This comment is very late, and I haven't read all the comments on this article, so apologies if someone's already mentioned this.
The basic idea is in the subject line - allow comments to be moderated out of existence (when they get to a score below -1). This doesn't solve the problem completely, but at least the noise in the discussion due to crazy posts won't last too long.
I haven't thought this through completely, but I thought I'd throw the idea out anyway and see what others thought of it.
The definition of "book" can be broader - I would expect the OpenBook to be available online, with publishers allowed to publish the book physically - kinda like: the linux kernel + all pkgs are available online, but you can buy distribution CDs if you like.
If you have multiple audio channels (ls/dev/dsp*) - I don't know if "channel" is the right word here - try running esd on a different channel (for instance, esd -d/dev/dsp1). Then, apps that don't use esd don't complain cos/dev/dsp is free, while esd is happy with/dev/dsp1. Works for me - I have both x11amp and realplay playing right now.
> If the article is a 4 and you think it's a 3, > you should probably leave it alone, if it's a -1 > and you think its a 4, act.
but if they do that, the following can happen quite often (this is scenario (b) in my earlier post):
1. score of article X is 1 2. moderator 1 sees this, decides this is ok, leaves it at 1, and goes on to other articles 3. ditto for moderators 2, 3, 4,..., 100 4. moderator 101 comes along, decides that the score should be 0, and knocks it down 5. now the score of article X is 0, even though only 1 person thought it should be 0, and 100 people thought it should be 1
I don't know if this has already been discussed / rejected / agreed to / implemented (my default score = 2), but it seems to me that the system of letting each moderator just vote a comment up or down will lead to either (a) a large number of comments at score = MAX or MIN leading to an almost binary good / bad rating, or (b) a large number of comments with an "incorrect" score caused by 100 moderators who thought the current score was ok (and therefore did not vote it up or down) and passed on, followed by 1 moderator who bumped the score.
One solution would be to have an additional option for moderators that says "I agree with the current score" and have those votes make the score somehow "stickier".
Another solution is to simply ask moderators to rate the comment on a scale of MIN to MAX and average the votes.
-crai
Btw, Eclipse made an excellent suggestion about having a button for flattening a particular thread - exactly what I would use (with threading at the top level).
Slashdot Mirror
This comment is very late, and I haven't read all the comments on this article, so apologies if someone's already mentioned this.
The basic idea is in the subject line - allow comments to be moderated out of existence (when they get to a score below -1). This doesn't solve the problem completely, but at least the noise in the discussion due to crazy posts won't last too long.
I haven't thought this through completely, but I thought I'd throw the idea out anyway and see what others thought of it.
-Chetan
The definition of "book" can be broader - I would expect the OpenBook to be available online, with publishers allowed to publish the book physically - kinda like: the linux kernel + all pkgs are available online, but you can buy distribution CDs if you like.
If you have multiple audio channels (ls /dev/dsp*) - I don't know if "channel" is the right word here - try running esd on a different channel (for instance, esd -d /dev/dsp1). Then, apps that don't use esd don't complain cos /dev/dsp is free, while esd is happy with /dev/dsp1. Works for me - I have both x11amp and realplay playing right now.
-Chetan
> If the article is a 4 and you think it's a 3,
..., 100
> you should probably leave it alone, if it's a -1
> and you think its a 4, act.
but if they do that, the following can happen quite often (this is scenario (b) in my earlier post):
1. score of article X is 1
2. moderator 1 sees this, decides this is ok, leaves it at 1, and goes on to other articles
3. ditto for moderators 2, 3, 4,
4. moderator 101 comes along, decides that the score should be 0, and knocks it down
5. now the score of article X is 0, even though only 1 person thought it should be 0, and 100 people thought it should be 1
-crai
I don't know if this has already been discussed / rejected / agreed to / implemented (my default score = 2), but it seems to me that the system of letting each moderator just vote a comment up or down will lead to either
(a) a large number of comments at score = MAX or MIN leading to an almost binary good / bad rating, or
(b) a large number of comments with an "incorrect" score caused by 100 moderators who thought the current score was ok (and therefore did not vote it up or down) and passed on, followed by 1 moderator who bumped the score.
One solution would be to have an additional option for moderators that says "I agree with the current score" and have those votes make the score somehow "stickier".
Another solution is to simply ask moderators to rate the comment on a scale of MIN to MAX and average the votes.
-crai
Btw, Eclipse made an excellent suggestion about having a button for flattening a particular thread - exactly what I would use (with threading at the top level).