Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assorted Slashdot Updates

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the aint-this-tons-of-fun dept.

As the dust is settling around my recent coding frenzy, here is a bunch of updates to the system:I've added a field for users to store their Public Keys on their User Info page. The M2 page is now linked into the system (if you have access anyway). The Comments on the M2 page also link the story that the comment is attached to (and please read the notes on the page: duplicate comments are not a bug!). I removed the sig from Logged in AC previews (it only affected previews, but it was scaring people). Both the FAQ and the Moderation Guidelines have been updated. And the grand Slashbox Poo-Bah CowboyNeal reports that AuctionBeagle, Security Focus, TheNextLevel, Gnotices, and WomenGamers are the latest additions to the SlashBoxes. Enjoy.

47 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Public keys on slashdot is a horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I have seen several forged keys out there for various software developers like the "offical" RedHat RPM key... Because the slashdot login is passed over the network in the clear, it is very easy to snake the user/pass or cookie, login as someone, and replace their key. The big problem is when a bunch of people decide they want to sign the fake key and distribute it on other sites...

  2. Re:MetaModeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    P.S. I HAVE AN ID but I refuse to log in. I am protesting the SNOBS at /. and their views of AC's...

    Hmmm... I've been frequenting this site since January, and until now I've seen it as open, fun, and interesting. But since the deal with trolls and the W. Richard Stevens story, this place has become rather elitist.

    It seems now that if you're an Anonymous Coward, you're somehow "bad," your posts aren't worth reading, and you don't deserve any respect. But if you have an account, people listen to you, moderators look favourably on you, and you're "part of the club." In fact, that's the way it seems. Slashdot is becoming a sort of exclusive club.

    Now, on the other hand, requiring an account to post messages is not asking a lot. On many other website discussion groups, you need an account (like on MP3.com, for instance). An even better example would be this: In my city, we have a "FreeNet," where people can get free email and newsgroup access. There are also private newsgroups, exclusive to the FreeNet, in a variety of topics, where you can chat with local residents, post want ads, etc. It's actually a very nice service. But you need an account to post messages on the newsgroups and use the service to its fullest. Without an account, you can log in as a guest and read the newsgroups, but you can't post. Membership is free. (Though they beg you for money like mad...)

    But having Anonymous Coward posting on Slashdot does have its advantages -- like inside information employees of a company could give that would get them fired if their identities were revealed. Even showing their IP address would be dangerous in this case. There is also the fact that it prevents newbies from feeling alienated when they first use the site, and it allows them to get a feel for it before getting an account.

    Now, I read some of the offending W. Richard Stevens comments. That stuff is disgusting. But if you feel so strongly about this, why didn't you delete the obscene comments? How hard is that?

    But back to my original point -- this is starting to become an exclusive club, of sorts. I've started to see less and less Anonymous Coward posts lately. Maybe you won't have to remove anonymous posting -- it'll die out by itself.

    But then again... I'm just an Anonymous Coward -- what in the world do I know?

  3. MetaModeration by davidu · · Score: 2

    Well I tried the MetaModeration today and I liked it. I think it should be made clearer that:

    People are NOT Moderating the comment, rather the Moderation it recieved.

    On the same moderation issue, one of the most important things to do is to know who anonymous posters are. (for Rob)

    Here is an example of a way to do it:

    Like many newspapers, the New York Times publishes anonymous letters to the editor, however the editors of the paper verify the identity of the writer, they just don't publish it. Rob has moved in that direction and I applaud it.

    Think about this:
    1) Rob never needs to look at who posts anonymously, but he can if a problem arrises.
    2) It leaves the possibility to change cowards karma despite being anonymous. (not sure how that would work out)
    just my $.02,
    -Davidu

    --

    # Hack the planet, it's important.
    1. Re:MetaModeration by caro · · Score: 2
      Rob never needs to look at who posts anonymously, but he can if a problem arrises.

      Yes, but wouldn't it be better if he had no way of knowing who posted something libellous or whatever? That was he can't be subpoenaed or in anyway responsible, which I'd say is better.

      --
      "Forget world peace. Visualize using your turn signals" - seen on the net somewhere
    2. Re:MetaModeration by JordanH · · Score: 4

      I got the chance to try MetaModeration and I really enjoyed it.

      While MetaModerating I saw a +5 Comment today that I hadn't seen before. If anything, I felt that this Comment deserved an even higher rating (but I gave it a "fair" realizing that this was topped out).

      It got me thinking. Perhaps you could allow people to give their points to a Comment even after it was topped out at 5. The Comment itself would stay at 5, but you could keep this surplus attached to the Comment, but not visible to readers. Then, every week or perhaps every few days, you could have a feature which would capture the top, or perhaps the top few Comments of the week based on surplus points. I would recommend never displaying the surplus points as it might lead to Moderator abuse with people trying to support some cause or another at the expense of objectivity. Perhaps these featured Comments could be displayed with some MetaComments containing the Comments that this one was in answer to or about the background context surrounding the Comment (like the background of the Author if this person is famous). I know that I would enjoy such a feature. As it is, I'm not able to keep up with very much of /. and even if I had read the featured Comment, I'm sure that I would enjoy reading these really good Comments again.

      Maybe this would work go along with allowing Moderators more points to assign too, as many are requesting. In fact, it might be nice to assign Moderators points on a sliding scale. Moderators who just make the minimum criteria, like first time Moderators, could get 5 points to assign, while old hands with extremely high Karma would get 10. Such a scheme may help to improve Moderation in a number of ways.

      Perhaps I'm odd, but I think that I've become more thoughtful in my posts since I'm now aware of my Karma. I would guess that others feel the same way. Tying Karma together with getting extra Moderator points, and allowing those with higher Karma to Moderate (and MetaModerate) more often might make it kind of a prestige thing. Pride before your peers is a powerful motivator.

  4. LDAP directory of users? by kovacsp · · Score: 3

    What does everybody think of an LDAP directory of all registered slashdot users ala the Netscape Directory? I, personally, think it'd be kinda useful, and neat!

    1. Re:LDAP directory of users? by LL · · Score: 4

      kovacsp wrote
      What does everybody think of an LDAP directory of all registered slashdot users ala the Netscape Directory? I, personally, think it'd be kinda useful, and neat!

      Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of annonymous contributors by revealing their identities? Before people jump in with the suggestion of using their slashdot handle to redirect mail, I would note that many people value their privacy (ie have been overwhelmed by spam) and more email is often the last thing we need in busy lives (pause for mass amen). If authenticity is required, I would like to see at least one level of screen, if nothing else to control the information overload. Some suggestions

      - Rob creates handles along the lines of name@slashdot.org for registered users

      - a local private/public key is generated (optional) that on receipt and validation of the user's real PGP key (whatever that means), substitutes the slashdot key.

      - a user controlled mechanism for carrying conversations beyond the normal termination of threads, ie default of ignore direct messages unless allowed (think 2 way matrix which if you look up a user's info, gives directions for further communications if on the allowed list)

      The weakness is that /. security measures have to be adequate for people to have some degree of trust that their privacy/anonymity won't be compromised. Maintaining a balance between public exposure to ensure community credibility and a level of obscurity to respect personal opinions is a tricky act to implement. Perhaps I'm just dreaming, that in a global communications media with rapidly changing technology, there is no static solution. At the very least, we should be able to opt out of the system if it doesn't suit their needs (anyone notice it's funny how hotmail doesn't allow you to easily add but not delete accounts?).

      LL

    2. Re:LDAP directory of users? by Szoup · · Score: 3

      Gee, would be hard sorting through all the AC entries...

  5. Re:Let me clarify by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Well you can go to http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=hand le (where handle is their slashdot username), and if the person chose to make their email address public, it'll be listed there.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  6. Re:Let me clarify by Aaron+Schrab · · Score: 2
    And yeah, I guess being able to opt out would be nice.
    No, if something like that is done it should be opt-in only. Opt-out is the problem behinnd spam.
  7. Public key box is nice, but please use key servers by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 5

    Having the User info box for your public keys is nice, but please, if you use PGP, use the key servers! That way automated PGP systems like "metamail" (which also supports GPG) can look up your key when you send email and even, if necessary, fetch other keys used to sign it. Ideally, do both. BAL's PGP Public Key Server is a good place to start - all the servers mirror each other's content, so any should work.
    --

    --
    Xenu loves you!
  8. Yes! by Brian+Knotts · · Score: 2
    Now that /. has a spot to put your public key, I may just have to get GPG and start using encruption again.

    I never expected such quick service from Rob. *big grin*

    Anyhow, the above comment is exactly what I was hoping would happen.

    The people who were a bit hesitant about the idea yesterday have a very good point: you should use keyservers. I have had my keys up on keyservers for some time.

    But I still think that having a Public Key display on Slashdot is a useful thing, and am glad Rob thought so, too, if only for further publicity of PGP and GnuPG.

    Thanks, Rob!

    --
    Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page

  9. The amazing disappearing karma by hawk · · Score: 2

    I'm seeing something similar. I thought that it first reported at 40, then it was 30, then 29, 28, now 26 . . . all without any of my posts being moderated . . .

  10. And it creeps back . . . by hawk · · Score: 2

    Taking yesterday's 26, and adding 3 points for a lawyerly post, I now have 30 . . .

    Hmm, is a penta-thingy handling this? :)

  11. Communicator problem with M2 by florin · · Score: 2

    On my PC I had to resort to Internet Explorer 5 to be able to click a parent link and then use the back button to come back to the same 10 questions, with Netscape Communicator 4.51 I'd get a new set every time. I am using Windows NT *duck*. I was waiting around for others to report this, but I haven't seen mention in any of the discussions about M2 so.. anyone else?

    Flo

  12. My questions about M2 by florin · · Score: 3

    Hi,
    I have tried two days of meta moderating now and I came up with a couple of observations and questions about the process.

    First of all, I must admit that I hit the back button and rehit the meta moderate link a couple of times until I got a batch of moderations I felt comfortable with. There were always one or two questions I didn't feel sure about, and I feel that leaving them unrated is just a third choice indicating neutrality. Like when you feel a moderation isn't really unfair, but perhaps just unnecessary. Maybe I gave the whole thing too much thought in general, I looked at the parent link 7 out of 10 times or so.

    I proceeded carefully, I just didn't want to ruin my chance at getting normal moderator status. In a way, the whole meta moderation worries me a bit.. it seems, you can lose eligibility to moderate if you do badly, but you don't win anything noticeable for doing well. Or do you? The way I see it, now, it seems best to do it just once and try to do it best you can.

    At times I wasn't sure about distinctions between several positive or several negative moderations. Unfortunately I can't go back to the moderation page to get the link for an example because I've already done a meta moderation today. But I'll try to describe it.

    For instance the question would be "is this +1 for 'insightful' a good moderation" and although the article moderated on provided an anecdote that I would certainly have qualified as 'interesting' or maybe 'informative', it was not an article that provided a good overview of or new insight into the larger topic, i.e. what I would call an 'insightful' article. It was just a description of a real life example implementation of something that was being discussed.

    I did agree with the positive moderation in general, and I might have rewarded the article with moderation myself if I'd had points, but I would not have put it in the category 'insightful'. For that reason I should've judged the moderation 'unfair', but I agreed with the general sentiment and didn't want to be overly critical so I left them unrated.

    Am I taking things too seriously? Maybe I'm just not a good meta moderator. I don't find it to be an easy thing to do. Often I'm not satisfied with just clicking the buttons and I want to add a commentary of my thoughts on the moderation. But that's probably taking the moderation issue too far, it's really more interesting to just discuss a real article instead.

    Flo

  13. Re:Public Keys? by Christopher+Cashell · · Score: 5

    Public keys are a part of PGP(or GPG). The way it works, when you use PGP you first generate a keypair. This consists of a private key, and a public key.

    The private key you keep for yourself, and don't allow anyone else access to. This is what you use when signing something, or when decrypting something that is encrypted with your public key.

    Your public key you can post on a website, publish to a keyserver, or even send via e-mail. This is what is used by other people to encrypt things. Something encrypted to your public key can only be decrypted by your private key.

    I know this is a really basic explanation, but for information, check out http://www.pgp.com, http://www.gnupg.org, or do a search on your favorite search engine for PGP or public key cryptology.

    --
    Topher
  14. I'm a little unclear... by Nugget94M · · Score: 5
    I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind the implementation of public keys stored in the slashdot database. I'm not sure it's useful, and perhaps it's even a bit misguided.

    There's already a robust and well-supported infrastrucure in place for the network storage and retrieval of PGP/GPG public keys with the existing public keyserver network. The most compelling feature of the keyserver network is that it promotes the web-of-trust model of key trust, allowing users to sign and update trusted keys. This means that the web of trust continues to spread and become ultimately more useful.

    The collection of pgp keys is not static data and should not be treated as such. It's a corpulent, growing, interrelated lattice of identies and trust relationships that changes continuously.

    A redundant, and static storage of public keys in slashdot is nice and geeky, but not as useful as the public key networks. Key storage will not be beneficial without update capabilities, and I think we all can agree that such function is well beyond the scope of the slashdot engine. There is already a tool in place which is nearly ubiquitious for retreiving public keys on the net -- let's support that and not try to re-invent the wheel.

    Rather, I think what would be useful would be a way for slashdot users to store and display their PGP Fingerprint and Key ID. Not the key itself, but simply the unique fingerprint of the key.

    This is, I think, much closer to the usage philosophies of the public keyserver system. In fact, with a more rigid entry format (i.e. a field for just the key ID), Rob could even code links to the public keyservers to retreive a users current key in a dynamic manner.

    For instance, if there were a place in my profile to enter my key ID: 0xE43C5FC3 there could easily be a link in the header above my comments linking to a keyserver using the url: http://pgp5.ai.mit .edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE43C5FC3

    Plus a line for verification of my fingerprint:
    D50C 1ABB 0D80 CC78 2939 FBE4 B379 C4A5 E43C 5FC3
    to add yet another datapoint in people's ability to evaluate whether the key 0xE43C5FC3 really belongs to me.

    A much more useful solution, I think. It Still allows slashdot to further promote the use of encryption while not attempting to address problems which are already solved.

  15. I'm not sure I get it... by Otter · · Score: 2
    OK, I go to Metamoderate a post with (Score 5:, Interesting). The button allows me to rate the moderation of "Insightful":
    • I'm evaluating the Insightful, not the Interesting, right?
    • If I think it deserves a 5, but not Insightful, do I criticize the moderation?
    • If I think it deserves Insightful, but not a 5, do I criticize the moderation?
    • Which moderation gave it the 5, the Interesting or the Insightful?
    • Could there be anything geekier than this convoluted system?
    • CmdrTaco continues to do a fantastic job of giving us what we want, and we all appreciate it tremendously.


    Incidentally, I was surprised by Rob's statement that he thinks 2-3 of 10 comments are mis-moderated. Personally, I think the system works superbly, except when it gets swamped with trolls. My greatest difficulty when moderating is that everything I go to mark up has already been promoted.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    1. Re:I'm not sure I get it... by PurpleBob · · Score: 3

      I'm evaluating the Insightful, not the Interesting, right?
      Right. The one at the top in parentheses is only the latest moderation, not necessarily the one you're asked to judge.
      If I think it deserves a 5, but not Insightful, do I criticize the moderation?
      Yes. Though if you're just being nitpicky (like you think it should have been "Interesting"), I'd say you should leave it in the middle.
      If I think it deserves Insightful, but not a 5, do I criticize the moderation?
      Read the top of the metamoderation page. You're not supposed to metamoderate the score, just the single moderation.
      Which moderation gave it the 5, the Interesting or the Insightful?
      Well, according to the instructions, it shouldn't matter. I agree that there could be a comment that should have been moderated up, but not when it was already at 4... however, remember that two moderators might hit the page at the same time.
      Could there be anything geekier than this convoluted system?
      Remember what people were saying about Mn moderation and the Slashdot RPG? :)
      CmdrTaco continues to do a fantastic job of giving us what we want, and we all appreciate it tremendously.
      I concur.
      --

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  16. Re:Karma by crisco · · Score: 2
    The problem with that is that you have to write a scintillatingly good comment pretty quickly; posts written after the first hour or two of a /. posting, I think, are largely ignored.

    So true! Those comments get moderated up, generate most of the replies, and get the most attention. So this is one of the drawbacks to a scoring/moderation system, you can miss out on some good stuff that just didn't get posted in time.

    I've been making a concious effort to read the newest, lowest scored posts when I have points to try and promote articles that others missed. But even then, I only hit new articles. And if the M2 system means anything, other moderators are much worse than me.

    --

    Bleh!

  17. New Slashbox - the Karma scorecard! by crisco · · Score: 2
    OK, I figure now that the karma system has been introduced, at least half of the Slashdotters that regularly post are going to start watching their karma with each post, trying to raise it. So why don't we make it offical and make a Slashbox of the users with the highest (and lowest) karmas? That will give the Slash-addicts their ten microseconds of Slash-fame.

    --

    Bleh!

  18. Regarding the Slashboxes, by crisco · · Score: 5
    I just added one of the new Slashboxes and it showed up at the bottom of my list. So I spent a few miniutes clicking and waiting so it came up to about where I wanted it. Not the best way to use mine or Slashdot's resources.

    Could we have a way to specify the order our Slashboxes appear? I was thinking instead of checkboxes to pick them, we could enter a number indicating where in our sequence we wanted that Slashbox. That way I wouldn't have to spend a bunch of time re-ordering them when I add new ones or my preferences get lost.

    On a side note, anyone notice that the ArsTechnica box is always well behind the site? Other Slashboxes maintain concurrency a bit better, can the ArsBox be made to do so also?

    --

    Bleh!

  19. Well, M2's changed my behavior. by SEE · · Score: 2

    I'm not going to risk moderating anymore, because meta-moderation has all the potential for abuse as moderation without the built-in correction.

    Why? If somebody M2's all positive moderation on pro-microsoft remarks and all negative moderation on pro-Linux remarks as unfair, while M2ing all positive moderation on pro-Linux remarks and all negative moderation on pro-Microsoft remarks as fair, it may very well not get caught by whatever heuristics Rob is using.

    Thus, this M2er is unfairly zapping good moderators in the pursuit of his biases, while the moderator doesn't even know for what he's being zapped. And there isn't even the corrective of the M2 being flagged in disco threads like moderation is. At least unfair moderation could be reported as an abuse to Rob, but you don't even have that option for unfair M2, because you don't even know when or to what it happened!

  20. Meta-Moderation & "Redundant" posts. by BigJimmy · · Score: 2

    I just did my civic duty and meta-moderated, but I came across one slight problem. I noticed a post that had been moderated as "redundant". Since these are random postings to random stories, I have no way of telling if they were really redundant. That could leave a loophole if anyone wanted to abuse the system.

  21. Is "unfair" == "inaccurate"? by sandler · · Score: 3

    "Unfair" seems to imply that you feel there was undue bias in the moderation. Is it also meant to include moderations that you think are just plain wrong? ie. something not funny being rated as Funny.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Article Moderation by shr · · Score: 3
    I just saw this post and realized that what we need now is moderation of the articles themselves!!! Let us rate the articles to reflect how we feel about them. I'm not necessarily saying that we should filter the alticles themselves; I just want a score next to the article so I know not to miss a "5er".

    I got rotated into moderation recently and am seeing how it really does work. With only 5 points it really makes sense to boost good posts rather than flaming them. I also like the 3 day term; I already ready /. too much and as much as I'd like to contribute I initially groaned at the idea of spending time reading un-moderated posts. I never used to read comments because they were useless before moderation; afterwards it has so much value.

    Amusing that those most interested in moderation will post to this topic, meaning that they can't moderate it; lol

  24. Pref needed for default setting of "No Score +1" by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    Add a pref so we can select whether the "No Score +1 Bonus" is, by default, checked off or not. I have some karma, but I feel pretty guilty when I post a flame at an accidental score of 2. ;-)

    Oh, better yet, get rid of the +1 Bonus checkbox, and give us a .. um .. (I don't know the name of the widget) a menu-thingie so we can select our own score from the range of -1 through the karma default. i.e. In a situation where I know I'm going off topic, instead of getting to pick a starting score of 1 or 2, lemme pick -1, 0, 1, or 2. Then give us a pref so we can pick the default setting.


    ---
    Have a Sloppy day!
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  25. Re:Karma by The+Cunctator · · Score: 3

    As you can see from checking my user info, I'm at -8. Restarting is certainly one possibility; another would be to write such scintillatingly good posts that they get wildly up-moderated. The problem with that is that you have to write a scintillatingly good comment pretty quickly; posts written after the first hour or two of a /. posting, I think, are largely ignored. More, I'm not a Linux guru, so my posts are generally only of moderate interest to the mean /.er. My user number isn't massively low (15267) but just think what it would be if I made a new account. The horrors.

    Is there any way to delete an account? There isn't an obvious one. And it's not mentioned in the FAQ.

    Taco talks a bit in the FAQ about there not being Karma tracking implemented. I sure would appreciate it. He even almost admits that it's kind of crappy to only show recent posts but count old posts in your Karma. I really think there should be a statute of limitations on karma...after a while, old posts stop contributing to karma, and it fades. Yes, I know that doesn't really follow what real karma would do, but this ain't really karma.

    --

    --
    Make mine methylphenidate.

  26. Moderation too complex! by wangi · · Score: 2

    And i'm talking about the traditional moderation here. Attaching a score to an article is a fair idea - however all these various ratings that go along with it are pointless, confusing and redundant.

    What is different between 'interesting' and 'insightful'? 'troll' and 'off-topic'? Is 'over-rated' a -1, 'under-rated' a +1?

    Why not drop the meaningless ratings and just go with hard scores (+1, -1)?

  27. M^2 and its implications by gleam · · Score: 3

    MetaModeration, so far, seems like a great idea. To moderate the moderation seems to be both fair and wise, and it should help potential moderators realize when it's prudent to moderate.

    I found that, as I was reading the posts moderated up to +4 and +5, most of them didn't really deserve to be there. For quite a few of the +5s (almost all, in fact) I had to say the rating was unfair, since it is my belief that Rob intended +4 and +5 to basically include information that the post left out, so when comments were sorted by score the reader could see any last-minute additions. For that reason, pretty much every +5 "Insightful" post or +5 "Funny" post seemed like an unfair raise to me, like the moderators were too lazy to look for the other gems deep in the comment page and so merely moderated already-high posts up. I also noticed that, of the ones I said were unfair, a large percentage were in the first 20 posts of that thread. In one of the rare instances where this didn't seem to be as true (the story about black figures in technology, for instance) quite a few very good posts had very high id numbers. Still, many of these were rated to +4 or +5, but I only found one that was so truly "Insightful" and which so beautifully incorporated the basic arguments inherent in the story that it deserved a +4 or +5, and I gave it a very hearty "Fair" moderation rating.

    My general feeling, as well, is that +3 is fine for "Funny", but it sometimes seems that I'd like to filter them out. Some stories get funny posts moderated up, but the content of the story doesn't really lend itself easily to humor. A way for users to select which moderation reasons to view would be very good.. sometimes I'd like to just not see the "flamebait" or "troll" posts.. or just a few others. But enough personal choices.

    Anyway, I think it'd be more than interesting to see a graph of the results of at least the past two days of MetaModeration, because I would be truly interested in seeing whether M^2ers agree with me that most +4 and +5 posts deserve to be also deemed "Overrated"..

    Regards,


    -efisher
    ---

    --
    this .sig is not a .sig.
  28. Re:Slashboxes Needs "New Boxes" section. by gravious · · Score: 2

    Good idea SEWilco. For myself, I would like to see multiple 'comment viewing modes' and a facility to easily switch between viewing modes. You could have a "moderator mode" (-1, newest first, flat), "weed out the dross mode" (2, highest first, threaded) and more that I can't think of right now :(

    --

    Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
  29. Re:Public key box is nice, but please use key serv by gravious · · Score: 3

    That is a great idea! Then all CmdrTaco has to do is offer a free web based e-mail service and give out addresses to devout slashdotters(sp?) Just think, me@slashdot.org :) Mmmm, I'm having wet dreams just thinking about it. You could let registered users hack at an off-line copy of the system in time honoured open source fashion. The tag line could be "Go on Evolve yourself". Then onto a Mozilla /. plugin, on-line collaborative moderated bookmarks, strong crypto discussions, automatic web-form filling, IPO and then then buy Yahoo! with the change.

    Oops, I think I should reduce my caffiene intake.

    --

    Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
  30. Funny Disable User Pref by AT · · Score: 5

    How about a user preference to allow those humorless hackers amongst us to ignore posts flaged as funny? Perhaps something that just ignores any points assigned to a comment under the catagory of "funny".

    It seems like one of the top posts is always a joke of some kind. While they might be relevent and even amusing sometimes, I hate consistantly seeing them among the very top posts.

    Taking that idea one step further, why not allow us to select the adjustment in points for each catagory? e.g. Offtopic: -1, Flamebait: -2, Insightful: +2, Funny: 0, Informative: +1, etc.

  31. Re:and spammy by MindStalker · · Score: 3

    Personally I think the average registered slashdot is useless. I wouldn't think any more than .1% of slashdotters even read spam (or is .1% being insulting, should it be .01%?) much less reply/buy anything from it. Spam is marketting directed to newbies. I would hope that collectivly we are a bit smarter than that, not counting AC of course.

  32. Another slashbox is needed: by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · · Score: 2

    lwn.net/daily
    ---
    Put Hemos through English 101!
    "An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein

    --
    Linux MAPI Server!
    http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
    (Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
  33. M2 issues/suggestions by HenryFlower · · Score: 3
    I have some issues with the current Meta Moderation (should be M^2 or M**2, no?).

    Problems are:

    1. Fair/Unfair works well for negative moderation, but not for positive moderation. (Appropriate/Inappropriate would be better).
    2. Negative moderation should be more important to M2 than positive moderation, but, at least in the sample of 10 I had, it was mostly positive moderation I was meta moderating. Should be 80/20, I think.
    3. I may feel that moderating a post to +2 was appropriate, pass on the moderation to +3 and +4, and feel that +5 was entirely inappropriate. That's the only sort of decision that really makes sense for M2ing positive moderation, but you currently don't have the information to do that. Having the effect of the moderation visible (+4->+5, e.g.) would be helpful.
    4. I have personally used my moderation points to moderate up posts I felt were inappropriately moderated down, but I would hate to see an M2er M2 me down because of that. Again, having some indication of the effects and context of moderation would be helpful.
    Whew..., the meta discussion gets difficult to phrase. I like M2, but I do think it needs the tweaks suggested.
  34. Different periods of time by bafful · · Score: 2

    User Info shows only comments from the last few weeks (and even says so). Karma includes older comments. That's the whole thing.

  35. Slashboxes Needs "New Boxes" section. by SEWilco · · Score: 3

    I still think the Slashboxes section of Preferences needs the Newest Boxes in a separate section for easier decision making.

  36. Should we start signing our posts? by ClipDude · · Score: 3

    Does this mean that we should start clear-signing our posts? I think it might be a good idea, except we already have to use a password to get into the system. Also, it might make the posts longer than they need to be (with the signature). Anyhow, I think adding public keys to the user profile was a great idea. (Thanks, Rob!)
    ----
    =======

    --

    The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
  37. Discussion xor Moderation? by ainvy · · Score: 2

    Usually, I referee papers for a conference or a journal to which I may have a submission. This is not taken as a conflict of interest in research;
    on the contrary it is an indication that you will probably do a good job of peer review. Obviously, I won't kill a paper that comes to me because I need to get my paper in. But I find it very strange when this exclusivity is applied on /.

    So long as we do not moderate our posting up, which is obviously unethical, most of us would be able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion and moderate as well.

    The other problem is that a post can catch an eye of a moderator in the first hour or so and then it dwindles for obvious reasons. To alleviate this difficulty, the moderator must have some mechanism to be able to view sections of comments based on time intervals. ("give me the discussions in the last half an hour.")

    Finally, "funny" is used rather funnily by many moderators. No "funny" commment should raise above a score of 2 if it has no other intrinsic merit.

  38. Meta Moderation by legoboy · · Score: 2

    What I think need to be added to this feature is pretty simple to explain, but probably quite a bit of trouble to code.

    For normal comments, it should show the score the comment had before the moderation, and after. As it is now, you can be looking at a 5 point comment marked overrated. You don't have a clue whether it was called overrated at 2/3, and bumped down one, which would be Unfair, or whether the comment was at 5, bumped down, then marked up again.

    Same thing goes for Underrated.

    Redundant has been discussed by other people, funny is subjective... It's harder to be able to give good answers than you may think.

    As to normal comments:
    I had one show up three times on my list of ten... Two times for interesting, once for overrated. If at all possible, give us before and after scores. Please. This would make for much more confidence in the process. (For anyone who cares, I think I left all three in the middle.)

    ------

    --
    If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
  39. Questions about karma by wanderingstar · · Score: 2

    Do you receive karma for using moderator points (when you're given them) or when you meta-moderate? (Should you?) Also, karma is listed as being the sum of the points given to your posts by moderators (more or less). What other factors can/should contribute to your karma? Contributing stories? Other stuff? If you don't post for a while, can your karma dwindle (i.e. expire)?

    Just wondering.

    1. Re:Questions about karma by zantispam · · Score: 3

      "Do you receive karma for using moderator points (when you're given them)"


      I don't think so. As I understand karma, it is affected by moderation and M2.


      "or when you meta-moderate?"


      From the FAQ:

      and meta moderation done to your moderations.


      "What other factors can/should contribute to your karma?"


      Nothing else can, AFAIK. I think that submitting good stories that are published ahould contribute to karma. I also think that generally being active in discussions (subjective at best) should contribute.


      "can your karma dwindle (i.e. expire)? "



      I do not think so. I really hope not. However, that FAQ and the Moderator Guidelines are less than illuminating.

      --

      censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
  40. Slashdot considered harmful by Bob+Ince · · Score: 2

    Argh! Just think how many man-hours of work time is already lost to the behemoth Slashdot! How much worse will it be if users are encouraged to compete for karma, having to read and reply to articles as soon as they appear to accumulate the best high score?

    All over the world, productivity will slump, causing a global stock exchange crisis! Unattended nuclear power plants will go critical! The moon will blow up! And the French will take over the world!

    Or something.


    --
  41. Re:Public Keys? by LMariachi · · Score: 2

    No, the fingerprint is like a checksum for the public key. It's used to verify the validity of a key received from someone you know. You're supposed to contact the key's owner in person and have him/her read you their fingerprint. Then you can vouch for the key by signing it, and people who trust you can trust that key without having to call the owner themselves. A few iterations of this create a "web of trust" with only minimal personal verification.

    This is one of the reasons PGP only works really well when a lot of people are using it. If a substantial web of trust isn't developed, you have to verify a whole lot of public keys yourself. Or live in fear.