|
|
| (32 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Is it really about "beta"? ==
| | {{archival}} |
| 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...
| | What kind of moderation system? How it would handle communities of different size and homogenity? Discuss. |
|
| |
|
| "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
| | * Mostly [[Traditional moderation|traditional /. moderation]], with tweaks, though. |
| 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".
| | * [[Extended moderation|Complex variants]] for very "nerdy" sities. |
| 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.
| | (This is a subpage of [[FeatureList|Feature list, you can go back to see other features planned.]]) |
| | |
| == 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.
| |