Webslacker is right. These amendments to the moderation scheme, I suspect, will prove to have nearly eliminated moderation. There's no reason not to have a wide range for possible scores. With a wide range, scores will follow a happy standard distribution, and people can pick how many posts they want to read.
Also, the auto-moderation for good posters, I suspect, is discouraging human moderation. Many a time a person with a high base score posts a, while germane, quite inane or simply unexciting post that has been granted a high score based on previous exciting posts. You can already do searches based on author. Why not extend those capabilities instead of munging the moderation scheme?
I'd like the quantitative results on how much moderation there's been. What time had the greatest percentage of moderated posts? If it's now, then I'll concede that the recent changes haven't discouraged moderation. However, by reducing the range of the moderation, it's becoming nigh useless. Why not reduce the range to 0..1?
The problem with digital losses, is, as Neal Stephenson discusses in his "Command Line" essay, that digital error-checking techniques work perfectly until some point, and then don't work at all. Thus you look at a file or listen to a CD and don't notice any problems until it's decayed too much for the processor to retrieve the intended data, and then it doesn't work at all. Also, the lifetime of CD's is violently less than that of vinyl and less even than tapes. (I'm not claiming that CD's and digital media don't have great advantages, however.)
> Again, though, I am confused by how the system > actually would treat someone who is regularly > downmoderated.
Well, I guess I know now--I've been downmoderated to a zero, primarily because the first time I posted on/. I fucked up and accidently reposted my comments about three times, which were rightly downmoderated out of existence. But in the last six weeks I've been a good egg. I suspect that flaws in the system now aren't necessarily strong enough to merit more complexity. but perhaps they are. I'm sure Rob is on this, but your current default score should certainly be viewable on your personal info page.
But if you downmoderate yourself, I assume you can downmoderate yourself out of being a moderator. That's my (weak) understanding of the current system, which is certainly getting complex enough to be bizarre. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of creating a/. personality forum, where people can rest on past laurels. More, I worry that unliked people will be downmoderated out of existence. Again, though, I am confused by how the system actually would treat someone who is regularly downmoderated. And can people moderate with comment filtering on? I still feel that's a bad idea.
As commented upon above, this does bear relevance to the antitrust trial. M$ used to be organized by product divisions. Product divisions can be rationally spun off into new companies. M$ is now organized into arbitrary cross-application divisions. Now, for example, the Office group can't be broken off, because the Office group doesn't exist at a high level. So, as braman posted in "Why it's a big deal", M$ is doing an end-run around the DOJ.
A slightly more refined suggestion would be to not allow moderators to moderate posts when their filter is set. There definitely should be a "no filter" setting that people can use and moderators must use when moderating.
If moderators want to use the filter, they shouldn't being moderating posts at that time.
I suspect this may have been commented upon earlier, but too many people don't Subject: their comments particularly well. I have two requests, the first stronger than the second.
1. I'd like each page to list the # of viewable articles (pass the threshold) and the # of articles that didn't pass the threshold. Does this already happen?
2. I'd like to see the distribution of scores for a given page or just Slashdot in general (a Slashbox?) in a happy bar chart.
Old comparatively, of course. The way Katz seems to repeatedly miss the point makes more sense when I discovered from this post that he's about 50. I thought he was a 32 year old clueless jerk; instead he's a baby-boomer who is reasonably close to getting it. Of course he's not a Linux-kid; he's not a kid. His sociopolitical interpretations of the Net and 'puters are still too old-school, but at least he _is_ old-school.
Slashdot Mirror
Webslacker is right. These amendments to the moderation scheme, I suspect, will prove to have nearly eliminated moderation. There's no reason not to have a wide range for possible scores. With a wide range, scores will follow a happy standard distribution, and people can pick how many posts they want to read.
Also, the auto-moderation for good posters, I suspect, is discouraging human moderation. Many a time a person with a high base score posts a, while germane, quite inane or simply unexciting post that has been granted a high score based on previous exciting posts. You can already do searches based on author. Why not extend those capabilities instead of munging the moderation scheme?
I'd like the quantitative results on how much moderation there's been. What time had the greatest percentage of moderated posts? If it's now, then I'll concede that the recent changes haven't discouraged moderation. However, by reducing the range of the moderation, it's becoming nigh useless. Why not reduce the range to 0..1?
The problem with digital losses, is, as Neal
Stephenson discusses in his "Command Line"
essay, that digital error-checking techniques
work perfectly until some point, and then
don't work at all. Thus you look at a file
or listen to a CD and don't notice any problems
until it's decayed too much for the processor
to retrieve the intended data, and then it
doesn't work at all. Also, the lifetime of
CD's is violently less than that of vinyl and
less even than tapes. (I'm not claiming that
CD's and digital media don't have great
advantages, however.)
> Again, though, I am confused by how the system
/. I fucked up and accidently reposted
> actually would treat someone who is regularly
> downmoderated.
Well, I guess I know now--I've been downmoderated
to a zero, primarily because the first time I
posted on
my comments about three times, which were rightly
downmoderated out of existence. But in the last
six weeks I've been a good egg. I suspect that
flaws in the system now aren't necessarily strong
enough to merit more complexity. but perhaps
they are. I'm sure Rob is on this, but your
current default score should certainly be viewable
on your personal info page.
But if you downmoderate yourself, I assume you /. personality forum, where people can rest on past laurels. More, I worry that unliked people will be downmoderated out of existence. Again, though, I am confused by how the system actually would treat someone who is regularly downmoderated. And can people moderate with comment filtering on? I still feel that's a bad idea.
can downmoderate yourself out of being a moderator. That's my (weak) understanding of the current system, which is certainly getting complex enough to be bizarre. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of creating a
As commented upon above, this does bear relevance to the antitrust trial. M$ used to be organized by product divisions. Product divisions can be rationally spun off into new companies. M$ is now organized into arbitrary cross-application divisions. Now, for example, the Office group can't be broken off, because the Office group doesn't exist at a high level. So, as braman posted in "Why it's a big deal", M$ is doing an end-run around the DOJ.
A slightly more refined suggestion would be to not allow moderators to moderate posts when their filter is set. There definitely should be a "no filter" setting that people can use and moderators must use when moderating.
If moderators want to use the filter, they shouldn't being moderating posts at that time.
I second this opinion.
But seriously, Rob may as well just HTMLize
trn and avoid maddening feature-creep.
I suspect this may have been commented upon earlier, but too many people don't Subject: their comments particularly well. I have two requests, the first stronger than the second.
1. I'd like each page to list the # of viewable articles (pass the threshold) and the # of articles that didn't pass the threshold. Does this already happen?
2. I'd like to see the distribution of scores for a given page or just Slashdot in general (a Slashbox?) in a happy bar chart.
The Cunctator
cunctator@kband.com
Old comparatively, of course. The way Katz seems
to repeatedly miss the point makes more sense
when I discovered from this post that he's
about 50. I thought he was a 32 year old
clueless jerk; instead he's a baby-boomer who
is reasonably close to getting it. Of course
he's not a Linux-kid; he's not a kid. His
sociopolitical interpretations of the Net
and 'puters are still too old-school, but
at least he _is_ old-school.
Bidding is now at $150.
Keep'em coming! (Not that anyone will read
this.)
it was spotted in Gnu York.
Do you mean Gnu Yak?
That's where Mom's horny sister got married, upstate.
Deer anteloped, Buffalo.
Why bother w/eBay? /.
Let's use
I'm selling a Newertech G3 300MHz/1 MB backside
cache card for PCI Macs/clones. New. In the box.
List: $750
Street: $650.
If you meet my reserve, I'll sell it to you.