SoylentNews - User contributions [en]

SoylentNews

2014-02-13T09:40:08Z

Art: /* List of Discussion Pages */

[[FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]] ... Was your question not answered? Get on IRC and pester the relevant person: [[WhosWho| Who's Who?]]

'''Feb 13, 2014 12:33AM EST:''' Status

A select few editors, dev, and system types are working through the system finding bugs. User registration works, there are stories on the front page, comments and replies.

We could use a temporary bug tracking system that's easily accessible by the users (ie - not requiring onerous registration). Can anyone hook us up?
: How about "Bug:" namespace here on wiki? [[User:Yahwotqa|Yahwotqa]] ([[User talk:Yahwotqa|talk]]) 00:45, 13 February 2014 (MST) <=== Done
:: If you expect more reports, I suggest using something structured like [[Template:Bug]] (example use in [[Bug:Testbug]]). Expand the template however you see fit. :) [[User:Yahwotqa|Yahwotqa]] ([[User talk:Yahwotqa|talk]]) 02:07, 13 February 2014 (MST)

E-mail me: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) com

'''Feb 12, 2014 9:40PM EST:''' Status

Freenode is complaining "Server is full" and not letting me into chat, so this is a '''guess status''' :-)

Thanks to everyone who volunteered to help test the system this evening. At the last minute, the team found a nest of bugs that effectively broke the moderation system, so testing was put off until 10:PM EST, and then later was put off until Thu.

* Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn’t have to do it himself.
* Any project can be estimated accurately once it’s completed.
* The sooner you get behind schedule, the more time you have to make it up.
* A badly planned project will take three times longer than expected
* A well planned project only twice as long as expected.
* Schedules are made to be broken
* Work expands to fill the Time. Cost expands to meet the Budget.
* The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%.
* The only certainty in a project is uncertainty
* On time, on budget, on spec – pick 2.

==WE HAVE A FIRST POST==

From the site:
I know its been a long wait, but we've been steadily moving towards launch. With luck, you're reading this on the main index of the site, which means we've gone, and haven't gone mad in the process. Now that we're here, we hope to have made the wait worth it, but we depend on everyone in the community. To make this site a success, we depend on each and every single user even if its just from passing word of mouth. Remember, every single user can submit stories, moderate, and contribute to discussions all at the same time, and that's what makes us unique. May I be the first to welcome you to your new home.

[[http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16708]]

'''Site Announcements'''

'''Feb 11, 2014 8:01PM EST:''' Status

Yeah, yeah... we're working on it.

We're starting to get overlords that manage various features. An overlord is responsible for granting access - it's intended to be a ''no work'' position, so that it can be held for long periods without requiring much time.

So for example, Applesmasher is the overlord of forums. He grants access to people and recovers access when people leave, but he doesn't ''have'' to do any work himself (although he can if he wants). He ensures that the people with access are reliable.

So if you need a forum for your group, ask the overlord of forums. If you want a set of wiki pages, ask the overlord of the wiki, and so on.

The current overlords have agreed to hold the position until Mar 1, at which time we will choose overlords via some formal process. (And the current overlords might ask to continue.)

The current overlords can be contacted here:

art@SoylentNews.org

editors@SoylentNews.org

forums@SoylentNews.org

wiki@SoylentNews.org

chat@SoylentNews.org

There will be more to come. This is temporary to get us going - the community can change the structure later, but for now things seem to naturally separate into these areas of interest.

'''Feb 11, 2014 3:01PM EST:''' Status

We have a working system, and two people fixing the CSS (sadly, none for sphinx). As far as I can tell, we're trying to get the high-bandwidth aspects of the site running: Varnish, MySQL configuration options, and such. We want the system to be able to withstand a tsunami of visitors 10 meters high.

The system team has been working around the clock to get things running, and I mean that literally. I have to as-much-as order people to break off at night and go to bed. They *really* want to see this thing work. Send them some love in chat if you can.

Note that these are not "deadlines", nor do I particularly care if we miss them: We're reporting when we "predict" things will be ready. The first 90% of the project is done, now we're working on the remaining 90%.

Stand by for launch...

P.S. - Check out the logo

'''Feb 11, 2014 12:01PM EST:''' Need some sphinx help

We still need [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_(search_engine) sphinx (search engine)]
expertise, so if you are familiar with this package, please E-mail me:

If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

----

'''The Slashcott is getting attention'''
:A selection of Slashcott/Beta comments from around the web.......

::* http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new-interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ <=== Nice article by Ars
::* http://spallshurgenson.blogspot.com/2014/02/tragedy-of-commons-redesigning-social.html <=== A good summary of the situation
::* https://community.republicwireless.com/thread/23151 <== "How not to treat your community"
::* http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2014/02/biting-hand-feeds-less-boycotting-slashdot-org-1-week
::* http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/442346-trouble-at-slashdot

Check out the [http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16688| look and feel] of the new site!

----

'''To everyone involved... THANK YOU!'''

We are building a news site alternative to Slashdot. We have started only a few days ago, and this wiki is a temporary measure so that volunteers can coordinate and others can see what's happening.

The idea is to build a news aggregation site that delivers what's important - better articles, less fluff, and all the functionality you expect from the moderation system. We are still looking for volunteers so stop by the boards and the IRC and let us know you want to help!

* The proposed business model is [[Finances|here]] 
* Some business planning is [[Business|here]] 
* A statement of functionality (turn into a requirements document?)--- [[FeatureList]]

''' Get Involved '''

'''Hop in to IRC!''' - [[SoylentNews:IRC|IRC]]: ##altslashdot on chat.freenode.net ([https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot Webchat], we are growing in [http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/details.php?net=freenode&room=%23%23altslashdot strength!])

'''Register on the forums''' - http://forums.SoylentNews.org
* Go to forums.SoylentNews.org and register a user
* Read [http://forums.soylentnews.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38&sid=e55255cb6dfe68b28c8cf5f2b9697a64| this] post if you are having problems. (Thanks MrGuy)
* Add yourself to whichever groups you are interested in
* For tech issues with the forum software, please Email Joel: soylent (at) finite (dot) ms

'''Slashcott''' Organized boycott of the Dice-owned Slashdot pages
* Show your support for the "Get rid of Beta" crowd by avoiding Slashdot during the week of February 10-17

'''Tell Somebody''' A friend, a colleague, any major news source....
*Do what you can to get the word out

'''Contact:'''
If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

==Status==

Check out the [[FAQ]]

* Forums are available at forums.SoylentNews.org
::The forums have four user groups: Code, Content, Style, and System.
* We upgraded the hosting by two tiers
* The System team is working on installing SlashCode. They are busting their collective tails to get this site up for us. Hopefylly, soon!
* Probably won't be non-profit, see [[Finances|business model]].
* We won't poach from Slashdot. This includes articles and logos, also "style" to a reasonable extent.

Mailing list update Messages are [[MailingListUpdates|here]]

== Site Name ==
We have a '''temporary''' name!

Thanks go out to everyone who made suggestions - some of them were
absolutely brilliant! For example, it hadn't occurred to me to choose a name based on a
non-English word, or a palindrome, or a puzzle. Many of the entries were quite clever.
(Adies, it took me more than a day to figure yours out. Bravo!)

I won't post the runners up because squatters might take the names before we hold the real
contest. We'll figure out a way to prevent this somehow - at worst case we can choose judges
and do it privately.

Jerry had the winning entry.

The temp name is: '''SoylentNews''' with the tagline: '''SoylentNews is people!'''

Does this rock? It hits the trifecta of website goodness:

* Descriptive in a way that mundanes will understand (compare "Photoshop" with "GIMP", "Internet Explorer" with "Firefox", and "MediaPlayer" with "VLC")

* It's part of Nerd culture, a pun, and slightly twisted

* It's suggestive of being community driven

* Possible Trademark issues

* It is attached to some movie about eating corpses and implies "News fresh as processed corpses" (??)

This will be a hard act to beat. Start thinking up names for the contest, or throw your weight
behind this one. The contest will be held soon after we open the doors.

(And it was poutine (from IRC) who suggested we use a temporary name. Others may also have suggested it, but it was his post that I noticed. Be sure to thank him if you see him on IRC.)

== List of Discussion Pages ==
*[[NewName]]
*[[MailingListUpdates]]
*[[Finances]] -- which model would allow to minimise and/or distribute hosting costs
*[[Business]]
*[[Moderation]] -- how/if to enhance; was it so bad it was the primary reason for the diaspora?
*[[FeatureList]] -- discussion of required/desired characteristics
*[[Submission guidelines]]
*[[Content]]
*[[Style]]
*[[Migration of users from Slashdot]] -- how to handle Nicks and UIDs
*[[Licensing]]
*[[WhosWho]] -- points of contact in different project areas
*[[Spreading the word]]
*[[Comments]]
*[[To do]]
*[[Bugs]]
*[[Stories from former Slashdot users]]

== IRC ==
General Slashdot Discussion: Come on IRC channel #slashdot at irc.slashnet.org. Or use the web client: http://www.slashnet.org/webclient

SoylentNews Discussion: Head to IRC channel ##AltSlashdot on irc.freenode.net, Web client is here: https://webchat.freenode.net/

'''Mumble (Voice / Text Server)''' : voice.whackperiod.org

__NOTOC__

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-13T09:38:25Z

Art:

What kind of moderation system? How it would handle communities of different size and homogenity? Discuss.

* Mostly [[Traditional moderation|traditional /. moderation]], with tweaks, though.
* [[Extended moderation|Complex variants]] for very "nerdy" sities.

Extended moderation

2014-02-13T09:37:25Z

Art:

A discussion about some complex "nerdy" variants of the [[Traditional moderation|traditional moderation]], probably not apt for a typical /. style news site.

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

Extended moderation

2014-02-13T09:37:08Z

Art: Too complex for /. like site?

A discussion about some complex "nerdy" variants of the [[Traditional moderation|traditional moderation]], propably not apt for a typical /. style news site.

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

Extended moderation

2014-02-12T17:05:13Z

Art:

This article discusses an extended variant of the [[Traditional moderation|traditional moderation]].

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many people might prefer a simpler moderation scheme. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more or less flat, depending on how the tweaker would weight the importance of both systems.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love her
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

SoylentNews

2014-02-12T17:04:40Z

Art: /* List of Discussion Pages */

[[FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]] ... Was your question not answered? Get on IRC and pester the relevant person: [[WhosWho| Who's Who?]]

==WE HAVE A FIRST POST==

From the site:
I know its been a long wait, but we've been steadily moving towards launch. With luck, you're reading this on the main index of the site, which means we've gone, and haven't gone mad in the process. Now that we're here, we hope to have made the wait worth it, but we depend on everyone in the community. To make this site a success, we depend on each and every single user even if its just from passing word of mouth. Remember, every single user can submit stories, moderate, and contribute to discussions all at the same time, and that's what makes us unique. May I be the first to welcome you to your new home.

[[http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16708]]

'''Site Announcements'''

'''Feb 11, 2014 8:01PM EST:''' Status

Yeah, yeah... we're working on it.

We're starting to get overlords that manage various features. An overlord is responsible for granting access - it's intended to be a ''no work'' position, so that it can be held for long periods without requiring much time.

So for example, Applesmasher is the overlord of forums. He grants access to people and recovers access when people leave, but he doesn't ''have'' to do any work himself (although he can if he wants). He ensures that the people with access are reliable.

So if you need a forum for your group, ask the overlord of forums. If you want a set of wiki pages, ask the overlord of the wiki, and so on.

The current overlords have agreed to hold the position until Mar 1, at which time we will choose overlords via some formal process. (And the current overlords might ask to continue.)

The current overlords can be contacted here:

art@SoylentNews.org

editors@SoylentNews.org

forums@SoylentNews.org

wiki@SoylentNews.org

chat@SoylentNews.org

There will be more to come. This is temporary to get us going - the community can change the structure later, but for now things seem to naturally separate into these areas of interest.

'''Feb 11, 2014 3:01PM EST:''' Status

We have a working system, and two people fixing the CSS (sadly, none for sphinx). As far as I can tell, we're trying to get the high-bandwidth aspects of the site running: Varnish, MySQL configuration options, and such. We want the system to be able to withstand a tsunami of visitors 10 meters high.

The system team has been working around the clock to get things running, and I mean that literally. I have to as-much-as order people to break off at night and go to bed. They *really* want to see this thing work. Send them some love in chat if you can.

Note that these are not "deadlines", nor do I particularly care if we miss them: We're reporting when we "predict" things will be ready. The first 90% of the project is done, now we're working on the remaining 90%.

Stand by for launch...

P.S. - Check out the logo

'''Feb 11, 2014 12:01PM EST:''' Need some sphinx help

We still need [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_(search_engine) sphinx (search engine)]
expertise, so if you are familiar with this package, please E-mail me:

If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

----

'''The Slashcott is getting attention'''
:A selection of Slashcott/Beta comments from around the web.......

::* http://spallshurgenson.blogspot.com/2014/02/tragedy-of-commons-redesigning-social.html <=== A good summary of the situation
::* https://community.republicwireless.com/thread/23151 <== "How not to treat your community"
::* http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2014/02/biting-hand-feeds-less-boycotting-slashdot-org-1-week
::* http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/442346-trouble-at-slashdot
::* http://www.tuicool.com/articles/bmUvMj
::* http://www.fark.com/comments/8133044/Since-when-was-Slashdot-a-Fark-Beta-site-Since-Dice-started-redirecting-25-of-its-users-to-a-failed-site-redesign

Check out the [http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16688| look and feel] of the new site!

----

'''To everyone involved... THANK YOU!'''

We are building a news site alternative to Slashdot. We have started only a few days ago, and this wiki is a temporary measure so that volunteers can coordinate and others can see what's happening.

The idea is to build a news aggregation site that delivers what's important - better articles, less fluff, and all the functionality you expect from the moderation system. We are still looking for volunteers so stop by the boards and the IRC and let us know you want to help!

* The proposed business model is [[Finances|here]] 
* Some business planning is [[Business|here]] 
* A statement of functionality (turn into a requirements document?)--- [[FeatureList]]

''' Get Involved '''

'''Hop in to IRC!''' - [[SoylentNews:IRC|IRC]]: ##altslashdot on chat.freenode.net ([https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot Webchat], we are growing in [http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/details.php?net=freenode&room=%23%23altslashdot strength!])

'''Register on the forums''' - http://forums.SoylentNews.org
* Go to forums.SoylentNews.org and register a user
* Read [http://forums.soylentnews.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38&sid=e55255cb6dfe68b28c8cf5f2b9697a64| this] post if you are having problems. (Thanks MrGuy)
* Add yourself to whichever groups you are interested in
* For tech issues with the forum software, please Email Joel: soylent (at) finite (dot) ms

'''Slashcott''' Organized boycott of the Dice-owned Slashdot pages
* Show your support for the "Get rid of Beta" crowd by avoiding Slashdot during the week of February 10-17

'''Tell Somebody''' A friend, a colleague, any major news source....
*Do what you can to get the word out

'''Contact:'''
If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

==Status==

Check out the [[FAQ]]

* Forums are available at forums.SoylentNews.org
::The forums have four user groups: Code, Content, Style, and System.
* We upgraded the hosting by two tiers
* The System team is working on installing SlashCode. They are busting their collective tails to get this site up for us. Hopefylly, soon!
* Probably won't be non-profit, see [[Finances|business model]].
* We won't poach from Slashdot. This includes articles and logos, also "style" to a reasonable extent.

Mailing list update Messages are [[MailingListUpdates|here]]

== Site Name ==
We have a '''temporary''' name!

Thanks go out to everyone who made suggestions - some of them were
absolutely brilliant! For example, it hadn't occurred to me to choose a name based on a
non-English word, or a palindrome, or a puzzle. Many of the entries were quite clever.
(Adies, it took me more than a day to figure yours out. Bravo!)

I won't post the runners up because squatters might take the names before we hold the real
contest. We'll figure out a way to prevent this somehow - at worst case we can choose judges
and do it privately.

Jerry had the winning entry.

The temp name is: '''SoylentNews''' with the tagline: '''SoylentNews is people!'''

Does this rock? It hits the trifecta of website goodness:

* Descriptive in a way that mundanes will understand (compare "Photoshop" with "GIMP", "Internet Explorer" with "Firefox", and "MediaPlayer" with "VLC")

* It's part of Nerd culture, a pun, and slightly twisted

* It's suggestive of being community driven

* Possible Trademark issues

* It is attached to some movie about eating corpses and implies "News fresh as processed corpses" (??)

This will be a hard act to beat. Start thinking up names for the contest, or throw your weight
behind this one. The contest will be held soon after we open the doors.

(And it was poutine (from IRC) who suggested we use a temporary name. Others may also have suggested it, but it was his post that I noticed. Be sure to thank him if you see him on IRC.)

==ToDo==
[[SlashcodeTodo|Slashcode Todo list]]

* Install SlashCode on the production site
* Get some people to help with the site
* Run a contest for a better name [[NewName|New name discussion]]
* Incorporate
* Consult a lawyer
* How to handle Advertising (necessary evil) - Opt Out, Limited, Typical(box with ads in the top-right corner)?
::Why can't we have an advertising cookie with things we are in the market for? I.e. if I'm in the market for a computer, I see computer-related ads. If I opt out, then I don't see any ads. An interest-centric (not user centric) cookie. <=='''+1 Insightful'''
:::OK, this is brilliant and adds agency to a necessary evil, should seriously consider trying something like this.
* Improved Mod/Meta-Mod/Story-Selection system to minimize required editor input
* Provide a voting system to decide which articles hit the main page (Mod point related?)
* Find and submit some stories

== List of Discussion Pages ==
*[[NewName|NewName]]
*[[MailingListUpdates|MailingListUpdates]]
*[[Finances|Finances]] -- which model would allow to minimise and/or distribute hosting costs
*[[Business|Business]]
*[[Extended moderation|Moderation]] -- how/if to enhance; was it so bad it was the primary reason for the diaspora?
*[[FeatureList]] -- discussion of required/desired characteristics
*[[Submission guidelines|Submission guidelines]]
*[[Content]]
*[[Style]]
*[[Migration of users from Slashdot]] -- how to handle Nicks and UIDs
*[[Licensing]]
*[[WhosWho]] -- points of contact in different project areas

== Noteworthy Comments==
*Grabbed the Domain Names: AltSlashdot.org, Soylentnews.org
*Other potential website solutions
::Bruce Perens (created "technocrat.net") is aware of Soylentnews.org and is considering contributing (Relaunch ?? stay tuned)
::/. user 'dotancohen' registered the domain "slashdotan" and is looking to build a new Slashdot (He is willing to coordinate and has cloud experience)
::Add info on Pipedot...[http://pipedot.org/ pipedot.org] by 'Bryan'
::User somenickname (1270442) has registered bangslashdot.(org|net|com)
::Usenet was also suggested as an alternative 'comp.misc is the new Slashdot'
*Scrapping content from old Slashdot suggestion made. benefits/drawbacks ? Overall I think this is a thumbs down
::Content is easier to "find"
::Moral/Legal objections were brought up (Even if it was initially "our" content)
::We should build our own brand
::Pointless to scrap, since it is the comments that draw people in
::Editors should be in multiple timezones to cleanup/improve/multi-source submissions for presentation to the main page
*Initial code build will be from Slashcode... Available (Git?), Old:(5 years) Workable:(maybe)
*Alternate choices for code base: Wiki, Discourse, Usenet
*Non-profit vs For-profit discussion should go here ( [[Business]] )
:: Debian style project organization ?
:: Community driven projects need strong leadership or they tend to flounder
*Codebase
:: Code should be in the public domain
:: Allow the entire website (Stories+Comments+Code)? to be created as a Creative commons work - codebase also available ?
:: AGPL
*Keep the former Slashdot community together

[[Comment History]]

== Comments ==

* Do this as a non-profit, user-run organization '''please'''. From what you write it looks like you want replace the regime, not giving the users the control over the website. Why should we trust you not to sell the website to a DICE-like company after it becomes successful? I applaud your efforts to change things, but I really believe that a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Organization Debian Project] like institution that is both non-commercial and controlled/run by the community has a much higher chance of securing the goals we fight for right now in the long-term. --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] 03:20, 6 February 2014 (MST)

* From Hacker News on Slashdot: 'When you have the same group of minds selecting the content that gets seen, over the course of years, the users eventually get burnt out seeing the same type of stuff, chosen by the same people over and over again. The content becomes stale even if its fresh <--- A really good point

== IRC ==
General Slashdot Discussion: Come on IRC channel #slashdot at irc.slashnet.org. Or use the web client: http://www.slashnet.org/webclient

SoylentNews Discussion: Head to IRC channel ##AltSlashdot on irc.freenode.net, Web client is here: https://webchat.freenode.net/

== Stories from former Slashdot users ==

[[Confessions of an Ex-Slashdot Beta User]]

[[Banned from Slashdot]]

[[Dice is killing Slashdot]]

== An interesting Idea ==
Check this out while it's still available. feedback appreciated
* http://slashdot.org/submission/3324011/a-modest-proposal-re-beta-vs-classic?utm_source=rss1.0&utm_medium=feed&sbsrc=firehose

== Telling the world about SoylentNews.org ==
*Please mention SoylentNews.org as much as possible.
*It seems like the word is spreading (over 45,000 views in <1 week) Good job everyone!
**Any idea on how and where to make sure people know about this project, please post them here?
:::I'd send a note along to Ars Technica & BoingBoing. (That would get some attention) 
:::Anyone have a Reddit account with a reasonable activity level? 
:::The Register, Digg, Hacker News and anything else you feel would help get the word out there
* Contacted:
** The Register:: No word back
** Ars Technica:: Was passed along to one of the writers
** Hacker News
::: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7193251 Submission from when AltSlashdot just started]
::: Due for an update once we get an actual site up and running
:::: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7209927 Similar thread from today] [[User:Yahwotqa|Yahwotqa]] ([[User talk:Yahwotqa|talk]]) 10:05, 10 February 2014 (MST)

Extended moderation

2014-02-12T16:23:47Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

Extended variant of the [[Traditional moderation|traditional moderation]] is discussed here.

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many people might prefer a simpler moderation scheme. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more or less flat, depending on how the tweaker would weight the importance of both systems.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love her
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Extended moderation

2014-02-12T16:16:22Z

Art:

Extended variant of the [[Traditional moderation|traditional moderation]] is discussed here.

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many people might prefer a simpler moderation scheme. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more or less flat, depending on how the tweaker would weight the importance of both systems.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T16:09:37Z

Art:

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T16:09:17Z

Art:

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T16:09:06Z

Art:

Historic:FeatureList

2014-02-12T16:08:00Z

Art: /* Overview */

Historic:FeatureList

2014-02-12T16:07:34Z

Art:

Historic:FeatureList

2014-02-12T16:07:04Z

Art: This page became very long, sections replaced with separate articles

== Overview ==

I'd appreciate if everyone would just start adding or removing things they think need to be in the to-be variant of this site

Rather than isolate the things that slashdot already had (we should be familiar with it), let's just explicitly state what we want to see, with the idea that most of it is a copy or inspired by the original. But we can possibly explain, refine, or restrict our focus to the bits that matter.

What features we discuss here:

*[[General requirements]]
*[[Engine requirements]]
*[[Moderation]]
*[[Article submission]]
*What, in your opinion, [[What did not work|did not work]] on Slashdot?
*[[Funding]]

== General Requirements ==
* Cool new colour
* OAuth provider, could be useful when we integrate other means of communication (e.g. forums, IRC)

===What features worked and what features did not work during the lifetime of Slashdot?===
*Feature that worked was the karma system allowed users to voluntarily disable the advertisement, made them feel happy even though it did nothing different for the business.
*Feature that did not work: Adding a sponsored poll / slashvertising

== Engine Requirements ==

* '''Be mindful of bandwidth and the amount of processing done by the server when building any features. One extra character balloons into many megabytes of expensive bandwidth and consumption of server resources. Each feature that bloats a page response or causes the server to process something increases costs--KEEP COSTS DOWN!'''
* UTF-8 clean for anything that doesn't end up in a URL (i.e. tags, titles, channel names, user names)
** Of course, some combining marks would have to be filtered, and the resulting text round-tripped through NFD->NFC to prevent certain types of attacks against users or making text difficult to index.
* [http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/04/stack-exchange-partners-with-mathjax/ MathJax] support both in comments and in submissions
:: Mathjax is the math rendering engine used on [http://stackexchange.com/ stackexchange] and will allow scientific discussion between us (people who read math).
* Channels (like yro, politics, apple) as first class objects
** "Primary" channels that have DNS shorthand (http://apple.altslash.org/ being equiv to http://altslash.org/ch/apple/)
** "Secondary" channels that users could create and play editor that use the more verbose syntax (http://altslash.org/ch/baseball/) that is reminiscent of subreddits
** User channels (i.e. journals, as we've always had)
* Display user IDs
* Javascript Optional
** I enjoy having the comment rating slider for example, but main functionality should be accessible with lynx at the least!

* Submission queues for all channels with membership at the discretion of the channel owner; being able to submit also implies up/downvoting submissions and tagging
:: Editors/channel owners only
:: List of users who can submit
:: All of my friends (for user journals)
:: All users with mod status
:: All registered users
:: Everyone

* Articles are also first class objects
:: Perma-link independant of channel
:: Articles are tagged by topic(s) as well as channel
:: Articles are automatically archived
:: Archive is easily searchable, and should be referenced when submissions are edited.
:: Articles can be cross-posted to other channels by a channel owner (built into the UI if the editor manages more than one channel)
* Comment key features
:: Comments are first class objects, just as before, just like articles
:: Comments can be edited for a short period of time by owner
::: HOWEVER: Edited comments get a new ID and it links to older versions in the new one. This detail is made prominent to viewer if a comment reply happened before an edit.
:: Allow alternate markup options (bbcode, markdown, wiki markup)
::: Provide a mapping to actual div and styles that will be applied, or HTML equivalent codes

* Allow moderation in same article that you've posted in; only disallow moderation '''to your own reply chain'''.
** You're obviously not allowed to moderate in your own accepted or posted article (treating all comments as replies)
** Does "reply chain" include parent? If not, how do we deal with threadjacking:
**# AC posts first comment on a new article (let's presume it's an upmod-worthy comment, not fristpsot)
**# I post my unrelated comment as a reply to AC's FP, in order to achieve greater visibility
**# I downmod the AC to -1
**# Now AC is invisible to anyone with threshold != -1 (including many with mod points and threshold=0, who would have modded AC up on his own merits)
**# Unless/until users with threshold=-1 and mod points happen by to rectify things, my comment is now the first thing most users see.
**# ??? ''(sorry, can't resist...)''
**# Profit!
***Actually, not just the immediate parent like I said, but 'all' ancestor comments. Otherwise as step 1.5 I just reply with an AC troll (which someone else will rightfully downmod), then in step 2 I reply to ''that''; now that the original AC first post is my comment's gp, so I can still downmod it.
** ''' Good point ''' you should be prevented from moderating any children '''and''' ancestors of your posts (but sibling chains are still fair game)

==Moderation==
Due to its size, moved to [[Moderation|a separate article]]. You are welcome to discuss and add your proposals there!

===Article submission===
* Editor:
** UTF-8
** MathJax (mentioned earlier)
** ability to check links inline during writing the submission. To see how it works just try writing email in gmail. Everytime when you add a link, there's an option right below it to "check link"

* Encouraging submitting good articles:
** Everytime when a story gets accepted, the submitter gets a small cryptocoin reward (as we know - very easy to automate this). Since we are very poor (at least at start) we will not pay a fixed amount, but a small percentage of all cryptocoins owned by altslashdot.
** If a story gets accepted but is hugely downvoted later (think Roland Piquepaille), the submitter must give back his reward to be able to submit a new story. In fact even better if he had to give back a tiny fraction more cryptocoin than he received.
*Is there a path to remove a bad editor ? <=== I'm not very fond of emacs

* '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also [[Finances]]):
** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a very tiny fraction of that tip goes to altslashdot.
** Also payments from people desperate to post in thread (or story) where they have moderated (if we decide that this feature is useful, and if it is thread or whole story).
** Failed submitters, who had to give back their reward plus some extra fraction because their story was hated after it was submitted (think Roland Piquepaille) as mentioned above.
** Also we can simply hope for money from cryptocoin donations address. IMHO that is quite possible if we make this site good.
** We might consider ''paying subscribers'' using cryptocoin.
** Make a "featured product/serivce -> ask for review" section that charges for having a product reviewed

Funding

2014-02-12T16:05:53Z

Art: Created page with "* '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also Finances): ** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a very t..."

* '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also [[Finances]]):
** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a very tiny fraction of that tip goes to altslashdot.
** Also payments from people desperate to post in thread (or story) where they have moderated (if we decide that this feature is useful, and if it is thread or whole story).
** Failed submitters, who had to give back their reward plus some extra fraction because their story was hated after it was submitted (think Roland Piquepaille) as mentioned above.
** Also we can simply hope for money from cryptocoin donations address. IMHO that is quite possible if we make this site good.
** We might consider ''paying subscribers'' using cryptocoin.
** Make a "featured product/serivce -> ask for review" section that charges for having a product reviewed

Article submission

2014-02-12T16:05:03Z

Art: Created page with "* Editor: ** UTF-8 ** MathJax (mentioned earlier) ** ability to check links inline during writing the submission. To see how it works just try writing email in gmail. Everytim..."

* Editor:
** UTF-8
** MathJax (mentioned earlier)
** ability to check links inline during writing the submission. To see how it works just try writing email in gmail. Everytime when you add a link, there's an option right below it to "check link"

* Encouraging submitting good articles:
** Everytime when a story gets accepted, the submitter gets a small cryptocoin reward (as we know - very easy to automate this). Since we are very poor (at least at start) we will not pay a fixed amount, but a small percentage of all cryptocoins owned by altslashdot.
** If a story gets accepted but is hugely downvoted later (think Roland Piquepaille), the submitter must give back his reward to be able to submit a new story. In fact even better if he had to give back a tiny fraction more cryptocoin than he received.
*Is there a path to remove a bad editor ? <=== I'm not very fond of emacs

Engine requirements

2014-02-12T16:04:29Z

Art: Created page with "* '''Be mindful of bandwidth and the amount of processing done by the server when building any features. One extra character balloons into many megabytes of expensive bandwid..."

* '''Be mindful of bandwidth and the amount of processing done by the server when building any features. One extra character balloons into many megabytes of expensive bandwidth and consumption of server resources. Each feature that bloats a page response or causes the server to process something increases costs--KEEP COSTS DOWN!'''
* UTF-8 clean for anything that doesn't end up in a URL (i.e. tags, titles, channel names, user names)
** Of course, some combining marks would have to be filtered, and the resulting text round-tripped through NFD->NFC to prevent certain types of attacks against users or making text difficult to index.
* [http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/04/stack-exchange-partners-with-mathjax/ MathJax] support both in comments and in submissions
:: Mathjax is the math rendering engine used on [http://stackexchange.com/ stackexchange] and will allow scientific discussion between us (people who read math).
* Channels (like yro, politics, apple) as first class objects
** "Primary" channels that have DNS shorthand (http://apple.altslash.org/ being equiv to http://altslash.org/ch/apple/)
** "Secondary" channels that users could create and play editor that use the more verbose syntax (http://altslash.org/ch/baseball/) that is reminiscent of subreddits
** User channels (i.e. journals, as we've always had)
* Display user IDs
* Javascript Optional
** I enjoy having the comment rating slider for example, but main functionality should be accessible with lynx at the least!

* Submission queues for all channels with membership at the discretion of the channel owner; being able to submit also implies up/downvoting submissions and tagging
:: Editors/channel owners only
:: List of users who can submit
:: All of my friends (for user journals)
:: All users with mod status
:: All registered users
:: Everyone

* Articles are also first class objects
:: Perma-link independant of channel
:: Articles are tagged by topic(s) as well as channel
:: Articles are automatically archived
:: Archive is easily searchable, and should be referenced when submissions are edited.
:: Articles can be cross-posted to other channels by a channel owner (built into the UI if the editor manages more than one channel)
* Comment key features
:: Comments are first class objects, just as before, just like articles
:: Comments can be edited for a short period of time by owner
::: HOWEVER: Edited comments get a new ID and it links to older versions in the new one. This detail is made prominent to viewer if a comment reply happened before an edit.
:: Allow alternate markup options (bbcode, markdown, wiki markup)
::: Provide a mapping to actual div and styles that will be applied, or HTML equivalent codes

* Allow moderation in same article that you've posted in; only disallow moderation '''to your own reply chain'''.
** You're obviously not allowed to moderate in your own accepted or posted article (treating all comments as replies)
** Does "reply chain" include parent? If not, how do we deal with threadjacking:
**# AC posts first comment on a new article (let's presume it's an upmod-worthy comment, not fristpsot)
**# I post my unrelated comment as a reply to AC's FP, in order to achieve greater visibility
**# I downmod the AC to -1
**# Now AC is invisible to anyone with threshold != -1 (including many with mod points and threshold=0, who would have modded AC up on his own merits)
**# Unless/until users with threshold=-1 and mod points happen by to rectify things, my comment is now the first thing most users see.
**# ??? ''(sorry, can't resist...)''
**# Profit!
***Actually, not just the immediate parent like I said, but 'all' ancestor comments. Otherwise as step 1.5 I just reply with an AC troll (which someone else will rightfully downmod), then in step 2 I reply to ''that''; now that the original AC first post is my comment's gp, so I can still downmod it.
** ''' Good point ''' you should be prevented from moderating any children '''and''' ancestors of your posts (but sibling chains are still fair game)

What did not work

2014-02-12T16:03:38Z

Art: Created page with "*Feature that worked was the karma system allowed users to voluntarily disable the advertisement, made them feel happy even though it did nothing different for the business. *..."

*Feature that worked was the karma system allowed users to voluntarily disable the advertisement, made them feel happy even though it did nothing different for the business.
*Feature that did not work: Adding a sponsored poll / slashvertising

General requirements

2014-02-12T16:02:24Z

Art: Created page with "* Cool new colour * OAuth provider, could be useful when we integrate other means of communication (e.g. forums, IRC)"

* Cool new colour
* OAuth provider, could be useful when we integrate other means of communication (e.g. forums, IRC)

SoylentNews

2014-02-12T16:01:37Z

Art: /* List of Discussion Pages */

[[FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]] ... Was your question not answered? Get on IRC and pester the relevant person: [[WhosWho| Who's Who?]]

==WE HAVE A FIRST POST==

From the site:
I know its been a long wait, but we've been steadily moving towards launch. With luck, you're reading this on the main index of the site, which means we've gone, and haven't gone mad in the process. Now that we're here, we hope to have made the wait worth it, but we depend on everyone in the community. To make this site a success, we depend on each and every single user even if its just from passing word of mouth. Remember, every single user can submit stories, moderate, and contribute to discussions all at the same time, and that's what makes us unique. May I be the first to welcome you to your new home.

[[http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16708]]

'''Site Announcements'''

'''Feb 11, 2014 8:01PM EST:''' Status

Yeah, yeah... we're working on it.

We're starting to get overlords that manage various features. An overlord is responsible for granting access - it's intended to be a ''no work'' position, so that it can be held for long periods without requiring much time.

So for example, Applesmasher is the overlord of forums. He grants access to people and recovers access when people leave, but he doesn't ''have'' to do any work himself (although he can if he wants). He ensures that the people with access are reliable.

So if you need a forum for your group, ask the overlord of forums. If you want a set of wiki pages, ask the overlord of the wiki, and so on.

The current overlords have agreed to hold the position until Mar 1, at which time we will choose overlords via some formal process. (And the current overlords might ask to continue.)

The current overlords can be contacted here:

art@SoylentNews.org

editors@SoylentNews.org

forums@SoylentNews.org

wiki@SoylentNews.org

chat@SoylentNews.org

There will be more to come. This is temporary to get us going - the community can change the structure later, but for now things seem to naturally separate into these areas of interest.

'''Feb 11, 2014 3:01PM EST:''' Status

We have a working system, and two people fixing the CSS (sadly, none for sphinx). As far as I can tell, we're trying to get the high-bandwidth aspects of the site running: Varnish, MySQL configuration options, and such. We want the system to be able to withstand a tsunami of visitors 10 meters high.

The system team has been working around the clock to get things running, and I mean that literally. I have to as-much-as order people to break off at night and go to bed. They *really* want to see this thing work. Send them some love in chat if you can.

Note that these are not "deadlines", nor do I particularly care if we miss them: We're reporting when we "predict" things will be ready. The first 90% of the project is done, now we're working on the remaining 90%.

Stand by for launch...

P.S. - Check out the logo

'''Feb 11, 2014 12:01PM EST:''' Need some sphinx help

We still need [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_(search_engine) sphinx (search engine)]
expertise, so if you are familiar with this package, please E-mail me:

If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

----

'''The Slashcott is getting attention'''
:A selection of Slashcott/Beta comments from around the web.......

::* http://spallshurgenson.blogspot.com/2014/02/tragedy-of-commons-redesigning-social.html <=== A good summary of the situation
::* https://community.republicwireless.com/thread/23151 <== "How not to treat your community"
::* http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2014/02/biting-hand-feeds-less-boycotting-slashdot-org-1-week
::* http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/442346-trouble-at-slashdot
::* http://www.tuicool.com/articles/bmUvMj
::* http://www.fark.com/comments/8133044/Since-when-was-Slashdot-a-Fark-Beta-site-Since-Dice-started-redirecting-25-of-its-users-to-a-failed-site-redesign

Check out the [http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=16688| look and feel] of the new site!

----

'''To everyone involved... THANK YOU!'''

We are building a news site alternative to Slashdot. We have started only a few days ago, and this wiki is a temporary measure so that volunteers can coordinate and others can see what's happening.

The idea is to build a news aggregation site that delivers what's important - better articles, less fluff, and all the functionality you expect from the moderation system. We are still looking for volunteers so stop by the boards and the IRC and let us know you want to help!

* The proposed business model is [[Finances|here]] 
* Some business planning is [[Business|here]] 
* A statement of functionality (turn into a requirements document?)--- [[FeatureList]]

''' Get Involved '''

'''Hop in to IRC!''' - [[SoylentNews:IRC|IRC]]: ##altslashdot on chat.freenode.net ([https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot Webchat], we are growing in [http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/details.php?net=freenode&room=%23%23altslashdot strength!])

'''Register on the forums''' - http://forums.SoylentNews.org
* Go to forums.SoylentNews.org and register a user
* Read [http://forums.soylentnews.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38&sid=e55255cb6dfe68b28c8cf5f2b9697a64| this] post if you are having problems. (Thanks MrGuy)
* Add yourself to whichever groups you are interested in
* For tech issues with the forum software, please Email Joel: soylent (at) finite (dot) ms

'''Slashcott''' Organized boycott of the Dice-owned Slashdot pages
* Show your support for the "Get rid of Beta" crowd by avoiding Slashdot during the week of February 10-17

'''Tell Somebody''' A friend, a colleague, any major news source....
*Do what you can to get the word out

'''Contact:'''
If you want to send the project lead a message: John (at) SoylentNews (dot) org

==Status==

Check out the [[FAQ]]

* Forums are available at forums.SoylentNews.org
::The forums have four user groups: Code, Content, Style, and System.
* We upgraded the hosting by two tiers
* The System team is working on installing SlashCode. They are busting their collective tails to get this site up for us. Hopefylly, soon!
* Probably won't be non-profit, see [[Finances|business model]].
* We won't poach from Slashdot. This includes articles and logos, also "style" to a reasonable extent.

Mailing list update Messages are [[MailingListUpdates|here]]

== Site Name ==
We have a '''temporary''' name!

Thanks go out to everyone who made suggestions - some of them were
absolutely brilliant! For example, it hadn't occurred to me to choose a name based on a
non-English word, or a palindrome, or a puzzle. Many of the entries were quite clever.
(Adies, it took me more than a day to figure yours out. Bravo!)

I won't post the runners up because squatters might take the names before we hold the real
contest. We'll figure out a way to prevent this somehow - at worst case we can choose judges
and do it privately.

Jerry had the winning entry.

The temp name is: '''SoylentNews''' with the tagline: '''SoylentNews is people!'''

Does this rock? It hits the trifecta of website goodness:

* Descriptive in a way that mundanes will understand (compare "Photoshop" with "GIMP", "Internet Explorer" with "Firefox", and "MediaPlayer" with "VLC")

* It's part of Nerd culture, a pun, and slightly twisted

* It's suggestive of being community driven

* Possible Trademark issues

* It is attached to some movie about eating corpses and implies "News fresh as processed corpses" (??)

This will be a hard act to beat. Start thinking up names for the contest, or throw your weight
behind this one. The contest will be held soon after we open the doors.

(And it was poutine (from IRC) who suggested we use a temporary name. Others may also have suggested it, but it was his post that I noticed. Be sure to thank him if you see him on IRC.)

==ToDo==
[[SlashcodeTodo|Slashcode Todo list]]

* Install SlashCode on the production site
* Get some people to help with the site
* Run a contest for a better name [[NewName|New name discussion]]
* Incorporate
* Consult a lawyer
* How to handle Advertising (necessary evil) - Opt Out, Limited, Typical(box with ads in the top-right corner)?
::Why can't we have an advertising cookie with things we are in the market for? I.e. if I'm in the market for a computer, I see computer-related ads. If I opt out, then I don't see any ads. An interest-centric (not user centric) cookie. <=='''+1 Insightful'''
:::OK, this is brilliant and adds agency to a necessary evil, should seriously consider trying something like this.
* Improved Mod/Meta-Mod/Story-Selection system to minimize required editor input
* Provide a voting system to decide which articles hit the main page (Mod point related?)
* Find and submit some stories

== List of Discussion Pages ==
*[[NewName|NewName]]
*[[MailingListUpdates|MailingListUpdates]]
*[[Finances|Finances]] -- which model would allow to minimise and/or distribute hosting costs
*[[Business|Business]]
*[[Extended moderation]] -- how/if to enhance; was it so bad it was the primary reason for the diaspora?
*[[FeatureList]] -- Discussion of required/desired characteristics
*[[Submission guidelines|Submission guidelines]]
*[[Content]]
*[[Style]]
*[[Migration of users from Slashdot]] -- How to handle Nicks and UIDs
*[[Licensing]]
*[[WhosWho]] -- Points of contact in different project areas

== Noteworthy Comments==
*Grabbed the Domain Names: AltSlashdot.org, Soylentnews.org
*Other potential website solutions
::Bruce Perens (created "technocrat.net") is aware of Soylentnews.org and is considering contributing (Relaunch ?? stay tuned)
::/. user 'dotancohen' registered the domain "slashdotan" and is looking to build a new Slashdot (He is willing to coordinate and has cloud experience)
::Add info on Pipedot...[http://pipedot.org/ pipedot.org] by 'Bryan'
::User somenickname (1270442) has registered bangslashdot.(org|net|com)
::Usenet was also suggested as an alternative 'comp.misc is the new Slashdot'
*Scrapping content from old Slashdot suggestion made. benefits/drawbacks ? Overall I think this is a thumbs down
::Content is easier to "find"
::Moral/Legal objections were brought up (Even if it was initially "our" content)
::We should build our own brand
::Pointless to scrap, since it is the comments that draw people in
::Editors should be in multiple timezones to cleanup/improve/multi-source submissions for presentation to the main page
*Initial code build will be from Slashcode... Available (Git?), Old:(5 years) Workable:(maybe)
*Alternate choices for code base: Wiki, Discourse, Usenet
*Non-profit vs For-profit discussion should go here ( [[Business]] )
:: Debian style project organization ?
:: Community driven projects need strong leadership or they tend to flounder
*Codebase
:: Code should be in the public domain
:: Allow the entire website (Stories+Comments+Code)? to be created as a Creative commons work - codebase also available ?
:: AGPL
*Keep the former Slashdot community together

[[Comment History]]

== Comments ==

* Do this as a non-profit, user-run organization '''please'''. From what you write it looks like you want replace the regime, not giving the users the control over the website. Why should we trust you not to sell the website to a DICE-like company after it becomes successful? I applaud your efforts to change things, but I really believe that a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Organization Debian Project] like institution that is both non-commercial and controlled/run by the community has a much higher chance of securing the goals we fight for right now in the long-term. --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] 03:20, 6 February 2014 (MST)

* From Hacker News on Slashdot: 'When you have the same group of minds selecting the content that gets seen, over the course of years, the users eventually get burnt out seeing the same type of stuff, chosen by the same people over and over again. The content becomes stale even if its fresh <--- A really good point

== IRC ==
General Slashdot Discussion: Come on IRC channel #slashdot at irc.slashnet.org. Or use the web client: http://www.slashnet.org/webclient

SoylentNews Discussion: Head to IRC channel ##AltSlashdot on irc.freenode.net, Web client is here: https://webchat.freenode.net/

== Stories from former Slashdot users ==

[[Confessions of an Ex-Slashdot Beta User]]

[[Banned from Slashdot]]

[[Dice is killing Slashdot]]

== An interesting Idea ==
Check this out while it's still available. feedback appreciated
* http://slashdot.org/submission/3324011/a-modest-proposal-re-beta-vs-classic?utm_source=rss1.0&utm_medium=feed&sbsrc=firehose

== Telling the world about SoylentNews.org ==
*Please mention SoylentNews.org as much as possible.
*It seems like the word is spreading (over 45,000 views in <1 week) Good job everyone!
**Any idea on how and where to make sure people know about this project, please post them here?
:::I'd send a note along to Ars Technica & BoingBoing. (That would get some attention) 
:::Anyone have a Reddit account with a reasonable activity level? 
:::The Register, Digg, Hacker News and anything else you feel would help get the word out there
* Contacted:
** The Register:: No word back
** Ars Technica:: Was passed along to one of the writers
** Hacker News
::: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7193251 Submission from when AltSlashdot just started]
::: Due for an update once we get an actual site up and running
:::: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7209927 Similar thread from today] [[User:Yahwotqa|Yahwotqa]] ([[User talk:Yahwotqa|talk]]) 10:05, 10 February 2014 (MST)

Historic:FeatureList

2014-02-12T15:58:41Z

Art: This page gets long. Moving "Moderation" to a separate article.

== Overview ==

I'd appreciate if everyone would just start adding or removing things they think need to be in the to-be variant of this site

Rather than isolate the things that slashdot already had (we should be familiar with it), let's just explicitly state what we want to see, with the idea that most of it is a copy or inspired by the original. But we can possibly explain, refine, or restrict our focus to the bits that matter.

== General Requirements ==
* Cool new colour
* OAuth provider, could be useful when we integrate other means of communication (e.g. forums, IRC)

===What features worked and what features did not work during the lifetime of Slashdot?===
*Feature that worked was the karma system allowed users to voluntarily disable the advertisement, made them feel happy even though it did nothing different for the business.
*Feature that did not work: Adding a sponsored poll / slashvertising

== Engine Requirements ==

* '''Be mindful of bandwidth and the amount of processing done by the server when building any features. One extra character balloons into many megabytes of expensive bandwidth and consumption of server resources. Each feature that bloats a page response or causes the server to process something increases costs--KEEP COSTS DOWN!'''
* UTF-8 clean for anything that doesn't end up in a URL (i.e. tags, titles, channel names, user names)
** Of course, some combining marks would have to be filtered, and the resulting text round-tripped through NFD->NFC to prevent certain types of attacks against users or making text difficult to index.
* [http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/04/stack-exchange-partners-with-mathjax/ MathJax] support both in comments and in submissions
:: Mathjax is the math rendering engine used on [http://stackexchange.com/ stackexchange] and will allow scientific discussion between us (people who read math).
* Channels (like yro, politics, apple) as first class objects
** "Primary" channels that have DNS shorthand (http://apple.altslash.org/ being equiv to http://altslash.org/ch/apple/)
** "Secondary" channels that users could create and play editor that use the more verbose syntax (http://altslash.org/ch/baseball/) that is reminiscent of subreddits
** User channels (i.e. journals, as we've always had)
* Display user IDs
* Javascript Optional
** I enjoy having the comment rating slider for example, but main functionality should be accessible with lynx at the least!

* Submission queues for all channels with membership at the discretion of the channel owner; being able to submit also implies up/downvoting submissions and tagging
:: Editors/channel owners only
:: List of users who can submit
:: All of my friends (for user journals)
:: All users with mod status
:: All registered users
:: Everyone

* Articles are also first class objects
:: Perma-link independant of channel
:: Articles are tagged by topic(s) as well as channel
:: Articles are automatically archived
:: Archive is easily searchable, and should be referenced when submissions are edited.
:: Articles can be cross-posted to other channels by a channel owner (built into the UI if the editor manages more than one channel)
* Comment key features
:: Comments are first class objects, just as before, just like articles
:: Comments can be edited for a short period of time by owner
::: HOWEVER: Edited comments get a new ID and it links to older versions in the new one. This detail is made prominent to viewer if a comment reply happened before an edit.
:: Allow alternate markup options (bbcode, markdown, wiki markup)
::: Provide a mapping to actual div and styles that will be applied, or HTML equivalent codes

* Allow moderation in same article that you've posted in; only disallow moderation '''to your own reply chain'''.
** You're obviously not allowed to moderate in your own accepted or posted article (treating all comments as replies)
** Does "reply chain" include parent? If not, how do we deal with threadjacking:
**# AC posts first comment on a new article (let's presume it's an upmod-worthy comment, not fristpsot)
**# I post my unrelated comment as a reply to AC's FP, in order to achieve greater visibility
**# I downmod the AC to -1
**# Now AC is invisible to anyone with threshold != -1 (including many with mod points and threshold=0, who would have modded AC up on his own merits)
**# Unless/until users with threshold=-1 and mod points happen by to rectify things, my comment is now the first thing most users see.
**# ??? ''(sorry, can't resist...)''
**# Profit!
***Actually, not just the immediate parent like I said, but 'all' ancestor comments. Otherwise as step 1.5 I just reply with an AC troll (which someone else will rightfully downmod), then in step 2 I reply to ''that''; now that the original AC first post is my comment's gp, so I can still downmod it.
** ''' Good point ''' you should be prevented from moderating any children '''and''' ancestors of your posts (but sibling chains are still fair game)

==Moderation==
Due to its size, moved to [[Moderation|a separate article]]. You are welcome to discuss and add your proposals there!

===Article submission===
* Editor:
** UTF-8
** MathJax (mentioned earlier)
** ability to check links inline during writing the submission. To see how it works just try writing email in gmail. Everytime when you add a link, there's an option right below it to "check link"

* Encouraging submitting good articles:
** Everytime when a story gets accepted, the submitter gets a small cryptocoin reward (as we know - very easy to automate this). Since we are very poor (at least at start) we will not pay a fixed amount, but a small percentage of all cryptocoins owned by altslashdot.
** If a story gets accepted but is hugely downvoted later (think Roland Piquepaille), the submitter must give back his reward to be able to submit a new story. In fact even better if he had to give back a tiny fraction more cryptocoin than he received.
*Is there a path to remove a bad editor ? <=== I'm not very fond of emacs

* '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also [[Finances]]):
** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a very tiny fraction of that tip goes to altslashdot.
** Also payments from people desperate to post in thread (or story) where they have moderated (if we decide that this feature is useful, and if it is thread or whole story).
** Failed submitters, who had to give back their reward plus some extra fraction because their story was hated after it was submitted (think Roland Piquepaille) as mentioned above.
** Also we can simply hope for money from cryptocoin donations address. IMHO that is quite possible if we make this site good.
** We might consider ''paying subscribers'' using cryptocoin.
** Make a "featured product/serivce -> ask for review" section that charges for having a product reviewed

Traditional moderation

2014-02-12T15:57:38Z

Art: Created page with "* I forget who suggested this originally, but in addition to the above constraints, only allow users to moderate a subset of any particular article's comments. ::This seems li..."

* I forget who suggested this originally, but in addition to the above constraints, only allow users to moderate a subset of any particular article's comments.
::This seems like a bad idea. A moderator should be allowed access to any comment under an article. Maybe set a limit on how many points they can burn in a particular article, but don't make some comments off-limits based on an arbitrary randomization process.

* '''Moderation Engine'''
::{| class="wikitable"
|+ Moderation tags (default scores)
|-
! Mod Up
! Points
! Mod Down
! Points
|-
| Interesting
| +1
| Offtopic
| -1
|-
| Informative
| +1
| Troll/Spam
| -1
|-
| Insightful
| +1
| Groupthink ('''New''')
| -1 (or -0.5?)
|-
| Underrated
| +0.5 ('''New''')
| Overrated
| -0.5 ('''New''')
|-
| Funny
| +0.5 ('''New''')
| Flamebait
| -0.5 ('''New''')
|-
| Devils Advocate ('''New!''')
| +1
| Jibberish ('''New!''')
| -1
|}

::::'''Also suggested:''' Bullshit, I_disagree

* Users assign own weights to tags in the range -2.0 -> 2.0 with 0.5 increments
* System rounds x.5 towards 0 in comment spill / threshold logic, display capped at -1 and 5.
* A score for the default weights is saved for the comment for use by article spill (for googlebot or "load all comments" from anonmyous user)
* An optional cryptocoin tipping system, when you like someone's post you can give him a small cryptocoin tip. That might also work as an additional moderating system. Non-moderators could mod-up comments (Insightful, Funny, etc) by eg. 0.5 points by spending some money.

* I think it would be good to display both the positive mods and negative mods on a comment in a concise form (so you could see that this comment is generally regarded both Insightful.... but also Flamebait) <== Or a total of positive and negative comments to take up less space
* I like the idea of a system that allows users to have mod points on a regular basis. That way they do not feel like they have to use up all their points on comments that don't deserve them. A much better quality of moderation should do a better job of making the best comments float to the top.
* Let users set both ends of their moderation based comment 'scope'. To see the highlights, set at +4 and above. To look for abusive moderations, set to display 0 and below. (And I'm sure that someone will want to browse "only the 3's", so the system should allow that too). It was also suggested that we have a method to filter out posts from AC.

'''Discussion: Ability to comment and moderate in the same article'''
* What about not-posting in the thread where you moderated? Good or bad rule? Maybe if you really must post, allow cryptocoin paying for post? (eg. "Warning: you have moderated in this thread (or whole story), if you really want to post you need to spend cryptocoin on that" (??)) Not posting in the thread is okay, and much better than disallowing the whole story.
* I believe the ability to add a comment to an article after you have already moderated in that tree is a benefit. But can also see a path for abuse. While not a fan of Cryptocoin, what about letting a moderator add a comment, but at a cost of a mod point ??

===Moderation strategy===
* Chops instead of Karma
* Chops are derived from:
:: Articles accepted for submission
::: But NOT articles self-authored on a channel you're an editor of
:: Comments that are replied to by others without a troll/flamebait modifier
:: Positive moderation (as judged by the mod action with respect to their own point value weights... so if they think funny is bad, it counts against you)
:: Positive metamoderation outcome (see below) Discussion required
* Registered users that have used the site > [threshold] days, posted > [threshold] times, and have positive chops get moderation duty (possibly [x] mod points per day?)
* The more chops, the more mod points per day, with a total cap for unused points

'''Meta-moderation'''
Meta-moderation is a check and balance system that acts to identify bad moderators. It works best when a large number of users are available and willing to evaluate a comment's existing moderaton values
* Meta-moderation is available to users that have used the site > [big threshold] days and have > [threshold] chops
* Metamoderation is not "special", a meta-mod capable user can see a random selection of recent mods at any time and metamod.
* Metamod takes 2 mod points <==Wouldn't adding a cost for Meta-moderation decrease the pool of users willing to use it?
:::Metamod actions are like moderation actions, you spend modpoints on them. But they are twice as expensive as direct moderation. The theory is that users with more chops (and thus more modpoints to throw around) are more likely to spend some of them on metamoderation.
:::Alternatively.... Meta-mod should be open to all in good standing for RANDOM comments. Maybe allow burning 2 mod points to meta-mod a specific comment?
* Metamod can spend a mod point to "re-roll" and see a new set of random moderations
* A moderation is undone when it's "score" goes negative. It is "reapplied" when it goes positive. If the score dips to -3, the moderation is removed entirely. Default moderation value should be > 0, possibly 2 ??
* A user is not rewarded or punished for the metamod specifically
* A running total of positive and negative meta-moderations against them is calculated
::Receiving a threshold for positive or negative meta-mod counts result in fixed deltas in chops (Proposed Values)
+5 positive yields +1 chops 5 negative meta-mods -1 chpos score
+10 positive yields +2 chops 10 negative meta-mods -2 chops score
+15 positive yields +3 chops 15 negative meta-mods -3 chops score

* Your current chops as of more than 4 weeks ago is rolled into a fixed amount capped at 1.5 times the "Excellent" value and 1.5 times the most negative "Worst Poster" value.
* On a weekly basis a task is run across all accounts that collects chop point actions since the last summarization date forward a week (actions that happened about 3 weeks ago), applies these to the last +4 weeks ago score, truncates it to the ranges above, and stores it in the database with the new summarization date for that user's account.
* This prevents a user from "banking" actions that give them more chops to only later be a jerk.
* However it lets you be a bit grumpy in the short term since the value can go above the thresholds when calculating the current display/privs value (query all the outstanding chop actions for this user, add the point values to the historic value, store it for easy reference later, cached for an hour)

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T15:55:57Z

Art: Replaced content with "What kind of moderation system? How it would handle communities of different size and homogenity? Discuss. * Mostly traditional /. moderation, ..."

What kind of moderation system? How it would handle communities of different size and homogenity? Discuss.

* Mostly [[Traditional moderation|traditional /. moderation]], with tweaks, though.
* Various [[Extended moderation|extended/experimental variants]] for large, diverse, heterogegeous communities.

Extended moderation

2014-02-12T15:55:48Z

Art: Created page with "== Is it really about "beta"? == It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations... "Beta" is said..."

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many people might prefer a simpler moderation scheme. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more or less flat, depending on how the tweaker would weight the importance of both systems.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T15:40:10Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T15:38:17Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many people might prefer a simpler moderation scheme. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more flat.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T15:37:21Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.
This variant does not require any clustering methods, and most of this variant's complexities would be handled in a way invisible to the user, but still, many users might like a simpler moderation. This is why '''a plain moderation might still be the default, and the system below would then be an opt-in''', for tweakers that do not like the "flat" scoring. The variant discussed may easily be used together with a plain moderation -- the latter would just make the resulting scoring more flat.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T14:51:15Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T14:50:54Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix woman, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T14:48:57Z

Art:

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some old joke, as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", old jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T13:31:58Z

Art: /* A local moderation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses, tired jokes, but also high-quality school-grade educational comments.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T13:28:54Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions directed at educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T13:24:47Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending on a user's decision. Thus, a user might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

A special caution should be given to certain artifacts of the discussed system. For example, let us consider users, that rarely have "experienced" modpoints at disposal. What e.g. about a user with ratings 80%:10%:5% that wants to mod up a nerdy comment, but has only "novice" modpoints? First of all, he should not do it, because he does not have a proper type of a modpoint and would thus skew the system. Yet if he does it anyway, he should eventually be catched by metamoderation.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:59:51Z

Art: /* Example implementation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though, as he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:57:54Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementation ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:57:39Z

Art: /* A local metamoderation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local moderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:57:28Z

Art: /* A local metamoderation */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The moderation and metamoderation work globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A moderating or metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by moderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local moderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:54:48Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose to see a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:53:53Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it would hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:53:07Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious yet type-complete "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:52:50Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like a cautious "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:51:00Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user with a total rating being high enough would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:49:48Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone with a high total rating,
like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran". But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc. This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:47:40Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would generally see school--level educational comments scored low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:46:44Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteran".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteran point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteran user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would see comments of these teachers scored often low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:46:09Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteral".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteral point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteran" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteral user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice" ones, and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteran would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too.
He would need to browse comments at a low threshold for this, though -- he would see comments of these teachers scored often low,
unless he would choose a "flat" scoring, as discussed in the previous section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:43:44Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteral".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteral point. In fact, it hijack the system a bit. The solution to this would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteral" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteral user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice", and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteral would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too, even
that the veteran would see comments of these teachers scored generaly lowly, unless he would choose a "flat", as discussed in the previous
section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:42:55Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the system boot up? The types of modpoint would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteral".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice would have its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteran that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteral point. In fact, it would be bad for the system. The solution would be, that a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteral" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteral user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice", and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteral would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too, even
that the veteran would see comments of these teachers scored generaly lowly, unless he would choose a "flat", as discussed in the previous
section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:40:42Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but a respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids love him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the sytem boot up? The point types would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteral".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice has its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteral that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteral point. The solution would be, a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteral" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteral user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice", and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteral would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too, even
that the veteran would see comments of these teachers scored generaly lowly, unless he would choose a "flat", as discussed in the previous
section.

Historic:Moderation

2014-02-12T12:40:14Z

Art: /* Example implementaion */

== Is it really about "beta"? ==
It is claimed the reason of migrating out of slashdot is the "beta". But is it really so? Let's try to do some speculations...

"Beta" is said to be made to fit tastes of the younger audience, flowing recently en masse to Slashdot - in fact, stats show, that Slashdot is currently
accesses mosltly from... schools. The same audience is, though, often scorned upon by the "low uids" as the reason of progressively "destroying the old Slashdot".
Now, we could conclude, that the deeper reason for both beta and discussion quality are really kids. But it seems, it is still not so simple.

Let us consider an example. So, (i) a bunch of teenagers mods ups some tired joke, or a "captain obvious", as things like that still amuse and educate them. Now, a low uid hates that.
But, despite that, (ii) the younger and the older Slashdot might still share some common interests - be it some comment insightfull for all, so a single site might make
sense. How to agree that? Would some special sort of moderation be able to please both of the discussed groups?

Attach your proposals below.

== A local metamoderation ==
The metamoderation works globally now - it is one of the factors which decide, how many mod points a user gets. What about making it '''also''' local? A metamoderating user would express his/her preferences in this way. An example: it turns out, the user X likes comments of "low uids", but dislikes comments frequently moderated by teenagers? So the system increases that user's "experience", what translates to '''mods of experienced users being somewhat more visible by this particular user, as opposed to mods of the school crowd'''. In other words, there would not be a single score, seen by all -- a user by metamoderating would tune, or bias the scoring according to his/her needs. Meanwhile, a kid might still admire, and mod up with "novice points", Captains Obviouses and tired jokes.

This might be made even more complex -- a dynamic [[wikipedia:cluster analysis|cluster analysis]] might find out by itself groups of users with common tastes, and somewhat tune the scoring to their likes. And, if the said kid writes a quality comment, modded up by experienced users, it would in turn move the kid a bit in the direction of a cluster of "low uids".

Surely, a careful tuning of the system might be needed. To alleviate that a bit and to make the local metamoderation opt-in, every user might be given a choice of his/her sweet spot between a "flat" and an "adaptable" scoring.

== Example implementaion ==
Let us discuss a simple, yet intuitive variant of the above.

The quality of user contributions would consist not of a single value, but of three values: novice, neutral, veteran. A user might thus be e.g. valued a lot by teens, thanks to his school--level yet very educational contributions, or conversely, a user might be a long--bearded Unix man that is not into teaching kids at all, but loves deep, clever references to the geek culture. More examples:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Novice
! Neutral
! Veteran
! User type
|-
| 0%
| 0%
| 0%
| Tabula rasa, or AC, rating 0%
|-
| 30%
| 10%
| 10%
| Obvious or shallow, rating of 50% - might be valuable for novices, though
|-
| 70%
| 10%
| 20%
| Possibly a skilled teacher, high educational value for kids, but rare contributions valued by educated users
|-
| 20%
| 60%
| 20%
| A "middle" user, but respectable total rating of 100%
|-
| -10%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix man, likes some trolling, too; rarely useful for novices but low-uids value him
|-
| 40%
| 0%
| 90%
| A long-bearded Unix max, but occasionally likes to teach the younger audience, too. This universality gives him a total rating of 130%
|}

Depending on the "NNV" ratings, a user would be given various types of mod points. For example, a "middle" user might see:

'''You have 5 modpoints! 1 novice, 2 neutral, 2 veteran'''

How would the sytem boot up? The point types would initially be distributed equally for everyone, like "2 novice, 2 neutral, 1 veteral".
But eventually moderation would change ratings: a user whose comments are modded mostly novice has its novice rating increased etc.
This would iteratively lead to novices having mostly novice modpoints at disposal, veterans having mostly veteran modpoints to use etc.

But, what about a veteral that spots a school--grade yet quality educational comment? It would be a nonsense to mod it up with his
veteral point. The solution would be, a "more experienced" mod point might be transformed into a "less experienced" one, depending
on a user's decision. Thus, a novice user would rarely have a "veteral" point and could no nothing about it, but a veteral user
might transform his "veteran" points into "neutral" or "novice", and his "neutral" points into "novice", if he wishes so.

Occasionally, even a veteral would get a "novice" mod point, what would be a hint to him to award good school teachers, too, even
that the veteran would see comments of these teachers scored generaly lowly, unless he would choose a "flat", as discussed in the previous
section.