Self Content Moderation

[Jason Clark]

We're looking at various ways to improve the quality of posts here in the forums. We're looking at systems like SlashDot to accomplish this task. We've made the decision to modify the forum product for our own needs, so we can do anything we want.

Here are some ideas being tossed around:

1) The idea is that you can vote on a individual post which will affect the overall threads rating.

2) There will be a maximum and minimum vote that a message can have to avoid abuse, and if you post in the thread your votes would be removed as you can now effectively sway the rating of a thread by posting.

3) If you have posted to a thread you can't vote.

4) You could set a thresh hold setting that would dictate what you would see, the rest would be collasped (those below your thresh hold)


We're open to your feedback on what you think works and doesn't work with this type of system.

Cheers!

 

[olds]

If the thread gets low enough ratings will it be automatically deleted?

 

[Jason Clark]

olds, that's an idea But, not sure yet.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
If the thread gets low enough ratings will it be automatically deleted?

I was just about to ask the same thing. Actually, I think the automatic thread deletion could be a good thing, but foresee a few problems with it.

Take for example, the recent controversial posts regarding religion in OT. If the first person that reads it gets pissed and assigns it a rating of 0 or 1 (out of 10), surely the thread shouldn't be deleted based on a single vote. Instead, having a minimal number of votes prior to deletion would be ideal, but where do you draw the line?

Automatic deletion would be nice, but I don't know how it could be setup to please the masses. Ultimately, "hiding" all posts below a rating specified by each user would make the most sense.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Jason, have you taken a look at the (custom, as far as I know) messageboard software in use on BroadbandReports.com ?
Feature-wise, I actually find that it is quite nice, and does offer some of the features that you've listed. I'm not suggesting that AT should suddenly switch to something like that, but only to comment that some of your ideas about thread-voting, while good in general, may not work out so well in practice. More specifically, the restriction on not being able to vote on a thread that you yourself have posted in. That's kind of unfortunate, as I've read (and participated in) some threads that were the subject of intense populate discussion, and were full of useful bits of information as well. It would seemingly be counter-productive, if someone had to choose between increasing the vote for a thread, in order to help elevate the wheat from the chaff, or to add to the "wheat" themselves, by posting. It seems counter-productive to force that to be an either-or choice. (I'm not suggesting that one could "vote up" their own post though, that wouldn't be productive at all.)

As for auto-deletion, I think that actual thread deletion should only be the province of the moderators. Simple thread participants should not have those powers. I'm not sure the extent of the archiving of the older threads that goes on here at AT, but at BBR, I think that threads that pass by with a "zero" vote total, end up eventually being purged and not saved. In the end, it's sort of the same thing, but at least it gives fledgling threads a chance, rather than subject them to premature termination.

In terms of archiving, it would also be perhaps useful to have a "high score gallery" of threads. So therefore, you could view N past threads, ordered from highest-scoring ones downward, if you wished. That might also alleviate the need to "sticky" certain threads, because that while they might slide into the abysss of old threads in the main forum's topic list, they would remain on the high-score list at whatever ranking. So good/popular threads, that coveres a subject that often pops up from time to time, could have semi-persistant activity, somewhat independent of the general forum's chatter.

I was thinking more of the technical forums when writing the above, I'm not sure how that would work for the P&N/OT forums, although I'm sure that they might generate some pretty long-running "persistant high-score threads" too.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
If the thread gets low enough ratings will it be automatically deleted?

What's to keep me from signing up 100 extra accounts just for thread voting? That way I could ensure that my threads never get a low enough rating to be unviewable/deleted. For that matter, I could do the same thing to slam any thread I really didn't like.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
If the thread gets low enough ratings will it be automatically deleted?

What's to keep me from signing up 100 extra accounts just for thread voting? That way I could ensure that my threads never get a low enough rating to be unviewable/deleted. For that matter, I could do the same thing to slam any thread I really didn't like.

If you want to go through the effort to generate mulitple accounts, have at it.

Easy way for you to get yourself banned.

One account per person is the rule.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If you want to go through the effort to generate mulitple accounts, have at it.

Easy way for you to get yourself banned.

One account per person is the rule.

You do realize that the Mods aren't magicians and that there are a lot of people here with multiple accounts, right? It usually takes somebody being a dumbass to get on their radar before they check up on that kind of thing.

I'm just trying to point out one way this system could be abused. What if I worked in a computer lab for a major university? How would the Mods ever be able to tie those extra accounts to me? I bet dozens of people post to AT every day from the same lab (and if I worked there I could check) especially the ones located in the Computer Science departments.

 

[yllus]

As I said in the Ignore List thread, this is indeed the best method for self-moderation. Jason, in addition to the post self-moderation, maybe consider an AOL Instant Messager 'warn' feature? If enough members (some percentage of the total users currently logged on?) decided to click 'warn' on a poster, they're timed out from making new posts or replies. Obviously all of this would have to be carefully balanced.

Originally posted by: Jason Clark
1) The idea is that you can vote on a individual post which will affect the overall threads rating.

2) There will be a maximum and minimum vote that a message can have to avoid abuse, and if you post in the thread your votes would be removed as you can now effectively sway the rating of a thread by posting.

3) If you have posted to a thread you can't vote.

1) That's not bad - but do add the ability to vote on individual replies in a post as well. If a trolling reply is made, there should be enough members present to mod it below most everyone's radar.

2) and 3) don't seem like a good idea to me. Why should the lurkers be the only ones to determine the worthiness of a post? If anything it should be the other way around - you should only be able to vote if you post to the thread! That'd be 1000% better, it'd mean personal investment in making your vote count.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Will there be a way to essentially "turn it off?" I hate moderation for the most part and wouldn't participate.

There should be no "karma" that follows a user around. P&N/OT should be seperated from the rest of the forum. What happens in P&N should stay in P&N. I don't want some wierd comment of mine in OT to affect some help I'm trying to give someone in OS.

A warning type feature would be horrible, and would "help" P&N at the expense of the rest of the forum.

Jason: The ideas at the top are decent, and I think they get around most of the problems I had in that PM. One of the only problems that would continue to exist is a group of posters ganging up on a member despite the content of a particular post.:beer:



The Anandtech Moderator's response is way out of line. :|

It was posted under the Anandtech Moderator's account inadvertently!

 

[KarenMarie]

ok.. pardon my n00bness on the subject....

but i am not clear on the whole... if you vote you cannot post, and if you post you cannot vote thing.

what is the reasoning behind this?

thanks

 

Originally posted by: Jason Clark
We're looking at various ways to improve the quality of posts here in the forums. We're looking at systems like SlashDot to accomplish this task. We've made the decision to modify the forum product for our own needs, so we can do anything we want.

Here are some ideas being tossed around:

1) The idea is that you can vote on a individual post which will affect the overall threads rating.

2) There will be a maximum and minimum vote that a message can have to avoid abuse, and if you post in the thread your votes would be removed as you can now effectively sway the rating of a thread by posting.

3) If you have posted to a thread you can't vote.

4) You could set a thresh hold setting that would dictate what you would see, the rest would be collasped (those below your thresh hold)


We're open to your feedback on what you think works and doesn't work with this type of system.

Cheers!

This sounds like an excellent alternative to the ignore feature. Personally, I would rather that mods just do their jobs and members learn to be respectful to each other (in other words, self-moderation). However, since people are asking for drastic changes and things have gotten hostile, especially at the P&N forum, I think that the proposed change to a similar model as SlashDot's is good. But for the love of God, never give consideration to automatic deletion of posts. I think that deletion of posts should be left to mods to decide. We still need the humanly factor for decisions. I am very much against the idea of deleting posts--not to speak of automatic deletion, except in extreme cases such as derogatory comments, compromise of one's privacy, or links to pornographic materials. Locks are usually sufficient in and for other cases.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
If the thread gets low enough ratings will it be automatically deleted?

What's to keep me from signing up 100 extra accounts just for thread voting? That way I could ensure that my threads never get a low enough rating to be unviewable/deleted. For that matter, I could do the same thing to slam any thread I really didn't like.

You'll be banned 101 times.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
ok.. pardon my n00bness on the subject....

but i am not clear on the whole... if you vote you cannot post, and if you post you cannot vote thing.

what is the reasoning behind this?

thanks

If you post in the thread you are probably biased in one way or another, so any votes you make in the thread are probably going to mirror your own beliefs no matter the validity of the post you are voting on. So if you post in the thread your votes don't count.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Somewhat related, it might be worth adding in a "Report Abuse" button to mark a thread the mods should look at, to replace the current PM system.

1. spammer posts "free iPlod" link
2. 20 people click the abuse link / button, people are logged in case of false alarm problems
3. 1 alert is sent to mod

A more drastic version could even have clicking the abuse button make the thread temporarily disappear and suspend posting rights from the spammer. You'd definitely need to log who clicked the button, and hand out vacations for abusing the (DIA) Fire alarm. This option also shouldn't work for new accounts.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
ok.. pardon my n00bness on the subject....

but i am not clear on the whole... if you vote you cannot post, and if you post you cannot vote thing.

what is the reasoning behind this?

thanks

If you post in the thread you are probably biased in one way or another, so any votes you make in the thread are probably going to mirror your own beliefs no matter the validity of the post you are voting on. So if you post in the thread your votes don't count.

The problem is that the people who participate most actively in a thread are the most likely to value it. That doesn't make their opinion less important, if anything the people actually participating should have MORE say.

Perhaps instead of solely rating threads user ratings should play a larger role. Not necessarily the current 1-10 system but something to gauge an individuals perceived value in the community. Allow rating of each post, with a running average of each users rating. More recent posts could be weighted higher than old posts (encourages good posters to stay good and gives more incentive for nefs to reform). The thread rating can then be derived from the number and quality of posters and posts it attracts.

Ratings per forum might also be considered, since there are people who contribute heavily in useful forums (hardware, OS, etc.) but play in Off Topic where each post will attract many more votes. A person could have a high forum value in OS, but a lower value in OT.

As an extension of this people with extremely high value ratings in a given forum could be given low level moderation capabilities (perhaps freeze a thread pending full mod approval for lock, or some such consideration).

Viper GTS

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
ok.. pardon my n00bness on the subject....

but i am not clear on the whole... if you vote you cannot post, and if you post you cannot vote thing.

what is the reasoning behind this?

thanks

If you post in the thread you are probably biased in one way or another, so any votes you make in the thread are probably going to mirror your own beliefs no matter the validity of the post you are voting on. So if you post in the thread your votes don't count.

The problem is that the people who participate most actively in a thread are the most likely to value it. That doesn't make their opinion less important, if anything the people actually participating should have MORE say.

Perhaps instead of solely rating threads user ratings should play a larger role. Not necessarily the current 1-10 system but something to gauge an individuals perceived value in the community. Allow rating of each post, with a running average of each users rating. More recent posts could be weighted higher than old posts (encourages good posters to stay good and gives more incentive for nefs to reform). The thread rating can then be derived from the number and quality of posters and posts it attracts.

Ratings per forum might also be considered, since there are people who contribute heavily in useful forums (hardware, OS, etc.) but play in Off Topic where each post will attract many more votes. A person could have a high forum value in OS, but a lower value in OT.

As an extension of this people with extremely high value ratings in a given forum could be given low level moderation capabilities (perhaps freeze a thread pending full mod approval for lock, or some such consideration).

Viper GTS

Just to clarify, I'm not for or against the voting/posting thing.

I think you make a good point about the posters being the most likely to vote. But, I don't like the idea of having that vote mean anything to future posts. If I get a bunch of minions together, I can vote someone into oblivion. If I post some outrageous thing in P&N, my "value" could be lessened in the OS forum. While I may be useless in P&N, I'm not useless in the technical forums, and what happens in one should not affect the other.

This is where I think the "karma" system falls apart on a forum like this. P&N is dangerous to your user rating (if you're on the wrong side, whatever that is), and it could affect posts in technical forums (what this site is really about) with a karma like system.

 

[Confused]

I can see exactly how this would work.

No one would bother with it in any of the technical forums, because most of the time it's people asking questions, and I can see a legitimate question being "ignored" because no one has rated the thread yet and some of the more knowledgable people have their threshold set higher. The only place it might work in any of the technical area would be the occasional flame war, however they are always funny to read, and in those threads you also get some damn good information, which is very often correct to dispell the crap that started the thread/flamewar.

In OT, it might filter out some of the crap, but then there will also be the people who mark down threads of certain people because they have disagreed with them somewhere in the past 6 months.

In P&N, you'll have each side marking down the other side, whether the thread content itself is any good or not, just because they have differing opinons. This will essentially destroy P&N, which means the zealots there will be forced to post their opinons in OT or other sections of the forum.


Also, I agree with n0cmonkey, the people most likely to vote are the people who post in the thread, because they actually have an opinion on it, so can more correctly rate a thread one way or the other. By all means make sure they can't rate their own post though. However this would stop all the neffing (not necessarily a bad thing), as they wouldn't be able to vote the thread if they posted, however you would have people sacrificing the ability to vote so they could nef and get their postcount up.

Again agreeing with n0c, I wouldn't want what I say in OT or P&N affecting what others perceive of me in the technical sections.


I sometimes think that an ignore feature would be good, but then I come to my senses and realise that everyone has differing opinions, and I have to be sensible and grown up enough to realise this and learn to passively ignore some of the idiots who post here.


A ranking system like Slashdot's might work there, but all they post is news articles, and comment on them. Here it is (was) primarily a technical support site, but it seems that this aspect of the site/forums is being pushed to the sidelines to support what will only benifit P&N and OT.

 

[jjones]

I don't really like this idea.

For one thing, the idea that you cannot post in a thread if you vote for the thread is a bad idea; the voting will always be almost completely one-sided. Those that think it's a bad thread, will just vote it down; those that like the thread will most likely want to post, so then they cannot vote. So all you end up with is just the bad votes being counted. This would be terrible if it lead to some sort of automatic deletion, and, even if it doesn't get deleted, it will give an inappropriate ranking on the value of the thread. Add into this the fact the some of the idiots on this board will vote a thread down just because they don't like the thread starter, and you have all the workings of a broken system.

I much prefer the ignore member function. If some member is that immature that what someone posts on here bothers them, then I guess giving them an option to ignore certain members is a reasonable concession.

 

[Anand Lal Shimpi]

Keep in mind that at this stage, what we're proposing, is the user moderation of individual posts within a thread - not the thread itself.

The Post or Vote rule is there simply because it prevents people from taking control over the direction of the thread. For example:

Let's say I hate Person/Company/Thought Y and two people in a thread make ignorant comments to the point of "Person/Company/Thought Y sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise also sucks, i eat babies." If I were allowed to vote in a thread I posted in I could vote up those two posts, then reply to them with a similar response and have effectively gave more credence to my viewpoint as well as got my viewpoint across.

As far as the idea of the people posting having the greatest interest in voting, I agree from the standpoint of getting their opinion/point across. However if you look at the read to post ratio of any thread or the forums as a whole, you'll notice that far more people read than post. The voting system is designed to give everyone who enjoys the forums to help control its quality. So although you can't vote in the thread you started, if you found something funny, really useful or plain ignorant in another thread, you can have your voice heard even if you're not taking part in it.

With regards to how this would work in P&N or OT, the idea that each person has a limited number of votes would hopefully take care of the issues brought up here. The idea is to vote up useful posts and vote down those that aren't. If both sides just vote each other down, then they will have to use their votes on voting like-minded posts back up, in theory causing the system to be neutral where everything almost averages out (obviously that only works if you have a similar number of folks on each side).

I definitely appreciate the feedback and keep it coming, as I want this to be something that works as well as possible. A successful rating system, I believe, would be the key to growing this community and expanding the areas that we can offer discussions in.

Take care,
Anand

 

[microAmp]

Looks furiously for negative voting option on Anand Lal Shimpi 's post.

 

[Anand Lal Shimpi]

<darth vader breathing sounds> That would be unwise. </darth vader breathing sounds>



Take care,
Anand

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Anand Lal Shimpi
Let's say I hate Person/Company/Thought Y and two people in a thread make ignorant comments to the point of "Person/Company/Thought Y sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise also sucks, i eat babies." If I were allowed to vote in a thread I posted in I could vote up those two posts, then reply to them with a similar response and have effectively gave more credence to my viewpoint as well as got my viewpoint across.

As far as the idea of the people posting having the greatest interest in voting, I agree from the standpoint of getting their opinion/point across. However if you look at the read to post ratio of any thread or the forums as a whole, you'll notice that far more people read than post. The voting system is designed to give everyone who enjoys the forums to help control its quality. So although you can't vote in the thread you started, if you found something funny, really useful or plain ignorant in another thread, you can have your voice heard even if you're not taking part in it.

I gotta disagree with you on this, Anand. The foibles in this system are too numerous.

If you mod a reply down first, can you still reply to the thread? The code would have to either block your participation in the thread, or undo your vote. Seems so unnecessary and opposite to the whole idea of online forums - urging participation. There would be a good amount of people who would stay quiet instead of posting solely to be able to vote down a hated person's replies. Seems to me all of the issue you highlighted in your post could be resolved in one swoop - simply disallow a poster from voting on his own replies.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Anand Lal Shimpi
Let's say I hate Person/Company/Thought Y and two people in a thread make ignorant comments to the point of "Person/Company/Thought Y sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise also sucks, i eat babies." If I were allowed to vote in a thread I posted in I could vote up those two posts, then reply to them with a similar response and have effectively gave more credence to my viewpoint as well as got my viewpoint across.

As far as the idea of the people posting having the greatest interest in voting, I agree from the standpoint of getting their opinion/point across. However if you look at the read to post ratio of any thread or the forums as a whole, you'll notice that far more people read than post. The voting system is designed to give everyone who enjoys the forums to help control its quality. So although you can't vote in the thread you started, if you found something funny, really useful or plain ignorant in another thread, you can have your voice heard even if you're not taking part in it.

I gotta disagree with you on this, Anand. The foibles in this system are too numerous.

If you mod a reply down first, can you still reply to the thread? The code would have to either block your participation in the thread, or undo your vote. Seems so unnecessary and opposite to the whole idea of online forums - urging participation. There would be a good amount of people who would stay quiet instead of posting solely to be able to vote down a hated person's replies. Seems to me all of the issue you highlighted in your post could be resolved in one swoop - simply disallow a poster from voting on his own replies.

I read the OP as saying the votes would be removed if someone posts in a thread they voted in.

Nothing stops me from posting and getting 5 or 6 buddies to vote for me...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I read the OP as saying the votes would be removed if someone posts in a thread they voted in.

Nothing stops me from posting and getting 5 or 6 buddies to vote for me...

Isn't that bound to happen no matter the scheme? This is, in the end, a popularity contest.