14 / 7) (#137)
by johwsun on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:41:49 AM EST

But I'm also reminded of the Osama bin Laden episode of South Park, where Kyle asks the four Afghani boys why "a third of the world hates us [America]". The four Afghanis think for a moment, before responding "Because you don't know that a third of the world hates you".

[ Parent ]
About TU and losing it... (3.62 / 16) (#2)
by Talez on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 10:59:54 PM EST

Losing TU sucks because there are things you get used to that you'd rather not lose:

* Reading hidden comments
* Seeing who rated 0 on comments
* Being able to unhide comments


Frankly I'm not that bothered about handing out 0's because being a janitor doesn't really intrest me. I just don't like the restricted view of K5 that non-TU brings...

Just my thoughts at any rate

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
Well (4.27 / 11) (#4)
by rickward on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:03:44 PM EST

I guess we all have an incentive to start posting good content in discussions now :)

People who get pissed over silly things deserve to be bothered at all costs. --MisterQueu
[ Parent ]

Nah... (4.20 / 10) (#15)
by MisterQueue on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:13:29 PM EST

they don't want us coming over to the story section, that would be plain silly, and make me feel slightly dirty actually.

-Q
-------
"That's fucking great! I want a baby jesus buttplug!" -mrgoat[ Parent ]

Restricted view (4.28 / 14) (#7)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:05:03 PM EST

I just checked, there have ben 386 comments hidden total. In the whole life of the site. So you're missing 1 (really) bad comment every two days. It's not so restricted, really. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
B-B-B-But... How will I keep up with E r i c? (4.10 / 19) (#9)
by Talez on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:07:04 PM EST

I just check the "Review Hidden Comments" and there is a concise summary of his latest comments! ;)

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]
I know (3.00 / 2) (#204)
by shrike7 on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:52:04 AM EST

I hope I don't lose the opportunity to keep up with the latest pearls of wisdom from M o n o l i n u x's founder.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
You're doing this... (4.18 / 11) (#16)
by pschap on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:13:56 PM EST

to annoy the diary only people, because you don't like us.

No subscription for you ;)

--
"In 1991, we had almost nothing. We'd only begun building cocks. After just 10 years, we have a very robust, active cock."

[ Parent ]

Wow (3.16 / 6) (#84)
by delmoi on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:09:18 AM EST

Its like japan!
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Janitorial duties (4.40 / 10) (#19)
by DrJohnEvans on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:15:19 PM EST

Frankly I'm not that bothered about handing out 0's because being a janitor doesn't really intrest me.
Rating should not be considered a "janitorial" duty. It should be an objective evaluation of the overall value of the comment: if the comment is useless spam, its value is 0. For Scoop's rating system to reflect most accurately its community's opinion of a comment's worth, that comment should be rated by every user. Obviously, that's a bit of a lofty goal-- but there's still lots of room for improvement here on K5.

Too often, the author of a comment receiving a 3 rating will be insulted. Thus many, for fear of offense, will limit their ratings to one of three: 1, 5, or none. Rating seems to have become something special which it really shouldn't be-- it should be treated responsibly, yes, but not as if it's a lethal weapon. If a comment, in your opinion, makes only a limited contribution to the discussion, let the author know.

If everybody tried harder to rate every comment they read, and if most of the comments you made were valuable to the discussion (as I'm sure they already are), then you wouldn't have any problem regaining your trusted user status.



[ Parent ]

Who is to say what is spam? (4.00 / 6) (#90)
by mandria on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:19:04 AM EST

if the comment is useless spam, its value is 0

This is not a troll but, how would one know what I consider spam? A comment to you may be spam, but to me may be useful. I'm not talking about spam as in "enlarge your penis" or "take viagra" that we all take everyday in our mail boxes. Let me bring an example. Say the subject has something to do with computer hardware and somebody says that a certain web site has a certain part for less than a second web site. Is that considered spam?

[ Parent ]
Spam is junk (4.00 / 6) (#96)
by ubernostrum on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:38:46 AM EST

I don't think I'd rate your example a 0, and to date I've handed out exactly two 0 ratings - one for a comment that was obscene (to me), and the other for a comment that was posted to the wrong story (when I first got TU status and was still a little fuzzy on how that was supposed to work...now I wouldn't rate it 0).

But I personally would rate 0 anything that's just mindless obscenity...comments that make no contribution whatsoever (and there aren't too many of those). "Spam" in the traditional sense doesn't seem to happen to much on k5 (unless you count Eric's monolinux ads all over the place), so the 0 rating isn't needed too much for that; I use 0 for comments that have exactly that much content.


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

Spam definition (4.00 / 5) (#98)
by DrJohnEvans on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:54:11 AM EST

Generally, people equate spam with the junk that ends up in their mailboxes every day. However, as specified in The Jargon File, it covers more than just advertising junk. I was using the word just as a general indication of useless garbage that gets in the way of the good stuff.

Eggs, bacon, and spam... spam, eggs, bacon, sausage, and spam... spam spam spam spam spam, eggs, bacon, sausage, and spam... Lobster Thermidor au Crevettes with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. -- Episode 25

[ Parent ]

Nope (4.71 / 7) (#122)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:32:46 AM EST

Losing TU sucks because there are things you get used to that you'd rather not lose: [...]

No, losing TU sucks because all these idiots feel compelled to post a diary entry about the fact as soon as they notice they did.

--em
[ Parent ]

Makes no difference to me. -nt- (3.09 / 11) (#3)
by tiamat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:03:15 PM EST



Well. (4.43 / 23) (#5)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:04:11 PM EST

I'm all for it, but how are you going to keep the crap in my diary visible to me? And what about crapfloods in the diaries? I don't think I should have to go mojo-whoring in the queue just to monitor the possible 0'd comments in my own diary.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--

Whatnot (4.21 / 14) (#12)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:09:41 PM EST

but how are you going to keep the crap in my diary visible to me?

If it's crap, and you're not trusted, it won't be visible to you. Why should it be?

And what about crapfloods in the diaries?

Crapfloods, per se, aren't really possible. I think we've all forgotten the days when a crapflood really meant something. A couple of crappy comments do not a crapflood make. :-)

The other thing is that there are still plenty of trusted users around, and many of them read diaries regularly. This doesn't change that, it just increases the level of participation in the "news" part of the site that's necessary to be trusted.

Originally, this was how it was supposed to work. Diaries have gotten so popular that their very unrestrictedness (which I'm a fan of, by the way) has significantly changed the balance of the whole rating thing. I'm just trying to restore the original balance to it.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Example: (4.75 / 12) (#24)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:20:08 PM EST

Occasionally, someone (let's say, oh, tombuck, specifically) posts a comment in my diary to the effect of "remember, down the wrists, not across", and I can remember at least one occasion where his comment was hidden. I believe it was later unhidden, but that's not the point. Suppose it had stayed hidden. And supposed I hadn't read my comments for a little while, and thus not seen it when it was visible. While it may not be very nice, and it may be crap in some people's opinion, in my diary, I would prefer to see it.

I agree completely that comment ratings in diaries shouldn't affect mojo, and I don't care one way or the other if I'm trusted or not. I guess I'm just afraid of missing something "unpopular" in my diary. Probably not going to be a problem for me, since I haven't 0'd anything in a long long time, if ever, but I like to see the crap for myself rather than let a bunch of other people decide for me what crap I get to see.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Soultion? (4.53 / 13) (#31)
by blackwizard on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:23:06 PM EST

Perhaps the solution is to allow one to always have trusted user status in his/her own diary at all times. Anywhere else, and you've got to earn it in the articles.

[ Parent ]
I'm fine with that. (nt) (3.75 / 8) (#39)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:30:48 PM EST


"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

He makes a Good Point, Rusty... (4.33 / 9) (#33)
by ti dave on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:24:16 PM EST

...but I like to see the crap for myself rather than let a bunch of other people decide for me what crap I get to see.

I whole-heartedly agree with this point, particularly in one's own diary.


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

[ Parent ]
I really only care in my own diary. (4.12 / 8) (#47)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:32:17 PM EST

And in replies to my comments. Other than that, I couldn't care less what's hidden and what's not.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Tough. :-) [NT] (2.92 / 14) (#49)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:32:48 PM EST



____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I believe the question is... (4.50 / 6) (#100)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:01:07 AM EST

Why shouldn't it be?

Seeing crap you want to see won't hurt you.

And you might not even agree that it's crap.

The self-selected majority, even the "trusted" self-selected majority is sometimes wrong.

Maybe the poster of a diary should have the option of disabling ratings on comments to their entry or upping the minimum normal rating to 2 (making 0 impossible)



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Because its HIS diary. (4.50 / 8) (#115)
by arcade on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:12:35 AM EST

>>but how are you going to keep the crap in my diary visible to me?
>If it's crap, and you're not trusted, it won't be visible to you. Why should it be?

Because its HIS diary. I wholeheartily agree with you on the change of the trusted user settings, however - I would be REALLY annoyed if that changed my trusted user status, and I couldn't read ALL the comments posted IN MY OWN diary.

So, a feature request - that most people (except you) in this thread seem to agree on. People should have trusted user access in their own diary. Always. Since the score made to peoples comments there ISN'T counted towards their trustedness, the _rating_ people actually gte there doesn't matter.

Hope to see the feature.



--
arcade
[ Parent ]
Harassment (none / 0) (#229)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:18:57 PM EST

Suppose (or just look around you) someone was harassing another with racist, sexist, etc. remarks. It's also their own diary. If the harasser was not checked, why would the person keep writing their diary here? (*) Is it worth more to preserve the harassment or the diary?

(*) I'm willing to concede that people will stay in harmful situations for sentimental reasons.

Frankly, if you want to read all the comments in your own diary, become a trusted user. It's not hard. I've already cracked the server to give me permanent trusted status.

The secret? Just stop posting crap.

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

You don't make sense. (none / 0) (#260)
by arcade on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 06:38:11 AM EST

Suppose (or just look around you) someone was harassing another with racist, sexist, etc. remarks. It's also their own diary. If the harasser was not checked, why would the person keep writing their diary here? (*) Is it worth more to preserve the harassment or the diary?

I don't see the problem, as long as the person in question is rated down - and is not viewable by people in general. You should be able to read the comments in your own diary, if you want to. ALL of them.

The secret? Just stop posting crap.

Why should you have to, just the comments in your own diary?



--
arcade
[ Parent ]
you really don't wanna... (none / 0) (#230)
by Oxymoron on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:22:57 PM EST

unless you like looking at puke. most of it is really cheesy flamewars and people calling each other nazis and pedophiles... stuff like that.

Fighting the war, on drugs.
"Yeah, girls smelling like oranges is always a recipe for trouble. They'll invariably end up getting thrown on the floor and kissed." -conraduno
[ Parent ]
Ratings are fairly worthless to begin with. (3.76 / 17) (#8)
by theboz on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:07:02 PM EST

I would have preferred if you would have made a patch to allow someone to completely ignore ratings and get out of the ratings system. The only purpose I can see is to allow people to hide crapfloods and spam, but even that isn't very effective.

I also would like to see a patch to give a user the ability to hide posts within diaries. If the ratings in diaries don't count, then there has to be some sort of protection for people who don't want people crapflooding their diaries.

I guess I am not sure as to the usefulness of the patch, since the diaries are the busiest section of the site and perhaps mojo matters more there than it does elsewhere.

Stuff.

The purpose (4.75 / 12) (#21)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:17:27 PM EST

The only purpose I can see is to allow people to hide crapfloods and spam, but even that isn't very effective.

You've unveiled my diaboloical plot! ;-)

Actually, that is the only purpose. But I think that for that purpose, it works pretty damn well.

I also would like to see a patch to give a user the ability to hide posts within diaries. If the ratings in diaries don't count, then there has to be some sort of protection for people who don't want people crapflooding their diaries.

Maybe. That would not be free, though. If you want to overrule the general population, I'd expect that you'd be willing to pay for the ability.

Honestly, I'm about 60% leaning toward just making diaries subscription-only. Something relatively cheap, like $2.00 a month. I like the community that's grown up there, but it's also a large source of headaches for me, much more so than the rest of the site, which people take much more seriously. Diaries are where all the trolling and conflict seems to happen these days (with the exception of Israel articles).

Anyway, while I've got the whole diary Kabal's attention, how many of you would leave in a huff if diaries were $2.00 a month?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Not in a huff (4.66 / 9) (#25)
by MisterQueue on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:21:05 PM EST

maybe in a hearse or something.

But in all reality, 2.00 a month doesn't really seem to bother me, but what do I get for that? I mean if you do that, then you simply have to go back to making the diary ratings count again.

Fuck...how am I gonna pay 2.00 a month on ALL my accounts, I like you rusty, but I'm not giving you my entire year's salary. ;D

-Q
-------
"That's fucking great! I want a baby jesus buttplug!" -mrgoat[ Parent ]

Heh (4.75 / 8) (#53)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:38:12 PM EST

I mean if you do that, then you simply have to go back to making the diary ratings count again.

Possibly. The idea, actually, is to make some people leave. It sounds elitist, but screw it. There's been a lot of just mindless drivel spamming the diaries lately. I don't need that, no one else needs it. If you were paying for the privilege, I expect a lot of people would leave, but the people willing to pay would find the diaries returning to what they were a few months ago. I.e. mostly worth reading, instead of mostly not worth reading, as I feel they are now.

And obviously, you'd have to choose a "diary persona" and stick with it. How mrgoat would do it, well, God only knows. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Easily. (4.60 / 5) (#57)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:41:24 PM EST

I would pick this one. The other ones that I really, truly have, (vs. just claim to have) would dissapear. And since none of them have posted more than 30 comments, and 1 diary between them all, it's no big deal.

Er.. um... I mean... HEY! You're throwing my world into upheaval! How dare you shake the very foundations of my elitist in-joke!

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

of course ... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
by BlueOregon on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:52:16 AM EST

...as I would probably leave1 (perhaps pleasing rusty ... pruning the site a bit more), people would truly believe me to be you. (what, we aren't?).

-SK

[1] or rather, only read

[ Parent ]

I think I see the problem now (4.33 / 6) (#64)
by theboz on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:48:34 PM EST

The idea, actually, is to make some people leave. It sounds elitist, but screw it. There's been a lot of just mindless drivel spamming the diaries lately. I don't need that, no one else needs it.

It sounds to me like somebody needs a vacation where you don't have to think about K5 or any of it's problems for a while. You should do something to relax a bit before making these decisions in frustration.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

drivel?"This is your diary.There are no rules (5.00 / 3) (#109)
by panck on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:53:10 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.50 / 4) (#112)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:04:07 AM EST

Well, there are no rules, except ones that should be assumed -- hateful diaries will probably be deleted.

That doesn't mean I'm interested in reading nineteen copies of the same meaningless text, or whatever. I'm not saying people are abusing them, just that a lot of them are not even remotely interesting. Hence "drivel".

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

You've just voiced my biggest fear (4.00 / 2) (#144)
by Nick Ives on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:36:50 AM EST

The main reason, above all others, why I dont keep an online diary is for that sole reason. I once tried typing out my life and I looked back and went "oh god thats not even remotely interesting". Just the useual catalogue of drug addictions, sexual perversions and completely random trips across the country interspersed with long periods of doing very little whilst either stoned or high on opiates. I mean, its just so dull, I know it and now I know for sure that the rest of the world knows it too.

I used to have this delusion that it was really about some sentimental sense of privacy but I knew that was a lie. I'm dull, your dull, were all so damned dull and uninteresting. Man.

--
Nick
And I used to think this place was so warm and fluffy.

[ Parent ]

Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:08:13 AM EST

The personal stuff, I love. Just people describing what random shit they did that day. I'm not talking about that at all.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
The correct response... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
by Nick Ives on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:22:47 AM EST

...was to laugh =).

Perhaps I should be more obvious when I'm joking, although I still fail to see how waving a knife around screaming "I'm gonna kill all you motherf***ers!!" could be anything but funny.

--
Nick
Shit. Out of drugs and down to my last cig. This is gonna get messy. Scratch that, found another half pack, you beauty.

[ Parent ]

"too many diaries" (4.80 / 5) (#121)
by Delirium on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:31:42 AM EST

I've noticed this, but I think the problem with the scrolling and such is lack of organization, not too many diaries per se. There should be diary sections. I'm not sure which exactly, but one would be the normal "diary" sort -- stuff about people's lives and such -- others could be "ramblings on politics/society" and other things along those lines. As it is now the Diary section is essentially a webboard with only one forum. As you may or may not know, most webboards of any significant size have multiple forums to keep things organized.

[ Parent ]
just add one new section (none / 0) (#251)
by alprazolam on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 12:43:08 AM EST

"garbage"

[ Parent ]
Paying for diaries (4.50 / 6) (#32)
by Talez on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:23:16 PM EST

I don't know how I would pay for my diary given that I rarely (if ever) buy stuff from the net... I don't have a credit card, a regular job or even decent income. I tend not to spend any money and when I do it's only in very small amounts.

In short, I wouldn't leave, but my participation would be much less since not many articles get my attention nowadays.

*watches rusty go and hurridly implement subscription only*

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]
Attention: Rusty (2.57 / 7) (#50)
by E r i c on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:33:20 PM EST

Start charging for diaries NOW.

<sarcasm>Oh, and Talez, it's quite surprising that a moronic loser such as yourself leads such a pathetic existence.</sarcasm>

I blame my past transgressions on Eminem's music. Reform number five is currently in progress.
[ Parent ]
Oh yeah (4.71 / 7) (#68)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:51:10 PM EST

Another benefit -- you'd be actually paying for all your monolinux ads, if diaries were non-free. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Hahah (3.83 / 6) (#69)
by E r i c on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:53:17 PM EST

You've got me figured out! ;-D

If it's any consolation, I get hundreds more visitors courtesy of /. than your site.

I blame my past transgressions on Eminem's music. Reform number five is currently in progress.
[ Parent ]
Consider your market though... (4.75 / 4) (#139)
by dipipanone on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:51:17 AM EST

Yes, but an ad in the New Yorker will always cost you a hell of a lot more than an ad in the National Enquirer because of the different readership demographics.

You may get more traffic from elsewhere, but whether it's the kind of traffic you'd want is another issue altogether.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
I should abstain from answering. (4.77 / 9) (#37)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:28:07 PM EST

Simply because by saying I'd leave, you might take that as an easy way to get rid of me. ;)

Actually, I probably would leave. Or start posting my diaries to the queue. (Just kidding). 2$ a month seems a little steep for me to be allowed to contribute my time and my effort to your site. You know, some places people actually get paid to write content, instead of paying for the privelage. I was going to subscribe anyway, when it gets convenient for me, (in timing and ease of payment) but I think I'd just leave if you made me pay for diaries.

You'd also lose any of my revenue from the k5 store, if one ever goes up.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Au contraire (5.00 / 5) (#63)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:48:33 PM EST

2$ a month seems a little steep for me to be allowed to contribute my time and my effort to your site.

I don't see it that way, really. I think what makes the diary section worthwhile is the community that frequents it. You're both a contributor to and a recipient of the value of that community. I would be sad to see you go, personally. I hoped you'd see the point of charging: to erect a small barrier to entry, to improve the whole section, and hopefully limit it to people who actually care about that community.

Last month, 768 different people (well, different accounts anyway ;-)) posted a total of 3265 diaries. In one month. I think that would survive some whittling down, myself.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I could agree with that (4.25 / 4) (#70)
by MisterQueue on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:54:35 PM EST

as long as I'm not part of the pile of wood shavings. (Who knows which users the infinite rusty wishes to smite.) You do lose some of that diary flavor (especially if you'd be sad to see the goat leave) with charging. (Thus sticking to one character.)

Personally, I can say that this is the only character who regularly posts diaries. (Actually the only one who does at all, well besides the goat that is.) But, taking that away loses some of the hijack style diary flava that the goat and I love to spread in our own little way. *Shrug* But that's my wanky beef with it, and I'm probably one of the only one's affected by that.

-Q
-------
"That's fucking great! I want a baby jesus buttplug!" -mrgoat[ Parent ]

Sad to see me go? (4.83 / 6) (#72)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:59:04 PM EST

I see the point of charging, but I can always find other groups of people to amuse with my insipid ramblings. That's the whole point of keeping a diary here, I like amusing the people here who read it. It's like being a stand-up comedian: Sometimes you get a good crowd. This is a case where I've been able to play to the same crowd for a long time.

I think it's a good idea to pare down the diaries a little, but I really don't see myself giving 2$ a month when I can go elsewhere to amuse random people I don't really know with my insipid rambling. I'd lose my great crowd, but another suitable crowd can be found. (Ok, I admit it. I just like the phrase "insipid ramblings" and this whole comment is little more than an excuse to use it.)

Sure it could survive some whittling down, but I don't think whittling down based on who can afford the money is the answer. You want to get rid of the insipid, pointless, two line contentless diaries, not the diaries of the people who honestly have better places to put that 2$. Or the people who find it terribly inconvenient to subscribe. (I don't know if this is true, but I imagine people have other reasons besides "it's expensive" for not subscribing when they want to.)

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Ahem, ANYONE can afford $2 (almost) (4.66 / 3) (#133)
by arcade on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:11:41 AM EST

Anyone living in the western world can afford $2 a month. Its not more than $24 a year, which is far less than I use when I'm going out an evening with friends.

Of course, you will have people that cannot afford it, either because they're living in some part of the world where income isn't exactly staggering, or some other reason. I am, however, quite sure that they can write begging letters to rusty, and that he would give'em free accounts, if they were from a poor country.

Right, rusty? ;)



--
arcade
[ Parent ]
Question (4.33 / 3) (#73)
by theantix on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:59:21 PM EST

How about a simplified version of my earlier proposal: 1-2 diaries a week for non-subscribers. That way non-subscribers can contribute, but don't flood everything.

Yes, certain people could get around that, but you could disable the accounts if need be. I know, I know, another idea that requires admin interference...

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

Woah. (4.66 / 6) (#77)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:02:15 AM EST

Then I might have to make a second account to post enough of my insipid ramblings? I don't want to have to pay attention to more than one account!

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Charging for diaries (4.54 / 11) (#38)
by theantix on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:29:35 PM EST

Personally, I think it's a Bad IdeaTM. And you know I'm not just being cheap, because I'm already paying $5.00/mo for a valueless (not worthless, but valueless) subscription. But as a regular follower of the diaries, most of my raison d'etre on this site would be gone if everybody left.

And you know that most of them would leave... people are cheap that way. Web forums that have charged for access will always fail -- we'll just pick it up somewhere else. How many of us are students or unemployed? My bet's on pretty high -- so paying for k5 diaries is a big expense, especially when some of the contributers will be gone.

If you are concerned about trolling/crapflooding, you might want to consider other measures first. Perhaps a limit on diaries for non-subscribers (1-2 per week), and a requirement for posting in stories, or some sort of measure to prevent fake accounts to be created solely to post in diaries to circumvent that. Combine that with strong measures for combatting the problem users. Yes, that would mean more hassle for you.

But if you cancel the free diaries, you will lose out a lot of what makes k5 special (to me). Don't get me wrong, I know that k5 wasn't designed for me, it was designed for you. But since you want users, I feel that would be a strong step in a wrong direction.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

I'm inclined to believe... (4.00 / 5) (#40)
by ti dave on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:30:52 PM EST

your "60% leaning" correlates to 60% of k5's traffic is from the Diaries.


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

[ Parent ]
Heh (4.00 / 5) (#67)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:50:27 PM EST

That's not how I was intending it, but it isn't far from the truth either.

I just meant that in considering yes/no, I'm leaning toward yes by about 10%. The original phrasing wasn't very clear.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Hey... (4.62 / 8) (#41)
by kwsNI on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:31:18 PM EST

I like the community that's grown up there, but it's also a large source of headaches for me, much more so than the rest of the site, which people take much more seriously.
There's a rest of the site?

Unfortunately, I'd probably leave if I couldn't have my diaries. It's not that I have any problems supporting you, but I'm having enough problems supporting myself. I am told that I will graduate and have a job some day, but I'm still waiting on the whole job thing. I understand you've got to eat, but I've got to too and I'm pretty sure my diet sucks worse than yours.

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]

I'd be gone. (4.14 / 7) (#42)
by pschap on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:31:24 PM EST

No text needed and for once I'm not joking.

--
"In 1991, we had almost nothing. We'd only begun building cocks. After just 10 years, we have a very robust, active cock."

[ Parent ]
I'd probably pony up $24 for year (4.16 / 6) (#43)
by rickward on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:31:28 PM EST

but my friend Jack Wanger wouldn't.

It would bother me a little though. It would be like joining a fraternity, an activity I derided when I was in school as "paying for friends."

People who get pissed over silly things deserve to be bothered at all costs. --MisterQueu
[ Parent ]

I take that back (4.20 / 5) (#51)
by rickward on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:33:46 PM EST

After reading the other responses to rusty's original comment, I definitely wouldn't pay for a year in advance.

People who get pissed over silly things deserve to be bothered at all costs. --MisterQueu
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't pay for them. (4.50 / 6) (#52)
by theboz on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:37:54 PM EST

Grrr...I wrote a long comment and clicked out of the text box by accident and hit backspace and it took me back a screen and removed everything. I'll try to give a summary of what I said instead since all that is gone now.

Basically, I think it would be bad to make the diaries pay-only. A lot of people do post crap and trolls to the diary section, but a lot of others also use it for gathering information and preparing stories to submit to the queue. That would decrease the quality in some stories I believe.

Also, since scoop is open source and there are so many other blogger programs that can be used for diaries, I don't think people would pay for something that they can get free elsewhere. While you may not have the K5 around on a new site to read your diary, they wouldn't be posting them either since they don't want to pay. I have a feeling that one of the many other scoop sites would possibly take over as well. It may splinter things a little more according to interests, but people would probably go to intune, adequacy, etc. I would also imagine the next evolution from the slashdot -> kuro5hin -> ????? would occur then and someone from here would go and set up a scoop site trying to keep everything free, and then run into the same problems as /. and K5 and come up with a fresh way of dealing with the challenges of a site like this.

Of course that doesn't mean K5 is dying any more than slashdot died when kuro5hin came out. It's just that sites evolve over time so I see this as a part of the evolution of K5.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

What's Israel? (2.57 / 7) (#79)
by delmoi on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:04:16 AM EST

(with the exception of Israel articles).

What Israel articals?

Oh, did you mean the Palistine articals? (JK :P)
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
PalEstine! You Fascist Troll! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by wiredog on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:10:45 AM EST

Quick, lets start a mid-east flamewar in the site news section!

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
I like the diaries (4.00 / 4) (#92)
by ubernostrum on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:24:51 AM EST

I don't live there, but I don't *live* anywhere in particular on k5. If they went to subscription-only, I wouldn't necessarily leave, but I'd start leaning in that direction; I'm revamping my own site right now and everything I can do in my diary here I'll be able to do there soon enough. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that I wouldn't leave k5, but it would certainly no longer be the first site I visit when I wake up. And it wouldn't take much more to get me to leave for good after that.


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

Combination (4.25 / 4) (#102)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:35:31 AM EST

Rename the current Diary section to "Ghetto"; create new subscription-only Diary section.

Because there will always be cheapos like me out there who might (still) have something worthwhile to contribute (or rant about) every once in awhile but who can't afford to put textads on some random weblog let-alone subscribe to it.

Also, have a comment sorting option to show subscribers before non-subscribers, and emboss the posts of subscribers with a special yellow-colored frame or something <j/k>



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Not good soft security (5.00 / 4) (#117)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:17:59 AM EST

If you recall, the k5 diaries alleviated pressure from the submission queue. Taking them away would put the pressure back onto the submission queue.

EnlargeSpace. You're going to do this shortly with subsections, but that won't address the need for FrontLawns.

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

Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#118)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:22:24 AM EST

That's an important point, and not one I'm unaware of. See this diary (ironically enough ;-)) for more.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Please don't do this (5.00 / 4) (#126)
by skim123 on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:48:48 AM EST

Honestly, I'm about 60% leaning toward just making diaries subscription-only. Something relatively cheap, like $2.00 a month. I like the community that's grown up there, but it's also a large source of headaches for me, much more so than the rest of the site, which people take much more seriously

I can understand the frustration, I run a couple sites of my own and I hate having to remove posts that are racial slurs or full of cursewords. At least you don't have to do that crap.

Regardless, I think there are a lot of good diary entries and would hate to see any of the positive posters leave due to a monthly fee. Being one who is paying for a subscription, I hope my voice counts for more than one of those freeloaders. :-) In any case, please do keep the diary free. If you must do something, please do what was previously discussed - limit non-subscribers to get only a few entries per week. (Personally I think it should be one per day, but whatever.)

Seriously, the majority of time I kill on k5 is killed in the diary section. I hope you'll seriously consider not charging for it. Thank you.

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


[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.66 / 6) (#128)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:51:28 AM EST

Like I said, "leaning". I lean different ways hourly. :-)

Now I'm leaning toward some kind of combination of "one free diary per day" + "subscribe for total coment control in your diary" + "subscribers can post as many diaries as they want."

I just wanted to see what the reaction was.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Hey (4.66 / 3) (#130)
by skim123 on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:54:03 AM EST

Rusty, you know what may be one option is rather than a monthly fee you have a one time, upfront fee. It doesn't have to be that high, like $25 and you can post diaries from now until the cows come home. That one-time $25 payment essentially is a barrier - those who are going to use their diary just to crapflood will likely not pony up the $25. The regulars who post an incredible amount would be more willing to pay, I think. (Well, maybe $25 is a little high, since that's over a year of service @ $2/mo., maybe $10 entry fee... of course paying anything is a hassle - get out the credit card, mail a check, jump over to PayPal, or whatever...)

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


[ Parent ]
Urgh (3.00 / 2) (#191)
by miller on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:36:18 AM EST

Sounds messy legally: someone, let's call them E r i c (purely taken at random), pays their lifetime fee then abuses the diaries and gets their privs rebuked. Could they then reasonably ask for their money back, or even sue k5? If they can't, i.e. there's a clause in the contract, it'd have to say that an admin can rebuke the service at any time for any reason - I wouldn't be too happy to sign up to that.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]
That's better (5.00 / 2) (#153)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:38:33 AM EST

But I'm still not happy. I don't mind at all beeing limited to one diary per day, but now I think it sucks to let people pay to spam the diary section.

Perhaps I've spend to much time with stuggling musicians, but I really don't like "pay to play".
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Subscribers (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by crankie on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:41:26 AM EST

If you let subscribers post as many diaries as they want I think you're defeating the purpose. The plan in making diaries subscription based is to raise the barrier and avoid crap.

In general (there are the ocassional exceptions[1]), people who post more than one diary a day are the ones who are posting crap. So I really don't see the point.


[1] What I have seen reasonably often is a standard diary entry and then, later in the day, an MLP style diary. Let's be honest, the MLP section isn't exactly short on supply, so it's probably no bad thing that these don't get posted to the queue.

~~~
"The great thing about hardcore socialists is the silence they emit once they start earning a decent wage." - tombuck
[ Parent ]
1/day (none / 0) (#256)
by eudas on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 01:50:45 AM EST

once per day without the subscription thing sounds good.

but then, maybe you're just hard up for subscriptions and gotta figure a way to make some cash?

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Please dont. (5.00 / 4) (#138)
by nr0mx on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:45:42 AM EST

I personally do not keep a diary. But --
  • After applying currency conversions, $2 is not an insignificant figure anymore in many countries.
  • More importantly, doing the currency conversion is no joke either. As an example, converting *any* amount to USD is a huge bureaucratic hassle here.

This is the reason I have not taken out a subscription, or advertised on the site. I'm not complaining. I understand the need for these, and would like to be in a position to help out. But on the other hand, I would just like you to keep this factor in mind.

[ Parent ]

Rusty, you'd be worse than crap TV drug dealer. (4.66 / 3) (#152)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:33:47 AM EST

Get us hooked, giving us the good stuff for free then start charging.

Let me make this clear, Rusty: I contribute to this site. I make this site worth reading. I will not be charged for the privilege of creating your content for you. Rest assured that if you charge for Diaries, I, and I imagine, most of the diary section "posse" will leave en mass for another scoop site, perhaps one that doesn't exist yet, perhaps fragmented, and probably bitter.

Don't forget, you've got my archive, and I will be deeply disappointed if you start charging. I don't think I'd be the only one.

And to think, I'd been considering subscribing just because I like K5.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

How hard would it be (4.50 / 2) (#155)
by crankie on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:52:32 AM EST

To strip out your archive and port it to a new site? Provided you had sufficient control of said site?

~~~
"The great thing about hardcore socialists is the silence they emit once they start earning a decent wage." - tombuck
[ Parent ]
I have no idea (none / 0) (#156)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:56:59 AM EST

I don't expect it to be *too* hard. Someone would probably write a script. Probably somone trying to attract the ex-K5 diary to their site...
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
To reply to my own comment... (5.00 / 5) (#160)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:07:06 AM EST

Rather than respond to everyone who replied to this, this is just a comprehensive response...

Ok, paid diaries == bad idea. I get the message. Thanks. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Subscription-only diaries (5.00 / 3) (#177)
by Mister Proper on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:35:02 AM EST

If you decide to make the diary section subscription-only then I'd appreciate it you offered the option to remove old diary entries from it.

I have quite a few of those in a different account. I don't want them up on a subscription-only site.

[ Parent ]

$2 for what exactly? (4.00 / 1) (#205)
by axxeman on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:53:16 AM EST

Writing diares? Viewing diaries? Commenting in diaries? Viewing comments in diaries (ie if clickin on a user's comments, are the in-diary ones there)?Some combo? If not logged in, do you see diaries?

Sorry if this was discussed already but on dialup I ain't readin the whole thing.

Not yet. Don't come before we have finished humping...
[ Parent ]

I'm against it (3.00 / 2) (#210)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:27:41 PM EST

I seldom read the diaries, and I only have one entry in my own, but I still like the fact that I CAN post off-topic and poorly thought out stuff. Charging for them probably wouldn't drive me away from K5, but it would kill any usefulness the diaries might ever have.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Since I'm still trusted (3.28 / 14) (#11)
by Delirium on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:09:09 PM EST

I don't care either way. =]

You, too? ;) [NT] (3.00 / 4) (#107)
by DarkZero on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:52:32 AM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
Bad Idea ; Troll Heaven (3.87 / 16) (#13)
by premier on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:10:05 PM EST

Ratings in diaries don't count anymore?

Trolls are going to come out of the woodwork en masse. This is a bad idea.

Rusty, if what you say about there being only a very few "problem" trusted users, why not disciplie them instead of enforcing this thing on everyone who regulars the diary sections.

This is bad thinking, IMO.

Attack of the Trolls! (4.75 / 8) (#36)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:26:49 PM EST

Trolls are going to come out of the woodwork en masse. This is a bad idea.

First, I disagree. Trolls have been here since day one, and are some of my favorite K5ers. Many of them, in fact.

Second, there's trolling in dairies already. The difference is now, they can go right back to their own diaries and negate any kind of negative ratings they get. With the change, it's the same, except without the diary trolls being also trusted users.

As soon as they "cral out of the woodwork" (as you put it) in regular articles, bad things still happen.

Rusty, if what you say about there being only a very few "problem" trusted users, why not disciplie them instead of enforcing this thing on everyone who regulars the diary sections.

Because me hunting down and punishing people is not a good way to solve problems. I do not scale. As I said elsewhere, any solution tha includes the phrase "an admin should..." is probably a bad solution.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I disagree (4.66 / 3) (#129)
by fluffy grue on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:52:54 AM EST

Comments can still be rated and hidden in the diary, they just won't affect the user's mojo. The trolls/crapflooders on this site obviously don't care about their mojo anyway (and it's very difficult to actually get your mojo below 1, since there's so many people consistently rating up hidden comments), and so I don't think it'll make any difference.
--
"...but who knows, perhaps [stories about] technology and hardware will come to be [unpopular]." -- rusty the p
[
Parent ]
Technical Solution, Social Problem (4.47 / 21) (#17)
by Carnage4Life on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:15:06 PM EST

This response is becoming my clichèd response to most suggestions on how to improve K5. However in this case I think it needs to be reiterated. As JCB mentioned in his post to this thread, the proper solution is to use your admin rights and remove the trusted user privileges from the misbehaving users or more extremely undoing all their ratings.

Removing diaries from mojo calculation does nothing to stop the problem of people being unfairly rated 0 although it does prevent them from becoming untrusted based on a diary mod-storming. I this means that the major complaint people have is losing trusted user status and not their comments being hidden or lowly rated. If this is the case then your solution might be all it takes to solve this particular social problem.

PS: I was hoping you'd post a comment to my most recent diary.

You should start a blog (4.91 / 12) (#28)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:21:58 PM EST

If you had a blog, I'd read it, incidentally breaking my rule of only reading the blogs of people I have met in person. :-)

Basically, this solution is intended to merely return the rating/mojo system back to the base it was designed for, which is the articles, or "public" side of the site. It hasn't, in my opinion, adapted well to the more "private" diary side. I don't think it's well-designed for that environment.

That's the reasoning behind it anyway.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

For what it's worth... (3.00 / 1) (#273)
by UncleMikey on Fri Apr 12, 2002 at 03:57:40 PM EST

...I not only agree with the patch, I've included it on RFT (along with the rest of the current CVS tree). Diaries should not count toward mojo. The logic, IMO, is simple: the main body of the site is supposed to be about collaborative journalism. The diaries are supposed to be about...well, just about anything, really. Relevance matters in main-body articles and comments; relevance doesn't matter so much in the diaries.

I'm not even entirely sure that diary comments should be rateable at all, but I suppose it would require more code to cut ratings out than to leave them.


--
[ Uncle Mikey | Radio Free Tomorrow ]
[ Parent ]
Yeah (3.00 / 1) (#274)
by rusty on Fri Apr 12, 2002 at 06:10:48 PM EST

I've been thinking about what should be done in diaries, and it's not what's done now. But for the time being, it's not worth getting rid of ratings altogether. They still serve a sorting function. Ultimately, I think diary "rating" should work some other way, though, which may not even really resemble the existing rating system at all.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
one view (4.10 / 10) (#29)
by Delirium on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:22:01 PM EST

One view in which this solution would make sense is if we posit that the number of users who use the ratings "legitimately" quite significantly outnumber the few "bad" raters. Thus in the normal stories the "bad" raters will have their ratings essentially reversed by the other users. But in the diaries, many comments only get one rating total, so there is less review of ratings, and one "bad" user can have far more influence.

Another solution would be to only count comments with at least a certain number of ratings towards mojo calculations; I'm guessing this solution actually somewhat approximates that solution.

[ Parent ]

bad raters: (4.50 / 2) (#190)
by garlic on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:31:05 AM EST

Bad raters would only have more influence if they modded the comment a 1. Any comment modded a zero that doesn't deserve won't stay a zero. This has the effect that 0 mods that are 'bad' get corrected, while 5 mods that are 'bad' get missed.

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

I meant 5s as well (5.00 / 1) (#247)
by Delirium on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:14:17 PM EST

"Bad" raters as in "raters who do not rate in good faith," including both those who give unjustified 5s and those who give unjustified 1s or 0s. Both are more likely to be cancelled out in the stories than in the diaries (especially, as you pointed out, the 1s and the 5s, since the 0s aren't as big of a problem).

[ Parent ]
trusted user ratings (none / 0) (#264)
by garlic on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:46 AM EST

I'd be very interested to see what happened to ratings if any rating less than 2 or any rating greater than 4 showed up in the trusted users review area. I guess that would kinda make it like meta-moderation...

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

My view (3.76 / 13) (#27)
by snugglebunny on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:21:19 PM EST

I've never been a trusted user. And I don't have any particular desire to become one.

My immediate reaction was against the language Rusty used to describe the change, which referred to the results of ratings in diaries as "a crapload of trolls and little else".

Rusty describes it differently here, though, and I'm inclined to assume the earlier comments were made in a moment of frustration or anger, rather than being an indictment against a whole section of the K5 site.

What I wonder is.. if diaries don't count for mojo any more, how is anyone going to stop people from trolling and flooding in the diaries?



Uh, no (4.20 / 5) (#44)
by delmoi on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:31:41 PM EST

He said that you would end up with a crapload of trusted trolls, not that the content of the dairies section was a crapload of trolls.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Heh (4.83 / 6) (#55)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:40:42 PM EST

The earlier comments were in a CVS commit log. Not exactly where I express myself to the fullest and clearest. :-)

It wasn't frustration or anger, just an attempt to succintly state the point of the code change. It also wasn't supposed to describe the state of K5, just the potential imbalnace that does exist.

Sheesh, if I knew I was being judged by a CVS log, I'd have written it more carefully. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Shut up, bitch. (4.60 / 5) (#114)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:08:17 AM EST

We all know you're no longer a candidate for the "nice-guy free software project leader of the year" award. You can't hide your temper from us forever, sparky.

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

Shut up, bitch. ;-) (4.40 / 5) (#116)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:17:47 AM EST



____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Case-by-case dealings ? (3.87 / 8) (#30)
by nr0mx on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:23:01 PM EST

I see many people seem to think this is the solution.

IMHO, this won't work. This brings in an element of subjectivity, which is one of the worst possible approaches in such a situation where you're already treading on people's toes.

Also, it implies that someone's continually monitoring all the activities in the site, and is able to judge fairly. Isn't this worse than what we currently have ?



Don't tread on me. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by jabber on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:16:35 AM EST

As long as we all remember whose site this really is, we'll get along just fine.

The disgruntled K5ers mantra: It's just a website, it's just a number.. Rinse, lather, repeat.

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

I don't like it. (4.38 / 18) (#35)
by kwsNI on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:26:30 PM EST

And that's not just because I lost TU status.

I'll save you the whole "I contribute lots of good stuff to the diaries" argument. People give 5's there, I can't argue with that.

My problem with it is that there is nothing to keep people from posting shit to the diaries now. I can post "FUCK YOU" 1000 times over and I'm sure people like theboz will keep my comments from being hidden. Now I can also rest assured that it won't affect my mojo if I post good stuff to the rest of the site. Really, this is just as effective as turning off comment ratings in the diaries, the ratings are worthless now. I don't think that's how ratings should be, anywhere on K5.

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy

Ratings (4.87 / 8) (#46)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:32:01 PM EST

I hope you understand my point that this is not meant in any way to imply that people who comment in diaries don't contribute. I know you do.

But we do agree that diary ratings are essentially meaningless and unmonitored. Basically, it has come to the point where the diary section is heavily trafficked enough to throw off the system everywhere else.

This is, I agree, not much of a permanent solution. All it's supposed to do is return the rating system to the environment it was deisnged for, the regular story sections.

I don't know what the long term solution for diaries is, but the system, as designed, doesn't seem to work there.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Honestly, (4.55 / 9) (#56)
by kwsNI on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:41:08 PM EST

I think it'd be better if you totally disabled ratings in diaries and went to some sort of voting system for spam. Also, I think people have the right to view everything in their diaries, even if they're not trusted. I don't believe they should be able to rate it, but I think they should be able to see it. That's the only thing that upsets me about losing trusted status.

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]
Accumulated voting systems are bad (4.75 / 4) (#111)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:04:01 AM EST

Accumulated voting systems are bad. We've seen then on Slashdot. kuro5hin has an averaged rating system which has proven to be stabler.

If you look at the math, it isn't hard to see why either. Average ratings are convergent, whereas accumulated ratings neither converge nor diverge--they just move around--which means each vote has a seemingly random value.

If after 100 moderations, a Slashdot post is +5, a +1 has 0% weight, but a -1 has 100% weight. On kuro5hin, no matter what, the 101st rating has 1/101 weight.

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

Why? (4.00 / 2) (#196)
by mumble on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:12:04 AM EST

I agree with "Accumulated voting systems are bad. We've seen then on Slashdot. kuro5hin has an averaged rating system which has proven to be stabler." But I have a question. Why then is the story submission process accumulative rather than an average?

I suppose the problem is, if you have an average how do you decide when to post or drop a story? We have two numbers to work with, the current average, and the number of people that have voted. Well, then, just set a threshold of say 200 votes, at which stage it is judged whether to drop the story or not. ie. if each vote is out of 0 to 10, set the to-post threshold to, lets say, 7. And the to-drop threshold at 5. And anything in between 5 and 7 at 200 votes is set to wait an extra 200 votes. At which stage, if it is over 7 then post, but under 7 then drop it.

Any comments on this idea?
Thanks.

--mumble

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]

Because. (none / 0) (#222)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:41:15 PM EST

The story submission process is accumulative because in order to post, one most accumulate 95 more positive votes more than negative (this threshold will change in the future). It doesn't matter if it takes 95 or 10 000 votes to do this, each vote is valued exactly the same until either the post threshold or the dump threshold is reached, after which point each vote has no value.

Since as more votes come in the current vote tally doesn't converge, merely bounces around turbulently, this system doesn't work. Really, we want a voting system that gets more accurate with each additional vote (i.e. with more information).

An averaging system has this property, but as you correctly surmise, it's not as simple as taking a story rated as a 7, because one vote of 10 may post it. Merely setting a threshold for the number of ratings doesn't work either because it's still accumulative. Now, instead of casting only one vote, you get to cast anywhere from 0 to 10 votes. If the story accumulates 7 * 200 = 1400 votes, it's posted.

There are statistical means to determine the quality of a sample like variance and standard deviation. Those might be better than a simple "size of sample" measure, nineteen times out of twenty.

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

I agree with your solution (3.83 / 6) (#61)
by theantix on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:45:30 PM EST

I think it works, even in the long term. 0 rated comments are so uncommon that losing the ability to see hidden comments in your diary doesn't have much practical implications.

Of course, I'm just happy that I don't have to feel bad about rating people 5 in my diaries any more, because that was keeping me up at night. =)

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

How about this? (3.66 / 3) (#150)
by Yer Mom on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:09:05 AM EST

If the problem is the heavy diary traffic skewing the calculations, how about having diary ratings count for, say, 1/10 the mojo of an article rating?
--
Smoke crack. Worship Satan. Admin Unix.
[ Parent ]
Well (4.83 / 6) (#141)
by tombuck on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:10:48 AM EST

Seeing the amount of zero ratings you give me in the Diaries section, I can only assume it's a good thing that you no longer have TU.

--
Give me yer cash!
[ Parent ]

Too bad I got it back (2.66 / 3) (#197)
by kwsNI on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:16:59 AM EST

Ironically, posting that comment put me back over the edge. I don't think I had enough recent comments on the rest of the site to be factored into the TU equation.

Now then, if you feel any of my 0 ratings were unjust, please feel free to leave a comment in my most recent diary explaining which ones and I'll either explain my rating or change it. But since you're usually a dick to me and my friends, I don't feel any of them were undeserved.

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]

hmmmm (3.57 / 7) (#45)
by /dev/trash on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:31:59 PM EST

Is that where my TU status went?

I may have done alot of diary rating, I don't know. I usually when I had Tu would click on teh review and see what was rated a 0 to see if it was fair or not.

Most front page stories get a lot of ratings from me as well.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site

my comments are (3.88 / 9) (#48)
by Bunny Vomit on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:32:23 PM EST

in my latest diary entry.

--
(\_/)
(O.o)
((")(")
How about this: (3.66 / 9) (#58)
by fluffy grue on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:41:32 PM EST

Have two separate mojos: one for diaries, one for the main site.
--
"...but who knows, perhaps [stories about] technology and hardware will come to be [unpopular]." -- rusty the p
I thought of this. (4.33 / 6) (#62)
by mrgoat on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:45:50 PM EST

It seems far too elegant to work though. On the surface, it looks like the perfect solution, but... there's got to be something wrong with it. Nothing's ever that simple. Maybe it's really hard to code or something?

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

My problem with it (4.83 / 6) (#74)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:00:43 AM EST

As I've said elsewhere, I think the problem is that the rating system, as designed, is not really appropriate for the more private world of the diaries. I think having two mojos wouldn't really work, because your "diary mojo" would still be basically worthless as any kind of trust measure.

I'm open to ideas about whether and how diaries could be filtered collaboratively. I don't think the systems designed for the public site are working, though.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

In that case. (4.33 / 3) (#83)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:39 AM EST

My suggestion would be to give everyone some form of trusted status, but only in the diaries. The rest of the site should stay the way you intended it to work. Like, for instance, treat everyone as trusted in the diaries, all the time, but also include the option to have 0 rated comments not show up. As a preference option, really. That way if you don't want to see 0'd comments, you wouldn't, but you could check the hidden comments if you wanted to. I think that would leave the diaries open to only as much abuse as they are now, without affecting the rest of the site.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Or, better yet (3.80 / 5) (#93)
by Lonesome Cowboy Burt on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:29:25 AM EST

Have it rate users by section - all their comments in that section count toward their mojo for that section. That way, people who stick to one part of the site can't overly influence something in another part of the site... But, the diary section doesn't become somehow "less than" the rest of the site.

--
This account has been censored by Rusty.
[ Parent ]
Do you mean.. (4.50 / 4) (#95)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:35:15 AM EST

like this? Or would you rather see it extended to all sections? i.e. "Culture trusted", "Freedom and Politics trusted"?

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Sections (3.00 / 2) (#216)
by Lonesome Cowboy Burt on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:14:22 PM EST

Or simmilar.

--
This account has been censored by Rusty.
[ Parent ]
newsgroups (5.00 / 1) (#255)
by eudas on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 01:48:18 AM EST

sounds like moderated newsgroups on usenet.

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Except (3.00 / 2) (#271)
by Lonesome Cowboy Burt on Thu Apr 11, 2002 at 09:01:07 AM EST

That the collective picks the moderators.

--
This account has been censored by Rusty.
[ Parent ]
That breaks why Mojo was invented (5.00 / 2) (#110)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:55:17 AM EST

Hidden comments aren't visible by their authors. This prevents a culture of spammers and crapflooders to grow on kuro5hin as they cannot see their own handiwork. Kind of hard to get that craven peer reinforcement then, eh.

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

Which is (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:06:17 AM EST

...a big part of the motivation for the change. Having "free mojo" in the diaries basically broke that whole theory.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
And still should they be. (none / 0) (#183)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:28:18 AM EST

And hidden comments still should be hidden from their authors. That is what happens now when a trusted user has a comment hidden.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Irony (4.00 / 12) (#59)
by ucblockhead on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:42:17 PM EST

As I said before, I find this ironic as the only times I have ever lost trusted user status, it was in diaries.

I think you are opening up the door to crapflooding in the diaries. Not trolling. Crapflooding.

If you are serious about making this a technical fix, and you really are worried about diary 5-circle-jerking, my suggestion is to change it so only diary ratings of 3 or less count. That way, at least people can't post crap and retrain their trusted user status.

I think that is a bad idea, too, but I think it is a less bad idea.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

Bad idea (5.00 / 2) (#151)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:14:58 AM EST

If only ratings of 3 or less "counted" in the diarys, then controbutions to the diary section could ONLY have a NEGATIVE effect on karma.

A better idea would be to have seperate "karma" for diarys, and for stories. Actually, this could be extented to having seperate "karma" per section. After all, somone who knows their technology, doesn't nesseserly know politics. It makes sense. I think.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Helloooo (5.00 / 2) (#193)
by axxeman on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:50:35 AM EST

Have you had a look there lately?

50% of the diaries IS crapflooding.

Not that I'd have it any other way :)

Not yet. Don't come before we have finished humping...
[ Parent ]

Good, but not good enough (4.07 / 14) (#60)
by quartz on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:45:17 PM EST

IMO, you should have disabled ratings in the diary section altogether. Diaries are for personal ramblings and idle chit-chat, why should that have anything to do with people's ability to hide comments (which is what TU essentially is), or with appreciation of quality, which is what ratings are designed for? Diaries should really be completely disconnected from the rest of the site, insofar as ratings are concerned.

So some people will be crapflooded in their diaries. So what. Give them a way to filter comments based on author and send them on their way. A bit of diary crapflooding is worth getting rid of the trusted troll factory.



--
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke, and fuck 'em even if they can.
Can't hide comments then (5.00 / 3) (#108)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:52:41 AM EST

Maybe you didn't notice the recent slew of hidden comments in the diaries? Hiding comments is still valuable.

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

A suggestion (4.19 / 21) (#65)
by alpinist on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:49:07 PM EST

As others have mentioned, it's a technical solution to a social problem. K5 is having growing pains. I'm not sure if not calculating diary comment ratings for TU status is the answer. Any solution that filters out the people whoring mojo in the diaries then using their status to zero people's comments is going to hurt people who genuinely do not deserve it.

Perhaps another solution is to add a `Review Zero Ratings' page, much like the `Review Hidden Comments' page and essentially Meta-Mod zero ratings as fair or unfair. Reviewing hidden comments has the weakness that nobody will see it unless the rating slips below zero. In this way, if say 6 or more out of 10 people feel a zero is unfair, it counts against the person who rated it. Perhaps then a `three strikes' type of deal where that person will lose TU for a period of time or even permanently. This relieves the admin of slapping down users individually, and allows K5 to police itself.

As far as the $2 a month for diaries, that's a good idea, as long as the diary kabal gets something special for that, and not just end up paying for something they've had for free all this time. Because we know how well that idea goes over with people...


Yeah (4.70 / 10) (#71)
by rusty on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:57:47 PM EST

As far as the $2 a month for diaries, that's a good idea, as long as the diary kabal gets something special for that, and not just end up paying for something they've had for free all this time. Because we know how well that idea goes over with people...

Well, the idea would probably be to just go all out and say "this really is *your* area. Say what you want, and do what you want.

People would presumably have full control over comments in their own diary, with the ability to not allow them, allow them, delete them, whatever.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Oh... (4.28 / 7) (#75)
by MisterQueue on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:01:11 AM EST

I'd pay 2.00 a month for that. I find that sort of power frightening and arousing.

-Q
-------
"That's fucking great! I want a baby jesus buttplug!" -mrgoat[ Parent ]

diaries.kuro5hin.org (4.00 / 5) (#76)
by alpinist on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:02:08 AM EST

At that point, wouldn't it almost make sense to split the diaries off into a separate entity like diaries.kuro5hin.org, or god forbid - di4ries.org? ;)

[ Parent ]
Yup (4.25 / 4) (#86)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:11:07 AM EST

See upcoming subsection changes. There's gonna be some rearranging going on in the next few months sometime. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
That would be strange. (4.85 / 7) (#78)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:04:12 AM EST

And completely change the character of the section. Imagine 2 people having a fight in public, neither allowing the other to speak out in thier diary. You open up the site to a weird form of censorship that way.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Kind of (4.40 / 5) (#85)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:09:55 AM EST

Yeah, it would be a form of censorship, but it would also be a kind of community-of-blogs type-thing. It wold be different, but it could also be interesting. I'm not so deply committed to what we have now, in any case.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I'm against that cencorship. (4.00 / 4) (#87)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:12:41 AM EST

I'm not quite sure why yet though. It seems to me that it would be a bad thing. I dunno, the idea gives me a bad, foreboding feeling.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Note: (3.75 / 4) (#88)
by mrgoat on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:14:49 AM EST

I'm against bad spelling too. Preview is my freind.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

Censorship and diary entries (4.33 / 3) (#145)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:41:29 AM EST

Censorship -- that term is batted around so freely. If I own a newspaper and choose not to print certain letters to the editor (either because they lack content or the author is a complete ass-hole), that is not censorship. I can do what I want with what I own. Besides, if they feel wronged, they can write to another paper.

If I own my diary section (by paying $2/month for it), and I decide that someone is an asshole and don't wish to listen to him/her, that is not censorship -- they can speak out against me in other diaries (or in thier own) with complete amnesty.

--
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

[ Parent ]

I agree with this kind of "censorship" (4.50 / 4) (#125)
by whojgalt on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:44:27 AM EST

I'd even go as far as to say that diary owners (assuming the pay-for-diaries idea) should be able to ban users from commenting, in addition to the rights above.

It does two important things: it provides value for the $2.00 a month, and it is self-correcting. Someone who is truly an asshole will get banned from a widening circle of diaries, but still have some diaries and stories to provide his chance to speak and possibly even redeem himself (a sunset on bans maybe?). OTOH, abusive banners will find their own diaries more and more ignored and irrelevant, and in extreme cases could be banned just out of spite by other diary authors.

Another advantage might be a slight reduction in the "I'm so f**king DRUUUUNNNNKKKK!!!" diaries. People who have to pay for the priveledge are less likely to squander it. Maybe to further this idea, the number of diaries allowed per month could be limited (first 5 free, for instance), with the option to purchase more "bandwidth", along with the extra priveledges that paying brings. It could even turn into the soution to your fiscal woes.

To carry on the theme of several other posters, this is a technical enabling of a social mechanism to fix a social problem. Ostracism is the most effective means of non-coercive and non-centralized social control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you can't see it from the car, it's not really scenery.
Any code more than six months old was written by an idiot.
[ Parent ]

I like it (4.00 / 6) (#103)
by mikael_j on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:36:42 AM EST

I'd pay $2/month for that...

/Mikael
We give a bad name to the internet in general. - Rusty
[ Parent ]
Sun Tzu would be proud... (4.26 / 15) (#66)
by ti dave on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 11:49:30 PM EST

of you Rusty.

By striking against both ends of the moderation spectrum, you have confounded your opponents.


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

I am willing (3.60 / 10) (#80)
by rickward on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:33 AM EST

to wait a week or two and see how the experiment works.

People who get pissed over silly things deserve to be bothered at all costs. --MisterQueu

A Question (4.11 / 9) (#81)
by rajivvarma on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:06:48 AM EST

Do the ratings still count in the advertisement comments sections?
Rajiv Varma
Mirror of DeCSS.

Yes [NT] (4.00 / 8) (#82)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:00 AM EST



____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Some ideas (3.54 / 11) (#91)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:21:26 AM EST

Excluding comments in one section seems sort of a hack...

Perhaps have a "provisional trusted status" setup

Among things...
1. Make mojo calculations statistically weighted by the number of people who rate the comments, perhaps even the number of people who "see" the comment. If only one person ever saw it and rated it a 5, it's worthless.

2. Have a "Sort by date rated" on the review thing instead of by date comment posted. In reviewing hidden comments i've noticed that newly-0'd comments appear farther down when they've been posted a long time ago and some random user simply went through a bunch of one person's comments and 0-ed them into oblivion (despite them being relevant to the discussion and clearly non-malicious, non-duplicate,..).

3. When a user gains what is now trusted user status, make that instead "provisional trusted user status" -- [IOW, unless otherwise specified all trusted users are provisionally trusted only] - let them review hidden comments and rate them as high as "3"

4. Let all users put "0" on comments, but unless they have "trusted status", it counts as a 1 in the averaging of that comment's rating. (While it is listed as a 1)

5. Seed the system with an initial set of "trusted users" (probably the site owners)

6. An additional link to Review hidden comments, "Review trusted users"; trusted users are able to certify provisionally-trusted (and trusted) users indicating an "I trust this user's 0-ratings".

7. Loss of trusted status results from revokation of certs or enough "I don't trust this user's 0-ratings" ratings from trusted users or loss of provisionally trusted status by dropping below a 2 average weighted as-described.



-Mysidia the insane @k5
Dear Rusty, (3.60 / 10) (#94)
by Bunny Vomit on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:31:44 AM EST

i for some reason feel compelled to make one more response (including the fact that i'm procrastinating from my job/work stuff i have to do, and i've only read a few responses in this news post, plus 7 beers doesn't help :), feel free to ignore, since i made my thoughts public in my diary. simply put: removing the importance of diary ratings from the site is slightly (emphasis, just "slightly") insulting to the diary dwellers on this site (like me). you are concerned with trolls in the articles: well, i am concerned with the trolls in the diaries. they are uncommon, but they do exist. please don't make diary dwellers on this site second class netizens. we need proper-yet-full rating capabilites too. i understand your situation. but please consider the diaryzens. Thanks. your friend, bunny vomit.

--
(\_/)
(O.o)
((")(")
They can get zeroed (4.00 / 6) (#99)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:57:23 AM EST

Crap in diaries can still be zeroed, and, I assume, will be. It just won't count toward mojo.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
So... (4.20 / 5) (#159)
by David Quartz on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:03:48 AM EST

People like Adolph will never become untrusted?


Call your mother, she's worried!
[ Parent ]
People like adolph (4.33 / 6) (#162)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:10:08 AM EST

People like Adolph will come to my attention quickly, and become un-usered, like he has twice so far.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I thought... (4.00 / 4) (#182)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:09:30 AM EST

That any solution that required your, or another admin's intervention, was a no-no.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0) (#241)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:59:21 PM EST

But on the other hand, it is the most effective way of dealing with someone who's being truly hateful. This guy is the only time it's come up so far...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
*twice* (5.00 / 1) (#248)
by aphrael on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:16:59 PM EST

ye gods. that's obnoxious.

[ Parent ]
Mojo calculation and me (3.87 / 8) (#97)
by fink on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:51:43 AM EST

Okay, I've known that mojo is in use since, oh, about 5 minutes after creating my account. I have to ask, though, is there any way I can tell what my current mojo level is? If not, any chance of a modification? :-)

I realise though that making this kind of info available would probably create ye olde Karma/Mojo Whore, which could be a Bad Thing.


----

Exactly (4.50 / 8) (#101)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:00 AM EST

No, mojo will never be visible. For one thing, it would just make it into ye olde game. For another, the calculation is kind of complicated, so it's not even immediately obvious why you have a particular number.

Suffice it to say, that's not going to happen.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

How to see your mojo: the complicated way (4.37 / 8) (#104)
by Jonathan Walther on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:47:26 AM EST

Dammit Rusty, wheres the <pre> tag?



/* Assumes you are feeding in, most recent
* comment first, your comment ratings in the
* format "<rating> <number of raters>\n" on
* the standard input. Unrated comments and
* diary comments shouldn't be entered. Click
* on "My Comments" to get this information
* quickly.
*/

#include <stdio.h>

#define MOJO_MAX_DAYS 60.0
#define MOJO_MAX_COMMENTS 30.0

int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
float weight = MOJO_MAX_COMMENTS,
numerator = 0,
denominator = 0,
rating, raters;

while (weight && !feof(stdin)) {
fscanf(stdin, "%f %f", &rating, &raters);
numerator += rating * weight * raters;
denominator += weight * raters;
weight--;
}
printf("Your mojo is %.2f\n", numerator / denominator);
}

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
Hmmmm... (4.50 / 6) (#181)
by cyberdruid on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:55:03 AM EST

I think I'll put up a webpage with a script that automatically scans your UID for ratings for the past 60 days and calculates the resulting mojo.
That would make for some much-needed mojo whoring on this site. ;)
Perhaps I'll even include a top-10 or something, just to get the hysteria started.

[ Parent ]
Strange algorithm (4.00 / 3) (#186)
by cyberdruid on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:52:52 AM EST

I think that the algorithm, as published here, has one strange feature. If I understand correctly, a user who has only posted one comment, which has been moderated high, will have that rating as his mojo and thus immediately become a trusted user. Should there not be some sort of lower limit to how many comments the mojo must have been calculated over in order to be official?

Or have I misunderstood something?

[ Parent ]

Number of comments posted (4.00 / 2) (#208)
by spiralx on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:15:21 PM EST

IIRC you can't become a trusted user until you've posted a certain number of comments, so you can't just create a new account and get it trusted straight away.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Mojo for Both (4.57 / 14) (#105)
by Anoymous 22666 on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:49:57 AM EST

I've seen people who want mojo to count for everything, others want it enabled in only their diary. (I haven't seen this suggestion yet, so forgive me if it's a repeat.)

What about having two different mojos: one for the diaries, one for the rest of the site? That way, people who hang out (almost) exclusively in the diaries can still have their fun there, and it still resolves the original problems. It can't be that much programming work. And it encourages you to participate on both sites of the site - you can't mod yourself up in the diaries and cause havoc in the stories. You have to participate in both.

I have to agree with the previous idea of allowing trusted user status in your own diary, always. If you abuse in your own diary, it's quite simple: people will stop posting and reading your diary. If you are a dick there, you'll probably be treated like a dick in other people's diaries. It's a self-policing system.

I just farted... And I blame the fiction section. - Psycho Les


Crapflooders (4.45 / 11) (#119)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:24:28 AM EST

The goal is to never allow crapflooders to see their own comments after they have been hidden. This includes from another account.

If I create a diary under one account, and then crapflood it from another, having trusted user status in my own diary gives me that ability.

This isn't just for spam, but for, say, hate-inciting posts where you want to see who modstormed you to zero so you can incite hate in their direction too.

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

WTF? (4.22 / 9) (#120)
by Anoymous 22666 on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:31:22 AM EST

You lost me. I don't see your point.

If I create a diary under one account, and then crapflood it from another, having trusted user status in my own diary gives me that ability.

If you create an account and a diary in it, and then create another account, why would you crapflood your own (original) diary?

The goal is to never allow crapflooders to see their own comments after they have been hidden. This includes from another account.

Well, the only way to do that is to change the way the entire site works. The site has to assume that different accounts are different individuals, there is no other way. You'd have to disable it for all other accounts, and that would require changing the way the site works at the most basic level.

I don't follow your point. What are you getting at?

I just farted... And I blame the fiction section. - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Trusted user status is supposed to be hard to get (4.30 / 10) (#123)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:38:07 AM EST

Trusted user status is supposed to be hard to get. If so, then even if you had multiple accounts, if one account's comments was hidden, it's unlikely that (being the intelligent person you are) the other account can see it. Even if that's true, it's unlikely that someone could sustain a dichotomy intelligence and stupidity for a long period of time. (*)

Now, since trusted user status is really easy to get, Mojo does nothing. Giving it away for free isn't likely to make it any better.

(*) This is all in theory. Not my theory, but in theory. The task now is to fix the experiment (kuro5hin) to see if it works.

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

I've sustained that dichotomy for a long time (none / 0) (#252)
by etherdeath on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 12:52:28 AM EST

oh no wait.. I only have one account and both are centered around the stupidity theme.

[ Parent ]
Eliminated Count in diaries, but (4.37 / 8) (#124)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:42:59 AM EST

What about ratings in stories in the moderation queue? [Checking your patch, seems not]

When a story gets voted down; it becomes invisible, yet the comments still exist, and their ratings (and the ratings of replies) still count. I see this possibly getting similarly abused, and my supposition is that comments to stories that are either (1) invisible, or (2) older than a few months should be treated in the same way.



-Mysidia the insane @k5
Mojo and time-weighting (4.80 / 5) (#143)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:28:54 AM EST

comments to stories that are either (1) invisible, or (2) older than a few months
Emphasis mine

AFAIK, Scoop's calculation of Mojo is a time-weighted average of comment scores -- in other words, as a comment ages, its score matters less when calculating Mojo (and thus trusted user status).

So, comments to dumped stories do, in fact, lose their value in time. Someone more versed in Scoop might be better able to tell you at what point they become useless.

--
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but (4.28 / 7) (#158)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:01:47 AM EST

That's true, so it's not a huge deal, but the point stands that the patch should be patched to remove those too, really.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
the patch should be patched (3.80 / 5) (#171)
by wiredog on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:57:12 AM EST

Nothing like testing on the live server, huh? I've done quite a bit of "patching the patch" and it is almost always a Road To Disaster.

I hope you have lots of comments in these patches, and patched patches, to make it easier to figure out what you've done when you look at it three months from now.

I learned that one the hard way, myself.

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

Well (4.00 / 1) (#234)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:36:34 PM EST

In this case, the patch is literally a two-line, 5 minute affair. All I had to do was change part of the WHERE clause in the rating select. To ignore hidden stories as well, it's another WHERE condition, that's all.

All that is by way of saying of course I don't have comments! ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Someday (4.00 / 1) (#244)
by wiredog on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:50 PM EST

the lack of comments is gonna bite ya in the ass.

Just like the lack of good backups has in the past.

Ya know, you don't have to learn everything the hard way. It is possible to learn from the mistakes of others...

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

Well (4.00 / 1) (#231)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:24:40 PM EST

as a comment ages, its score matters less when calculating Mojo (and thus trusted user status).

It is not "good enough" that the comment decays and no longer goes into consideration when the comment is old: if it was, then there'd be no point in taking diary comments out of the equation... those decay to no value over time too.

But comments rendered invisible by not being posted or being to a story that is no longer found even in the section pages can allow for the same kind of thing. In other words, for the patch to be complete, all comments not accessible from a visible article should not come to bear in the calculations, because they aren't subject to the same number of eyes that ratings to comments in stories are.

their value in time. Someone more versed in Scoop might be better able to tell you at what point they become useless.

I've read enough of the perl to see the basic formula behind it. I'm referring to the need for decay of value as the comment is less visible; however, not a need for a decay of value as the time since it was posted increases.



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Here's my 'guess' (5.00 / 1) (#238)
by Mysidia on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:54:38 PM EST

On how this could be done:

Index: Mojo.pm
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/scoop/scoop/lib/Scoop/Comments/Mojo.pm,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 Mojo.pm
--- Mojo.pm   7 Apr 2002 22:10:00 -0000   1.8
+++ Mojo.pm   8 Apr 2002 19:50:39 -0000
@@ -32,10 +32,27 @@
      LIMIT => qq|$max_comments|,
      DEBUG => 0
   };
+
+   if ($S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_ignore_diaries}
+    || $S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_ignore_hidden}
+ || $S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_story_max_days}) {
+      $fetch->{FROM} .= ', stories';
+      $fetch->{WHERE} .= qq| AND comments.sid = stories.sid|;
+   }
+
+   if ($S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_ignore_hidden}) {
+      # Maybe should be != -1 (Why aren't named constants used
+      # for displaystatus values? Shouldn't the name of the
+      # 'Diaries' section be a variable?
+      $fetch->{WHERE} .= qq| AND stories.displaystatus > 0|;
+   }   
   
   if ($S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_ignore_diaries}) {
-      $fetch->{FROM} .= ', stories';
-      $fetch->{WHERE} .= qq| AND comments.sid = stories.sid AND stories.section != 'Diary'|;
+      $fetch->{WHERE} .= qq| AND stories.section != 'Diary'|;
+   }   
+
+   if ($S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_story_max_days}) {
+      $fetch->{WHERE} .= qq| AND ((TO_DAYS(NOW())) - TO_DAYS(stories.date)) <= $S->{UI}->{VARS}->{mojo_story_max_days})|;
   }   
   
   my ($rv, $sth) = $S->db_select( $fetch );

[ Parent ]
Some problems (4.11 / 9) (#131)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:57:01 AM EST

Since zero-rated comments no longer affect Mojo, and since Mojo controls your account status (enabled or disabled), it's now possible to continuously harass users in the diaries. Witness recent events to see what I mean by harassment.

Now, it may still work. Perhaps it's sufficient to just hide comments, but seeing as trusted users (included the harassed) keep replying to them, I doubt it. But, hey, Stop replying to trolls!

Also, the hidden sids are more of a "peer review" problem, technically, provided anyone knows they exist. And now they do. You should disable Mojo for them as well.

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

It's not that big of a deal. (4.66 / 3) (#173)
by valeko on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:05:47 AM EST

Because if someone was completely torn between wanting to harass someone in the diaries and keeping their mojo, they would just make a second account.


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

good! (4.61 / 21) (#134)
by boxed on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:52:29 AM EST

This is a good thing imo, but it's a minor, and largely insignificant change. Why you say? Because the major problem is that people don't understand what the 0 to 5 rating system means. The fix to this problem is terrifyingly simple: put a descriptive word next to the number like you already do for story ratings. I suggest adding the following descriptive words (or similar) to the drop down box:
0 remove
1 bad
2 poor
3 average
4 good
5 great

The psychological effects of such a change would be substantial. It would be obviously clear when rating what the ratings mean, which means you cannot avoid learning what the ratings mean, as many people today do.

Also (4.37 / 8) (#142)
by djotto on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:17:09 AM EST

Would just like to add that there are really only three ratings.

0 - Spam
1-3 - Less than trusted user status
4-5 - More than trusted user status

Three or below can be seen as a punishment (dragging that user's average down) while 4 or 5 are a reward (drag it up).

Maybe some kind of rating on a curve system would help - the 10% of users with the highest average ratings are trusted. I dunno. Just an idea.

[ Parent ]
3 is not negative, it's neutral. [nt] (3.42 / 7) (#146)
by boxed on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:55:10 AM EST



[ Parent ]
No (4.66 / 6) (#172)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:01:11 AM EST

Trusted staus comes with an above-3 mojo, and thefore rating someomes comment "3" brings them closer to non-trusted status.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Not quite. (4.00 / 6) (#169)
by Inoshiro on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:40:13 AM EST

2 is supposed to be "average." See the relevant page.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
my point exactly! (4.28 / 7) (#170)
by boxed on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:55:50 AM EST

Cultural bias will play a big role in the interpretation of the numbers too obviously. I have grown up with a school grading system of 1 to 5 where 3 is average/ok, 4 is above and 2 is below. Just add the text so there is another bias that pushes in the right direction!

[ Parent ]
Not quite (4.00 / 2) (#226)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:04:24 PM EST

Most users can rate from 1 to 5. If these were the only ratings, the average would be 3. Trusted users can rate from 0 and 5. If this were the only case, the average would be 2.5. All together, the average is very close to 3, and thus after rounding a rating of 3 is average.

Moreover, even Lord Rusty considers it so. The new story voting guidelines explain that 2 is considered below average.

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

I do find it puzzling (4.00 / 7) (#136)
by dipipanone on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:39:11 AM EST

I've only been reading K5 regularly for a month or so, and it's only been over the last week that I've started looking at the diaries. Some of them I rather enjoyed, but one or two did seem extremely puzzling in that they seemed to provide a location for moderation circle jerks.

The thing that I found puzzling was why anyone would actually bother to do this. Having just complete strangers mod you high might give you a warm, fuzzy glow, but having your friends do it does seem somewhat bizzare. After all, it isn't as though having TU status gives you any useful sooper-powers that I can detect.

I'm also still trying to figure out why some posts have N/T after them. Initially, I thought it must refer to Not Trusted and so was some sort of visible stigmata of status loss, but I'm pretty sure that can't be the case now.

Any hints?

--
Suck my .sig
no text (nt) (2.57 / 7) (#140)
by CluelessNewbie on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:58:36 AM EST


-------------------------------------------------
"Do you know what nemesis means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt. Me."
BrickTop
[ Parent ]
modding diary comments (4.75 / 4) (#147)
by squigly on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 05:56:30 AM EST

I sometimes mod comments in my own diary just to let people know that I have actually read them. Except I'm usually too lazy to do that.

[ Parent ]
Yup (5.00 / 4) (#157)
by spiralx on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:59:59 AM EST

That's the reason I do it... I don't always have anything to say in reply to comments, but it's nice to let people know you've actually read them.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Here's the kind of thing... (4.00 / 3) (#164)
by dipipanone on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:13:34 AM EST

That I was talking about.

As abuses go, it's hardly the sort of thing anyone's going to lose sleep over, but it's hard to see why anyone would think it was worth the effort.

Not that they've really made any.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Not sure about this (4.08 / 12) (#148)
by TheophileEscargot on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:00:52 AM EST

Diary Mojo
Yeah, yeah, comments that have been hidden unfairly get modded back up to visibility in the end. Problem is this usually happens after the debate has moved on and nobody's looking any more.

So, I quite liked the situation where any regular who wasn't a completely worthless, humourless crapflooder was a trusted user; thanks to the diaries.

Even without the diaries, it's not exactly hard to get trusted user status; either through multiple accounts or good ol' mojo-whoring. I suspect the result of this will be fewer trusted users, but a far greater proportion of them will be abusers. Time will tell, of course: we'll see what happens.

In the meantime, if anyone replies to this comment I will carefully consider the validity of your argument and quality of your prose, then give you a 5 anyway.

Diary Charging
I love the idea of charging for people who post more than one diary a day. (Yes, I've done it myself: hypocrite, hypocrite, blah blah blah). As another chargeable feature, how about images/icons? Some other journals already allow that. Sure you'll get a few goatse.cx pics, but I think we're all used to that by now. Polls are another possibility for charging, but I'd be reluctant to lose them.

I don't think the idea of charging for even basic diary access would work too well. Unfortunately, someone made the fatal mistake of releasing the Scoop source code, you see. I've occasionally posted diaries on three other Scoop sites, most on Radio Free Tomorrow, the SF and Fantasy discussion site. Rather than go through the hassle of sorting out online monthly payments in a foreign currency, it'd be much simpler just to post on another site.

Another thing is that charging would make much harder for new users to start posting diaries, especially considering the hostility they encounter. I only posted my first diary on an idle whim, and I think most people were the same. If I'd have had to go through an order process and fork out real money, there's no way I'd have bothered. You could have a month's free trial of course. In that case, say hello to TheophileEscargot001, TheophileEscargot002, TheophileEscargot003... Since there's a constant turnover of users, I suspect the diary section would immediately start to fade.

Finally, don't forget that reducing the number of K5 users, while nice from a community point of view, could well reduce the revenue from textads, sponsorship; even merchandising and banner ads if they ever get used. I find it hard to believe that the reduction in bandwidth would reduce costs significantly.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death

not quite right. (4.00 / 2) (#192)
by garlic on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:46:31 AM EST

no. unfairly hidden comments get fixed almost immediately. I've unfairly hidden comments just to see how long it takes for them to get modded back up. It's pretty fast, like within a few minutes obviously unfair.

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

Arrogance! (3.00 / 3) (#224)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:56:00 PM EST

So, I quite liked the situation where any regular who wasn't a completely worthless, humourless crapflooder was a trusted user; thanks to the diaries.

Even without the diaries, it's not exactly hard to get trusted user status; either through multiple accounts or good ol' mojo-whoring.

I've consistently held trusted user status while participating on kuro5hin, and I don't post in my diary, and I don't Mojo whore. Don't be so full of yourself.

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

What on Earth are you talking about? (4.50 / 2) (#227)
by TheophileEscargot on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:06:43 PM EST

How do either of those comments equate to my being "full of myself"?

It's very, very, very easy for anyone who wants to be to become a trusted user.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

Perhaps... (4.00 / 2) (#233)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:33:01 PM EST

I overreacted. I miscontrued your comments as suggesting all non-diary trusted users were cheaters and whores. Apologies.

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

I'm confused... (3.42 / 7) (#149)
by pqbon on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:02:49 AM EST

How is this any different then using two accounts and old stories...

It would be trivial to open up a bunch of old stories post crap to OLD comments then give your self a 5 with a different account. You could get bonus points for making them replies to accounts that aren't active anymore.

Either way the end result is that you now have a trusted user that can run amok all over the rest of the site. However, the old story situation is more insidious. A smart guy to pive him self so many 5s on both accounts that he could afford to do some major damage.

"...That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."

-Buffy Summers

I don't think "running amok" was the pro (4.25 / 4) (#179)
by DesiredUsername on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:47:07 AM EST

There's no way to stop your scenario short of limiting everyone to one IP (and even then a team can get trust for themselves).

Think of it this way: What if playing Mario Karts counted as driving experience? Pretty soon you'd have a bunch of 7 year-olds driving cars on the RL road. Disqualifying the video game as "experience" will rid us of that problem, though it may also incidentally take away all the experience a adult had. But is that a bad thing? It also doesn't stop a determined 7 year-old from stealing his parents car, but that's a problem that is much more limited in scope.

Of course, I say all this after discovering that I'm still trusted. If I had been labelled a video-game-playing child I might feel differently....

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]

Running Amok... (I'm not qualified to run muks...) (none / 0) (#240)
by pqbon on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 04:23:46 PM EST

"I've had some emails pointing out a few people who were giving out a lot of zeros and not contributing much to the articles"

Key word being few. The diary community is actually pretty LARGE.

This change removes the balance in the diarys. The diary's are NO longer self policing. I predict much more Crap flooding, more spamming, and much more work for Rusty will be the result. Because now there is no implicite penalty for diary misbehavior, the ratings don't count.

It appears that not only do the ratings not help but they don't hurt either.

"...That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."

-Buffy Summers
[ Parent ]

Rusty to Diary Section: (3.63 / 11) (#163)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:10:37 AM EST

"Hey, all yous getto scum can't be trusted, right."

Geez, thanks Rusty. We love you too.

*sob*

Isn't the diary section where most of the old-timers hang out. I might be mistaken, but I'm guessing if you average all the UIDs for the comments in each section, the diary section will be *much* lower.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

See comments (4.40 / 5) (#165)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:17:21 AM EST

See my many comments in the ensuing thread for more explanation. It has nothing to do with your inherent trustworthiness, and everything to do with the fact that the rating system as it stands was not designed for the environment of diaries as they are.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I know (4.40 / 5) (#167)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:25:47 AM EST

I've read the comments. I was just letting you know how this made me (us?) feel.

Don't worry, I'll forgive you. With time. :)
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

I won't (nt). (3.00 / 2) (#211)
by pschap on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:45:05 PM EST



--
"In 1991, we had almost nothing. We'd only begun building cocks. After just 10 years, we have a very robust, active cock."

[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 11) (#178)
by cetan on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:35:33 AM EST

Isn't the diary section where most of the old-timers hang out.

No, it's not. I consider myself somewhat of an old-timer, but this sort of statement illustrates exactly why I rarely read or contribute to the Diaries section. This "good-ole boys club" mentality spills out into the Submission Queue all the time and even into ratings/replies for these submissions. It's really sad.

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

ole boys club (3.57 / 7) (#180)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:48:55 AM EST

Where everyone is welcome...

K5 is a community site. I'm sorry if those of use that actually form a community here upset you.

I don't think (most) people are trying to obtain advantage via the diary section. The simple fact is, when you get to know someone you understand what they are trying to say more easly, and are more accomodating of their faults.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

right (3.00 / 7) (#189)
by cetan on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:28:47 AM EST

Where everyone is welcome...
I'm sorry if those of use that actually form a community here upset you.

Thank you for illustrating my point exactly. I could not have done it better myself.

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

What? (2.40 / 5) (#198)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:26:51 AM EST

What point, exactly? That your antisocial?
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
my point (3.00 / 8) (#206)
by cetan on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:53:46 AM EST

my point, for you're obviously too clueless to see it, is that your very attitude is what's wrong with the good-ole-boys club. That for some reason because I don't participate in the diaries and that I feel that the activity in the diaries should NOT drive K5, you brand me an antisocial ignorant who get's 2's from you for comments.

The diaries should not be the focus of the K5 "community." I'm sorry that /you/ can't deal with that.


===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
[ Parent ]
No - I defended community (3.33 / 6) (#209)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:31 PM EST

My attitude? I wasn't beeing sarcastic. I am actually sorry that the social portion of the site upsets you.

I didn't call you antisocial for not participating in the diaries, I called you antisocial for criticizing those that do, for not understanding that people who engage in a minimal amount of social interaction are better equipped to interact on an intellectual level, and for apparently being bitter that you see people from the diary section actually understand each other.

You complained of an "old boys club". I simply said that it was open to all (implying, you see, that there is no "old boys club"). There is no conspiracy within the diary section to take over k5. Remember: There Is No K5 Cabal.

Common, you got a 2 for not communicating clearly, and for your superior "I'm right, your wrong" attitude, not because you don't post diaries, and you know it.

Now, tell me again, what exactly is the problem with me wondering out loud if the diary section is a popular "hang out" for long term users of K5. I don't see it as an elitist thing to say, and I'm happy to be proved wrong. What I don't like, is your unprovoked attack on my "attitude" or whatever it was you didn't like.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

wrong yet again (3.66 / 3) (#249)
by cetan on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:09:20 PM EST

I am actually sorry that the social portion of the site upsets you.

The social portion doesn't. It's your attitude, those that share your attitude, and the Bad Things (tm) that come out of the cabal that is the "good ole boys" diary club.

You speak of me having a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude while you clearly display the exact same attitude. I communicated perfectly clearly, but apparently because I didn't speak to the lowest common denominator, you felt it wasn't. Fine, that's your loss.

apparently being bitter that you see people from the diary section actually understand each other

Yet another example of assumptions you make that are completely wrong, adding more credence my point. You've done nothing here but describe what /you/ think the "community" is. I described what I think the community shouldn't be and am labeled a "bitter" and "antisocial."

This sort of behavior routinely spills over into the submission queue where individuals, new or not to the site, are subjected to a barrage of put-downs, low comment ratings, and generally ANTI-social activity by individuals most vocal in the dairies.

By its very definition, a community is a closed set. It's got a set of rules, it's got laws, (spoken or unspoken) and those that don't conform are outside. I always saw K5 is an OPEN organization, but never a community.

I find it truly ironic that you think my original comment was an "attack" rather than a different viewpoint. It shows what sort of "community" you wish K5 to really be.


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

Put up or shut up (2.50 / 2) (#259)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 04:57:24 AM EST

You still havn't answered my question, or cited examples of this aledged abusive attitude.

PS: I'm sorry I called you antisocial, in retrospect, that was out of line.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

I put up with you long ago (3.00 / 1) (#261)
by cetan on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 07:45:50 AM EST

I've answered all of your questions you posed thus far. I'm sorry if you're not happy with them. As for examples, how can I point to examples in stories that were dumped from the submission queue?

This whole thread started because of your made up quote. You pictured Rusty giving a big FU to all the "old timers" that "hang out" in the diary section. You're wrong on every front, and I've explained why I feel this way.

===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
[ Parent ]
Facts (4.00 / 1) (#262)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 08:15:07 AM EST

Lets get this straight. Please, give me a second to explain how I see this, look at it from my point of view. I'm not trying to win a fight here, but to get to the core of an issue.

I invented a quote. It was intended to communicate a feeling. (#163)

I postulated a thoery, which I was happy to admit might be wrong, that the diary section might contain on average a lower UID of user - that is, more long term K5ers. (also #163)

You refuted my thoery with no evidence and claimed that the very fact that I suggested it was proof that all contrubutors to the diary section where some sort of "old-boys-club", and "Sad". (#178)

I tried to explain why I thought that this 1) wasn't really the case, 2) wasn't really a problem, and 3) why I thught you might see it that way. (#180)

You responded with, what to me seemed like a "I told you so" or "See!" reply (#189). Again citing my comments as proof that you are right, but not explaining why.

I got frustrated, and acted like an ass (#198)

You put words in my mouth (#206), and repeated the sentement expressed in comment #189.

And so on.

Aww, fuckit, I can't be bothered with this anymore. You think the diary section is out to get you, and is oppressing your stories. I think your a paranoid nut. Lets leave it at that, and try not to let it affect the rest of the site, okay?
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

ah the irony (1.66 / 3) (#265)
by cetan on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 10:04:02 AM EST

You think the diary section is out to get you, and is oppressing your stories. I think your a paranoid nut.

It's so refreshing to see how ironic you can be. If you'd like to put more words in my mouth, more thoughts of mine in your posts, and more assumptions on K5, feel free.

Nowhere in #206 did I put words in your mouth. You called me antisocial and your sarcasm indicated your feelings towards me, which I compressed into one word. I didn't quote you; I restated your sarcasm into a more concise form.

I'm tired of having to repeat myself in this thread, so I'm going to take the heat, be the asshole, and invoke Goodwin's Law.

Nazi. Hitler. Blah Blah Blah.

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

I have been actively attempting this (4.00 / 7) (#168)
by imrdkl on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:32:56 AM EST

for some time. I've been avoiding the "Easy Fives" diaries, for the most part for a few weeks, to see if I could earn a TU status purely in the articles. So far, I've been moderately successful, but when my opinion goes against the grain, I find myself slipping in and out of TU status, sometimes multiple times in the same day. What does that mean? Does my opinion, and the fact that others disagree with it, imply that I should not have a say in what should, or should not, be hidden? I dunno.

Really, I feel that the right to give a 0 is much more important than any of the other numbers. Perhaps it should not be based on a realtime calculation at all. Perhaps it should be earned once, and kept without prejudice, something like a judgeship is assigned for life. Just my $0.02.

Cool idea (3.83 / 6) (#175)
by wiredog on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:11:43 AM EST

I've noticed that there are several people who only give me 5's (or 1's) in the diaries. It's annoying.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
Ditto (2.00 / 4) (#176)
by johnny on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:23:48 AM EST



yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
[ Parent ]
Mojo, and Flamebar (3.00 / 2) (#201)
by wedman on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:38:22 AM EST

Perhaps their could be a 'flammage bar' or a "X number of people disagree with this post" rating. Hmmm - That probably wouldn't work either.

Anyway, I made the awful mistake of thinking that a rating of 1 was better than nothing. However, someone quickly came to my rescue to help me see the err of my ways.



~
DELETE FROM comments WHERE uid=9524;
[ Parent ]
Thank you. (4.00 / 5) (#184)
by iGrrrl on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:29:24 AM EST

Clearly I've been a diary user, and will probably continue to post there. I like the little community/communities that have risen out of that section. However, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that my TU status might have rested in the kindness of those who rate up all comments to their diaries. I felt uncomfortable about not reciprocating in my own diaries. You have removed a social discomfort, and I appreciate it.

--
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:40:07 PM EST

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Now, in your case, I think you probably should be trusted, because I think you're trustworthy. But even you realize that as far as Scoop is concerned, it has no particularly good way of knowing that.

I hope everyone understands that this doesn't mean diary denizens are untrustworthy. Merely that the rating/trust system is not well designed for the culture of the diaries.

Wouldn't it be worse if I just pulled a Malda and insisted everything was fine in the face of all available evidence? :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

pulled a Malda (5.00 / 1) (#245)
by wiredog on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:15:53 PM EST

That sounds painful. How long are you stuck in bed if you pull your Malda?

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
sig (none / 0) (#254)
by eudas on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 01:42:38 AM EST

sounds like sig material to me!

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#267)
by rcs on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 02:12:23 PM EST

Right here you hit on the real problem.

You think iGrrrl should be trusted. So do I. But does that really mean that every user should have to agree with that?

Growing pains. The site's growing, obviously. Somewhere along the line it hit a point where instead of a large block of community and a smattering of unaffiliated readers, you have different communities. Most apparent right now in the story/diary border, but by no means the only one. (I submit for the clearest evidence the various personality groups within the diary section.)

But hidden within everything else is something relatively important. The sad simple fact is that you can't assign a scalar value to the value of a comment. A value only makes sense when it's said to whom it's valuable.

Summary: The community's too big, too diverse, to not think about something different. Something complicated, and more than likely overkill.

Webs of ratings. Or ratings from a subset of people. Or something like this.

Simplest proposal: Little buttons to check to follow ratings of other people and use those as your rating values.

Less simple: Run through some best-fit for rating matches, ala Amazon recommendations, to find people who rate similarly to you, and automatically have those be the people whose ratings you follow.

Less simple: Full on webs of ratings where you don't see anything you don't want to, whitelists of people, don't see anything you don't have some path of trust towards.



--
I've always felt that there was something sensual about a beautiful mathematical idea.
~Gregory Chaitin
[ Parent ]
[Bit OT] Suggestion for Rusty (3.00 / 5) (#185)
by Tau on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 09:35:02 AM EST

I'm wondering, would it be possible to have a modification that sticks an [ x.xx / n ] score box in your user profile, like you see in a comment, only it's an average over all the ratings you've recieved, and when you select it it lists said ratings? would be nice to see if you're (mis)behaving at a glance. Anyone reckon it's worth doing?

---
WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES WE WILL MAKE SAUSAGES OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ENTRAILS - TRASG0
Too close to your mojo (3.00 / 4) (#187)
by Sanityman on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:08:38 AM EST

Mojo-whoring is bad, m'kay

Sanityman



--
If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.
"You can't spray cheese whiz™ on the body of Christ!"


[ Parent ]
Possibly (3.00 / 2) (#221)
by Tau on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:31:09 PM EST

But, this information's available anyway, all you need to do is check through all your comments and sum the ratings.

---
WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES WE WILL MAKE SAUSAGES OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ENTRAILS - TRASG0
[ Parent ]
Sure, but no one else will. (4.00 / 2) (#223)
by Sunir on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:46:49 PM EST

You could do that, but you can't show it off to your friends, because no one else is going to bother. Without the competition, whoring is much less severe.

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

The raw info's there (none / 0) (#225)
by Sanityman on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:58:12 PM EST

but I don't know anyone who does the slightly non-trivial calculations required to calculate it. If OTOH scoop were to do it for you, then people would fall into the same trap as on /. - this is your personal score, you must maximise it, hoard it and abuse it. We already know people will behave like this, even if the number doesn't mean much.

IMO rusty is absolutely correct - it's not a technical issue to display mojo, but it's a bad number to have floating in front of you.

Sanityman



--
If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.
"You can't spray cheese whiz™ on the body of Christ!"


[ Parent ]
I suggest you let me link... (1.66 / 12) (#188)
by Stick on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:18:00 AM EST

To goatse.cx in an ad if you want my money.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
Well... (4.33 / 3) (#200)
by haflinger on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:33:03 AM EST

I'm a trusted user, have been for a wee while. I'm still a trusted user; this patch hasn't affected me, as I expected.

However, I have noticed that diary ratings tend to be extreme. I posted a simple link to a tool that a guy needed (although he didn't realize it before I made the post; he was ranting about the MacOS) and got a [ 5.00 / 1]. No way that would have happened in a story post.

But then, perhaps that's a good thing. Diaries tend to be much more specialized than stories; consequently, comments tend to be either good/useful or bad/useless. But yeah, they're a lot less closely watched.

OTOH, the story queue is tough to get moderated up in. The people there are harsh: many are quite heavily cynical sloggers. I've noticed that topical comments posted before the story gets posted tend to rise gradually after story-posting...

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey

and really, who cares? (4.40 / 5) (#202)
by mattw on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 11:41:57 AM EST

Honestly, TU isn't really a "privelege", it is, as the TU faq says, mostly just a responsbility. I'm generally never happy giving out a 0, because it is rarely clear you should, and when it is, the comment is usually already under 1.

I'm more concerned about the S:N ratio. How do we slow down or prevent the very-low-content posts? One-liners the poster thinks are witty instead of a real response, for example, comprise way to many posts.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
Yes: A problem exists. But is this the solution? (4.40 / 5) (#207)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 12:04:21 PM EST

Okay, I posted my emotional responce, now I've been thinking about this over the day, and my rational, considered responce is that the situation is as follows:

  • Comment rating has multiple functions:
    1. It is used to filter and sort comments, based on subjective quality.
    2. It is used to select "trusted users" in order to provide rating ability privileges.
  • The function works as well as can be expected1.
  • The problem is, quality of comment postings is orthogonal to quality of ratings. Providing rating privileges based on subjective quality of comments posted is arbitrary, to the point of being random.
So: The problem isn't that the ratings in the diary section are wrong, or "inflated". They are not. The ratings given to postings inside the diary section are perfectly appropriate, for that context, they, like the ratings in the rest of the site, just don't apply to selection of users for moderation privileges.

The solution: I'm not sure. But it might be interesting to use a different metric for selecting users for moderation privileges. Perhaps based on moderation history. Of course, for that to work you'd have to trust everyone initially (perhaps requiring a minimum contribution / time period), and take it away when it gets abused.

We have to remember that the power to 0 is different to handing out 1s, as it can (temporarily) hide a comment.

[1] Under the circumstances, as a technical solution to a social problem, blah, blah, blah.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

It's a people problem (5.00 / 3) (#219)
by wolf trap on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 02:25:22 PM EST

A few years ago I was involved with a nation-wide tennis league that was arranged in skill levels, so that players competed only with others of similar ability. As players improved from year to year, they were expected to voluntarily move themselves up to the next level. To help ensure that this actually happened, players who advanced to championship play were evaluated by team of specially trained raters, who assigned a numerical rating based on observed competitive skills. These visual ratings served as a starting point from which the ratings of every other league participant were computed.

I will not try to describe the various forms of chicanery to which a relatively few players resorted in an attempt to manipulate these ratings in their favor; I will only say that the examples I came across did nothing to bolster my faith in human nature. Regrettably, in spite of our best efforts no technical solution was ever devised that completely eliminated what we called the "A-hole Factor." Based on my experience, I believe that if people are determined to cheat or abuse a system for their own ends, they will exhaust the resources of human intelligence and imagination to do it, and no amount of "good guy" ingenuity, fees, fines, or other penalties can prevent it entirely.

--

Il faudrait les inventer, those hooks, on purpose for me alone, for, if you only knew, Alyosha, what a blackguard I am.
[ Parent ]

the saviour of humankind (none / 0) (#253)
by eudas on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 01:34:15 AM EST

it is that same quality, which, when applied towards good, is the saving grace of humankind. we can do anything, if only we put our minds (and effort!) into it.

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Yes (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by rusty on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:19 PM EST

So: The problem isn't that the ratings in the diary section are wrong, or "inflated". They are not. The ratings given to postings inside the diary section are perfectly appropriate, for that context, they, like the ratings in the rest of the site, just don't apply to selection of users for moderation privileges.

Exactly. The system, as it works now, was designed for an environment where a large number of people read most of the comments, and where comments are considered "public speech" in the sense that rating on the 0-5 scale is a measure of quality in contributing to the overall discussion.

In diaries, comments and ratings are, in large part, "private speech," so ratings don't have the same meaning. The system isn't designed to work in that environment, and, as the popularity of diaries has grown, it has indeed proven not to work very well.

I don't really know what the solution is either. It seemed like it would be better to disable a broken system while I was thinking about it though, instead of pretending there was nothing wrong.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Great Idea (3.50 / 4) (#213)
by artsygeek on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:20:38 PM EST

I know there are PLENTY of people here on K5 who have ratings of 5 on just about every post they make. And then they try to incite riots against anyone who DOESN'T think they're worth a 5. And then there's "5 Circlejerk" as one poster described it. Which a lot of the diary comment fields are. People know each other, so they all rate each other 5. And some folks think that when people don't rate them above a 3 (or don't rate them a 5) that it's "modstorming". And some of these folks have trusted user status. Now, I'm not going to name names, but, it's a problem that occurs when herding behaviors and "buddy systems" mix with peer review. The best way to combat it is to make sure that ratings that count towards mojo are in the public view. As for stories that get dropped, I disagree with sentiments that their comments should be nullified. I think perhaps changing their weight would be appropriate, though. As for ad ratings, well, as long as there's a decent pool of ad ratings. The important thing is that the ratings are viewed by as many people as possible. Simple as that.

Further comments (3.66 / 3) (#214)
by theantix on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:37:40 PM EST

After more consideration, I have posted a long-ish response in my diary here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
A bug? (4.00 / 2) (#215)
by miller on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 01:59:29 PM EST

Apologies if this is wrong, but it seems to me that while diary ratings are effecively null values they still take up a spot in the 'most recent' ratings used for the calculation.

For example, if I had posted thirty (story) comments and got rated only on the last comment (say a single 5 rating), that will be worth 5 in the most recent comment 'slot'. As I post ten diary comments following, regardless of the rating they receive, my most recent (and therefore potentially most valuable) comment is now worth 5 in 11th place.

Maybe it's my imagination, but I seemed to stay trusted after the change. Despite getting a 5'ed comment in this story, I lost status when I subsequently read the diaries. Not that I deserve trusted status (not that I care), but if it currently can fluctuate in this way depending on whether the user last posted story or diary comments, it's not a great way to identify the responsible users.

--
It's too bad I don't take drugs, I think it would be even better. -- Lagged2Death

To be honest (5.00 / 3) (#228)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:11:21 PM EST

I think zero'ing should be reserved to rather few people. I've had a hard time resisting the urge to zero out "Some Idiot" (tm) myself, and I don't think it adds that much value. I've had it done to me, although there was at least one case where (in retrospect) I probably deserved it. Another possibility is to cause "zero'd" entries to be put in some kind of review queue that allows somebody to decide if the rating was valid.


--
I'm not a sexist pig!
I'm a plain-old-everyday pig!


The problem (4.33 / 6) (#235)
by Wing Envy on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:37:22 PM EST

I can understand, and assume agreement, with a "5" rating- no further discussion should take place, IMO. On the other hand, I think that too many people avoid discussion altogether simply by rating comments down that they don't agree with.

I realize this is nothing new, it has been referred to especially in submission votes, but I think the discussions would evolve more if ratings had to be justified with a comment. If you can provide no more argument for a "4-0" rating than "I don't agree (n/t)", most people, in turn, would vote down such a response and reply with "Providing no basis for your argument and a refusal to elaborate, you bring nothing new to the discussion, therefore: 1"

Perhaps it's just me, but if someone disagrees with me I want to know why. And besides, the 0 comment ratings with no justification find their way into the story comments as well. This isn't unique to the diaries.


You don't get to steal all the deficiency. I want some to.
-mrgoat

Interesting idea... (5.00 / 1) (#266)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Tue Apr 09, 2002 at 10:49:39 AM EST

I love this site - even the *ads* have comments. What a great thing it would be to have comments on ratings on comments on...

Sort of a super-pumped "+1 Insightful"

[ Parent ]
Only ratings given while a story is new (4.40 / 5) (#237)
by QuickFox on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 03:43:17 PM EST

Here's a suggestion: Let ratings affect mojo only if the rating was given while the story was still in the submission queue, or within a limited time period after the story was posted, a time period when lots of people are still reading and can correct bad ratings.

This should solve a problem that several commenters have pointed out: The "trust source" may now move from the diaries to old and rejected stories, which may be worse that the diaries since nobody sees what happens there. Note that old ratings would still affect mojo, but only if the story was new at the moment when the rating was given.

As I understand it, your main goal is that mojo should only be affected by ratings that are reviewed by many people, so that strange ratings are corrected. Then, ideally, you would collect statistics on how many different users have seen the page with the comment after it was rated, and consider the rating reviewed if the number was large enough. This way perhaps some popular diaries could be included too, so those who only dwell in diaries could get their chance.

Unfortunately I would guess that this statistical arrangement would be difficult to implement and costly in execution time. In contrast, using only ratings that are given while stories are new seems easy (though I must admit that I haven't checked the code).

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



Thanks, Rusty. (3.00 / 2) (#242)
by regeya on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 06:19:07 PM EST

Hopefully, it will work out because, yes, it's becoming a problem.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

What about # of view's based weighting (3.66 / 3) (#243)
by ldambros on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 07:24:48 PM EST

This may be a terrible idea, but what about determining the weight of a comment rating based not only on age, as in the original system, but also on number of time's it's been veiwed. The basic idea there being that comment which have been viewed by a lot of people are likely to deserve the rating they have, while those that have only been viewed by a few may be scewed in-apropriately. This will have the effect as well of ensuring that those posted to stories carry the most weight, since they'll be viewed many more times, without totally discounting those posted to diaries.

Is not the greatness of this deed to great for us? Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it? -- FWN
Not terrible, not at all (4.00 / 1) (#246)
by QuickFox on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 08:23:20 PM EST

I don't think it's terrible, I think it's similar to my thoughts presented here, but adding a nice weight based on statistics. If it isn't too costly in computation time it may be a good idea.

But you can't just count the number of times the page has been viewed, you have to count the number of different users viewing it. Otherwise someone can change the weight simply by updating his browser page very often, possibly through a script.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



[ Parent ]
How is stories ratings.... (4.25 / 4) (#250)
by Woundweavr on Mon Apr 08, 2002 at 10:23:35 PM EST

...monitored more than those in the queue. For one, rejected stories allow the same abuse as diaries. In fact, they allow more because diaries are out in the open while dumped stories are only accessable indirectly.

Zeroed comment abuse may be more rampant now with less eyes to see the Hidden Comments.

If trusted user status is only supposed to 'reward' those who post quality discussion, then they should not be timescaled. If it is instead a combination about amount of participation and quality of posts in combination, as I understood it, then the diaries should not be removed from consideration.

fuck you (1.00 / 1) (#272)
by slimfandango on Fri Apr 12, 2002 at 05:10:20 AM EST

I like it. Diaries are personal accounts. Do I write my diary so you can give me a 5? No. I write it for me. Fuck you and your 0.

Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#276)
by dead_radish on Mon Apr 15, 2002 at 06:40:12 PM EST

But since you put it up on K5, instead of, say, typing it for yourself, you expose yourself to that. If it's truly just for you, save it locally on your hard drive, and leave it at that. By using something like a weblog, or K5's diary, you are implying that this diary is, at least in some way, for the rest of the world as well.

Not that people should go around smacking 0's on diaries, really - it's a diary. That's like saying that someone's dream wasn't the one you would have had. That's kinda the point.

But honestly - putting something as personal as a diary up for the world to see really does open it up to the world.
I knew I shoulda brought a crossbow. -- Largo. www.megatokyo.com
[ Parent ]

visibility factor in mojo calculation (4.00 / 1) (#275)
by david is my name on Sat Apr 13, 2002 at 01:14:33 AM EST

I think it would be neat if the amount a rating counted towards your mojo had to do with visibility. And not just percieved visibility, but actual measured visibility, as in how many times a page with your comment on it has been viewed as well as how recently it has been viewed. It would be calibrated so that an average fp story would have enough views to make no difference from the current system in regards to the increase/decrease in mojo, but diaries, which normally have only a few views/comments, would give zero or almost zero increase in mojo. If it were also designed so that only recent page views counted towards visibility this would stop people from using old stories to artificially increase mojo. I like this solution because it more directly addresses the problem with the diaries while preventing people from using low visibility areas to boost mojo.

Although I do assume the problem with the diaries is limited visibility and not an attitude prevalent within the diary comunity incompatable with the mojo system, I think this is valid, because more visibility in the diaries would stop the mojo abuse.

Diary Rating No Longer Counted | 273 comments (273 topical, 0 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!