Secondly, what makes a "good writer" isn't always what makes a "good moderator", any more than a "good programmer" makes a "good documentor" or a "good tester". Professors have to be teachers and researchers. They often fail at (at least) one of these.
Agree! But the problem is picking the good moderators out of a crowd of 75k(?). So far the best idea I've thought of is having moderator trial periods where their moderation isn't counted or doesn't count as much. At the end of the trial period their moderation must be reviewed by some person that gives them a thumbs up or down.
Of course this creates clerical-type work and can promote the same ideals as the reviewer over differing opinions.
Hey dillon: you got demoted to 0 just for being sarcastic!
I thought we covered the "Sarcasm isn't evil" idea under the Userfriendly/Segfault thread. He was sarcastic, but he did have a point.
If it was demoted for redundancy, I question that redundancy should get demoted below 1. Sometimes people need to read things from different angles or viewpoints, even if the jest is the same as another post. But that is just my 2 cents.
As I said in my post: While I don't agree that only prolific posters should be moderators, there aren't many ways to judge users other then their postings' scores.
So how do you propose we find these representatives of the unposting majority? And I don't think random selection is a good idea. To much work for Rob and Co weeding out the bad.
Besides that, it promotes the idea that moderators are better then the rest of us. This would only create a caste system where us lowly peasants have to suffer with the slashdot effect while the Oh Holy Moderators get to ride in the electronic fast lane.
Being a moderator should be about promoting good comments. Period. That's it. End of story. Something that is a serious responsibility not a social status badge.
Ok there was some sarcasm somewhere in there too.:)
One way to overcome this would be with an aging of scores. They mean less as they get older. But this would be difficult to implement and would mean keeping all scores individually with dates on them.
Another way would be to only keep score from the past few (days/months/years). Using some reasonable amount of time. This would be much easier to implement and while you still need to keep scores with dates you don't need to keep them for an eternity.
I second that idea. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the original post.
I am still concerned how replies are promoted and seen. I haven't seen very many cases of second level comments with a score higher than 1. And your comment deserves at least a 2.
An even better way to insure the scaling would be to devise a scheme on how moderator are selected. Some kind of set pattern. So that those that aren't moderators know what they need to do become moderators. So that Slashdot is Open-Moderated rather then closed club of good old boys.
As long as moderators don't know who each other are this could possibly be done with a scaling/weighting system. Anyone with a average score of +2 for a month can moderate with a very low weight. Once a month a users average is checked and his/her voting weight is adjusted up or down one level.
The minimums, weights, and time lenghts could be tinkered with. This is just an example. And I know it isn't perfect. It's just an idea.
While I don't agree that only prolific posters should be moderators, there aren't many ways to judge users other then their postings' scores.
How about when a Moderator changes the score of a post the system checks the score the moderator is basing his change on? So if a post had a score of one and two moderators see the value of one and each sends a decrement of 1. Now when the system process the first request it decrements it. Then when it process the second request it notice that the second moderator is moderating based off of a 1 and the post has already been decremented to 0 so it leaves it alone.
Of course these means that moderators may need to re-check posts. And work a little harder to get rid of nasty messages.
Maybe it would be feasable to allow a Forced change also. One that would change the score whether the score has changed from what the moderator saw it as or not.
To honor the first amendment, you have to allow for spam. If you don't like spam, use your first amendment rights and fight back. If every person that got an unwanted spam told the spammer that they would never buy product from said company again, there wouldn't be a problem, and said company would go out of business.
Yeah that works well. Then they know your e-mail address is active and they will continue to spam it and sell it to other companies.
Even if I don't pay for it directly in a per unit price plan I pay for it indirectly through my ISP price. The ISP's will need to be able to handle the tremendous amount of spam they will be getting if it because acceptable. It will add additional strain on the internet as a whole also.
With snail mail I don't pay for my mail box. Every house has one. I don't pay extra if I get a lot of mail. The company sending the stuff DO need to pay to send it so they wont be sending out so much that it breaks the back of the already overstrained U.S. postal system. It cost virtually nothing to spam from the senders point of view. But it can become very costly to ISPs and recipients if the load gets too high.
Also another thing. Junkmailers are required by law to remove you from their mailing list if you request it. Spammers have no such restriction.
They do a lot more then just Eudora and Cell phones. Those are the two products they are best known for. Check out their web page sometime. Looks like they do a lot with various communication technologies.
I don't think they could've bought Qualcomm stadium with just the money they make off Eudora.
Freeing Eudora would be really cool. Maybe they could start a trend were companies free their source when they drop a product.
The counter suit solves that for you. Lawyers will take up a case just like that where if they lose they don't get paid. It gives them an incentive for winning.
You've never heard of accident lawyers that run a deal where if they win they get a cut, if they lose you pay nothing? Basicaly the same deal. I'm sure you could find a lawyer(or a whole pack of laywers) that would be willing to take the risk. Especially if it meant big bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Since this topic should be dead anyway...
What is up with all the new Slashdot cookies? Is it just a little joke by Rob and Co? I find them kind of funny.
So far I've seen:
- religion
- visa_number
- high_school_gpa
- sexual_orientation
- iq
- income_bracket
- soc_sec_number
- mothers_maiden_name
All with what looks like random numbers as their value. Did I miss any?Later,
Xamot
Secondly, what makes a "good writer" isn't always what makes a "good moderator", any more than a "good programmer" makes a "good documentor" or a "good tester". Professors have to be teachers and researchers. They often fail at (at least) one of these.
Agree! But the problem is picking the good moderators out of a crowd of 75k(?). So far the best idea I've thought of is having moderator trial periods where their moderation isn't counted or doesn't count as much. At the end of the trial period their moderation must be reviewed by some person that gives them a thumbs up or down.
Of course this creates clerical-type work and can promote the same ideals as the reviewer over differing opinions.
Later,
Xamot
Hey dillon: you got demoted to 0 just for being sarcastic!
I thought we covered the "Sarcasm isn't evil" idea under the Userfriendly/Segfault thread. He was sarcastic, but he did have a point.
If it was demoted for redundancy, I question that redundancy should get demoted below 1. Sometimes people need to read things from different angles or viewpoints, even if the jest is the same as another post. But that is just my 2 cents.
Later,
Xamot
As I said in my post: While I don't agree that only prolific posters should be moderators, there aren't many ways to judge users other then their postings' scores.
So how do you propose we find these representatives of the unposting majority? And I don't think random selection is a good idea. To much work for Rob and Co weeding out the bad.
Hehehe!
Besides that, it promotes the idea that moderators are better then the rest of us. This would only create a caste system where us lowly peasants have to suffer with the slashdot effect while the Oh Holy Moderators get to ride in the electronic fast lane.
Being a moderator should be about promoting good comments. Period. That's it. End of story. Something that is a serious responsibility not a social status badge.
Ok there was some sarcasm somewhere in there too. :)
Later,
Xamot
One way to overcome this would be with an aging of scores. They mean less as they get older. But this would be difficult to implement and would mean keeping all scores individually with dates on them.
Another way would be to only keep score from the past few (days/months/years). Using some reasonable amount of time. This would be much easier to implement and while you still need to keep scores with dates you don't need to keep them for an eternity.
Later,
Xamot
I second that idea. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the original post.
I am still concerned how replies are promoted and seen. I haven't seen very many cases of second level comments with a score higher than 1. And your comment deserves at least a 2.
Later,
Xamot
An even better way to insure the scaling would be to devise a scheme on how moderator are selected. Some kind of set pattern. So that those that aren't moderators know what they need to do become moderators. So that Slashdot is Open-Moderated rather then closed club of good old boys.
As long as moderators don't know who each other are this could possibly be done with a scaling/weighting system. Anyone with a average score of +2 for a month can moderate with a very low weight. Once a month a users average is checked and his/her voting weight is adjusted up or down one level.
The minimums, weights, and time lenghts could be tinkered with. This is just an example. And I know it isn't perfect. It's just an idea.
While I don't agree that only prolific posters should be moderators, there aren't many ways to judge users other then their postings' scores.
Later,
Xamot
How about when a Moderator changes the score of a post the system checks the score the moderator is basing his change on? So if a post had a score of one and two moderators see the value of one and each sends a decrement of 1. Now when the system process the first request it decrements it. Then when it process the second request it notice that the second moderator is moderating based off of a 1 and the post has already been decremented to 0 so it leaves it alone.
Of course these means that moderators may need to re-check posts. And work a little harder to get rid of nasty messages.
Maybe it would be feasable to allow a Forced change also. One that would change the score whether the score has changed from what the moderator saw it as or not.
Later,
Xamot
To honor the first amendment, you have to allow for spam. If you don't like spam, use your first amendment rights and fight back. If every person that got an unwanted spam told the spammer that they would never buy product from said company again, there wouldn't be a problem, and said company would go out of business.
Yeah that works well. Then they know your e-mail address is active and they will continue to spam it and sell it to other companies.
Even if I don't pay for it directly in a per unit price plan I pay for it indirectly through my ISP price. The ISP's will need to be able to handle the tremendous amount of spam they will be getting if it because acceptable. It will add additional strain on the internet as a whole also.
With snail mail I don't pay for my mail box. Every house has one. I don't pay extra if I get a lot of mail. The company sending the stuff DO need to pay to send it so they wont be sending out so much that it breaks the back of the already overstrained U.S. postal system. It cost virtually nothing to spam from the senders point of view. But it can become very costly to ISPs and recipients if the load gets too high.
Also another thing. Junkmailers are required by law to remove you from their mailing list if you request it. Spammers have no such restriction.
Later,
Xamot
They do a lot more then just Eudora and Cell phones. Those are the two products they are best known for. Check out their web page sometime. Looks like they do a lot with various communication technologies.
I don't think they could've bought Qualcomm stadium with just the money they make off Eudora.
Freeing Eudora would be really cool. Maybe they could start a trend were companies free their source when they drop a product.
Later,
Xamot
The counter suit solves that for you. Lawyers will take up a case just like that where if they lose they don't get paid. It gives them an incentive for winning.
You've never heard of accident lawyers that run a deal where if they win they get a cut, if they lose you pay nothing? Basicaly the same deal. I'm sure you could find a lawyer(or a whole pack of laywers) that would be willing to take the risk. Especially if it meant big bucks.
Later,
Xamot