Slashdot Mirror
Assorted Slashdot Updates
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.
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?
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!
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!
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
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
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.
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!
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Problems are:
- Fair/Unfair works well for negative moderation, but not for positive moderation. (Appropriate/Inappropriate would be better).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.I still think the Slashboxes section of Preferences needs the Newest Boxes in a separate section for easier decision making.
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.
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
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.
"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