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]
Comment Rating Changes

By rusty in Site News
Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:27:38 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

It's been pretty clear for a while that the comment ratings system isn't entirely working the way we'd intended it to. I know some of you have the impression that I'm the type to say "It's perfect! There is nothing wrong! You are a scurrilous troll for suggesting there might be!" but that's actually not true. I just don't usually change things unless I think I've got something better to change it to, and for a long time, I didn't have much in the way of good ideas for what to do.

I think I've finally come up with some changes that might do more good than harm, though. They're at least worth a try. If you're reading this, then the new system should be currently running, so read on for a description of what's different and why.


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

Mojo, I still maintain, was a great idea. If this site could be reasonably sure that one person only had one account, it would work smashingly. The problem is, we have no reasonable expectation that someone is necessarily only going to inhabit one account, and the main benefit of mojo evaporates as soon as that's the case.

The idea behind the whole thing was to make crapflooding no fun by allowing users to collectively make garbage comments disappear. A comment rated sufficiently low would be hidden from all but trusted users, even from the user who posted it. To counterbalance this effect, and make sure it was only used in cases where a large number of people agreed that the comment should go, the rating scale was balanced so that it took five '0' ratings to counteract a single '5' rating.

What actually happened, of course, is that crapflooding was done with a throwaway account, while the crapflooder maintained one or more accounts that behaved and were trusted, so they could watch their handiwork and make sure it stayed above the hidden threshold. So the main social pressure against that kind of thing was pretty much useless.

On the other hand, there was still the carrot of "Trusted User" status out there to be gotten, and kept or lost as the ratings churned. So it became obvious that an easy way to annoy someone who cared about whether they were trusted or not was to downrate a passel of their recent comments, and try to make them lose their trusted status. In fact, this became a popular way to let off steam with someone in general, and I ended up implementing a ratings-wipe feature and getting emails to help@k5 with a depressing frequency pointing out that someone had done it to someone else, yet again. This gets old pretty fast. Obviously, if nothing else showed it, the fact that I had to wade in and manually erase stuff showed that this wasn't working.

So what could be different?

...I wondered to myself. Well, for one thing, it seemed pretty clear that the main accomplishment of trusted user status was that a majority of well-meaning but quiet users were not permitted to help hide the crap, while the battle was being waged among a small number of very prolific posters, with wildly differing views of what an appropriate comment looked like. If trustedness isn't doing its job, I thought, why keep it? So the first thing I thought should change was that everyone should be able to decide whether a comment ought to be hidden.

This decision has the necessary side-effect, though, that you also have to give everyone the option of whether to see hidden comments or not. If everyone is trusted, then the only people that hidden comments are actually hidden from are anonymous visitors. I figured that with the right tools, this was an acceptable trade off, considering that the people the hidden comments were supposed to be hidden from could mostly see them anyway. But to offset the apparent pointlessness of hiding comments from nobody, I thought it would be good to add an option for how people want to handle hidden comments. So you can choose to either see them all the time (in effect, have it behave like trusted status used to), hide them all the time (behave like a regular user used to, except that you can also hide comments), or only show them until you've rated, and then hide them if the score warrants.

The system was always designed to work best with more input. A comment's score will converge as more people rate it, due to the averaging of individual ratings. After a few ratings, the comment's score starts to converge pretty fast, but the system is weak at the outset, and the first rating has a very disproportionate effect unless it is followed quickly by others. Many comments only got one or two ratings, so a whole lot of the ratings were pretty unreliable.

I came up with two approaches to this problem. The first is to simplify the rating scale to encourage more people to rate. People tended to use 1 and 5 way more than 2 through 4, so I've collapsed the scale down to 1-3. Also, to attempt to make it more intuitive what the numbers mean, I've replaced the numbers with labels. So the scale now goes "Discourage," "Neutral," and "Encourage," with the hide rating being "Hide." Those correspond numerically to 1-3 (and -1, see below about the Hide rating) and the comment's displayed score will fall between -1 and 3. Anything below 1 is still considered hidden. The idea is that it's pretty easy to decide whether you want to encourage a comment, discourage it, or you don't feel either way. I'm hoping that with fewer choices, more people will take the half-second to click the little form. Hopefully the text labels will also help simplify the rating choice, without unduly trying to force a value scale on them. You could be encouraging more people to post similar comments, you could be encouraging the comment's author, or you could be encouraging people to read the comment. You can interpret the label a lot of different ways, and they're all right.

The other approach to get more accurate ratings is to not consider a comment's score meaningful until it has a minimum number of ratings contributing to it. A score composed of a single rating doesn't mean much. But a score composed of six ratings will likely be within a half point either way of that comment's eventual final score. So a comment's score won't be "official" until it has at least six ratings contributing to it. In the meantime, the ratings will be kept and tracked, and may be viewed, but they won't be compiled into a score or affect the comment's placement or visibility in any way.

Another longstanding problem was the disparity in power between 5 and 0. In the old days, I weighted it far on the side of not hiding things, because I was afraid it would become a cheap tool for squelching those you disagree with, instead of a cleanup mechanism, like it was intended. Well, my lack of faith in humanity was mostly unwarranted, and most people have reserved their zeros for the real bottom of the barrel stuff. So I wanted to bring the ends of the scale closer to parity, so that we don't need thirty "Hide" ratings to counteract a couple of sock puppet fives. So instead of 0, the "Hide" rating will now be numerically equivalent to -1. This is also adjustable, which it hasn't been or I'd have changed it long ago. So if future adjustments seem necessary, that can easily be done.

There have been some people who have wanted to scrap the whole thing and ignore ratings altogether, even going so far as to use rewriting proxies to accomplish this. Since most of the bondage and discipline elements of enforced participation are now irrelevant, I didn't see any reason not to allow people to just ignore ratings completely. So in your "Rate?" options, you'll now see a third option -- "Hide". This will turn off your rating boxes, and will also completely hide the ratings. If you sort with "Ignore Ratings" and set your hidden comment prefs to "Show," you will have an unmoderated K5.

And finally, I added a little thing in there that makes it so that multiple ratings on one comment from a single IP can be ignored. That is, if we get three ratings from the same IP, only the most recent will count. I know that restricting by IP is very sub-optimal, as there are many situations where different people will have the same apparent IP. But on the flip side, it would make it just that little bit harder for most people to rate a comment several times with different accounts, if they also had to change IPs every time. Not impossible, but more of a pain. That's the intention here. But if it turns out to be more of an impediment to ordinary use than it is an impediment to abuse, it will be shut off. So mark this last one "experimental" for now. Also, it is off for the moment until I figure out how it will deal with old ratings that have no IP associated. But it may be updated and enabled anytime, so I figured I'd get the description up now.

Can you summarize for me here, Mr. Proust?

Ok, to sum up, that one wafting fragrance of Madeleine inspired me to make changes as follows:

  • Rating scale now goes 1-3, with text labels Discourage, Neutral, and Encourage
  • Hide rating is equal to -1
  • All users have ability to Hide-rate
  • All users may choose, in your comment preferences, whether to always hide hidden comments, always show them, or only show them until you've rated them
  • A comment's score doesn't count until there are at least six ratings contributing to it
  • Only one rating will count from one IP (experimental)
  • Users may choose to turn off ratings display altogether, and when combined with "Always show hidden comments" and "Ignore ratings" (in sort) will effectively have an unmoderated K5. You may also choose to hide hidden comments and sort on ratings without actually showing them. It's up to you.
There will almost certainly be bugs, both from these changes and from the raft of little bugfixes that were just applied, so if you see some, don't be shy about posting below. Considering we're overriding an existing rating system that worked somewhat differently, there will also probably be some general confusion in the system for a little while. It'll clear itself up as new stuff comes in. And as always, any of this is liable to change if it doesn't work, but let it work for a while and see what happens before you decide what you think.

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o comment preferences
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
Comment Rating Changes | 348 comments (348 topical, editorial, 11 hidden)
Sounds good. (2.07 / 55) (#1)
by Imperfect on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:35:19 PM EST

Although any automated system will eventually be broken by those who desperately want to abuse it, but you can generally make it not worth their time. Let's hope this does just that.

Now, to address the problem of heinous trolling...

Not perfect, not quite.
Okay (1.82 / 28) (#2)
by Emissary on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:36:10 PM EST

Sounds cool. But why do the diary and story sidebars on the front page display UID instead of account name now?

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
Who is number one? (1.30 / 23) (#7)
by sonovel on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:38:51 PM EST

I am not a number, I am a free man!

hahahahaha

[ Parent ]

You are Number Six (1.37 / 16) (#40)
by losthalo on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:18:00 PM EST

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are a prison for oneself.

(Losthalo)
Take your chances. Kill the engine.
Drop your bombs and let it burn!

[ Parent ]
Ugh... that silly IP address restriction.... (2.42 / 54) (#3)
by banstyle on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:36:13 PM EST

Again, having that 1 rating per IP is going to wack everyone behind a proxy. That's a lot of people.
Just a thought.
__
"Everything done in weakness fails. Moral: do nothing." -Nietzsche
What about rDNS lookups? (2.14 / 21) (#110)
by gusnz on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:31:29 PM EST

I'm supportive of the one-rating-per-IP idea, but perhaps we could add some rDNS lookups to the mix to spot proxies. Say you receive a rating from a user at 12.34.56.78, and run an nslookup, you might get something like the following:

proxy.dmz.isp.com

or your might get:

user12-34-56-78.isp.com

With some text processing (remember, this is Perl we're talking about ;) it could be possible to code a list of IPs that are likely to be legit proxies; either that or just hardcode the most popular ones. On the plus side, this would allow multiple valid accounts behind proxies to rate; on the minus side you'd give back some lucky trolls behind proxies their modbombing ability, so you might want to limit it to ~2-3 ratings per proxy. Mind you, most of the trolls could probably hack together something involving an open-proxy list and cURL, LWP::UserAgent, etc... if they really cared.

Also if rusty's reading (/me takes off on complete tangent here...) for us poor old Win9x users out there, a whole page of select boxes shreds my 64k resource heap and send me towards BSOD territory. Hence I have ratings disabled, as with several K5 tabs open I don't really have a choice. Can I please request a setting to hide ratings boxes normally, but show them on "mode=alone" pages so you can select a comment's link to rate it?


[ JavaScript / DHTML menu, popup tooltip, scrollbar scripts... ]

[ Parent ]

or... (1.16 / 6) (#229)
by chrisbolt on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:20:05 PM EST

...you could just look at the X-Forwarded-For: HTTP header.

---
<panner> When making backups, take a lesson from rusty: it doesn't matter if you make them, only that you _think_ you made them.
[ Parent ]
Simpler (none / 4) (#265)
by djotto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 04:33:03 AM EST

to discover an open proxy, you try to send something through it.

(Looking at the list of users who have left, I'm starting to think all this is just shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, anyway.)

[ Parent ]

Use Mozilla instead of IE. (none / 1) (#336)
by nstenz on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:02:39 AM EST

That should stop your 'too many form elements' crashes.

[ Parent ]
Single IP is just such a bad idea. (none / 0) (#341)
by haflinger on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 09:17:01 PM EST

Some ISPs (bigger ones) use multiple IPs for their proxies. If you limit it to 2-3 accesses per IP address, the modbombers will just switch down to the next proxy.

If you want to guarantee identity, SSL is the only way. Hmmm. Doesn't seem practical to require people to have certificates in order to rate comments. Sigh.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

I would like a finer grain (2.10 / 64) (#5)
by DesiredUsername on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:38:19 PM EST

Instead of just "Encourage", I would like to be able to distinguish between items that are funny, insightful, informative or just plain underrated. kthx.

Play 囲碁
-1. Too slashdot-centric. Wait. (1.63 / 22) (#28)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:53:07 PM EST

Do we still have -1's? Damn, I'm confused.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
+5! (1.61 / 21) (#61)
by wiredog on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:59:59 PM EST

wait a minute...

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Copy cat! Copy cat! neener! neener! (1.28 / 14) (#84)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:32:29 PM EST

:-P

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
We've certainly pissed /some/ people off (none / 5) (#275)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:47:28 AM EST

Look at all the '-1's.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Was it something we said? (none / 4) (#278)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:16:41 PM EST

Well, it's not like they can take away our TU status anymore...

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
"+0 Apathetic" (1.61 / 13) (#157)
by wiml on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:14:50 AM EST

I don't think that that's actually useful, unless the system is going to do something with the funny/insightful/trollish/etc. attribute.

[ Parent ]
Attn Rusty: (1.82 / 23) (#6)
by 0x29a on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:38:41 PM EST

the sections are now displaying userid numbers instead of names.

At least for me ;-)

Who's Rusty? (2.25 / 24) (#10)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:41:06 PM EST

Obviously, our fearless leader's name is "2".
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
He is modest (1.50 / 14) (#18)
by 0x29a on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:12 PM EST

he didn't go for the "Super Rusty: numba 1 !!"

[ Parent ]
Yup (1.90 / 21) (#20)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:23 PM EST

Bug. Should be fixed now. That may show up elsewhere too.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
what will this mean for drduck? (1.67 / 46) (#8)
by Dirty Sanchez on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:39:49 PM EST

discuss

hopefully, (1.95 / 23) (#21)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:29 PM EST

death.

Via duplicate IP address irrelevance.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Excellent! (1.94 / 55) (#9)
by A Proud American on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:40:41 PM EST

I'm glad that we collaboratively decided on this new change to our media site!

Go us, it's our birthday, etc.

____________________________
The weak are killed and eaten...


actually, (2.03 / 32) (#14)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:43:20 PM EST

I'm glad you had nothing to do with it.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Fair enough (2.08 / 23) (#19)
by A Proud American on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:17 PM EST

You have a point :-)

____________________________
The weak are killed and eaten...


[ Parent ]
You don't understand. (1.65 / 20) (#91)
by RobotSlave on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:49:44 PM EST

Collaborative Media, CMF style, means "the readers can write stories in exchange for no money and maybe a little ego boost if they're published, but a small select group in power still gets to decide how the media works."

Collaborative Media most certainly does not mean "readers get to have a large say in how the media is structured." That's not "collaborative media," that's communism. Or maybe "democratic media." Anyway, it's not what we've got here, and thus it's not what the CMF will be funnelling the bulk of its money into.

[ Parent ]

Sir (1.14 / 14) (#103)
by A Proud American on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:20:53 PM EST

Anyway, it's not what we've got here, and thus it's not what the CMF will be funnelling the bulk of its money into.

Yes, the CMF funnels our money into Rusty's boat via gasoline, Rusty's stomach via food, and Rusty's house via mortgage payments.

I stand corrected.

____________________________
The weak are killed and eaten...


[ Parent ]

Why so cynical? (2.51 / 66) (#12)
by Khalad on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:41:52 PM EST

Wouldn't it be nicer to sort the rating choices the other way, so that "Encourage" is on top and "Hide" on bottom? Hiding comments should be a little bit discouraged.

You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


It was always that way (1.92 / 27) (#38)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:17:22 PM EST

The old list went 0-5 top to bottom. Maybe you just didn't notice without the word labels. It can be reversed, but I have to update the code, and I won't get to it today, probably.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
That's because... (2.55 / 38) (#48)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:22:17 PM EST

...this site is designed by programmers (although, not as bad as slashdot).

The menu should look more like this IMHO:

none
---
Encourage
Netural
Discourage
---
Hide

This would be a very simple change, and would make the UI much clearer, but I doubt it will happen knowing how most programmers rate UI issues.

[ Parent ]

Good call (2.43 / 30) (#80)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:15:16 PM EST

When I do the order reversal, I'll do that too.

And I do care about UI issues, I just suck at designing good UI.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Problem (2.04 / 25) (#104)
by celeriac on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:23:36 PM EST

Usually after I rate people I then try to scroll down to read other comments with the arrow keys or mouse wheel. With most browsers the focus reamins on the textbox, causing the mousewheel to adjust the rating instead. If "hide" were at the bottom I think I'd end up giving out a lot of -1's inadvertantly.

[ Parent ]
Solution! (2.25 / 16) (#174)
by gusnz on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:42:40 AM EST

This behaviour annoys me as well, especially on select boxes that auto-navigate to new documents. Luckily there's a fix that works in IE6+ (it won't harm any other browsers though). Hope this helps:

<select onmousewheel="return false">
 <option>Blah blah blah</option>
</select>


[ JavaScript / DHTML menu, popup tooltip, scrollbar scripts... ]

[ Parent ]

Good one ol' chap [nt] (1.22 / 18) (#107)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:25:00 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Numbers next to descriptions? (2.00 / 19) (#148)
by Arkaein on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:21:41 AM EST

As a nother comment states below, it is quicker visually to parse numbers than words. Maybe in addition to the ordering and separators, the numbers could be put in parenthesis next to the items, like this?

none
---
Encourage (3)
Netural (2)
Discourage (1)
---
Hide (-1)

This would also help users who don't read this article understand the changes and maybe avoid a lot of redundant questions later.

----
The ultimate plays for Madden 2003 and Madden 2004<
[
Parent ]

Yes, but... (2.27 / 18) (#182)
by QuickFox on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:23:07 AM EST

...it's easier to read if the numbers are before the labels:

   none
   ---------------
   5 -- Encourage
   3 -- Neutral
   1 -- Discourage
   ---------------
   -3 -- Hide

As you can see, I'd prefer a different scale, more similar to the old one, more compatible when you rate old comments, and easier to get used to since it has the top at 5, just like the old scale.

K5 should have 5, it says so in the name, K5.

I suppose it's too late for that scale, but I still want to tell the K5 world that I'd prefer that.

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 fi
[ Parent ]

Numbers first! (none / 1) (#333)
by mozmozmoz on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:35:00 AM EST

I like numbers. Numbers are fun.

But seriously, having the numbers first makes a lot of sense. So do radio buttons or anything to reduce the number of clicks. I don't mind so much having to click a button that refreshes the form, but two clicks to say "I don't really have an opinion" is way outside my level of interest. At least with radio buttons I can just click once and move on.

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

Curious (1.93 / 15) (#149)
by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:31:52 AM EST

why do you consider "Good/Neutral/Bad" to be a better HCI choice than "Bad/Neutral/Good"?

[ Parent ]
Because. (2.31 / 19) (#155)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:13:03 AM EST

The list is verical, so people will associate what ever at the top, as being the higher/better choice, and what ever at the bottom as being the lower or negative. Not to mention that that one must move their mouse further (more effort, even if it is minute) to hide it.

If the moderation guide said to focus on moderating down posts--which is says the opposite of--then the current order would be fine.

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (1.88 / 9) (#250)
by djotto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:11:57 AM EST

most lists are written in ascending order. The we have numbers, the natural choice is

1 Discourage
2 Neutral
3 Encourage

(You've convinced me, BTW - descending is the best choice, but for a different reason. It's been shown that people tend to pick options from higher up on a ballot sheet, all other things being equal. I'm guessing the same applies to drop-downs.

It would be interesting to run a descending drop-down for a month, then an ascending one, and see if it affects the total averare rating).

[ Parent ]

Most lists are written in ascending order, if... (1.62 / 8) (#266)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 04:59:11 AM EST

...they don't benifit from being ordered another way. In this case, there is a benifit from sorting them another way.

[ Parent ]
you forgot to mention.... (2.08 / 35) (#13)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:42:01 PM EST

the edit quene stories are now highlighed pink.

I for one consider this a huge change for my self imposed importance and am really disapointed that my opinions we're considered. I mean, PINK? Out of all the other colour in the web safe pallete, why pink?

You truly are a dictator Rusty. Damn you to hell!
 

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

Spam is pink (2.33 / 21) (#25)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:47:15 PM EST

Only stuff you've hit "Spam" (er, soon to be renamed, in fact) on is pink.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
lol... (2.00 / 14) (#41)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:18:04 PM EST

ok, so now everyone what I think of the baseball story... Damn you again!

:-)

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Ha ha because Spam is pink (2.00 / 21) (#68)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:04:33 PM EST

I get it.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Weird... (1.97 / 37) (#15)
by LilDebbie on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:43:41 PM EST

No more numbers...I need numbers to validate my existance! We must rebel: we can still rate comments by responding to comments with titles "X (nt)" where X is a number 0-5.

We'll see how this works out rusty-meister. Is this the chosen forum where we should bitch about it if it doesn't work, or should we default to the diary section?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

5 (1.00 / 13) (#169)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:13:58 AM EST


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
I will -1(hide) any "X (nt)" comments. (1.08 / 12) (#216)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:41:45 PM EST

They are redundant, annoying, and unsightly. Therefore, I shall -1 hide them all.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

ditto :) (1.20 / 5) (#240)
by vyruss on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:43:37 PM EST



  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
You realize of course (1.16 / 6) (#254)
by Michael Moore on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:34:42 AM EST

That you just posted an nt comment.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Yes but... (1.00 / 5) (#281)
by vyruss on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:55:32 PM EST

...it wasn't a rating, my dear Mr. Moore :)

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
+1 FP (1.62 / 29) (#16)
by transient0 on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:43:58 PM EST

well done, mr. foster.

The changes sound very positive. Although I notice that I still can't rate or vote on diaries or site news.
---------
lysergically yours

Excellent (1.96 / 26) (#17)
by metalfan on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:11 PM EST

These are all great ideas. I was going to say "why not block ratings from identical IP addresses" but then I finished reading the article.

I'm not sure what the usefulness of the "Neutral" rating is though. As I understand, neutral won't affect the rating-- If I don't care about the comment and its rating, why would I bother rating it at all? Especially if that rating has no effect?

Am I missing something here?

neutral still has an effect (2.39 / 23) (#23)
by transient0 on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:46:41 PM EST

It will help balance out the ratings on comments that you think are veering too far to one extreme in their general rating. Particularly you can use it to help unhide a comment that has been hidden which you think is of middling value and not worthy of censorship.
---------
lysergically yours
[ Parent ]
As I've indicated before ... (1.96 / 29) (#22)
by pyramid termite on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:44:55 PM EST

... I'm going to hide all ratings and rating boxes, while keeping no comments hidden. As much as I appreciate the positive feedback people have given me with their ratings, I'm a little tired of all the controversy that surrounds ratings and therefore I'm turning them off. It's been abused too much at this site to take seriously.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
aren't you a leader (1.17 / 17) (#75)
by auraslip on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:13:55 PM EST


___-___
[ Parent ]
Almost there. (1.25 / 12) (#85)
by antizeus on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:32:31 PM EST

I'm a little tired of all the controversy that surrounds ratings and therefore I'm turning them off.
Now all we need is something which can somehow detect comments which contain complaints about ratings, and filter them out (if the user so prefers).
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]
-1 too many site updates. (1.58 / 24) (#26)
by terpy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:48:53 PM EST

Thanks, these look like worthwile updates.

Though, might I ask what the motivation for applying these changes on a Monday was?

----
"I'm not sure I'm down with having Hitler on my coffee mug, but whatever, it was free." -MohammedNiyalSayeed

Monday (1.80 / 15) (#30)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:02:08 PM EST

No time like the present? Because it was there? Monday didn't have any special meaning in my mind. Just happens to be the day that today was.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Ah. (1.80 / 15) (#52)
by terpy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:24:31 PM EST

I'd like to point out that by disrupting K5 during the work week.... The domokuns have killed several kittens. I would politely suggest that swank updates like this occur on a Saturday or Sunday when K5 typically sees less traffic. But that's just me ;)

----
"I'm not sure I'm down with having Hitler on my coffee mug, but whatever, it was free." -MohammedNiyalSayeed
[ Parent ]

Yeah (1.86 / 15) (#74)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:13:11 PM EST

I was going to do it yesterday, but it was too nice a day to spend screwing with K5. I cooked all day instead. I made chocolate chip cookies, bread, banana bread, and chicken stock. It was a good day. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Taken a pregnancy test lately? (1.53 / 15) (#83)
by terpy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:29:53 PM EST

Sounds like it was a good day, but my point stands (pointing) nonetheless.

I'll let it slide this time though. But only because you reminded me that making chicken stock sounds like a damn good idea.

Hmm... I wonder about making deer stock...

----
"I'm not sure I'm down with having Hitler on my coffee mug, but whatever, it was free." -MohammedNiyalSayeed
[ Parent ]

Cooking is fun. (1.00 / 8) (#201)
by Night In White Satin69 on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:27:11 AM EST

How about you make roast duck tommorow, if it's nice? I know where you can find one. No one will miss it, as it seems to be causing quite a bit of trouble accutally

[ Parent ]
Hmmm (1.84 / 19) (#49)
by A Proud American on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:23:34 PM EST

Though, might I ask what the motivation for applying these changes on a Monday was?

It's the only night he's not drunk?  

(just kidding rusty, you know I love you...)

____________________________
The weak are killed and eaten...


[ Parent ]

I never could get the hang of Mondays (none / 5) (#226)
by styrotech on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 08:32:35 PM EST

Or was that Thursdays?

[ Parent ]
Thursdays. (none / 4) (#227)
by terpy on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:00:35 PM EST

But who's counting? ;)

----
"I'm not sure I'm down with having Hitler on my coffee mug, but whatever, it was free." -MohammedNiyalSayeed
[ Parent ]

I don't like the labels (2.41 / 43) (#29)
by jjayson on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 05:59:44 PM EST

It definitely takes me more time to stop to differentiate and read the labels than it did for the numbers. When I click on the drop down, I can't just pick out a digit. It might just be the newness, but it might also be that words take more effort to understand than numerals.

Also, I don't understand the difference between 'none' and 'neutral'. If I don't rate the comment, isn't that being neutral? Actually selecting something in order to express what is basically a non-opinion is weird.

I've been trying to sort by score lately on stories, but I would like to have diaries sorted differently as they have fewer posts (what I really want is the sorting mechanism to behave like the display mechanism, after so many comments, I would like to change behavior). As long as the rating changes help the sorting, it is all good.

Also, can you please fix these things next time?


  • When writing a story, the format dropdown box always defaults to whatever you have it set to on comments. Most of the time I submit stories in HTML format, but I write comments in auto-format. Often, I go to edit a story and the format box changes back to auto-format, so when I make my changes, it screws up the formatting. Is there any way to save the format option on a submission so that doesn't happen?
  • When a story is voted out, can you change the page to say that th story was voted out and give a link to the comments page instead of those who know having to hack the URL themselves and new people who don't know the trick not knowing?
  • The user info page that shows the number of comments, diaries, and stories doesn't work when you click on the name in some instances (I think it has to do with the URL and not liking that op=info version, but the .../rusty/info works fine).
  • There were other things for the story submissions, but I can't remember them right now.

_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
Labels (1.42 / 19) (#93)
by Stereo on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:00:53 PM EST

What about +, -, = and X, respectively for encourage, discourage, neutral and hide?

kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
Don't care (1.57 / 14) (#97)
by jjayson on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:09:34 PM EST

Seems fine. I'm still not used to reading the labels, so I have a feeling it might be that the numbers were easier to pick up quickly.

I guess that rusty is against numbers, and the symbols seem like a good compromise. However, if he is going to put both a symbol (or numberal) and a label, the symbol or numeral should go before the longer label and not after it (basically, the opposite way it is done with voting).
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

could have text links also/instead of pulldown -nt (1.30 / 10) (#106)
by panck on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:24:44 PM EST



[ Parent ]
or radio buttons, for slow connections [nt] (1.20 / 5) (#188)
by Stereo on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:10:57 AM EST


kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
Default comment rating (1.90 / 30) (#31)
by R343L on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:09:04 PM EST

Why not make the default in the combo box "Neutral"? Then all a person has to do is hit Rate All and they have at least voiced their (non-)opinion. Otherwise to rate a whole page (where most of the comments you don't care about and would just rate a old-3/Neutral), you have to pull down a lot of comboboxes....

Rachael
"Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del

problem... (2.08 / 24) (#46)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:21:04 PM EST

then after 6 people jit "rate all", everyone's score will count.

Not ideal.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

I was half sarcastic (probably didn't come out) (1.46 / 15) (#70)
by R343L on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:07:27 PM EST

Rusty said in the site news: "I'm hoping that with fewer choices, more people will take the half-second to click the little form."

He thus, obviously, wants to encourage more rating. I was just suggesting making it even easier to rate. :) Of course, if you did that, there should be a comment rating preference "default rating" that one can set. It then makes rating simple for those who hate everyone -- they can set their default to Hide (or Discourage depending on their vitriolic). Those who love everyone can more easily spread their love.

That part is a joke, and I should have put it in the original post. :)

In any case, I basically ignore ratings, except that I usually rate everyone in my rare diaries as a 5, which is complete abuse of the rating system. I just never really care too much about ratings...

Rachael
"Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del
[ Parent ]

Also (2.27 / 22) (#77)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:14:26 PM EST

I don't think default "I didn't read this" ratings are particularly meaningful. I think I'd rather have fewer ratings from people who rated on purpose than masses of ratings that don't mean anything. I did consider a "default" rating a while back, but ultimately was talked out of it by smart people.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
You're right of course. :) (1.25 / 12) (#109)
by R343L on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:27:34 PM EST

I just don't rate much anymore, but I felt the need to chime in with something. :)

I stopped rating when all the comboboxes on some large pages could cause IE 5.5, Mozilla (1.0.x at the time) and Opera (5 at the time) to crash.

Rachael
"Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del
[ Parent ]

Hmm (1.14 / 7) (#142)
by truth versus death on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:10:23 AM EST

Is it intentional to have none's count in the number of ratings a comment has received, or is that a bug?

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
Okay (1.14 / 7) (#144)
by truth versus death on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:18:12 AM EST

Now I understand. I don't like seeing none followed by a division symbol.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
interestingly enough, (1.86 / 30) (#32)
by pb on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:09:32 PM EST

I was thinking about how to go about making a trusted ratings site, where the identity of the user is confirmed upon registration, solely to prevent (or control) duplicate accounts. The penalties against duplicate accounts would be legal ones, which already govern fraud and identity theft in the real world.

First, obviously the person's identity would have to be established in some pre-existing and legally binding way, and if this isn't foolproof, then there should at least be recourse if deception is uncovered later. You could tie this to id numbers or driver's licenses, but I think the simplest solution is just to charge $1 (for overhead) by credit card, check, or what have you, and keep track of the names and addresses of the account holders.

This doesn't solve the problem of having multiple John Q. Smiths in the same zip-code; for that, you'd want legally binding terms in the registration agreement stating that you are who you say you are, and that this is the only account you have on this site. Anyhow, the main point is not to tie registration to an e-mail address or an IP address.

Then, during the account process, public and private keys are created for the user, and used for authentication. The server would issue you a challenge, and you'd have to have your private key (and, of course, know your password) to log in. Your private key is like your debit card, except more secure--you need it and your password to verify your identity.

I think this would virtually solve (or regulate) the duplicate account "problem", and also make the authentication system significantly more secure than is standard today. It would also not require all communications to be encrypted, but naturally the users could encrypt things as needed. And it would add in real penalties for fraud (due to the use of a check or credit card, it could be considered mail or wire fraud, or otherwise breach of contract).
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall

Good, but... (2.07 / 14) (#36)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:15:10 PM EST

The problem with a scheme like this is building and then maininting an active community of users and avoiding stagnation.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
yeah, (1.54 / 11) (#64)
by pb on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:00:49 PM EST

I like to think of that as being another problem, probably more of a marketing problem (getting new users), and an ongoing social problem. Also, I think that if you can maintain an active community of users, then that will also help avoid stagnation.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Let's hope it works. (1.38 / 26) (#33)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:10:49 PM EST

I hope it works.

And to think, I was beinging to doubt in you. :)

Thanks, Rusty.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

This is no big deal really (1.65 / 38) (#34)
by Tex Bigballs on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:12:45 PM EST

on the other site hulver just invented the '4' rating

Rating numbers (2.42 / 28) (#65)
by ZorbaTHut on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:02:42 PM EST

Now I'm tempted to make a scoop spinoff with the ratings valued -1, 0, 1, e, pi, 5, 2pi, and Graham's number (which is so large that it would end up just changing the rating to "graham's number divided by *ratingcount*" with no appreciable margin of error.)

"Man, I thought this was a 2pi comment for sure, but most people only gave me 5's! And this other comment of mine is orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the universe! This rating system sucks!"

Well it amuses me at least. :)

[ Parent ]

ruston sir (1.10 / 46) (#37)
by Stick on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:15:15 PM EST

The people who complained about crapflooders all deserted you last month for HuSi. These changes will only alienate your most loyal users, the trolls a crapflooders. Please reconsider your changes, and perhaps even implement some to make K5 more crapflooder friendly. Thank you.


---
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
This doesn't feel right (1.89 / 28) (#53)
by Stick on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:26:38 PM EST

Can't threes be fives? I keep thinking people don't like me when I look at my ratings. I'm already in the bathtub with a knife before I remember that people can only rate three as the highest.


---
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
[ Parent ]
You'll get used to it (2.00 / 19) (#81)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:16:27 PM EST

And about your previous comment, when you say this will alienate trolls and crapflooders, it is clear you haven't fully considered all the ramifications of these changes.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
some thoughts (2.52 / 51) (#39)
by Shpongle Spore on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:17:59 PM EST

Six ratings before anything shows up? That seems a bit harsh, since usually when I'm reading most of the comments only have one or two ratings. I predict the threshold will have to come down some to be useful.

And for the hidden comments, how's this for a compromise: have an option to show 20% (or however many) of the "hidden" comments, you don't have to look at most of them, but everyone gets a chance to inspect a sample of hidden comments to make sure nothing good is getting thrown out. Of course with a six-rating minimum I wouldn't expect much malicious hiding to take place, but it might become more of an issue if you start making scores take effect after fewer ratings.

ostracism via killfile (1.85 / 27) (#42)
by semaphore on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:18:19 PM EST

o corroded one!

rather than hack the rating system which just fiddles with some of the parameters, but doesn't solve the problem. why not give us a killfile? these retards are not going to go away. then when someone declares alleigance to clan retard, they can be plonked and the rest can carry on minus mc doofus.

what prevents a killfile? technical issues, or social ones?

one interesting thing about this, though. the rating system is/was a little game for k5'ers who were so inclined to play amongst themselves. pointless waste of time, but satisfyingly destructive. now you're taking away their favourite k5 toy. what are they going to do now? what's left to break? are you hoping they get bored and go away?


-
"you want enlightenment? stare into the sun."


Hopefully (1.75 / 12) (#62)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:00:21 PM EST

Hopefully the tweaked system will hide most of the assfaces. I look forward to hidden comments actually being hidden. What was the point if 90% of people could still see them, anyway?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
social issues (1.72 / 11) (#127)
by clover_kicker on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 11:58:26 PM EST

as discussed here a few weeks ago.
--
I am the very model of a K5 personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.

[ Parent ]
thanks, missed that n/t (1.20 / 10) (#128)
by semaphore on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:15:02 AM EST


-
"you want enlightenment? stare into the sun."


[ Parent ]

Rating average display in comment title block (1.40 / 25) (#43)
by metalfan on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:19:16 PM EST

Now some of them have numbers like usual (ie 2.25 / 8) and some have no ratings (ie none / 3).

Say wha?

The minimum count thing (2.23 / 21) (#50)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:23:36 PM EST

Re-read the part in the story about minimum ratings for a comment's score to count. The short version is that when a comment has fewer than (currently) six ratings, it has no score. Hence the (none / 4) and so on. The score doesn't count till it has enough ratings.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
My bad. (1.41 / 17) (#78)
by metalfan on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:14:33 PM EST

Shoulda stuck with readin' class past grade three.

[ Parent ]
ok, I am not angry with you any more, Mr. Foster (1.39 / 33) (#44)
by mami on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:19:46 PM EST

first time I understand what you are saying, I am pleased. :-)

so, 15 people want to discourage me (1.44 / 9) (#173)
by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:25:04 AM EST

to not be angry anymore with rusty? That's a pretty amazing consequence of above's comment rating.

Rusty, I am not angry anymore with you. I meant that. I was angry with you, because you couldn't count til five for your elective board members.

Now I have seen that you reduced the rating from five to three, so, even if you still prove my point to be correct (you can't count til five and needed to reduce the ratings to three, right :-)), I am not angry anymore. You did a good job. People don't understand my jokes. I feel very misunderstood on K5. Please don't discourage me any further, I might just give up and quit ... :-(

[ Parent ]

Don't quit mami (1.00 / 8) (#207)
by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:10:01 AM EST

Even though I don't always (often? usually?) understand what you say, you're one of my favorites. And I think one person posting a comment to encourage you ought to be worth more than any number of discouraging ratings.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
what a sweety comment ... :-) (1.33 / 6) (#230)
by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:37:42 PM EST

You do understand what I am saying here, don't you? Could I be any clearer?

How come people don't understand me here so often?

Well, I will be brave and will go on, one comment at a time, fighting for understanding each time I go.

[ Parent ]

don't worry... (none / 5) (#307)
by rmg on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:38:23 AM EST

i understand you.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

Old stuff (2.16 / 30) (#45)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:20:24 PM EST

What happens if I rate someone who got a 5 under the old system? Since "encourage" == 3, wouldn't that lower his score?
Information wants to be beer.
Yes (2.14 / 21) (#73)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:10:45 PM EST

I thought about trying to covert old ratings, but I didn't think it was worth it. Basically, the new and old systems will kinda mesh stupidly for a while. It won't be too long before older stories cycle out of activity.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
A compatible alternative (2.43 / 16) (#175)
by QuickFox on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:59:43 AM EST

The two systems would've meshed nicely if you had set the values to

   5. Encourage
   3. Neutral
   1. Discourage
  -3. Hide

The above is exactly the same as the 3/2/1/-1 system, only the steps are twice as large. With the top at 5, this would be easier to get used do.

(As you can see here, your new Hide is much stronger than the old one!)

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 fi
[ Parent ]

This is a crock (1.02 / 47) (#47)
by itsbruce on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:22:11 PM EST

And I thought HuSi was dumb with the 6. Sheesh.


--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.

Bug? (1.08 / 25) (#51)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:23:37 PM EST

Is this a bug or is it just me? Many comments are showing things like "None / 4" as the rating. Shouldn't there be a number there?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
Never mind (1.38 / 13) (#57)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:40:58 PM EST

I should read gooder.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
"discourage" unhides comments (1.85 / 27) (#54)
by jjayson on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:32:31 PM EST

So under the old system there was a way to rate a comment to say that it sucked balls, but that you had no opinion on if it should be hidden or not, 1. Rating a comment with a 1 made no difference in if the comment was hidden. Nowever, however, anything besides a rating of "hide" is a vote to show the comment. There is no rating to express a neutrality of hiding the comment and by rating.

It doesn't make sense that rating comment with "discourage" should unhide the comment.

It used to break down roughly like this:

  1. - (hide) comment sucks hard and hide it
  2. - comment sucks hard, but I don't care if it is hiden
  3. - (discourage) comment suck, but I don't want it hidden
  4. - (neutral)
  5. - this rating was mostly useless
  6. - (encourage)
We have lost our 1 and 4 ratings, not our 2 and 4 rating.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
No, comments still get hidden at < 1 (2.20 / 15) (#58)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:56:45 PM EST

1 ratings still don't matter. Anything below 1 gets hidden.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Ahh... (1.36 / 11) (#63)
by jjayson on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:00:23 PM EST

This is too complex for me. I don't understand it.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
1-ratings (2.41 / 17) (#71)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:09:09 PM EST

Numerically it works the same now as it did before. A rating of "1" would always have moved a hidden comment slightly upward. The only real difference now is that the Hide rating is numerically -1 instead of zero, but the hiding threshold is still anything below 1.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Trusted Users (1.83 / 24) (#55)
by stint on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:35:32 PM EST

I like these changes, mainly because it gets rid of the one blemish that's always annoyed me: Trusted Users.

TU Status was an attempt to draw a straight line through a statistical norm, and then add incentive for being on a certain side. Ultimately doomed when dealing with humans.

This new system puts the power where it belongs, in the full distribution of the users.



NoMo MoJo (1.85 / 21) (#56)
by Pluto on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:37:22 PM EST

Rusty, two questions:

1. If you had a device that could detect specific physical computers (rather than IPs), thus eliminating multiple-account modbombing, would that restore your development of the mojo algorithm? (Such device mods do exist -- in Perl, no less.)


2. Can you elucidate the specific comment-sorting options that most fully take advantage of the new rating system? And in what way do these options differ from the default options?

Change is a good thing, generally.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson

Physical computers (1.92 / 13) (#59)
by ZorbaTHut on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:58:04 PM EST

If you had a device that could detect specific physical computers

I have to ask - how do they work? I'm seriously curious.

[ Parent ]

mac address i'd assume.. -nt- (1.35 / 14) (#86)
by Suppafly on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:34:43 PM EST


---
Playstation Sucks.
[ Parent ]
um, no. (1.72 / 11) (#136)
by crazney on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:47:39 AM EST

A website can't get the MAC address of a computer that someone is sitting at.

(Given that most of the time they are behind a firewall/proxy).

[ Parent ]

Still not entirely correct. (1.50 / 6) (#299)
by molo on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:23:46 PM EST

A website can't get the MAC address of a computer that someone is sitting at.

(Given that most of the time they are behind a firewall/proxy).

Sorry, thats not correct.  A website can't get the MAC address of a client given that it is connected over a routed network.

MAC addresses are link-layer.  Ethernet, Token Ring, etc.  Once your packet gets beyond your network and onto a router, your MAC is lost.  When the router passes it onto the next network, the mac address of the router is used.

-molo

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
[ Parent ]

This part is easy.... (1.44 / 18) (#87)
by Pluto on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:43:51 PM EST

There are algorithms within algorithms, including site-behavior algorithms.

I'll elaborate in an upcoming article, but here's a nutshell description:

Computers that lockon to a specific site will give up a huge amount of info, if you know how to ask right. They'll even tell you the unique decay rate of the non-military crystals in their clocks. Throw away IPs, then imagine a fingerprint using all the standard environmentals plus browser registration information, plug ins, monitor resolution, window sizes, download speed ranges, time zones, evil Microsoft spyware, and so much more.

Because so much development has taken place inside of strict security systems (ie. registration and passwords) everyone has become intellectually lazy and overlooked the obvious.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
[ Parent ]

aTTENTION pLUTO iNFIDEL (2.31 / 19) (#111)
by BadDoggie on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:37:43 PM EST

Your idea is easily defeated. You forget that some of the most prolific posters here work with many computers. I alone have 8 racks with more than 45 boxen at the office. While the company uses NAT through a proxy to go outside, I can easily ensure I hit k5 with a different IP for each one.

I have 14 machines at home (yes, I suck) with various OSes, multiple NICs and lots of bandwidth. And routers. And NAT and dynamic/static IP from the provider. Without any tricks, I can hit k5 with a computer on the direct IP, hit it again under a different account from the laptop that comes through a VPN and, using VNC on the laptop, hit one or more of my work boxen to again log in under another account from another IP (internal proxy != VPN access point). This is trivial.

Only some of my boxen are MS and I challenge you to get a significantly large enough amount of such data from me on a connectionless HTTP request that you can identify two or more machines I'm using.

Hint: telnet to shill account elsewhere from Win box.

The point isn't finding ways for NiWSx to come bother us some more, it's to show that your extreme technological measures are easily defeated, and most easily by some of those whom you may be trying to prevent getting in. While I hate crapflooding, I like most of the "troll" comments. Look at Michael Moore and Tex and realise that these "evil trolls" have become some of the most productive -- not to mention insightful -- users here. The Zombies? Laugh. Throw-away accounts? Usually thematic, like Tony Blair and his wife. Of the dozen RMS variants. That's "RMS", not "rmg".

I like Rusty's general attitude, although I don't understand why he has no problem with the quacker. I don't like this new numbering system for the general confusion due to a different scale as well as the difficulty in using words as opposed to clear numbers. In this case, the /. system is better. "Encourage"? No, but it was funny enough that I could be bothered to rate it.

One last thing: I'll be talking with my brothers-in-arms about a special batch of Microsoft nanites just for you. From a different IP address.

woof.

"Non videri sed esse." — Tycho Brahe "Not to be seen but to be."
[ Parent ]

One step furtuer (1.16 / 6) (#195)
by Pluto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:58:22 AM EST

While I welcome the opportunity to discuss this point by point, and reveal more insidious aspects of the targeting -- you've actually made a point that I think is important to address.

You forget that some of the most prolific posters here work with many computers.

I certainly don't, since I have a dozen running myself. However, I think we must come to this reality whenever we discuss what is best for the community "standards."

Rating comments should be a Pay then Play endeavor.

Any account that can rate a comment, should be a PAYING account. Anonymity (at least from the publishers pov) does not serve the best interests of this community.

Representation without taxation is an abomination and should be eliminated.

That would fix quite a few wagons, drop the noise, and raise social consciousness. Communities mature, and their systems for growth and survival need to mature along with them.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
[ Parent ]

The Truly r33t (1.30 / 10) (#66)
by X3nocide on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:03:04 PM EST

Are shell whores anyways. In which case you have multiple IPs from multiple computers. Good luck there.

pwnguin.net
[ Parent ]
oh fantastic. (1.02 / 48) (#60)
by rmg on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 06:59:06 PM EST

i suppose you'll be anonymizing drduck now?

doesn't anybody else realize what awesome power he will possess now?

WON'T YOU PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN ???

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks

Great. (1.81 / 22) (#67)
by i on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:04:16 PM EST

I've shut down my proxy.

Alas, you seem to have display preferences broken. I can't set my font face and size to whatever values I choose. It keeps resetting each time. Pls fx k thx.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

Why 3 instead of 4 ? (2.46 / 49) (#69)
by mickwd on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:05:18 PM EST

I'm slightly curious - why three ratings, instead of four (if you exclude "Hide", since it isn't really a "normal" rating) ?

With a four-level rating system, you've got to indicate some level of positiveness / negativeness, or "encouragement"/"discouragement".

With a three-level rating system, the middle level (as the new text label suggests) means "I am neutral about this comment. So neutral, in fact, that I felt it worth clicking a couple of buttons to say just how neutral". So why bother at all ? The main occasion I can think of for using the "so neutral it hurts" rating (a "3" in the 1 - 5 rating system) is when I feel a comment has been unfairly rated so far, and I want to indicate that I don't think it's quite as good or as bad as its current rating suggests (and resisting the temptation to give it a score which it doesn't deserve, just to swing the balance the other way a little). Which also brings me to the second point.

I think six ratings before a rating is displayed is too much. In fact, I think it might be counter-productive, and reduce the amount of rating carried out. Surely many people aren't going to bother if they feel that no-one will ever see that rating, since the comment in question is unlikely ever to get the six ratings it needs to be displayed. Which can end up in a vicious circle of fewer ratings....

Six ratings (2.09 / 11) (#154)
by Koutetsu on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:02:58 AM EST

I've been thinking about this Six Ratings Until Meaningfulness business, and I think I see the way it might swing.

People are rushing to vote on comments that haven't reached that threshold yet--though that may be just the effect of kids bouncing up and down on their shiny new Hide rating--but I know this almost definitely wouldn't happen in diaries.  Strong issues and opinions aren't expressed in diaries, and there's no reason people would be desperate to see them encouraged or discouraged.  At the very least, the Rating Meaningfulness Threshold should be drastically reduced for diary comments.

...And while I'm plugging my preferences for the Beta-stage changes, I think the ratings dropdown should also include numbers because it's more intuitive and connects with the rating average, and I think the 'biased-neutral' ratings that the parent post suggests are a worthwhile idea.

Thank you for listening and have a good night.

----
"For some reason people are oversensitive about a number living in a database attached to a comment." - Parent ]

Are you high? (1.11 / 9) (#193)
by ti dave on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:55:08 AM EST

Strong issues and opinions aren't expressed in diaries.

You've never read a baldrson diary?

Would you care for a few links?

Would you please Fedex some of what you're smoking to my address?

I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
[ Parent ]

yeah (2.00 / 12) (#183)
by crayz on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:24:06 AM EST

I agree with this. I'm going through the comments on this story, with top comments rated highest, and just going "encourage" for all of them. I don't really even know what this means...they seem like good comments so I'd like to encourage the author to make more of them. Does that mean they all deserve a perfect score, and none were better or worse than others?

I think that this change by rusty had a lot of thought and good intentions behind it, but it needs some changing. We really need 5 levels, or at least 4, and we need the votes to show up as numbers.

Also, I agree with some other comments people have made about implementing a Netflix style system, as long as that wouldn't make this site too Javascriptacular to view in your run-of-the-mill web browser.

Last thing: ratings now seem to have no real "weight" other than as a way of sorting the comments on a story. This seems a waste of good data, and discourages people from really making an effort to make their comments good. Voted down on one comment, just make another. No lasting damage. A few possibilities(note that I see some major flaws in some of these, I'm just trying to brainstorm):

  • if a user's average comment score is higher, make their rating worth more
  • if a user's average rating agrees with other ratings on a comment, make their rating worth more(I know, this is very problematic)
  • have a list of "top users" for the past week, past month, past year, based on their average scores with a minimum number of comments
  • something else
Point being, some way to really encourage good behavior and discourage the trolls.

[ Parent ]
I really want to convince you of two things (2.31 / 16) (#213)
by speek on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:13:43 PM EST

ratings now seem to have no real "weight" other than as a way of sorting the comments

If only it were so. Providing meaningful sorting is the reason for having comment rating. Some sort of punishment reward system caused problems in that people post comments with an eye to getting some reward, whereas if it's only for sorting, there's little reason to let it affect what you say. But, for the reader, sorting is a great thing, especially if done well. All the time we waste thinking about hiding/not-hiding comments would be better spent implementing neat sorting options, like sorting threads by average rating, by highest single comment rating, by highest low single comment rating, etc. As it is now, we have a rating system that's suboptimal for providing a meaningful sort because so much of it is designed to hide comments we want hidden and not hide comments we don't want hidden.

We really need 5 levels, or at least 4...

No, really, you don't. On this story I seem comments with ratings of 2.73, 2.75, 2.50, 2.55, 1.67, etc. There's plenty of gradation in the end result, which is all we should care about - again because comment ratings is primarily about comment sorting. There is no need for each individual user to be able to specify more than yes/no to get such fine-grained ratings. Just rate up those comments you like, rate down the ones you don't like, and trust in the community to provide the needed distinction - it works. And if there's some complexity that's not needed, it's best to get rid of it.

Point being, some way to really encourage good behavior and discourage the trolls.

Putting up carrots like making some users ratings worth more and the like encourages trolls - it gives them a game to play. Take away the game, provide only sorting, and the whole thing becomes too boring for many trolls. We need a rating system that is uncomment-worthy, not one that's exciting and involved.

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

Amen... (2.09 / 11) (#262)
by ramses0 on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:47:01 AM EST

This has been on my mind for a while.  See this comment.

Rating exists only to provide sorting (for me).  There should be only four sorting options: Highest first, Lowest first, Oldest first, Newest first.  DON'T SHOW THE RATINGS!!! Act on them, but don't show them.  2.5 is no different from 2.57, which is what this new rating system is designed to encourage.  Take away the numbers and you take away the game.

Rating box should say: "[top|middle|bottom|hide]", and only if you are sorting by ratings (lowest first makes top==1, bottom=3).  If you aren't making use of the ordering system, no reason for you to be affecting it.  Once again, NEVER SHOW THE RATINGS, so nobody can get pissy about getting a low rating.  It manifests itself, but you can never measure your arbitrary comment number against someone else's arbitrary comment number and get ticked off because you feel yours was better.  Comments without ratings have an implicit rating of "middle" (neither good nor bad).  I guess this would be represented as "+1, 0, -1, -2" rather than the 1, 2, 3 system that's in place now.

And I agree with the comments about making it some sort of clicky-radio-button-thingy, because right now it's a pain in the butt to click twice rather than once.

Rating accuracy (as described in my previous comment) is a nice to have, but totally unnecessary.  I like the new "require 6 votes" thing. [obi-wan]But rusty, remember, not all scoop sites are as big and popular as yours[/obi-wan] ... remember day 23 of scoop, and you could only rate one comment per page submit, and a story with 13 comments was hot stuff?

I feel too rambly with this comment, but glad to see you're looking out for the site, Rusty!

Thanks...

--Robert
[ rate all comments , for great ju
[
Parent ]

limited number of hides per day? (1.71 / 7) (#320)
by rhyax on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 04:24:51 AM EST

based on people's behavior the last few days hide is a normal rating now. i think maybe something needs to be done to stop this, not trusted users, but maybe a limited number of hides per day? that way people will only use it when it is needed and not just for things they don't agree with. or worst case, not for everything they don't agree with.

[ Parent ]
another idea (2.00 / 10) (#321)
by rhyax on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 04:38:27 AM EST

so maybe instead of having a flat amount per day, which would encourage people to open fake accounts that they could use to hide things, make it based on the total number of comment scores you did, like every 10 non-hide scores gets you one hide. this way you would make it time consuming to create fake accounts just to hide things, encourage people to participate, and give people who review serious amounts of comments tools to hide as much crap as they see.

this 10:1 ratio is just an example, maybe you could change it to whatever you think is the actual ratio of good comments to crap. that way you can control the amount of hide-power so that it is equal to the actual amount of stuff-worth-hiding.

as it stands now i think the groups ability to hide things is far outpacing the amount of stuff that needs to be hidden.

[ Parent ]

some current thoughts (1.50 / 6) (#323)
by martingale on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:58:36 AM EST

It's a strange new system, but give it time. I think the extra hiding trend is forcing people to encourage(3) comments more as a counterforce. This means the whole system is more dynamic.

For example, it's no longer appropriate to "post or rate", instead it's ok (probably even a good idea) to encourage the parent if you reply to it. New system, new rules. Just make sure you select the right comment viewing preferences, or you'll wonder where all the comments went.

[ Parent ]

Easily defeated by sock puppet accounts |nt (1.33 / 6) (#322)
by CwazyWabbit on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:43:54 AM EST


--
"But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
[ Parent ]
as an experiment (1.81 / 22) (#72)
by Dirty Sanchez on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:09:25 PM EST

how will you react to someone who rates like this under the new scheme?  will you remove said persons rating abilities?

thanks, rusty, but... (2.36 / 46) (#76)
by wrinkledshirt on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:14:07 PM EST

As someone who just had a story in the queue crapflooded and probably removed from autopost consideration because of it, I've got to say, thanks, but, the fact that K5 has attracted the trolls is probably a guarantee that no matter what system you come up with, there's always going to be those who'll get a kick out of trying to break it.

I've had a story with an 89 go down, another with a 55 go down, and while I can understand how the latter might not make it, the fact that another story of mine with a 42 went through just makes the whole submission process too chaotic for me to want to put anymore effort into a story for this website. If my story isn't going to go through because I put it in on a Friday instead of a Monday, or isn't going to go through because partykidd and circletimessquare are manifesting some vendetta against each other in the comments section, or isn't going to go through for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent quality of my story, well, it doesn't seem like it's worth to put in the several hours of effort with all the writing, rewriting, hyperlinking and revisioning in the diaries section.

And this isn't sour grapes for K5 rejecting a story. I've had K5 accept stories, one that went straight to 95 and another that fit the autopost criterion. But neither of those stories are the ones I'm proud of, and it's hard to be motivated to write for a site when it's very possible you won't be proud of the stuff that the site accepts.

For what it's worth, I'm not angry about it, either at K5 or at you in particular. I've just got other places I can write for. Maybe the problem at the heart of it is trying to come up with some algorithm to counteract human behaviour as it pertains to K5's format. I don't think any of us are sophisticated enough to dream up the appropriate AI for that.

k5 roulette... (1.77 / 9) (#245)
by kpaul on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:51:08 PM EST

i still like it better than submitting to 'normal' publications. it's interactive. it's slick. it's one-to-many. it can be chaotic at times, and, dare i say it, unfair.

in life, though, and in my art, i've noticed that what i like the most (most times) others loathe and what i dislike or can't get inspired about others love. it's an odd world, eh?

;)


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

Oh, and one more thing. (2.00 / 22) (#79)
by i on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:15:05 PM EST

Ratings still show up in searches. It looks like shutting down my proxy was a bit premature.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

Misleading labels (2.06 / 48) (#82)
by RobotSlave on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:19:40 PM EST

I don't like rating labels. I don't like them in principle, but more importantly, I don't like this particular choice of labels, as I think it's somewhat misleading, given the practical effects of each rating option. Though I can sort of see how one might rationalize these particular choices for this particular system, they seem to me to be rather poor, given the numerical values behind them, and a "hide threshold" set at 1.

More specifically:

  • -1, "Hide"

    This is the least misleading label; it accurately describes the practical effect of the rating, ie: rater thinks comment should be hidden; rating influences outcome in that direction.

  • 1, "Discourage"

    "Discourage" just doesn't describe the effect of this rating at all. Since the "Hide" threshold is set at 1, the proper pragmatic interpretation for this rating is rater doesn't care one way or another whether comment it hidden, rating merely moves outcome closer to decision, in cases of comments with few (at present <6) ratings.

  • 2, "Neutral"

    This rating is hardly neutral, from a practical standpoint. Its effective meaning is rather rater thinks comment should remain visible; rating influences outcome to that end.

  • 3, "Encourage"

    Though "encourage" sounds nice, it doesn't quite describe the practical effect, to wit: precisely the same as "Neutral," except rater's action has greater influence on outcome.

Given these discrepancies beteween label and effect, I have a prediction. Now, since psychology famously trumps game theory in all sorts of situations, I may well be wrong about this, but I'm predicting users will largely ignore the "Discourage" and "Neutral" options, leaving us with a system in which pretty much everyone uses two ratings, with effective values of +2/-2.

The old system, by contrast, was much more nuanced from a game-theoretical perspective, given the interplay between TU status for high ratings and comment hiding for low.

One might also argue that ratings have an effect outside comment hiding, as there are various options to order comment display according to score, but given scoop's lack of pagination, and the near universal preference for some sort of threaded comment display, those ordering options don't really have any practical effect.

In a finicky Tufte-like aside, I'd also point out the fact that labels will be somewhat confusing to new users, as the link between comment score and rating option is no longer intuitive, but that doesn't bother me so much-- ordinary people manage to get along with non-intuitive interfaces every day, after all.

I encourage u (nt) (1.23 / 13) (#96)
by tranx on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:07:05 PM EST


"World War III is a guerrilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation." -- Marshall McLuhan
[ Parent ]

Typical techie... (1.31 / 16) (#132)
by ucblockhead on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:36:22 AM EST

Like a typical computer geek, you ignore the psychological impact of the numbers. Just as in the past, people hated getting ones and liked getting fives, they will now hate getting "discourage" and like getting "encourage". The very labels will have that effect.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
nope - I don't think so (1.53 / 13) (#170)
by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:17:06 AM EST

I don't want to be "discouraged" or "encouraged". If I made a comment and have given my soul, sweat, intellect and all my God given talents to make an extraordinary comment to K5, I feel I have done my work. If someone "encourages" me, I would think he wants more comments, and that I think would be an insult. One good comment is enough. Don't encourage me to produce more. Leave me alone and respect what I have done so far.

And what does discourage mean? You don't want to hear what I have to say? You want to discourage me from speaking up? That's an insult as well.

You see, a five could be interpreted as someone likes your jokes and a one you could be understood as "I hate you". That is a much more passionate reactions, and what would K5 be without passion?

Just don't answer this question, I think I would be upset about your response and then I would have to discourage you, imagine how bad that would be for your psyche...

[ Parent ]

Virgin. (1.00 / 8) (#168)
by eSolutions on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:11:29 AM EST

[n/t]

[ Parent ]
Couldn't be bothered reading all of this crap (1.50 / 10) (#260)
by it certainly is on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:14:49 AM EST

but if it makes you feel better, mentally rewrite 3 to "Warm Fuzzies" and 1 to "Cold Pricklies". Heck, Rusty should put in some prefs on the user page for what to call each rating, so you could have je deteste / je n'aime pas / je ne m'inquiète pas / j'adore, as is appropriate for your status as god of high culture.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

This seems pretty good to me (2.24 / 37) (#88)
by enfilade on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:44:55 PM EST

Trusted user was given out mainly to people who hung around on the site all the time. That was okay, but for the fact that a lot of people who hung around on this site all the time are trolls. A lot of well meaning people who just occasionally came by the site would be put off to find that the trolls have more moderation power than they did.

Using labels instead of numbers is better, not only because it's more intuitive, but because it reinforces the social implications of rating a comment. So if you "encourage" someone to post a stupid, contentless troll or "discourage" someone from making an intelligent post you realise what you are doing is wrong. It's harder than just giving someone a meaningless number.

The IP comment rating idea is good too. Although It's not hard to find anonymous proxies, it will make it just that much harder.

BTW, I'm relatively new to this site (although I have been lurking for quite a while). One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is the emphasis on comments rather than diaries or stories. You can rate comments but not diaries. Often I read a diary and want to "encourage" the author to write more, yet posting a "keep up the good work" comment is kind of redundant. Also, comment ratings are checked for duplicate IPs but not story votes. Personally I would think that story voting is more important to protect from cheating.

Exactly (1.54 / 11) (#180)
by leviramsey on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:16:42 AM EST

The old saw about a rating being nothing more than a meaningless number is no longer valid.



[ Parent ]
also (1.32 / 34) (#89)
by Dirty Sanchez on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:47:30 PM EST

I'm still a TU. what perks do I have now that the plebes can give the almighty "hide"?

Bug report... (2.11 / 26) (#90)
by ana on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:48:15 PM EST

As the token over-45 person here, I'd like to report that the "minimum font size" thing no longer works for me. I set it up to 3 or 4 and it's there for the one click (submit changes). Next click, it's back to 2 again. I'm using 2 different versions of Mozilla on Linux and Solaris.

I have trouble reading the itty bitty default font.

Years go by; will I still be waiting
for somebody else to understand?
--Tori Amos

One size fits all. Not. (1.23 / 13) (#98)
by Pluto on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:11:25 PM EST

I hear this on my own website. Here's what I recommend:

Get reading glasses or get a 72 inch monitor.

You might also consider a website "reader" program.
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
[ Parent ]

Mozilla. (2.07 / 14) (#101)
by i on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:19:33 PM EST

Ctrl-+.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Known bug (2.00 / 14) (#102)
by rusty on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:20:48 PM EST

This is a side-effect of the passel of other little things that went in, which mainly seem to have been fixes to things that would have been fixed long ago if it weren't for the fact that there would be a zilliuon bugs when they were. Well, now they are, and guess what? Zillion bugs.

I will get "fix font stuff" back on the list.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Ah, the programmer's drinking song... (2.31 / 16) (#140)
by flo on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:52:32 AM EST

99 little bugs in the code,
99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again,
101 little bugs in the code...

ad nauseam.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
You forgot something (1.78 / 19) (#92)
by vayg on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:59:26 PM EST

What about comments made before the change? Now I can at maximum vote them THREE! Having the TWO vastly different systems like that seems just silly, because I don't like duality.

An intellectual powerhouse


I have a problem with No. 2 ;-) (2.22 / 35) (#95)
by Pluto on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:06:47 PM EST

So, as a lab volunteer (K5 Member) I set out to rate some of the comments herein.

Here's my dilemma:

If I feel NEUTRAL about a comment (or dispassionate; or indifferent) I don't waste my time rating it.

If I take time to rate a comment, it means I FEEL something. Thus, a 2 rating with a NEUTRAL rating will not work.

Could we please rename the 2 rating?

How about one of the following labels:

  • Interesting
  • Notable
  • Worthwhile
  • Contributory
  • Helpful

    &c
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson

  • OT -- Speaking of Labels (1.61 / 13) (#108)
    by Pluto on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:25:14 PM EST

    Since we are experiencing a label epiphany, I would like to make a request regarding queue voting.

    Please change +1 -- Post to Section Only

    to

    +1 -- Post to Section

    Drop the "Only." We get it already!
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    I asked rusty about labels once (1.92 / 14) (#119)
    by Talez on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:49:29 PM EST

    The answer he gave me was effectively "K5 users aren't idiots like Slashdot. They know what a comment is supposed to be and whether its good or not."

    Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
    [ Parent ]
    Now that K5's userbase has grown... (1.50 / 12) (#181)
    by leviramsey on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:18:54 AM EST

    to be closer to Slashdot's userbase, it's reasonable to suggest that the intelligence of the average K5er has declined to be closer to the average /.er.



    [ Parent ]
    Problems. (1.42 / 7) (#161)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:28:37 AM EST

    For starters. I think those groups of words are too similar and ambiguos. The other problem is when something is both. E.G. Quite a few posts on slashdot are funny and informative etc.

    I mean, sure you could do it, and it would be more meaningfull. But I think it would mean having a set of controls for all of it that would be bigger than the post it's self. For this kinda place, it has to very quick and simple if it's going to be used.

    IMHO anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry... (1.16 / 6) (#189)
    by Pluto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:16:47 AM EST

    I don't think I was clear.

    I meant to suggest that only ONE new word be substituted for the word "Neutral" and was presenting a list of possible choices.

    Heck, this explanation doesn't sound all that clear either...
    _______________________________________
    Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
    [ Parent ]

    I think I should be sorry. (1.57 / 7) (#196)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:02:32 AM EST

    Perhaps I should read your post properly next time.

    I understand you now. But I'm still not sure the words are fitting. They're desciptive of the content, rather than the value of the comment. I mean, all the words you list, sound encouragable if you know what I mean.

    [ Parent ]

    Why I have a problem with this. (2.28 / 39) (#100)
    by mcc on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:14:07 PM EST

    I'm not very happy with this becuase I never really paid any attention to the whole hidden/not hidden thing. What I did pay attention to, and what I always kind of considered to be the point of the rating system, was the "Sort by rating" feature. These changes seem to me to somewhat decrease the usefulness of "Sort by rating".

    The first and lesser reason for this is the death of the 2 and 4 ratings. Lacking 2 and 4 makes steer voting much, much harder, or at least less meaningful. The thing is, though, I can't remember the last time I voted 2 or 4. So I guess I'll drop this complaint.

    Most importantly though: the new ratings are, well, confusing. At the least, the Hide/Encourage/Discourage/whatever needs to go, or at least be replaced with an option to view the rating options as as -1/1/2/3 instead of those words. The first reason for this is that the words make steer voting just about impossible to think through. (If you multiply 2.34 by 5, subtract "discourage", and multiply by 6, what do you get?) The second is that they make it kind of hard to keep track in your mind of what the scores are. 2.14 is.. what? Generally discouraged? Generally encouraged? Generally neutral, what? The fact you vote with words but see scores as numbers makes there seem to be no connection between the two in the reader's mind. Maybe this is something you wanted to happen, but..

    This is made much worse by the whole "ratings don't count unless there are six of them" thing. Whaaat? First off, I can't speak for anyone else, but I tend a lot of the time to not rate unless there is an existing rating and I disagree with it. Maybe this is something you want to change, and you want people to vote on everything, but I don't think "you can vote on this unrated comment, but unless 5 other people do also your rating will have no effect" is going to have all that much effect. Also, out of my last sixty comments, only seven have six or more ratings on them. The mode number of ratings seems to be two. Hmm. You might as well just ban comment rating voting from the diaries altogether, and ban them from any comment that isn't top-level in its thread, since it's relatively rare any of those will get the required six votes. I suspect the main consequence of this is that you will see a big spike in pageviews, since people will be constantly looking at the "ratings" page for every single one of their comments curious how people voted, since the ratings are not by default displayed on the normal pages.

    Lastly, though this is not as big a deal, the fact we have a wider range and >=1 is "hide" makes it a bit harder to tell where hide is. 1 is a kind of an arbitrary line. Either move the hide threshold to 0, or somehow "mark" hidden posts for those of us who have them visible-- like, a little red line, a "(H)" badge, something, so we can see at a glance if it's hidden without having to do math. (Yes, it isn't much math to look at a post and see is this rating >1?, but thinking this out for every one of 127 comments in a story is too much effort...)

    Anyway, if your point was to turn the ratings system from personal "ratings" into numbers tacked next to every post that are meaningless except as a hiding mechanism, well, i guess that makes sense as a goal and you've succeeded, but their use as a community feedback mechanism seems pretty heavily lessened. I think i've been kind of babbling, so to summarize, my requests are these:

    1. Give us the option to see "Hide/Discourage/etc" as "-1/1/2/3"
    2. Give us the option to see the rating, even if there haven't been many ratings
    3. (Less important) Give those who have hidden comments visible the option to have a small "hidden" badge on hidden comments.


    ---
    Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
    Steer voting (2.23 / 17) (#130)
    by Khalad on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:26:02 AM EST

    It seems like a benefit that this new system discourages steer voting. You're abusing the ability to see a post's rating if you base your vote on that rating. You really should vote what you think, and trust that others have voted accordingly, rather than vote to exert maximum influence on the rating.

    One user, one vote, natch?

    You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


    [ Parent ]
    steer voting (1.28 / 7) (#185)
    by crayz on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:33:29 AM EST

    You know, I was thinking the original poster meant something totally different by "steer voting," but I think you're correct.

    However, the problem I see with not having the middle ground is that I can no longer express degrees of opinion about a comment. Its just:

    • "like it"
    • "don't like it"
    • "eh"
    There's no longer a way to say "pretty good," or "not too great" and to me this causes the whole system to lose meaning. Especially on the lower end - the discourage winds up being a troll vote, when sometimes I want to say "this is dumb" without saying "this is worthless."

    And on the other end, a comment with a perfect score may just be one that everyone thought was decent - nothing special - but not so blase as to deserve a neutral.

    [ Parent ]

    A suggestion (1.54 / 11) (#137)
    by flo on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:48:57 AM EST

    To see ratings when there are less than six: don't hide the ratings, but show them at the end of the message, after the sig. Once there are six ratings, this can disappear. Or show them at the usual place, but in a smaller font, or lighter colour or whatever.

    I agree that many people (myself included) rate mostly to modify a rating we do not agree with, and that we would now be clicking on the ratings list rather often, thus wasting CPU time and bandwidth.
    ---------
    "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
    [ Parent ]
    Jesus you people suck (1.69 / 23) (#105)
    by godix on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:24:42 PM EST

    Not a single comment in this story managed to get above the 3.5 TU threshold. Lord that's some harsh rating, it's like DrDuck cloned himself and went wild.

    On the serious side, does TU exist anymore and does it mean anything? Also, how do these changed effect the autoposting of stories?

    I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<

    Look for all comments above 2.25 (1.25 / 8) (#219)
    by pin0cchio on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:22:53 PM EST

    The new-scale equivalent to an old-scale 3.5 score is 2.25. Look for comments above 2.25, and you'll see comments that would probably have been rated 3.5 on the old scale.


    lj65
    [ Parent ]
    patting myself on the back... (1.83 / 37) (#112)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:56:54 PM EST

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/21/221644/233

    i saw the future!

    so follow me, everyone... you too rusty, as pied piper circletimessquare takes all you kids into the great troll cave where your parents will never see you again ;-P

    i mean c'mon, turmeric's 3rd-to-last comment here before disappearing was to express pleasure with my guide (huh!?)... so read it fool! it must be special, for turmeric complimenting me is like me and drduck going to the prom together

    in short: ratings are meaningless... ignore, them don't use them... only comment... it's a social site, so be social

    at the very best, ratings to me are "metacomments", indicating a protoemotional state: 5=smiley, 1=frowny... me personally i mostly just gave people high 5s when i wanted to express pleasure with a comment they made but was too lazy to write "good post! (nt)"

    to me, voting 1 on comments creates an unnecessary asocial vibe. so: why not have approval voting only?

    in said hypothetical universe, instead of seeing comments with things like "4.55/27", or "2.67/4", you would see things like: "5" or "21"... meaning 5 people expressed approval for your comment, or 21 people expressed approval for your comment... there is no negative modding

    you can still sort on quality comments, and the "bad" comments simply become the ignored ones... trolls are best ignored, no? so let's reflect that in the mod system

    approval-only modding also removes ideology from the equation... a controversial, thought-provoking, contentious comment (the best of kuro5hin, in other words) will now rise to the top of the moderation, instead of getting something stupid like a score of "3.00/45"

    there should still be -1 or 0 moderation though... nominate/ pick/ otherwise promote through some nefarious scheme to supermoderator status a few ironclad super-trustworthy users (definitely not me) to do with 0/ -1 moderating what it is REALLY intended for: racist/ sexist/ homophobic comments, spammy adverts, and crapflooding... that's really all you need to moderate negatively at all, and it's pretty clear cut when those 3 rules are broken

    every other sort of 0/ -1, or even 1/ 2 moderation is emotionally superfluous, suspiciously ideological, and most definitely far from universally useful for all users according to his/ her opinions... so who needs them at all?

    go all the way rusty! make kuro5hin what it is when it is at it's best: a totally social site, with no more asocial 1 modding and the bad vibes that goes with them (nobody loves you drduck)

    switch to an approval-only moderating system

    in my opinion rusty made a good first awkward baby step towards what i feel is inevitable and a vast improvement, so thanks! ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    xactly ! (1.70 / 10) (#177)
    by fhotg on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:01:29 AM EST

    A unary voting scale it is. Additionally to your wise insights, it will fix:

    The inconsistency of "neutral" votes. Voting something at all should have a different effect than not voting at all. To ignore something should be the "worst" reaction possible.

    The unknown distribution of votes. I for one will think very differently about a comment that got 20 2s than one that got 10 3s and 10 1s. That info however is hard to display in comment-reading mode. That info would be implicitly included in a unary vote display (b/c trivial).

    The neglect of how many people care at all. A comment is the more interesting the more people cared to have an opinion on it at all. The current system doesn't allow to take that into consideration, b/c it conflicts with the necessary interpretation of "many negative votes".

    Circletimessquare fixed it all.
    ~~~
    Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

    [ Parent ]

    recommendations for Rusty (1.48 / 33) (#113)
    by xutopia on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:02:31 PM EST

    I think the words are misleading. There is one word that I really enjoy - kudize - that I would feel would work great on kuro5hin!

    The words I would recommend are :

    marginalize (hide)
    discept
    abstain
    kudize

    I really like the word kudize and feel it would go well with the name of the site. Discept is interesting because it means you disagree in an open talkative way. Astain means it all.

    Anybody else think these are good? :-)

    Freudian slip (1.16 / 6) (#199)
    by tedoneill on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:20:30 AM EST

    I think you meant "Abstain means it all."

    --Ted

    "Always be wary of any helpful item which weighs less than its operating manual." -- Terry Pratchett
    [ Parent ]

    re:recommendations for Rusty (none / 5) (#288)
    by DJNW on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:24:33 PM EST

    marginalize (hide)
    discept
    abstain
    kudize

    If this gets implemented, I'll go mental... all those "z"'s everywhere..... if this goes in, how about an option to have the buttons in English English?

    [ Parent ]

    So (1.04 / 23) (#115)
    by Michael Moore on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:18:42 PM EST

    How are we supposed to get comments that have fallen below the Hide threshold aboce it, now? I can't rate hidden comments any more, there's no ratings box (as if I didn't have TU, but I still do).

    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
    aboce=above (nt) (1.00 / 8) (#116)
    by Michael Moore on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:19:04 PM EST



    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
    [ Parent ]
    Oh wait, I figured it out. (1.22 / 9) (#117)
    by Michael Moore on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:22:54 PM EST

    For some reason "Show Hidden Comments" defaults to off, even for people with TU.

    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
    [ Parent ]
    Well, this is a bug (2.00 / 16) (#118)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 09:28:47 PM EST

    I've got ratings hidden, but in threaded view, the parent post ratings are hidden, but all of the threaded comments have their ratings shown. That kind of makes my stoic refusal to look at comment ratings impossible - and if I were to increase the nested view over 200 (it's at >100 now), I'm afraid my browser would start doing funky things. It did before.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    Sorry (1.50 / 8) (#192)
    by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:53:23 AM EST

    Bug, will fix.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    I notice (1.71 / 14) (#120)
    by celeriac on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 10:00:35 PM EST

    that you didn't manage to fix the sig bug.

    Radio buttons for rating (2.65 / 89) (#121)
    by driptray on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 10:02:18 PM EST

    I'd rate a lot more if there were radio buttons rather than a list. A list requires 2 mouse-clicks while radio buttons only require one.

    The neutral button should be the default selection, and there wouldn't need to be a "none". This would make rating easy easy easy, and consequently many more people would do it. Which would be good.

    Oh, and my font preferences in Display preferences are being ignored.
    --
    We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating

    I agree (2.48 / 31) (#124)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 11:35:01 PM EST

    I'd like radio buttons or ideally, something like Netflix uses to rate movies. It's just 5 star graphics with onClick events, they don't refresh the page or anything. It's like Scoop's dynamic mode but better. We'd probably lose the fancy new rating names but hey, it's all in the name of progress. Someone should write this, it would be trivial to integrate with the current code that processes dynamic ratings. Eliminating that click would get a lot more people rating. Now you could argue that we don't want to make it too easy to rate, but that's another discussion.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    I agree (2.33 / 27) (#131)
    by WetherMan on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:26:26 AM EST

    I was a member of netflix for a while, and I've been a member of k5 forever, and I don't regularly rate comments here, whereas I did rate almost constantly on netflix.  I think it was partially due to the positive feedback I recieved when netflix made recommends for me, but it was also because it was so easy and fast to rate comments.

    If you implmented a netflix-type rating system here I, and i'm sure many others would rate more.. and that's the whole point right?

    it's too tedious as it stands.
    ---
    fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (1.50 / 18) (#164)
    by driph on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:51:08 AM EST

    I was going to suggest defaulting new comments to Neutral as well, but you said it first so I'll just agree with you instead.

    Also, the radio button suggestion is a good one. You're right, it would make rating easier.
    Whatcha think rusty?

    --
    Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
    [ Parent ]

    On second thought.. (1.92 / 14) (#167)
    by driph on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:06:48 AM EST

    Defaulting comments to neutral wouldnt really do much with the new system, since the whole "6 people must rate before it counts" is now in place.

    Still like the radio buttons tho.

    --
    Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, something like half-empty.org used to have (1.15 / 13) (#203)
    by MyDyingDuck on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:22 AM EST

    Let's welcome our encouraging overlords.
    --
    They're seeding the clouds today.
    Watch nothing's gonna go your way.

    [ Parent ]
    Use short labels (1.69 / 13) (#249)
    by BlowCat on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:10:18 AM EST

    Longer labels will distract readers from the comments and signatures. I think "-", "0" and "+" would be fine.

    [ Parent ]
    Neutral != None (2.35 / 17) (#264)
    by Stephen Turner on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 04:25:44 AM EST

    A vote of Neutral is not the same as no vote. A vote of Neutral actually drags the score back towards 2. I vote for retaining both Neutral and None.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't Make Sense (1.46 / 15) (#280)
    by Canthros on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:52:38 PM EST

    'none' exists now as a default; you can't un-vote. If you'd rather not rate a comment, don't rate it.

    --
    It's now obvious you are either A) Gay or B) Female, or possibly both.
    RyoCokey
    [ Parent ]
    yeah! radio buttons ...something like this.. (none / 0) (#344)
    by johwsun on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 04:52:22 AM EST

    http://egnatia.ee.auth.gr/HyperNews/get/eforum/4.html

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like the 1 vote per IP (2.07 / 27) (#123)
    by curien on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 10:14:31 PM EST

    No sir, not at all. And even with the rDNS lookup, how likely is it that "eagle1.langley.af.mil" will be on the whitelist?

    I'd be perfectly happy with a blacklist of proxies, though.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the ratings system needs to weight each rating according to the rater's mojo. Also, have the validity of the ratings (as judged by similarity to other ratings on the same comments) affect the rater's mojo.

    --
    Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!

    There's a problem with that. (1.50 / 8) (#198)
    by ti dave on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:15:39 AM EST

    the ratings system needs to weight each rating according to the rater's mojo.
    Beware what you wish for, you just might get it.

    The problem is that, I would wager, the non-Rusty User with the Highest Mojo would likely be classified by most as a Troll.

    Your plan would firmly entrench this Ueber-User at the top of the ratings heap, along with his/her entourage.

    Do you think they would voluntarily relinquish their Mojo?
    Face it, the 'Trolls' are much better organised than the ordinary Users.
    They will win any fracas they elect to join.

    I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
    [ Parent ]

    the non-me user with highest mojo? (1.70 / 10) (#210)
    by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:16:02 AM EST

    I haven't had the highest mojo on the site, like, ever. :-)

    Anyway, I don't think we'll be adjusting ratings by mojo. If it wasn't good enough to use for handing out trustedness, why would it be useful for that? The operating theory here is more power for everyone and let statistics sort it out.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    That's a good point (none / 5) (#236)
    by curien on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:16:42 PM EST

    I think maybe you didn't make mojo important enough. Maybe it doesn't matter. I hope the new system works well.

    --
    Screw teh tiger woods! I am teh Lunix Tarballs!
    [ Parent ]
    Bug (2.10 / 28) (#125)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 11:50:28 PM EST

    Is this intentional? All diaries older than about a year are inaccessible. And drduck of all people is listed as having written 16 diaries... when did this happen?

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    Me too (1.12 / 8) (#179)
    by QuickFox on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:10:36 AM EST

    I have never made a diary entry but my listing says I have 16.

    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 fi
    [ Parent ]
    Bug (1.27 / 11) (#194)
    by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:55:59 AM EST

    There's a bug with the archive story table. Will fix

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    ...while my first diaries... (1.28 / 7) (#237)
    by vyruss on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:17:36 PM EST

    ...are credited to the user null0. (?!)

    • PRINT CHR$(147)

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting, very interesting. (1.52 / 17) (#126)
    by tiamat on Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 11:54:38 PM EST

    I imagine a lot of people will have a problem with this because it is new, but I think the logic behind the idea is pretty solid.

    One suggestion that I might make. People should always be able to "see" hidden comments if they follow a link directly to that comment. I know it's very annoying when people say "look at this bad rating over here: [link]", but I think it would be even more annoying if I had to keep switching settings to see the comments that people were linking to.

    Mind you, I have no idea if that is at all possible.

    P.S.
     It took about 6 minutes to post this comment.... I hope that's not a systemic problem. . .

    Prediction (1.96 / 25) (#134)
    by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:46:04 AM EST

    Fewer conversation-style threads. More Fark-like, less Usenet-like.

    Top-level comments get rated more often than those buried deep in a discussion, so those who are chasing ratings will post responses to the article, rather than follow-up comments.

    (Looks like the db is messed up, too, as someone else mentioned. My user page claims sixteen diaries when I've only written two.)

    Oh, and (1.78 / 14) (#138)
    by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:49:02 AM EST

    The new ratings should be consistent throughout the site.

    For example, the "Others have rated this comment as follows:" block should use text labels, not integers.

    [ Parent ]

    Chasing ratings? (2.13 / 15) (#152)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:53:23 AM EST

    What's the point in chasing ratings if there's no trusted user status? *puzzled look*

    [ Parent ]
    Validation? Attention whoring? (nt) (1.45 / 11) (#156)
    by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:13:18 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Or referring to ratings to prove you're right? (1.58 / 12) (#159)
    by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:25:10 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    5 [nt] (1.07 / 14) (#172)
    by Prophet themusicgod1 on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:19:06 AM EST


    "I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
    [ Parent ]
    5 (nt) (1.25 / 12) (#178)
    by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:08:28 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Two related issues... (1.89 / 19) (#135)
    by tiamat on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:46:59 AM EST

    My user info page still tells me that I'm a trusted user in a way that makes it seem like I should care. . . .

    Also, this (http://www.kuro5hin.org/special/trusted) page should probably be updated. Overhauled, rather. It still talks about the old ratings system.

    Yeah, you're right <nt> (1.25 / 12) (#153)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:55:56 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Two bugs with hidden comments (2.09 / 21) (#139)
    by Khalad on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:52:14 AM EST

    1. I have "Show Hidden Comments" set to "No." When I try to review hidden comments and I click on a comment, it doesn't show up. I guess that setting should be temporarily overridden when I'm reviewing hidden comments.
    2. I rated a comment "Hide" and it hit the six-votes threshold. Since the comment was hidden, the comment failed to refresh. The "Loading" line just stayed there without indicating that the comment actually had been loaded and determined to be hidden.

    You remind me why I still, deep in my bitter crusty broken heart, love K5. —rusty


    review hidden comments (1.91 / 12) (#151)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:52:45 AM EST

    should probably go away; it strikes me as being a domain error if everyone can choose to view them. the second one is a good bug report. thank you! :)

    [ Parent ]
    Hey Foster (1.60 / 28) (#141)
    by Michael Moore on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:00:56 AM EST

    I just experienced rating a comment with "Encourage", only to cause it to be hidden (thanks to it having 6 ratings). That's a little screwy, would you agree?

    Also, I have to say that the new Hide is way too powerful. It used to take 4 "Hides" to negate one max rating. Now it takes one. You've made the hide rating 4 times as powerful as it used to be, it's just ridiculous. Your assertion that "most people have reserved their zeros for the real bottom of the barrel stuff" is plainly ridiculous, as you can see simply be viewing ratings attached to this story. Is a comment is not very good (but NOT crapflooding, etc.) and it's mainly getting 2s and 1s, the Hide rating becomes stupidly powerful, such that you could easily hide any "not great" comment with just one or two of them. Then the issue of "Hidden Comments" groupthink comes into the system. Most hidden comments in the old system that made it to that page got zeroed to hell--it's MUCH harder for a comment to get out of that page than it is to get in. Now, you've made it trivially easy for anyone to push a comment there and get it zeroed. It's seriously stupid. You need to consider lowering the hide threshold to 0.5 or something, or K5 is going to be hiding shit like crazy under this new system. You can see the change starting already in View Hidden Comments--I fully expect hidden comments in increase by at least five to ten times unless you fix the gross overpowering of the Hide rating.

    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael

    Cry me a river (1.80 / 31) (#143)
    by ucblockhead on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:13:09 AM EST

    I fully expect hidden comments in increase by at least five to ten times unless you fix the gross overpowering of the Hide rating.

    Good.

    It was too easy for you and your little crapflooding friends to make sure nothing got hidden.
    -----------------------
    This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
    [ Parent ]

    blockhead (1.04 / 24) (#145)
    by Michael Moore on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:19:01 AM EST

    You're a ratings Nazi and you know it. The rest of your K5 hasbeen buddies are as well. If you're as disillusioned with this site as you claim to be then maybe you should just fucking stop posting here. You've got your shitty greymatter site now that you've decided K5 isn't good enough for you. Go post your shit over there, where everybody who cares about your opinion can read it (i.e. nobody). And stop trying to justify your actions by demonizing others.

    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
    [ Parent ]
    has beens? (1.57 / 7) (#150)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:51:08 AM EST

    I don't think that's really an appropriate epithet to throw around.

    [ Parent ]
    yes... but the other side of that... (1.73 / 15) (#158)
    by rmg on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:20:56 AM EST

    is that we can now hide things easily...

    i already have some diabolical schemes cooked up.

    also, we could unhide stuff now too, we're just too lazy ...

    _____ intellectual tiddlywinks
    [ Parent ]

    Why? (1.00 / 7) (#220)
    by Mister Pmosh on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:46:41 PM EST

    i already have some diabolical schemes cooked up.
    What's the point? It doesn't sound very fun to select things on drop-down fields all day in the hopes of annoying people.
    "I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
    [ Parent ]
    yeah (1.50 / 8) (#190)
    by reklaw on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:36:07 AM EST

    I have to say, I don't think changing Hide to -1 was the best idea. Just making 3 the highest rating and leaving the 0 as-is would have made it easy enough to hide comments.

    Of course, I hardly hang around here any more, but I think I'll set the preferences to that unmoderated k5 that rusty was talking about. I like the sound of that, but then I always used to read slashdot at -1, too.
    -
    [ Parent ]

    carpal tunnel syndrom: (1.00 / 29) (#146)
    by RandomLiegh on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:19:12 AM EST

    I would really like to see a way to moderate every comment in a story down using just one drop-down list and a button, instead of having to go through seventy-odd comments by hand. As  mark twain once said: fuck that

    Also, have you considered the idea of personal, unique killfiles, that each user could use to block out offensive comments and diaries?

    Lastly, are you going to take any measures to lure the members of HuSi back?

    ---
    Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
    ---

    incidently, regarding HuSi (1.25 / 12) (#147)
    by RandomLiegh on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:20:26 AM EST

    I have not come back.

    ---
    Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
    ---
    [ Parent ]
    checkboxes (1.50 / 8) (#186)
    by Gyles on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:37:30 AM EST

    I kind of agree - I'd prefer checkboxes to a drop down. 5 options, the 5th (default) being don't rate.

    [ Parent ]
    Damn. (2.14 / 28) (#160)
    by 5s for Everyone on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:27:48 AM EST

    I guess that means I'm out of business now.
    --
    There is Damezumari in the Bamboo Joint
    No, I offer you a job - gimme five... (nt) (1.38 / 13) (#166)
    by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:05:40 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I don't care. (1.04 / 22) (#162)
    by Shren on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:41:23 AM EST

    I haven't been able to rate comments for ages. I have no idea why. In light of that, why should I care?

    Must... resist... Hide... (2.03 / 29) (#163)
    by Koutetsu on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:44:54 AM EST

    Even though I consider myself a fair and balanced K5er, I'm only keeping my clicker finger off the Hide rating out of a thin sense of obligation and moral righteousness.  I agree that it's for the best that everyone can Hide and Review Hidden, but there's also no longer any reason for a rater not to dish out as many -1's as their withered ego warrants.

    I'd like to suggest a limit to the number of -1's that can be applied by any one person.  Maybe per day, maybe per story - the number can be proportional to the full amount of comments that K5 is receiving.  It would follow that a user should have full reign over their own diary, though I can't see any reason why the limit should apply to diary comments anyway.

    I just really think there needs to be some distinguishing factor between Hide and Discourage besides 'I don't like it' and 'I don't like it more'.

    neutral - what does it mean? (2.08 / 35) (#165)
    by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:03:24 AM EST

    If someone has a rating of 2.1/15 does that mean fifteen people feel neutral about the comment? Why would they rate in the first place?

    That's like saying, I don't care for Arnold, so I vote neutral. But I am quite certain, the person, who doesn't care for Arnold, either doesn't vote at all out of protest or he votes for someone else than Arnold, to get Arnold into the hiding status.

    Something doesn't make sense here.

    I could say that a 2.1/15 rating means that that five people think the comment should be discouraged, five people think they have no view points on the comment and five people think it's an encouraging comment? Why would I be interested in knowing that?

    If someone rates discourage, why wouldn't he rate -1, hide? Is discourage meant to be to say, hey buddy, if you continue talking nonsense, I will rate you -1? And encourage, should that mean, hey girl, go on, you made my day, gimme me more of those nice comments?

    May be it would make sense, if we would know how many people voted discourage, how many voted neutral and how many voted encourage. And then, what does discourage really mean?

    I don't want to discourage anybody! If you think something is funny, what I don't consider funny, should I discourage you from expressing what you consider funny, just because I have another sense of humor than you do? I don't think so. If you say something that I think is outrageously inappropriate, you get a -1 anyhow.

    There is nothing encouraging in having a rating of 2.5/20 for example. There is something encouraging, if you had a 4.5/20 rating though. There is nothing discouraging in having a 1.8/20, it just shows that people don't know what to think about the comment.

    You see, even if you don't care for the rating, it's kind of nice to get a five, at least you know there is at least ONE person out there who understands you, sigh, sigh ... Imagine you get five fives. That's a reason to get a beer and celebrate. Now everything is lukewarm.

    I miss my fives. And I miss getting angry about a 1 rating, I didn't deserve.

    This rating sceme it most probably going to be very boring in the end. It smells like politically correct or apolitical, or may be just irrelevant or may be just very uninteresting.

    ratings should be boring (1.88 / 9) (#214)
    by speek on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:36:47 PM EST

    I miss my fives. And I miss getting angry about a 1 rating, I didn't deserve. This rating sceme it most probably going to be very boring in the end. It smells like politically correct or apolitical, or may be just irrelevant or may be just very uninteresting.

    Sounds to me like the ratings system was the most interesting thing on the site for you. And for many others too. Hence the whole problem.

    Ratings should be boring. It should not be what brings us back to this site to talk and bitch about comment ratings. If this makes people leave for whom that was their primary interest, excellent.

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

    hey, I didn't bitch about ratings (1.00 / 7) (#233)
    by mami on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:55:10 PM EST

    If at all I bitched about the fact that people thought I should waste my time to find out if someone is trolling or not. I reject that.

    For me there are no trolls. Every comment is taken face value and seriously, thus all ratings are taken seriously as well. That doesn't mean that I complain about ratings. I complain about the fact that people can have multiple accounts and anonymity, which gives them power to abuse the system without paying for their evil doings.

    Rusty tried to do something about it, and I think it's a good start. Rating is fun. Evildoers must be terminated. I vote for Arnold and rusty.

    Move on, K5. God bless.

    [ Parent ]

    What this means in practical terms (1.27 / 18) (#176)
    by grouse on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:01:11 AM EST

    drduck need not ever post to K5, but he can still hide my post!

    You sad bastard!

    "Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs

    Pay attention son (2.20 / 15) (#191)
    by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:49:07 AM EST

    No one can hide a post alone. The comment you linked to has no score, and won't unless it gets four more ratings.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    drduck has several allies. (1.23 / 13) (#200)
    by ti dave on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:23:23 AM EST

    When* you abandon the IP address experiment, then we'll be back to the place we started.

    * That's 'when', as in 'not if'.

    I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
    [ Parent ]

    Paranoia runs deep (2.11 / 18) (#209)
    by rusty on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:13:42 AM EST

    ...into your heart it will creep...

    drduck is just a guy who rates a lot. That's all. He doesn't have scripts, or allies, or any kind of movement.

    Also, I haven't even started the IP experiment yet. Seems a little early to declare it a failure, doesn't it?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Ask not who the dr ducks for (1.25 / 8) (#221)
    by grouse on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:57:00 PM EST

    He ducks for you!

    You sad bastard!

    "Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
    [ Parent ]

    I know you enjoy his frequent ratings. (1.33 / 12) (#267)
    by ti dave on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:43:46 AM EST

    Hell, that's around 12,000 ad impressions, double that for all his/her victims verifying that the duck fucked 'em.

    That's got to pay for a lot of monocle polish, eh?

    I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
    [ Parent ]

    Ad impressions? (1.00 / 11) (#271)
    by rusty on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 07:00:09 AM EST

    I get paid when someone buys ads, not when someone looks at them. I never understood that "it's more ad views" argument.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    A bit disingenuous, aren't we? (1.12 / 8) (#298)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 07:26:25 PM EST

    The number of impressions makes no difference?

    Why, then, did you introduce interstitials?

    [ Parent ]

    Sophistry (1.62 / 8) (#310)
    by pmc on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 05:55:22 AM EST

    From the ad page:

    Ads are $1.00 per thousand impressions, with a minimum purchase of 10,000 impressions, or $10.00. On average, 10,000 impressions will run for about a week.

    You seem to understand the "it's more ad views" argument perfectly well. Otherwise you would be charging per time period - $10 and I'll show your ad for a week.


    [ Parent ]

    must...resist...too...diffi...dif...hard (1.66 / 9) (#269)
    by martingale on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:37:46 AM EST

    drduck is just a guy who rates a lot. That's all. He doesn't have scripts, or allies, or any kind of movement.
    Yeah, that's what they said about Zaphod Beeblebrox. And look where it got him: President of the Galaxy, stole the Heart of Gold, and has descendants up the ages.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Zaphod... (1.61 / 13) (#270)
    by rusty on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:58:36 AM EST

    ...he's just zis guy, you know?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Uncle Foster needs YOU! (1.00 / 12) (#202)
    by omghax on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:29:47 AM EST

    To, ah, prevent forest fires, or something of that nature.

    [ Parent ]
    user interface suggestion (1.89 / 19) (#184)
    by The Shrubber on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:28:27 AM EST

    Show the numbers with the labels.  It will also help old-timers get used to "3" being a good score

    none
    -----
    encourage (3)
    neutral (2)
    discourage (1)
    -----
    hide (-1)

    Can you still show the numbers? (1.89 / 19) (#187)
    by NMSpaz on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 04:39:20 AM EST

    I find it easier to quickly scan a number than read a word. Could you change the labels from "Hide", "Discourage", etc... to "-1, Hide", "1, Discourage" or something? It would make it that much easier to quickly rate comments.

    Good for content (2.26 / 23) (#197)
    by CwazyWabbit on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:05:06 AM EST

    Trusted User status made ratings political. Previously, I found it hard to 5 somebody no matter how good their comment if I knew they would use TU to 5 comments that should have stayed hidden. This meant that it was hard to rate a comment on content alone. I'm glad that aspect has been removed, and ratings will now have more meaning.
    --
    "But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
    Changes (1.68 / 16) (#204)
    by omghax on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:31:52 AM EST

    Since above 1 == shown, below 1 == hidden, then a rating of 1 should be "neutral", 2 should be "encourage", and 3 should be "strongly encourage". Or something like that.

    Zero as value, not hiding baseline. (none / 3) (#329)
    by I am Jack's username on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:10:55 AM EST

     -3 hide (total score of <-1 hides comment)
     -1 discourage
      0 neutral
      1 encourage
    --
    Inoshiro for president!
    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
    [ Parent ]
    in other news (1.03 / 30) (#205)
    by tps12 on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:49:07 AM EST

    eudas was found dead in his parents' basement early this morning. Cause of death appeared to be multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds, confirmation pending a full autopsy report. Detectives at the scene also report that the victim had the numeral "2" carved into his chest.

    UI consistency (2.35 / 34) (#206)
    by epepke on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:04:47 AM EST

    With the vote-on-a-story menu, the user drags up to vote the story up. With the rate-a-comment menu, the user drags down to vote the comment up. Since the rate-a-comment menu is all new, why not make it work in the same direction as the vote-on-a-story menu? It might reduce the rate of mistakes.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    I second this! [nt] (none / 5) (#274)
    by mcherm on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:35:37 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Better solution(?) (2.41 / 31) (#208)
    by Stephen Turner on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:13:05 AM EST

    Here's a possibly better solution than waiting until a post has six ratings.

    Just start each post off with a single vote at the average score -- now 2. If it receives two votes of 3, it will move up to 2.66 -- it will still be below a comment with three 3's (2.75).

    The effect is that all ratings count, but the early ratings are "balanced" by the initial vote. (Statisticians can think about Bayesian methods at this point).



    Re: Better solution(?) (1.69 / 13) (#215)
    by Stephen Turner on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:38:07 PM EST

    Another advantage: unrated comments no longer sit awkwardly above all good comments, or below all bad comments. Instead they hang around in the middle.

    [ Parent ]
    I have some reservations (2.08 / 12) (#232)
    by martingale on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:51:09 PM EST

    Adding a single default initial vote simply scales and translates the eventual sample average. Since we're looking at a pretty narrow scoring scale to start with, I'd say this will only serve to bunch up the scores needlessly close together due to added inertia from the (n/n+1) factor.

    One of the ways k5 voting is different from random sampling is that the number of votes depends strongly on visibilty of the comment. A top level comment garners more votes than a level-1, level-2, etc. reply.

    I think that the lower level comments (where the actual discussions live) need all the votes they can get. Lots of those comments only get 1 vote or less, and that one vote shouldn't be smoothed out with a prior uniform belief.

    [ Parent ]

    Rating is only visible with 6 votes. (1.50 / 6) (#273)
    by mcherm on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:34:48 AM EST

    I think that the lower level comments (where the actual discussions live) need all the votes they can get.

    I agree.

    Lots of those comments only get 1 vote or less, and that one vote shouldn't be smoothed out with a prior uniform belief.

    Um... weren't you reading? In the new system, if a comment gets 5 votes or less, then it is simply NOT RATED. Only comments with 6+ votes HAVE a rating. I suspect that the number 6 is too high, perhaps 4 would work better, but this can be tweaked.

    -- Michael Chermside
    [ Parent ]

    I was reading :-) (none / 5) (#301)
    by martingale on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 09:30:12 PM EST

    My reply was directed at Stephen Turner's alternative proposal, full scoring from the start but with a "0-th" score of +2.

    With the current system no official rating takes place (although the unofficial scores can still be seen with an extra http request per comment, simply click on the score). As you say, there's some tweaking that can be done with the current system, so it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (none / 5) (#300)
    by curunir on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:43:08 PM EST

    I Agree

    [ Parent ]
    Initial vote (none / 5) (#305)
    by wintergreen on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:04:49 AM EST

    To counteract the effect of the initial vote you could delay the publishing of the results of the rating. That is, don't publish the results of rating a particular comment until it has received n ratings or m number of minutes having gone by, whichever first. And don't publish results for all comments in a particular story until x comments have been rated or y minutes have gone by so as not to give potential favor to earlier posted comments.

    [ Parent ]
    Starting "house vote" (none / 4) (#324)
    by kmself on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:27:05 AM EST

    I've been thinking about the comment side of the rating system, and this is the one major change I'd recommend.

    Think of the starting moderation as the "house vote". It's where you stand with no additional input.

    Among the benefits is discriminating posts which have few (but high) moderations, from those which have lots of high mods. This was one of the issues with the original moderation system, and it bothered me more over time.

    My own comments to Rusty had a fair bit to do with how the initial comment moderation and Mojo systems were developed.

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

    Don't do that :( (2.21 / 28) (#211)
    by 5pectre on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:29:55 AM EST

    Only one rating will count from one IP (experimental) :(
    I'm behind a corporate NAT which means that it appears that there is only one IP for the whole building (and there is more than one k5 user).

    A comment's score doesn't count until there are at least six ratings contributing to it :(
    Make it three, g'wan.

    Rating scale now goes 1-3, with text labels Discourage, Neutral, and Encourage :(
    Sometimes you want to do more than encourage people, you want to show them that you are Strongly encouraging them.

    The rest is fine...

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    That just means you'll need to use a different IP (1.31 / 16) (#218)
    by Ruidh on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:15:13 PM EST

    for your sock puppet accounts.
     
    "Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."
    [ Parent ]
    Meaningless graduation (1.42 / 7) (#277)
    by Rich0 on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:09:05 PM EST

    Sometimes you want to do more than encourage people, you want to show them that you are Strongly encouraging them.

    I think folks would be more likely to moderate comments if they can just click on a +, -, or 0 icon and not have to try to fit it into a -1-5 scale.

    Keep in mind that nothing will be rated at all until it gets 6 ratings.  If a post is REALLY good it will get lots of 3's anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (1.12 / 8) (#313)
    by 5pectre on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:35:17 AM EST

    Why not a scale of 1-10? I think people will be more likely to rate comments if they have more choice. I certainly will be. Yeah, but I don't want to give a good post 3, I want to give it 5 or 10. I'd like to see an instant result of my rating aswell. Not wait until 6 other people have rated it.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for your efforts, Rusty. (1.13 / 15) (#212)
    by Russell Dovey on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:58:12 AM EST

    More freedom for all: good.

    Although I personally am sad that I can't artificially inflate my ego with Trusted User Status anymore. I might have to start doing useful things for society. How could you? HOW COULD YOU?

    <sob>

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

    WHY THE HELL? (1.58 / 17) (#217)
    by CodeWright on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 05:03:46 PM EST

    Can't we just "ignore UID"?

    If I could just ignore the "Living Incarnation of Pure Evil", then I'd be happy.

    --
    "Jumpin Jesus H. Christ riding a segway with a little fruity 1 pint bucket of Ben and Jerry's rainbow fairy-berry crunch in his hand." --
    no kidding (1.42 / 7) (#223)
    by Wah on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:25:02 PM EST

    just one button. that's all I need.

    a little (-die-) button.  Right next to the username.  I'm really curious what volume of 'real' comments K5 is getting nowadays.  Especially for stories like this, when the trolls come out and almost act like real people.
    --
    kewpie
    [ Parent ]

    might confuse newbies? (2.09 / 21) (#222)
    by Kasreyn on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 06:15:36 PM EST

    labels like "discourage", "encourage" might make newbies think the point of rating is to quash or reward comments based on the views they express (as opposed to the quality of the expression and its appropriateness to the discussion). I really like most of these changes, though I worry about how my logging on from multiple computers with multiple IP's might alter my rating of others.

    Btw, the only real complaint I have is, now Osama Bin Fabulous can Hide all my comments instead of just 1'ing them all.

    Thus, a suggestion for a system to prevent no-comment no-story crapraters from hiding comments:

    A new user account has zero "points". Every time one of your posts hits 2+/6 (that is, it gets its sixth rating and its total is at least 2.00), you gain 1 point. Every time a story you submit posts, you gain 5 points. Comments in Diaries, and "posting" of Diaries, will not give points. You can only have up to 25 points maximum, any beyond that are lost. It costs 1 point to "hide" rate (all other ratings are free to apply.

    Opinions?


    -Kasreyn


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

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    Addition: time limit. Rusty, plz consider this! (1.62 / 8) (#225)
    by Kasreyn on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 08:07:29 PM EST

    Don't want people accumulating points, leaving for 6 months, and coming back and still being able to hide comments. So...

    points decay at a certain rate. I suggest 1 point loss per day (thus you lose all your points in under a month if you stop participating).

    Again, the whole idea here is to prevent nonparticipants (who I call crapraters) from hiding comments. So to sum up:

    Having a comment (not in a diary) average 2.00+ upon getting its 6th rating grants 1 point;
    Having a non-Diary story post grants 5 points(Section or FP makes no difference);
    Rating a comment "Hide" costs 1 point;
    All other ratings are free;
    Maximum 25 points at any given time;
    One point lost per day unless you're already at 0.

    Rusty, did you consider anything like this idea? If so, why did you decide against it?


    -Kasreyn


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

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    Slower decay rate (1.62 / 8) (#252)
    by FlipFlop on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:16:16 AM EST

    I like this idea, although the decay rate is a bit high. I read K5 almost every day, but I only post when I have something new to contribute. So if I post an excellent comment on Monday, I'm trusted for 24 hours?

    There seems to be plenty of intelligent people here who only post once in a while. Perhaps it would work better with a limit of five and a decay of one per week.

    AdTI - The think tank that didn't
    [ Parent ]

    Id rather see TTL implimented (none / 0) (#338)
    by turtleshadow on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 01:40:15 AM EST

    Yes I lurk,
    Yes I go absent for many weeks.
    But I remember the days of being a newbie

    It would be cpu/DB intensive but would it better to somehow come up with a way to run some reports on accounts with a weighty number of -1's or 1's then assign them a time period, (time to live) for all their future comment posts.
    If their weight doesn't shift to 2's or 3's in a 2nd grace period their TTL on comments shortens to perhaps less than a day to live.
    When the TTL is down to a day and their posts automagically autohide, the crapcaster shill account is then "useless."
    Then by IP restrict the number of reasonable accounts say 10-50? If the system is begged to ok the 51st that accounts TTL is set automagically lower than say the 20th from the same IP, with a good warning to the user -- "blah blah your IP has been used to setup shill accounts in the past and this account on probation, speak well and often and your TTL restriction goes away"
    While I'm at it you could put in the user profile some nice HCI charts where they are on the -1, 1,2,3 continum.

    You --+-----------------
    Avg ------------+-------
    Today's best user
    ------------------+-

    Just a few thoughts, for some reason Im highly opinionated today enough to write stuff up.
    Hopefully I've been extracted from my rut.

    [ Parent ]
    What is this "all"? (1.07 / 13) (#224)
    by gilrain on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:54:28 PM EST

    I don't understand why the button label is "Rate All" when you're only rating a single comment. When I first started reading Kuro5hin, I figured that meant you were rating that entire thread of comments, as opposed to the single comment.

    I understand how it works, now, but the label is horribly unintuitive, if you think about it.

    Here's how it works. (none / 4) (#228)
    by debacle on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:19:51 PM EST

    If you've got your listing set up to that one where you see them all (Which is not, in fact, the technical term) then you can put a rating into each box in a story, and click "rate all" and it will apply the rating for each individual comment.

    It tastes sweet.
    [ Parent ]
    I get it. (none / 4) (#234)
    by gilrain on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:06:17 PM EST

    In that case, perhaps a better idea would be to make it so that each individual comments has a Rate button that can only rate that single comment.

    At the top or bottom of the page, there could be a single Rate All button, just in case there is really somebody out there who uses that functionality.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it. (none / 5) (#261)
    by Koutetsu on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:42:37 AM EST

    What are you expecting?  Do you really think people should have to click an extra time just to rate a single comment?

    I used to use the Dynamic Threaded display mode before I found Opera couldn't handle it.  The Dynamic modes rate automatically when you choose a rating.

    But now I'm back to Threaded, and the logical and easy way to rate things is to choose whether and how to rate every comment on the page and then clicking any of the Rate All buttons, conveniently located everywhere.

    I just don't get what you're suggesting, or how it could possibly be an improvement from the current method.  Besides which, I felt sharply alienated when you questioned that there could be "really somebody out there who uses tha functionality", when it's the most logical and intuitive thing for my display mode.

    ----
    "For some reason people are oversensitive about a number living in a database attached to a comment." - Parent ]

    If I remember correctly.. (none / 4) (#285)
    by ignatiusst on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:08:07 PM EST

    Rusty implemented the "Rate All" button after seeing his database server take several severe beatings during peak-hours from everyone individually rating each comment..

    Of course, I could have dreamt it all, but I think I remember that being the reason for the "Rate All" button.

    So remember, Rate Often. Rate Once.

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

    IP hash (1.63 / 11) (#231)
    by Grape Smuggler on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 09:45:34 PM EST

    There was a comment on #scoop a few days ago that you were going to add a line showing the hash of a poster's IP addy. Any chance of seeing this code anytime soon?

    By reading this message you've unwittingly exposed yourself to my powerful, moth-like pheremones.

    Please don't (1.16 / 6) (#246)
    by FlipFlop on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:52:30 PM EST

    There was a comment on #scoop a few days ago that you were going to add a line showing the hash of a poster's IP addy. Any chance of seeing this code anytime soon?

    If you're going to do that, you might as well display the IP number. There are only 2^32 (roughly four billion) IP numbers. It would be trivial to run a dictionary attack on the hash.

    With that said, I don't want my IP number posted. I also don't want a hash of my IP number posted.

    Posting an encrypted IP number might be an option. As long as the key remains secret, it is doubtful someone could carry out a dictionary attack. However, as others have mentioned, trolls can easily roam to other IP numbers.

    AdTI - The think tank that didn't
    [ Parent ]

    Hm (1.75 / 8) (#253)
    by djotto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:29:08 AM EST

    Say there's a 4-byte unknown salt for the hash (an unreasonably small salt length).

    Also say you can perform 2 million hashes a second (an unreasonably high guesstimate number).

    To iterate over the entire 8-byte space would take... say, a little over a quarter of a million years. Good luck on that.

    [ Parent ]

    Argh. I forgot all about salt (1.57 / 7) (#258)
    by FlipFlop on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:07:20 AM EST

    But while we're discussing it, shouldn't the salt value vary from story to story? That way you can't correlate various alter-egos across stories.

    Also, as discussed in the this thread, the salt should change on a regular basis with old values getting purged.

    AdTI - The think tank that didn't
    [ Parent ]

    Not easy, but still doable (1.42 / 7) (#287)
    by derobert on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:23:08 PM EST

    The distributed.net RC5-64 challenge tried 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys, roughly 85% of the 64-bit keyspace (we'd expect about 50% to break a given user's IP, much less to break any user's IP).

    That means they had a rate of 103 billion keys/sec. On the same page, they state that is 45,998 2GHz Athlon XPs, meaning they estimate each Athlon can do 2.2 million keys/sec. So, actually, 2 million keys/sec is quite reasonable, and with a little help, you can do the project in several years. Also, with dedicated crypto processors, you could do it much faster. Hifn, for example, claims chips which can run MD5/SHA-1 at 4Gbps (along with encryption).



    [ Parent ]
    confidence intervals (1.75 / 16) (#235)
    by martingale on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:13:22 PM EST

    Just a few ideas in no particular order:

    1) As others have said, hiding the result until after six ratings is a bit harsh. The main problem I can think of with this is that top level comments are rated way more frequently than lower level comments. This can be explained by assuming that people just stop reading the threads very quickly once it becomes clear they aren't very interesting to them.

    You might want to implement a variable treshold, say 6 ratings for top level comments, 3 ratings for second level comments and 1 for third level etc.

    2) One thing I've always thought would be more useful than the (score/num_votes) display is a confidence interval. The score is a sample average, and basic statistics gives a simple formula for the sample variance. You could have a scoring display of [lower_limit, upper_limit], with 95% confidence, or 80% confidence to make it more exciting.

    The advantage of such a display is that usually, the interval would simply shrink over time (which is very intuitive). I expect it would also be satisfying for the voter to see his vote having a small but perceptible effect. This is important because no-one votes if they don't see their vote having an effect.

    I'm just slightly worried that an interval display is less obvious to someone who doesn't know what he's looking at. But then, the (score/num_votes) isn't very obvious either to a n00b.

    Having an interval display doesn't stop you from using the sample average (ie score) to do the actual comment ranking. It's just a more informative display, as it indicates how confident the statistics is about the upper/lower bounds.

    -1, Capitalize at least first letter of subject. (1.00 / 9) (#243)
    by Fen on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:13:13 PM EST

    Too much crap, too few gems.
    --Self.
    [ Parent ]
    incomplete sentences (1.33 / 6) (#259)
    by martingale on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:07:25 AM EST

    Most titles are incomplete sentences. Why capitalize them? Reminds me of CamelCase.

    Also, I actually prefer lower case in titles (except for I or proper names), because it's marginally less distracting in minimal view (without which k5 is impossible to read, IMHO).

    YMMV.

    [ Parent ]

    One-Click Rating (2.57 / 49) (#238)
    by endeavor on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:36:54 PM EST

    Frankly, this one dropdown menu to select the rating seems a little klunky to me. Anyone else familiar with the rating system on Netflix? There is a set of 5 stars. Just click on one of them and the item is rated. The page isn't submitted conventionally so there's no waiting for it to POST. Instead of actually submitting the current page it tries a few different JavaScript methods in the background to submit the rating. Of course this would cause problems for people who have JS turned off, it shouldn't be too difficult to detect and revert back to the current behavior.

    I know I would rate a lot more of the comments if it only took one click. Radio buttons would be better as well, but I like the above idea the best.

    I do it here (2.34 / 23) (#272)
    by inerte on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:21:30 AM EST

    My "Display" option is set do "Dynamic Threaded", and I rate comments without submitting the whole page, and also there's an expand/contract comment button, very cool IMHO.

    --
    Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
    [ Parent ]

    Very cool... (none / 1) (#342)
    by dipierro on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 11:27:26 PM EST

    Just tried out the "Dynamic Threaded" mode. The only problem is that using it seems to break the mouse scroll wheel functionality. Anyone know how to fix this?

    [ Parent ]
    Click on the page (none / 0) (#343)
    by rusty on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 02:16:04 AM EST

    That happens to me sometimes. Expanding a comment seems to grab focus in the comment's little page segment. Usually clicking on some blank region of the page will pull it back out and get the mouse wheel working again.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Must be a Mozilla thing... (none / 0) (#345)
    by dipierro on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 12:49:48 PM EST

    I did try clicking in a blank region of the page. That is necessary a lot with the regular pages, after changing your vote or whatever. But it doesn't work with dynamic pages, in Mozilla. I just tried it with IE, and it does work there, so it must be a Mozilla thing.

    The up and down arrow keys do still work, so for now I've been using them. The dynamic threaded pages are very cool (esp when k5 is loading). Thanks!



    [ Parent ]
    Mozilla (none / 0) (#346)
    by rusty on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 01:13:19 PM EST

    It works in Galeon, which is using Moz for rendering. Perhaps try clicking a piece of page away from the comment you've expanded?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it's in the rendering engine (none / 0) (#347)
    by dipierro on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 02:05:47 PM EST

    It might even be platform specific. The strange thing is it only seems to happen now if I click on a different browser window and then click back. It definately happens no matter where I click first, and no matter where my mouse pointer is located. I'm using Firebird 0.7 on Win2k. So it might not even be a Mozilla thing but a Firebird thing. I looked through bugzilla and didn't find anything. If I manage to come up with a simplified case I'll report it to bugzilla.

    It's just iframes you're using, right? Anything else that I might need to look at?



    [ Parent ]
    Dunno (none / 0) (#348)
    by rusty on Thu Oct 23, 2003 at 03:01:45 PM EST

    Yeah, you're probably right. It is just iframes, and I would have no idea where to even start diagnosing the problem.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Agreed - Mod parent up! (1.44 / 9) (#295)
    by cgenman on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:55:17 PM EST

    Sorry, forgot for a moment which board I was on.

    If your ratings system relies upon frequent, repeated ratings by all people, using a drop-down menu and requiring a submission and a page re-load is a bad idea.  

    Even if 3 clicks wasn't too many (it is), waiting for a page reload is a strong deterrent.  I realize that you can rate all comments at once, but what happens if you mouse away?  What happens if you re-load?  What happens if you get bored and go to www.penny-arcade.com?  The reason you are done rating comments if because you have found something more interesting.  Maybe there is a percentage of people who agregate the "rate all" button, but I suspect it is small.

    For the above-mentioned setup, you wouldn't even have to change the new system.  -1,0,1,2,3 could correspond to X,*,**,***,****.  Alt-Text and HTML could suffice for those without images or Javascript, or perhaps a fall back to the current system... which, as I mentioned, would only be losing its front end.

    Rate this comment:  x ****

    Much easier than the current system, and the sort of thing that Javascript (not HTML) was designed to do.

    -c
    - This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm Pleasantly Surprised (1.09 / 11) (#239)
    by Ruidh on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:37:08 PM EST

    The last time we had a discussion of rating, I advocated a very similar system as I felt that it was too easy for hidden comments to be unhidden.

    I've been thinking about what system to use for an upcoming project and Scoop has rejoined consideration with these changes. It'll be interesting to see whether the new system improves the content of the site.
    "Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."

    Making scores be useable for something (1.75 / 16) (#241)
    by manekineko on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:42 PM EST

    Basically, right now all scores are strictly good for is hiding a comment, or not hiding a comment.  Beyond that they're not good for much.

    I don't have much time to read K5, I would like to be able to use scores on comments to do a quick filtering.  I'm aware of the sort by rating option, but that loses all the structure of the body of comments.  What I'd really like would be if the rating system were integrated with the threaded/dynamic-threaded systems.  It'd be super nice if I could do something like hidden below 1, collapsed 1-2, expanded 2-3.  That would help a lot in quickly seperating the wheat from the chaff when I do get a chance to read the comments on a story.

    Quaternary, cool! (1.07 / 13) (#242)
    by Fen on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:10:25 PM EST

    Power of 2. Radix of DNA. Of the form a_1=2, a_n=2^a_(n-1) (like hexadecimal). Never liked the 1-5 thing.
    --Self.
    Privacy (2.33 / 36) (#244)
    by bigbird on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:19:45 PM EST

    This means that you will now be storing an IP address along with a user ID in the Scoop database. I dunno about you, but that raises a privacy concern for me. I'm not a yankee, but with your messed up DMCA, copyright and homeland security laws, you don't really want to be keeping that kind of info. Contrast this with slashdot.

    I might as well use my full name and place my home address and telephone nymber into my .sig if you go ahead with this. Perhaps you could time-limit the IP storage, and store IPs for a week or two at most. I doubt many stories get significant comment moderation after a few weeks, and you can still have Scoop track clusters of moderations - you could easily track modstorms and ban users if you see five mods on a month-old comment within the space of a few hours originating from the same IP.

    BTW, most k5 stories have sucked for about a year now - when are you going to fix story moderation - give science and tech stories a lower threshold, and make it damn near impossible to post the usual political / flamebait wanking which has occupied the front page (if I see another story about Michael Moore I'm gonna puke).



    That (1.80 / 10) (#247)
    by djotto on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:53:54 PM EST

    data would, I assume, have been in the Apache logs anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    So? (1.77 / 9) (#251)
    by bigbird on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:16:06 AM EST

    Apache logs can be mined for their aggregate data, and deleted just as easily as the next bucket of bits. I know that I leave plenty of footprints on the net, and have few illusions about maintaining pure anonymity with my present level of effort. While I could likely be tracked down based on the sum of information in my comments to date (you might even be able to figure out my /. account, which would then give you near-total certainty), why make it easier for the state / RIAA / corporations to find people? If there is no significant benefit to k5, why drive away anonymous users?

    I don't care too much about your identity, and don't find it relevant to this discussion. In general, my feelings are to not keep unnecessary data, or data with very low value to k5, which could be subpoenaed by universally despised agencies (state, RIAA, etc) for intrusive purposes.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (1.80 / 10) (#256)
    by FlipFlop on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:54:22 AM EST

    If you really must record where a user came from, you have several options to help protect privacy.

    1. Purge the data after several days.
    2. Encrypt the IP number with a randomly generated key1. Generate a new key every few days. You could even use a different key for each story2.
    3. All of the above

    I realize option one will break the moderation values.

    Someone else suggested posting a hash of a person's IP number. If you go this route, I would recommend number 2 above.

    1If you encrypt an IP number twice with the same key, it will have the same encrypted value, so you can still find out if someone is using two accounts.

    2As long as the user never uses two alter-egos in the same story, they can't be tied to each other.

    AdTI - The think tank that didn't
    [ Parent ]

    observations... (1.40 / 15) (#248)
    by kpaul on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:59:32 PM EST

    been around with the new comments for about an hour or so. reading some of the comments below (and rating to do my little part), i realized i hadn't given any 2's yet.

    it's going to take a little getting used to, and i really should re-read the main news (i'm a skimmer sometimes, sorry ;), but so far so good, imho...


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    Suggestion (2.26 / 23) (#255)
    by djotto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:36:56 AM EST

    I have "Show hidden comments?" set to "No".

    I go to "Review Hidden Comments", click on a comment, and see... nothing.

    Either

    a) I've specifically asked for that comment, and should be shown it regardless of preferences

    or

    b) I should not be able to see the "Review Hidden Comments" link, because I can't do anything with it.

    (a) is a better design choice, but (b) would be easier to code.

    This one seems simple (1.14 / 7) (#276)
    by supahmowza on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 12:53:44 PM EST

    Show HIDDEN comments = *NO* Review HIDDEN comments = no results Simple enough, yes yes?


    Drugs are the solution to all life's problems
    Well, drugs and handguns
    [ Parent ]
    Re (1.16 / 6) (#282)
    by djotto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 02:00:36 PM EST

    The fact that it's possible to set options that contradict each other (and worse, they're contradictory by default!) suggests to me that the UI needs work.

    I was hoping for option (a), anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Lame. (1.87 / 8) (#290)
    by aphrael on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:26:32 PM EST

    That's a lame UI. 'Show hidden comments' suggests that it controls whether or not you see hidden comments in the normal course of reading. 'Review hidden comments' suggests that it allows you to review things you wouldn't ordinarily see.

    Personally, I think 'Review Hidden Comments' should go away now, but if it doesn't, it needs to temporarily override 'Show hidden comments'.

    [ Parent ]

    Better yet... (none / 4) (#297)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 07:20:57 PM EST

    ...it could be labelled "slow hidden comments."

    [ Parent ]
    great (1.12 / 25) (#257)
    by the77x42 on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:04:45 AM EST

    now that TU is meaningless, i can say what i REALLY think... socialism rules!!


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    Uh no... (1.50 / 6) (#284)
    by Eater on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:01:20 PM EST

    This is K5 man, saying socialism rules will only merit a rating of around 2.5 (probably around 1.7ish on the new system).
    Saying something that people disagree with but cannot come up with a good response to, that will get you slamming 1's (or -1's as it is now).

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    it looks like neurological synapsis (1.05 / 17) (#263)
    by chanio on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 02:29:49 AM EST

    Isn't it looking like the way that the brain cells work?

    I read it somewhere.


    ________________
    Farenheit Binman:
    This worlds culture is throwing away-burning thousands of useful concepts because they don't fit in their commercial frame.
    My chance of becoming intelligent!

    dynamic mode ratings: feature request (2.12 / 16) (#279)
    by glor on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 01:38:41 PM EST

    Rating a comment in dynamic mode scrolls the comment up, then scrolls it back down with the new rating. This takes a long time and moves the text on the rest of the page. Can there be an option to "rate&toggle", since upon rating you're probably done reading the comment anyway?

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.

    Privacy workaround (2.13 / 22) (#283)
    by kshea on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 04:52:53 PM EST

    Why don't you put an MD5 or SHA sum of the IP instead of the actual IP into the database... that way there are no privacy concerns, and you can still only get one post per IP

    Don't Bother (1.37 / 8) (#291)
    by endeavor on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:26:38 PM EST

    It would only take a few hours for an attacker to generate the MD5 sum of every IPv4 address using a typical desktop computer. Not really worth it, IMO.

    Typical 1-way hash algorithms only work when the size of the set of possible plaintexts is VERY large.

    [ Parent ]
    One word. (2.10 / 10) (#308)
    by i on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 02:26:01 AM EST

    Salt.

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    [ Parent ]
    'n Peppa (none / 4) (#316)
    by endeavor on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:05:20 PM EST

    Makes little difference as far as I can tell.

    First off, what privacy concerns are we trying to prevent by hashing the client IPs?

    My worry would be that big brother would harvest all of the k5 posts looking for repeatedly subversive authors. Then big brother's legion of 31337 h4x0r d00dz would crack the user info to get your IP address and track you down. You'd then be forced to watch 98 Degrees music videos until you cry like a little girl with a skinned knee.

    So in this case the salted password wouldn't change a thing. The time to crack a single address would increase marginally but that's it. Still could crack it in a very short period of time since the address space is tiny in cryptographic terms.

    Salting only makes it difficult to create a dictionary ahead of time because of the CPU power and storage capacity required. I could rent out time on a large computer cluster and have the entire k5 users' IP addresses cracked for a not too exorbant price.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 5) (#325)
    by i on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:51:27 PM EST

    If you don't know the salt, the message space is infinite. We're not talking passwords here. We're talking about hashing an IP address together with a long enough secret string. "Long enough" is 256 bit or so.

    By the way, if you're the big brother you don't need no stinkin' bruteforce attacks. You just do a (trivial) bit of traffic analysis.

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (none / 2) (#331)
    by endeavor on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:14:05 PM EST

    While the first paragraph is mostly true, you assume that the salt is secret. But it's not going to be secret after the system is compromised. You can either hard-code the salt or you can put it in a database, with the latter being the most common implementation (in my experience). Either way if the system is compromised we'd have to assume the salt would be out in the open as well and our message space is back down to less than 256^4.

    [ Parent ]
    Well. (none / 2) (#332)
    by i on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:21:09 PM EST

    After the system is compromised, you don't need no stinkin' hashed IP addys. They are in the database and/or server logs, in the clear. Just read them.

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    [ Parent ]
    That would be stupid (1.12 / 8) (#318)
    by Funk Soul Hacker on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 02:31:25 AM EST

    Any Hashing of an IP address can be reversed in 2^32 tries.


    --- Right about now, Da Funk Soul Hacker
    [ Parent ]
    Here. (none / 5) (#326)
    by i on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 06:09:44 PM EST

    me@mybox $ cp salt addr1
    me@mybox $ cp salt addr2
    me@mybox $ cp salt addr3
    me@mybox $ echo 10.0.0.x >> addr1
    me@mybox $ echo 10.0.0.y >> addr2
    me@mybox $ echo 10.0.0.z >> addr3
    me@mybox $ md5sum addr[123]
    0bb85a705e1e40ad40ea898c4a71b392  addr1
    e7d79378d667c17eb9561bf1a7b4967e  addr2
    2979b4e1b835353a8d250f64712831ae  addr3

    Now recover values for x, y, z. The search space is tiny, there are only 254 legal values. Heck, I'll tell you that they stand for 1, 2 and 3. You just tell me in which order.

    salt is a secret 256-byte file.

    Cryptographer geniuses these days.

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    [ Parent ]

    heh. (1.35 / 14) (#286)
    by guyjin on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:09:46 PM EST

    I just read the first comment attached to this story, rated 2.88 - I wondered what was wrong with it until I realized 3 is the top of the heap now, not 5. That's going to take some getting used to.
    -- 散弾銃でおうがいして ください
    What's really odd (2.00 / 11) (#289)
    by aphrael on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:24:46 PM EST

    is when you see account '5s for everyone' giving out 3s.

    [ Parent ]
    Er... none? (1.33 / 6) (#294)
    by Vesperto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:53:56 PM EST

    I rated the parent as 3 (4.5 old scale) and i'm seing it scored as none/3...

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    Rusty already said (none / 4) (#311)
    by ZanThrax on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:16:50 AM EST

    that until something gets six ratings, it doesn't get a score. Those none/3 comments have only three ratings so far.

    There is no spoon, there never was a spoon, and there never will be a spoon.
    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't count until 6 have moderated \nt (none / 4) (#312)
    by bob6 on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:17:59 AM EST



    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    Ewww.... (1.26 / 15) (#292)
    by Vesperto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:50:43 PM EST

    I'm gonna have a hard time considering a 2.00-rated comment as "average" instead of "crap". As far as what Dusty wrote, i liked the changes.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    Oh, btw, (1.16 / 6) (#293)
    by Vesperto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:51:56 PM EST

    now that we all have trusted-user privileges, when will we al have paying-user privileges? I could use a comment-tracker.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    btw part 2 (1.87 / 8) (#296)
    by Vesperto on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 06:58:57 PM EST

    I want ignore lists! And a puppy.

    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    [ Parent ]
    Auto hide threshold (1.53 / 15) (#302)
    by Arkaein on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 11:39:48 PM EST

    Actually this is kind of a good point. I think that if a comment has a weighted score low enough that it cannot possibly be displayed when the 6 comment count is reached, it should be hidden pre-emptively. That way Mr. Moore will not have to wait so long to have his comments pushed out of the public view.

    ----
    The ultimate plays for Madden 2003 and Madden 2004<

    Numbers are for programmers (2.00 / 20) (#303)
    by Joe Groff on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 11:46:09 PM EST

    Rating numbers are an implementation detail, and you should banish them altogether. In lieu of the traditional "1.23 / 4", use a little icon to indicate the rating level of the thread:
    • a "+", green light, happy face, etc. for encouraged comments (say, 2.25 or higher);
    • a "o", grey light, blank face, etc. for neutral comments (1.75 to 2.25);
    • a "-", red light, sad face, etc. for discouraged comments (1 to 1.75);
    • and a "--", brown turd, crying face or whatever for hidden comments (-1 to 1).
    I suppose you can keep the rating counts for fun, but the decimal ratings make the site feel more like a spreadsheet than a discussion. In the same vein, remove the little parenthetical numerals from the "Encourage""Discourage""Hide" menus. They look clumsy and detract from the simplification you're trying to accomplish.
    --
    How long must I travel on
    to be just where you are?

    Hey fuckface! (1.40 / 25) (#304)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:01:25 AM EST

    I have a feature request.  I'd like to be a able to sort comments by the number of times they've been rated (the second number).  I think the most interesting comments are the ones which have recieved the most ratings, not necessarily the highest.  And yes, I am being serious.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    2: Neutral (1.09 / 11) (#306)
    by jabber on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:25:01 AM EST

    Is the point of the neutral rating only to force the "hide" rated comments to go away if one has chosen that setting? This would be like voting "0: Don't care" on an article submission; just to push it out of the "new" state in the queue.

    Or is there some other reason that I missed in the write-up. Oh, and one more thing. "Executive Summaries" go at the beginning of the article. It'd be easier to read the whole thing, if I knew going in if there was anything of relevance to me up front. "Chapter Summaries", at the end, are for kids. :)

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

    Your experiment won't work (1.44 / 18) (#309)
    by bigchris on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 05:19:47 AM EST

    What about all those dialup users out there? Or people posting from the one organisation that's using NAT and a smaller pool of IP addresses to conserve external IP addresses?

    Bad idea. Better idea? Show the time that something was rated along with the IP address of the person who rated. People can then work out who's doing modbombing so they can then alert abuse@kuro5hin.org... or something along those lines.

    Everything else is good though.

    ---
    I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
    kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]

    Squelch the DB (1.10 / 10) (#314)
    by daragh on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 10:05:45 AM EST

    And start again, that's the only way to do anything...

    No work.

    I want a new rating. (1.35 / 14) (#315)
    by Mysidia on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 04:20:44 PM EST

    10+ neutral ratings to override one hide is ridiculous. The fact that 1 hide vote and 3 discourages, don't hide it, but the fifth vote, an "encourage" hides it is bad logic.

    I'd like to see a new rating called unhide which would mean: ``I don't want to encourage the poster, maybe I don't like what they're saying, but I think it's improperly hidden and want to unhide it''.

    As far as 'moderation score' 'unhide' would have the same effect as a neutral, and 'hide' should have the same effect as a 'discourage'. And whether a post is hidden or not is a different decision determined by proportion of "hide votes" to "encourages and unhide votes"

    It's true that if you want to hide a post, then you wish to discourage those sort of posts, but it's not true that if you want to discourage a post that you feel it merits being hidden.

    It's true that if you want to encourage a post, then you don't want it hidden (that wouldn't encourage the post), but it's not true that not wanting it hidden means you want to encourage the post.

    It sure was a lot simpler when we could just assign a number from 0 to 5, or whatever, based on where we felt the post should be sorted based on the thoughtfulness of the content.

    Now I need to worry about whether I want to "encourage" or "discourage", the useful sorting element is gone with the 5+ ratings need, and my "encourage" votes may actually discourage (If my moderation is the one that makes the comment reach the number votes to get a bad score), vice-versa, my "discourage" vote may be the fifth vote (to a post with 4 discourages)

    Bleah, it seems a lot simpler now for me to just not bother moderating and turn off sort by moderation, on the basis that it's all confounded.



    -Mysidia the insane @k5
    Rating is not about opinion (1.60 / 10) (#319)
    by anno1602 on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 03:58:27 AM EST

    `I don't want to encourage the poster, maybe I don't like what they're saying, but I think it's improperly hidden and want to unhide it''.

    Y'know, your rating isn't supposed to judge how much you agree (although that's how it seems to be used way too often) but more on whether the comment is well-thought-out, makes a good point (regardless of whether you like that point), an how much it generally contriubutes to a meaningful dicussion.

    So, in summary: If you think a comment is important to the discussion, "Encourage" is the applicable rating, regardless of whether you agree with the views expressed therein.
    --
    "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
    [ Parent ]
    Rating is inherently about opinion. (1.50 / 6) (#327)
    by Mysidia on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:20:38 PM EST

    So, in summary: If you think a comment is important to the discussion, "Encourage" is the applicable rating, regardless of whether you agree with the views expressed therein.

    Not liking what they say does not mean you disagree, nor does liking what they say mean you agree, anyhow.

    Rating is inherently connected with and ultimately inseparable from opinion, on how believable or agreeable the rater finds the view, and it's not realistic to assume posters will vote "Encourage" on views they disagree with vv.

    Which is also a good reason that "Hide" / "Don't hide", and scoring should be treated separately, with "Don't Hide" implying Neutral Encourage/Discourage, "Hide" implying discourage, and Encourage implying "Don't Hide".



    -Mysidia the insane @k5
    [ Parent ]
    I've got it! (1.92 / 13) (#328)
    by Motekye on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:31:31 AM EST

    Most of the problems you mentioned were regarding user accounts and people's own petty rivalries. The ideal solution would be to simply not display the author of a post.

    Completely erradicate authors entirely and use IPs to determine how many times users may vote, rate or post in one day. Nobody will know who posted what!

    Beauty in chaos.


    Grrr....
    Reenactment of our suggestion (2.72 / 11) (#334)
    by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:02:33 PM EST

       w
       O /      Your majesty, your humble supplicant
      ||V       beseeches an amnesty for those who
      ||_       abused the old rating system.
      |  |     
     =====       O__
    =======     V/ /\_


    2 Stupid(?) Questions (1.85 / 7) (#335)
    by Valdrax on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:31:12 PM EST

    1)  What does it mean when a comment is rated (none/5)?
    2)  Why is it "0, Hide" instead of "-1, Hide?"

    -1, Redundant (none / 0) (#337)
    by kjb on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 01:00:20 AM EST


    --
    Now watch this drive.
    [ Parent ]

    I CANNOT LOGIN at k5 (1.00 / 6) (#339)
    by johwsun on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:37:46 AM EST

    why?
    kur05hin is banned...
    kwizine.net is also banned...

    https://www.collaborativemedia.org is not, but when I am trying to login, I cant, so I can only read k5 and not comment it...

    :-(

    It seems better so far (1.80 / 5) (#340)
    by levesque on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:43:27 PM EST

    Ratings: -3,3,6,9.
    (6/1)

    Should a comment's unofficial score be shown in a light gray font or something?
    (_/1)



    Anonyminity, why? And other ideas.... (1.66 / 3) (#349)
    by adharma on Tue Oct 28, 2003 at 07:43:16 PM EST

    Firstly, articles have an author. Comments do as well. Why not ratings? Track user ratings of both articles and comments. This holds everyone personally accountable. I would go further and offer the abiltiy to let a ratings author type a few words about their decision.

    About IP tracking... I would limit the IP to an arbitrary number user accounts in regards to rating a comment or article in any 36 hour period. If a user wanted the ability to forgo the IP check, they should purchase a paid membership. Without question the IP's should be strongly encrypted.

    About scale...-1,0,+1 vote yes, no or abstain. This is simple and effective. Indeed, it does not give the Rater the ability to grade their opinion, but with a the implementation mentioned in the first paragraph, it offers the opportunity for someone to explain.

    About filtering...Give users a watermark or threshold for display of content. For example, "Show all comments posted within the last X minutes(or hours) AND any rated above Y AND any rated below Z". I would also go so far as to let paid members set their preferences based on Topic. (Science, Politics, Diary,etc...)

    Final note.... Any system used will have its pros and cons. In my opinion, the simplest systems and the most public systems ahve the best shot if being rectified.

    Take care.

    -I have accquired quite a taste for a well-made mistake-

    Comment Rating Changes | 348 comments (348 topical, 0 editorial, 11 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!