Historic:FeatureList - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page FeatureList to Historic:FeatureList

2024-12-04T05:19:52Z

Admin moved page FeatureList to Historic:FeatureList

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:19, 4 December 2024
(No difference)

Sir Finkus at 21:02, 21 September 2016

2016-09-21T21:02:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''Please Note:''' This is~~ archival ~~and was used before launch. You may want to check the [[Suggestions]] page for projects that have been proposed. Minor feature requests are in bugs (linked in the left navbar).~~		{{archival}}

	== Overview ==		== Overview ==

Mrcoolbp: /* Overview */

2014-03-11T19:32:39Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 11 March 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''Please Note:''' This is archival and was used before launch. You may want to check the [[Suggestions]] page for projects that have been proposed. Minor feature requests are in bugs (linked in the left navbar).

	== Overview ==		== Overview ==

64.121.163.170 at 14:33, 15 February 2014

2014-02-15T14:33:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 15 February 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:
	*[[Moderation]]		*[[Moderation]]
	*[[Article submission]]		*[[Article submission]]
			*[[Article Topics]]
	*What, in your opinion, [[What did not work\|did not work]] on Slashdot?		*What, in your opinion, [[What did not work\|did not work]] on Slashdot?
	*[[Funding]]		*[[Funding]]

Art: /* Overview */

2014-02-12T16:08:00Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 12 February 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	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.		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.

			== Categories ==
	What features we discuss here:		What features we discuss here:

Art at 16:07, 12 February 2014

2014-02-12T16:07:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 12 February 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*What, in your opinion, [[What did not work\|did not work]] on Slashdot?		*What, in your opinion, [[What did not work\|did not work]] on Slashdot?
	*[[Funding]]		*[[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

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

2014-02-12T16:07:04Z

This page became very long, sections replaced with separate articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 12 February 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:

	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.		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 ==		== General Requirements ==

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

2014-02-12T15:58:41Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 12 February 2014
Line 63:		Line 63:

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

Sfm at 15:12, 12 February 2014

2014-02-12T15:12:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 12 February 2014
Line 147:		Line 147:
	* A running total of positive and negative meta-moderations against them is calculated		* 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)		::Receiving a threshold for positive or negative meta-mod counts result in fixed deltas in chops (Proposed Values)
	~~<nowiki>~~ +5 positive yields +1 chops 5 negative meta-mods -1 chpos score		+5 positive yields +1 chops 5 negative meta-mods -1 chpos score
	+10 positive yields +2 chops 10 negative meta-mods -2 chops 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		+15 positive yields +3 chops 15 negative meta-mods -3 chops score
	~~</nowiki>~~

	* 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.		* 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.
Line 168:		Line 168:
	** 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.		** 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.		** 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 ~~would like to get rid~~ of emacs		*Is there a path to remove a bad editor ? <=== I'm not very fond of emacs

Sfm at 06:41, 12 February 2014

2014-02-12T06:41:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 12 February 2014
Line 107:		Line 107:
	\|}		\|}

	::::''''Also suggested:'''' Bullshit, ~~I disagree~~		::::'''Also suggested:''' Bullshit, I_disagree

	* Users assign own weights to tags in the range -2.0 -> 2.0 with 0.5 increments		* Users assign own weights to tags in the range -2.0 -> 2.0 with 0.5 increments
Line 147:		Line 147:
	* A running total of positive and negative meta-moderations against them is calculated		* 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)		::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		<nowiki> +5 positive yields +1 chops 5 negative meta-mods -1 chpos score
	+10 positive yields +2 chops 10 negative meta-mods -2 chops 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		+15 positive yields +3 chops 15 negative meta-mods -3 chops score
			</nowiki>

	* 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.		* 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.
Line 155:		Line 156:
	* This prevents a user from "banking" actions that give them more chops to only later be a jerk.		* 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)		* 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)



	===Article submission===		===Article submission===
	** Editor:		* Editor:
	*** UTF-8		** UTF-8
	*** MathJax (mentioned earlier)		** 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"		** 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.		* Encouraging submitting good articles:
	*** 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.		** 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.
	** '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also [[Finances]]):		** 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.
	*** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a ~~very tiny fraction of that tip goes~~ to ~~altslashdot.~~		*Is there a path to remove a bad editor ? <=== I would like to get rid of emacs
	*** 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

	* ~~Source standards~~ (~~should this be spun out into its own page-- Submission Guidelines and Standards ???~~)		* '''To have funds for all that''', we could use (check also [[Finances]]):
	** ~~Link~~ to ~~most primary source possible~~.		** That tipping system (mentioned above in moderation), and everytime you tip someone else a very tiny fraction of that tip goes to altslashdot.
	** ~~No more linking~~ to ~~fly-by-night blogs~~ or ~~linkbaits <=== Editors should be responsible for checking all links~~ that ~~go in a~~ story ~~(preferably from inside a sandbox~~)		** 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).
	** ~~Link~~ to ~~print-version instead of 50-page clickthrough~~		** 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.
	** If sites get Soylented, should article links automatically Corel Cache?		** Also we can simply hope for money from cryptocoin donations address. IMHO that is quite possible if we make this site good.
	*** Would there be a way of switching to a different cache on the fly, for ~~when Corel Cache goes out of business?~~		** We might consider ''paying subscribers'' using cryptocoin.
	** No more linkbait titles. ~~After Slashcott, will look up~~ that ~~article... but Dice basically admitted they put celebrity names and intentionally misleading subjects to entice people to click through from search engines. This~~ is ~~a scummy horrible practice that needs to go~~. !!		** Make a "featured product/serivce -> ask for review" section that charges for having a product reviewed
	*** ~~TFTitle == TFS == TFA !!!~~