Keeping Web Discussions Open, Yet Civilized?

gsnedders asks: "With the rise of 'Web 2.0' and user created content, often in the form of comments, how do you keep the discussion open, yet civilized? I've found Slashdot's moderation to be very good — the good stuff gets moderated up, and the bad stuff down. On Digg, correct and valid information often gets dugg down, and offensive comments up, showing that having an open moderation system doesn't always work. However, moderation like on Slashdot, requires a large numbers of users to have enough moderators without giving everyone moderator access, therefore making it impossible to use on smaller sites. How can you keep the discussion civilized, while keeping commenting open, and not requiring large numbers of users for the moderation to work?"

Comments

Moderation is the key (most times)

[thedogcow]

Moderation is the key. Take a look a three sites.

Slashdot.
IMOH, I think Slashdot has a "pretty good" moderation system and meta-moderating is making it better. Most of the comments are are insightful or interesting is moderated as such. People come to Slashdot really for the comments because I think most of the readers are articulate and can provide something interesting/insightful to a story. It is really an intelligence thing. Generally, nerds are smart.

Digg.
I think Digg has a "fair" moderation system. One can see that it is fair to you if you think like most of the Digg users. Now, some can say that about Slashdot but stories are not deleted on /. just because they express something that a Digger doesn't want to hear like on Digg.com. I personally don't like Digg that much... or at least the comments and they don't offer or contribute that much to the parent story. I think Digg is mostly a trendy thing.

Fark.
I think that Fark has a "poor" moderation system. They let any yahoo express his or hers opinion. I think that the majority of Farkers are jobless alcoholics anyway... but that is besides the point... Most Fark comments are just random knee-jerk reactions. Moderators of Fark don't care... all they do is focus beer and naked people anyway... nothing insightful or interesting.

Things that have been sucessful

[also-rr]

Group moderation like Slashdot -Pro, very hands off (once past a critical mass of users). -Con, promotes group think.

Wikipedia style moderation -Pro, very hands off (once past a larger critical mass of users). -Con, promotes group think.

Direct moderation (approval of everything) -Pro, very accurate. -Con, very time consuming.

Retroactive moderation (normal form style - post first delete spam later) -Pro, very accurate. -Con, very time consuming and crap still shows up until it's dealt with.

I have never seen a working system that was not based on one of these principles. Things that have failed:

Anything with no moderation at all. Look at usenet. These systems are only sucessful if combined with user filtering - one prospective area might be a system with very good user filtering, but then you shift the burden from the admin to the users and why should they bother when there are people willing to do the work for them?

To give you an idea here is a small graph of spam activity. It took 5 days for comment spammers to find an open site and start abusing it, and once they find something that has worked once they just dont stop. And that's even before you consider the malicious idiots who aren't exactly spammers but just twist and distort and abuse other posters - how do you deal with them exactly?

Re:Things that have been sucessful

[JaredOfEuropa]

It took 5 days for comment spammers to find an open site and start abusing it, and once they find something that has worked once they just dont stop. And that's even before you consider the malicious idiots who aren't exactly spammers but just twist and distort and abuse other posters - how do you deal with them exactly?

I propose door-to-door moderation of these characters...

More complex that just modding up or down

[Jack Pallance]

One of the biggest challenges that such a system would face is the fact the most sites will order the oldest posts first. Thus, these get read more times, and get proportionately more points up.

This would seem to make sense because other posts may need to be read in context with the previouse messages.

However, this same principle negates the effect that the later posts are often times more valuable that the first posts, because they incorporate thoughts from the earlier posts (usually more efficiently). That is to say, when a new topic is opened up, the earlier posts will make the most basic statements. The later posts will combine these into more complex, but relevant conclusions. But these later posts are the same ones that would not get modded up because the simple posts have "gotten in the way," and the readers never follow along long enough to get to them.

See also: SlashDot.Org

Don't be surprised

[Lazerf4rt]

Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.

Plus, all forms of ideology are gradually becoming unfashionable due to open communication on the Internet. Conservatism is more recognizable as an ideology and that's why it's targetted first.

And, there's the whole Bush thing too.

Re:Don't be surprised

[Aceticon]

Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because:

• Theory A:
  

  ... the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.

  
  
• Theory B: Like minded people tend to group together (even on the Net) and you're not frequenting the right sites (ie, those with a conservative bias) and thus in your perception the Internet is a liberal place

I do agree that central governing authorities tend to promote the status quo - they obviously want things to remain as they are (since after all they have power and they would very much like to continue having it) - which by definition makes them conservative (as in, they don't want change).

However i don't think a lack of a central governing authority would switch the political gears on a whole information-exchange media all the way from conservative to liberal - to me, it seems more logical that the Net is more or less politically neutral and whichever slight political bias it might have comes from the demographics of it's users - if most of it's users are young people instead of old people, expect to find more opinions from apolitical, progressive and/or liberal people than from conservative people (in average young people tend to be in the "disapointed with politics"/"wanting change" field while old people tend to be in the "keep things as they are" field).

As more people join the discussions going on the Net (discussion groups, blogs, etc), expect that the range and intensity of the opinions being voiced on the Net more closelly match the "outside" world.

Note however that there are two factors which might skew what you see on Net vs what you see outside:

1. It's much more easy to express one's opinions on the Net than it is outside. The (semi-)anonymity of posting on the Net allows one to express opinions which are currently non-mainstream without the social risks of publicly going against the majority (like the risk of losing one's job for being a "radical").
2. In sites such as Slashdot you're in contact with a lot of non-Americans. This means that in here you're getting a much broader, world representative range of viewpoints which you won't get from mainstream American media (which in my good days i call the "navel gazers" and in my bad days i call the "circle jerk"). For example mainstream European political beliefs could easilly be percieved by Americans as having a strong "liberal" bias - allowing gay marriage, abortion, consumption of soft drugs and looking at the world as a complicated place in shades of grey - while in Europe we percieve American political beliefs as having a strong conservative-religious-moralistic bias - forbiding consenting adults to engage in non-mainstream behaviours, seing the world as "us the good ones"/"them the bad ones")

Quite possibly, the Net is much more representative of full range of opinions (political or otherwise) throughout the world than any local media would be (which tend to focus on the "accepted" mainstream opinions on a specific country). For an American the contrast might be even more glaring since American mainstream media seems to be even more guilty of navel gazing and always painting everything with the same two political colors ("Democrat" or "Republican") than most mainstream media i've been exposed to (the mainstream media of several countries, which mainstream media do have a tendency for navel gazing and for often using a restricted palette of political colors, though rarelly quite as extreme as the American one).

Too much discounting of late comments

[Anonymous Cowdog]

Early comments get most of the mod points.

Late comments, even very good ones, get almost no mod points.

Fixing this would help encourage civilized dialog by keeping some of the good quality commenters interested.

It's fine to reward early posters. But the magnitude of the effect is way out of proportion to what it needs to be, and it means that many excellent comments go unmoderated, just because they came an hour after the story instead of ten minutes.

What? Me, bitter? Heh.

Caste And Slums

[SuperKendall]

I know you mean well, but what I think ends up happening with a tiered system is that the lower tier always ends up being a ghetto, that upper tier people do not want to wade through - and newcomers cannot get through (or are not willng to) because of lack of upper tier particiapation and response to comments.

Lots of people have said on Slashdot they value replies more highly than high moderation, and I think that's true for a lot of people.

I just don't think any forum that doesn't let a user spontaneously join and start commenting is going to have an easy time attracting new members, the lifeblood of online forums.

As one who leans to the right on slashdot...

[ChePibe]

I've found this to be somewhat true, but not always. If a post contains direct criticism of the DNC or praise/direct agreement for Bush, you can count on a few "flamebait" or "overrated" moderations.

For some posts, such as this one I receive all kinds of complaints about how "right wing" I must be to dare complain that the DNC still hasn't come up with anything resembling a platform. I receive angry ALL CAPS COMMENTS - DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING, IDIOT!?! responses. Still, it at least retained a respectable 4, insightful.

Then there's posts like this one which held onto its 5, insightful, but received responses like this where I'm reminded from someone about the left that I shouldn't "THINK", just do whatever the left says because what is happening is wrong, WRONG!

And all along I thought the right was supposed to be anti-intellectual...

I don't really care about the biases among editors, moderators, or whatever. I post what I think, and receive moderations accordingly.

I do, however, remember this when it comes to meta moderation time and, while acting within the rules, I act accordingly when I see posts modded inappropriately.

The moderation system, however, consists really of choir preachers - people mod up what they want to hear and mod down what they don't. That's all it comes down to.

This is a timely thread

[Dr_Ish]

This post will almost certainly get modded into the basement, but what the hell.

I have been watching the blogs and noticed an interesting phenomenon that arises there, as a function of the lack of moderation, quality control, or anything like that. The fact that bloggers can post what they wish and also delete comments that might challenge their positions can lead to some pretty unhealthy outcomes.

Although I hate it when folks post commercials for their blogs as much as the next person, I am going to suggest that interested folks might want to look at a couple of recent posts that deal with these issues. My post Poison Girls describes in detail the kinds of things that can go wrong when there is no quality control. Another post, Blogs and 'Community Solipsism' also deals with this issue. Both posts offer concrete examples.

I am an academic and thus have some investment in the blind refereeing process. It is far from perfect, but it keeps some of the worst excesses of 'anything goes' at bay. Hopefully, something like the slashdot system will get implemented for blogs too.

What really concerns me is seeing people who lack competence in a field, still pontificating at length on topics. People who do not know better tend to get sucked in by the more manipulative types. They end up listening to worthless advice, yet taking it as gospel. For instance, I have a colleague who is pretty much a failed academic. They have had nothing appear in print for over six years (however, they are tenured). Yet, they are currently offering apparently sagely advice on being a scholar. The putative advice is bad and misleading. Yet, there is nothing that can be done about it.

My best response is to remind folks that, as the Bard said in the Merchant of Venice, "All that glisters is not gold" and that is especially true in the world of blogs, yet it seems that the problems appear to continue. Any comments or suggestions on this matter would be very welcome. I live in fear of the day that a high school kid starts claiming to be a cancer physician and offering bad advice to people with serious health issues. In the blog arena, it appears that it is likely to be believed by some. This is a very scarey thought.