Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
So, given my last journal, a writeup on how they work today. For the most part, my original story on this topic is true, but I changed a fair bit since then and now, nor did I go much into the thought process in how it was divined.
In contrast to the original system, the current one wants to keep a specific number of moderation points always in circulation, with the concept that mod points are a constantly moving and fluid item. Moderation simply doesn't work if there isn't enough of the damn things, and having too many wasn't a problem at all (Overrated exists for a reason).
The original idea is we should dynamically generate our pool of modpoints based on our activity levels, so the original implementation of this script took the comment counts for the last 24 hours, with the basic notion that every comment should have the potential to be moderated at least once. This number was multiple by two, and provided our baseline moderation count. Since we were based our mod point count on a 24h window, mod points were set to expire every 24 hours instead of every 72. At this point, I hadn't realized the fundamental problem with the slashcode moderation system; my thoughts were "need lots of mod points", "this is incredibly complex, I can do better". That realization came as I was stripping the old one out of slash.
As part of this, I also changed the eligibility requirements for moderation. Instead of having a specific number of tokens, I wanted only users who were active to get mod points. The ability to retain drive by moderations by lurkers was something worth maintaining, and part of what I suspect makes up the bulk of Slashdot moderations.
I also wanted to avoid the problem of "moderator burnout", or users getting mod points too frequently, and just being turned off from moderation. I know that happened to me on slashdot, and others as well who ignored modpoints (or chose to become ineligible). As such, I wanted there to be a cooldown on how frequently someone can get modpoints.
That being said, I didn't want everyone and their mother being moderators all at once, so I decided that 30% of all active users (defined (at the time) as anyone active within the last 24 hours) who had neutral or better would be eligible for modpoints.
Version 1 was fairly simple. It basically took the comment count for the last 24 hours, multiple by 2, this is the minimum number of modpoints that exist at all times. Take all users who were active in the activity_period, take mod_points_to_issue/(elligable_moderators*.3), and hand out those points equally. As a failsafe, the system will hand out ten mod points minimum (the underlying thought here being that I don't just want to get one or two modpoints; more is better, so lets take Slashdot's 5 and multiple it by 2).
And for the most part it worked. When we were in closed alpha on Thursday, we opened the test site to 100 users to try and test it in something resembling real world logic. And, for the most part it worked, because everyone was very highly active. You might see the mistake with that logic when applied to a production site.
Come go-live. User counts surge through the roof, active users are flowing in (can't believe we hit 1k users in a single day), and the moderation script starts handing modpoints in the thousands. At one point, there was close to 2000 modpoints in circulation at any given time).
For that moment, moderation was working well. Then users started going offlining, and EODing, or worse, users were getting modpoints when they signed off, and not seeing them until they signed in. The script was happy, 30% of users were moderators, but there were a lot of +1s. When I looked at the database, most people who had modpoints hadn't been signed in for hours.
Suddenly in a flash of inspiration, I saw the mistake. Slashdot could get away with handing out users with no activity level because even with 80% of their system being moderators, most people would be inactive at any given time. With our 30%, there simply weren't enough modpoints in the hands of active users.
So, in an attempt to salvage the situation, I did a critical adjustment on how the damn thing works. Activity periods for users was seperated into a new variable, and dropped to 1 hour (then five minutes, so any logged in user has a chance), and process_moderation had its crontab shorted to five minutes (it used to run hourly).
To keep modpoints constantly in circulation, expiration time was dropped to four hours, so only people who are active RIGHT NOW were moderators, especially since our editor team had posted 20 articles that day already. Whenever a user looses his points (via expiration or using them all), their slot is freed up, and a new user immediately gets modpoints.
That change in logic underpins version 2 of this script. Now the minimum count is what we hand out, except in the very rare case that we need more modpoints in circulation, in which case, the active users start getting more and more (up to a cap of 50, then it spills past 30 of users). For the most part, it seems to be working, comment moderation scores are generally going up, but it may still require further tweaking to make it work well. I generally am not seeing as many +3-5s as I like, but its right now a whole hell a lot better than it used to be.
I'm open to any thoughts, criticisms, or whacky ideas relating to how mod points are being dished out. Let me hear them below.
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:28AM
Thanks for the write up, it was an interesting read. I know a few users have asked in the IRC channel about how the mod point system works at the moment. Have you considered increasing the % of active users receiving mod points from 30% to something a bit higher (if I am understanding the current system correctly) and maybe reducing the quantity of mod points handed out per user?
I can't speak on behalf of anyone else, but personally I would rather frequently receive 3-5 mod points while I am active so that I have more opportunities to moderate comments "on demand" as I come across good/bad ones - rather than receiving 10 all at once and having to search through multiple articles to find posts that are worth spending my remaining mod points on.
(Score: 2) by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:31AM
Knowing that users cannot moderate and post in the same topic of discussion, I'd be very cautious about increasing the percentage of people with mod points.
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:34AM
Fair point, I completely forgot about that restriction.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:37AM
I found myself doing that today when I first got mod points. Incidentally, even if you post as AC, doesn't matter, your mod points get rolled back. Also, with the weirdness of caching, I logged out to post as AC and still found myself logged in when I posted.
(Score: 1) by mrbluze on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:38AM
I am of two minds about allowing moderating and posting in the same topic. It is open to abuse, or presents the opportunity to question partiality. This might be too big a price to pay, in the end, and so I would caution against the move. I think there was some wisdom around separating moderating from participation. As the userbase gets larger this will be less of an issue.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:20AM
I know this point has been raised several times, and I'm not completely attached to the concept myself. My deep suspicion is that most moderations are from lurkers (if the active user count is any indication), so this restriction isn't as serve as it first appears. Right now, its working "well enough" that I want to be cautious on any more further adjustments. After a few weeks, I'll have a story go up to "Ask the Audience" so to speak on what they think.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by scruffybeard on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:38AM
I would second this. Last night I received 10 mod points, way too many to spend in the short time I was going to be online. I ended up using only 2, then found the others had expired by the morning. If the expiration window is going to be short, then fewer mod points makes more sense. In addition, fewer mod points prevents someone from having too much influence in any single article.
(Score: 1) by Blackmoore on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:53PM
same thing happend to me; i had 10 mod points just before i left work, i used 2 and by the time i got back on i had timed out.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday February 21 2014, @03:05PM
It seems to me there are too many mod points. I've gotten them 2 days in a row now, and when I go to moderate most of the ones I'd mod up are already at 3 or 4 if not 5. I do think the amount of time you can hold them is a bit short, though. Fewer points spread out over more time.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Maow on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:36AM
What happens if one tries to, say, up-vote a comment that is already at +5?
Thanks!
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:05PM
If a +5 comment is modded up, the moderation attempt is silently rejected and the point is returned to the user.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by dmc on Wednesday February 19 2014, @03:51AM
Note that on slashdot I believe it is possible (I think I instigated it once) to upmod a comment 'past' 5 so that you can for instance get a +5:insightful changed to a +5:funny (or vice versa, etc). I think that has some benefit.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:15AM
The code that applies the mods is ... odd. Its something I kinda wanted to rewrite as well, but its tied into enough places to make it questionable. Does it actually spend the modpoint?
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by dmc on Wednesday February 19 2014, @07:53PM
I don't know. And there is some possibility the issue was confused by a karma bonus (i.e. maybe I saw a karma enhanced 4:onething as a 5:onething then changed into a true(non karma enhanced) 5:otherthing. But I think likelier it actually is as I originally said. I think I saw it happen to one of my own comments, then maybe a week later tried and apparently succeeded in instigating it to happen to someone else's comment. One thing that is nice is that here on SN with this version of slashcode, I get to see the relative mod totals for each insightful/informative/etc tag in the little arithmatic box. If that had been visible on slashdot when all that happened it would be clearer. One thing I've noticed during the slashcott and actually going to arstechnica is their nice idea (that I had in my mind already) of finding a way to emphasize the level of 'controversial' comments. I.e. on slashdot, if 20 people +1 something, and 20 people -1 something, that score:0 comment should really be emphasized as much as a +7/-2=5 comment. Honestly I wish I could see stats on that for my slashdot account(s), because I think my controversy-meter would be interestingly high :)
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:47AM
There's a full log of how modpoint distribution has been assigned; a couple posted go down, back up, then down again.
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Informative) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:46AM
i modded a couple of comments in a discussion i hadn't participated in. then i promptly forgot about my moderations and made a comment. when my comment was posted the mo points weren't refunded.
not a big deal as i'm not that much into modding anyway, but may be something to make moderators aware of
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:17AM
The site does warn that moderations will be undone (at the top of the comment form). If you're not seeing that, its a bug :-)
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by crutchy on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:53AM
not so much an issue of mods being undone, but of mod points being non-refundable after commenting in a thread that you've modded /. did this but i'm thinking may not have cos it would have struck me the same way
can't remember if
thanks for the reply, and the site... soylent ftw!
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:47AM
Taco had a decent reason for doing that with the old mod system, but there may be value in refunding them now due to the extremely short shelf life they currently have. As previous indicated, unless comments stop reaching +5, I'm not touching it for a few weeks to let sentiments and opinions filter through the community.
Still always moving
(Score: 0) by crutchy on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:24PM
haha yeah i noticed there seems to be a shortage of decent posts to mod. cheers.
(Score: 1) by martyb on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:26AM
Thanks for the excellent write-up! I appreciate having the data that influenced your decision making available so I can use to frame my feedback.
Observation 1: I saw mention of a problem with people getting mod points just before they logged out. Would it help to have a trigger of some sort that fires when a user logs in that checks whether mod points are available and whether or not this user is eligible? I'm thinking of this as an interrupt-driven *addition* to the polling mechanism currently employed.
Observation 2: A pet peeve of mine is that I'd get a message that I have mod points and they expire, say, on 02/18/14. Yeah, but WHEN on that day? Do I have 5 MINUTES or 23 HOURS left? I try to use my mod points judiciously and would rather let them expire than shotgun them out there just because I got them. OTOH, if I'm in a pretty good discussion, and I know I've only a short while left, I'd be more generous in their distribution. If I've got several more hours, I might wait a bit to see if I contribute something to the next story or two that will post. IOW, full timestamp, please!
Observation 3: I saw mention in your write-up about not wanting to cause moderation burnout. Been there. Frequently got 15 mod points at a shot in the old site. I'd propose a checkbox option (say following the notification that the user has xx mod points) that they could check to indicate they'd rather not moderate at_this_time. I still want to moderate. I don't want to change my eligibility for mod points in any way. Go ahead and offer them again, later, but wait, say, 24 hours. Maybe a drop-down box with a selection of deferment periods? 1h, 6h, 12h, 1d, 2d. Would afford me a chance to balance outside pressures/deadlines against my desire to be as helpful as possible to the community.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:26AM
You said:
Observation 1: I saw mention of a problem with people getting mod points just before they logged out. Would it help to have a trigger of some sort that fires when a user logs in that checks whether mod points are available and whether or not this user is eligible? I'm thinking of this as an interrupt-driven *addition* to the polling mechanism currently employed.
Yeah, that's a definitive problem, and one I knew would exist going in. This is one of those cases where we would need to predict the future to properly fix. Its less of an issue on the other site due to their mod points sticking around for days.
Observation 2: A pet peeve of mine is that I'd get a message that I have mod points and they expire, say, on 02/18/14. Yeah, but WHEN on that day? Do I have 5 MINUTES or 23 HOURS left? I try to use my mod points judiciously and would rather let them expire than shotgun them out there just because I got them. OTOH, if I'm in a pretty good discussion, and I know I've only a short while left, I'd be more generous in their distribution. If I've got several more hours, I might wait a bit to see if I contribute something to the next story or two that will post. IOW, full timestamp, please!
A known (and annoying) bug. The thing that displays the text is actually completely separate from the rest of the moderation code, and the bit of code where it does lie is in a section I'm hestiant to touch until we have a full dev environment up and running again. It's on my TODO list pretty much on the top for when I return to hitatus if none of the other devs got it.
OOOOH, I like this idea. Its actually rather trivial to implement as we have the lastgranted data always available. Just needs a new column in the database. Right now, the userbase as it is means that there's about a 24 hour gap between getting points (more or less depending if and when how many users are signed in at a given day). Consider this one on the TODO list.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:26AM
Meant to click preview on that one :-)
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by martyb on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:06AM
Thanks for the feedback! I realized as I submitted it that I really should have made 3 different posts, but lacked the time to do it over; still learning after all these years! I can, at least, split up my replies!
Observation 1 (assignment time of mod points delayed until login). Yeah, I knew you'd rewritten big chunks of that. I'd seen a long history of fiddling with the code on /. too. Glad it's on your todo list...
That said, I've thought of a possible abuse and workaround. "Hey! I get mod points when I login... maybe if I keep logging out and it, I can get some more!!!"
Blegh. How about waiting, say, until 10 minutes AFTER login before those points are considered for distribution?
(Score: 1) by martyb on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:11AM
Yeah, take that well-deserved break!!!
Reading your reply, I vaguely recall having seen something about this, before. Thanks for the explanation.
I understand not wanting to break something that currently works well enough to get things started. Glad you find the idea a viable one, but agree it's best to keep things stable before making thing better.
(Score: 1) by martyb on Wednesday February 19 2014, @10:09AM
Glad you liked it!!
Further considerations on implementation and avoiding possible abuses...
What happens if I "delay" for, say, 12hours. Do I still have my mod points? That is what I was originally thinking, but I've got a gut feeling that could cause some problems.
If I ModPointDelay (MPD), 1 hour, I'd expect I'd still have the points when the time is up.
If I MPD 2 Days, and upon delay expiration still have the points, then I wonder how you would balance that against the pool of assigned/available mod points?
Mod point availability surge? Here's a thought experiment:
As you can see, these are all going to become available at the same time. In this case causing a surge in availability of 60 mod points. Take a few thousand users, add in various delays, and ummm, I'm not sure what would happen, but it could be interesting :-)
Then again, what if NONE of them log in during the period? Sure, their mod points will expire, but we'd need to plan around the system-wide impact between these extremes.
Random thoughts: Have mod point "buckets" for each 15-minute period? MPDs put the user in one of those buckets. When system is looking to put out mod points, it should look though the MPD'd users who are now available?
This is NOT simple! Here are some factors that come to mind:
It's an interesting puzzle! I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on this!
Off topic to this thread, but... "Just needs a new column in the database." Hmmmm... could you add a column to the user's table for when their Mod Points expire? Query THAT when presenting the mod point expiration to the user (as both a duration and as a date/time.) Sounds too easy, so I must be missing something!!?!
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:25PM
The system always considers 30% of logged in users as potential moderators. If there aren't enough modpoints to comment counts, it starts handing out more modpoints. If it hits the upper gap, it causes a spill to go beyond 30%.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by Reziac on Thursday March 06 2014, @11:12PM
I take moderation seriously. That means I *don't* want to have to rush around just to spend mod points... which would make it stressful and no fun. When I get 'em, I'd very much prefer to have 3 days to dole them out as I come across good comments (tho I may spend them all on one article, too, who knows)... to feel like I can take my time and think about what's being said.
If I know I've got just four hours to spend 'em... which by dumb luck had better coincide with when I'm here... I won't have time to dig in the bowels of comment chains.
I went thru a period on /. where for several months I seemed to have permanent mod points. I had 15 points no matter how many I spent. The only difference it made was that since I knew there was no rush, I could spend them very judiciously. I did a lot more dumpster-diving in long comment chains, dredging up the worthy. I didn't fret about which post more deserved my last mod point. -- And on days when I didn't feel like moderating, I just ignored 'em.
Incidentally, with very rare exceptions, I only mod up. There are enough people willing to mod down already.
[I've had mod points here a couple times already. Didn't realise how lucky I was. ;) ]
(Score: 1) by dilbert on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:31AM
(Score: 1) by lhsi on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:46AM
I prefer having a longer window to moderate. If there is only a couple of hours to use them up, I might not see anything that is at an incorrect score to moderate and not use any in that short time frame. Say I have already read the stories for today that interest me then get mod points, I am not going to want to re-read them just to moderate, and there might not be another story that interests me for some time (and reading something that doesn't interest me, just to moderate on something that I might know little about seems like a bad use of mod points - how am I going to know if something is actually insightful?).
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:59AM
For the pre-launch beta, and for most of Day 1, the modpoints had a 24 hour shelf life. When I checked the database only about a 10th of that being spent because users would get points, then sit on them (most of the points had been granted within minutes of golive, and had still remained at ten). Comments were only reaching +2 at best. Slash requires moderation to work to make discussions managable for people who just lurk. Without it, we might as well be running Geeklog. The hoarding behaviour prevented anything from getting moderated, and I don't want a world where everyone is a moderator at once, hence the emergency change to the logic towards the midpoint of day 1.
I admit, its not ideal, but the alternative *is* worse. Right now, about half of modpoints issued expire out every four hours (the logic reports Current Moderators 15%, then it hands out a ton to bring the total back to 30.). Four hours work out to between 2-3 stories which keeps those articles being moderating while they're still "hot". Relatively little discussion happens once there out of the top five, and generally goes silent once its on the next page.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by lhsi on Wednesday February 19 2014, @10:54AM
Does not using all (or any) mod points at a particular time lessen the chances of getting them again?
(Score: 1) by fleg on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:13AM
first, thanks for the writeup.
i'm finding this expiration of mod points to be a bit of a pain.
for instance, i got in this morning noticed i had 10 mod points, thought "nice, when
i get sometime later today i'll use them up!"
but when i get back they're gone.
its a little frustrating.
(Score: 1) by Maow on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:47AM
I had mod points a while ago.
I looked at a page, and since JS isn't working and I didn't want to reload the page repeatedly, once for each mod point, I selected my moderation values from the drop-down then continued reading.
At the bottom of the page, I assigned the final moderation value, then clicked "Moderate" button.
This is what I got on the resulting page:
(dozen(s) of times).
It appears my mod points expired while I was reading the page? I don't see them anymore anyway.
A question this raises is, can I assign moderation to two comments, click "Moderate" beside one of them, and have both applied?
Thanks again for answering these.
(...experiencing broken / non-existant preview on this comment... just going to hit Submit.
Fuck sakes, can't submit either?!?
Now trying to reply to a comment instead of Reply button under story...
I fucking give up.)
It's much later, trying again. Seems that, if I cut the blockquote and text after out, it previews.
SO, too many repeated blocks of text stating "user can't moderate comment" is what blocked everything from previewing / posting.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:28AM
This should be fixed now.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by Maow on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:50AM
Thanks NCommander; outstanding work!
Still curious about this however:
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:51AM
Yup. The Moderate button is basically a submit across the entire page. It was basically added to try and make moderation a BIT less tedious (without going to D2 route of JavaScripting it).
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:17AM
Consider two posts. The first has no moderation. The second has 100 up mods and 101 down mods. I strongly think the second post is more interesting; people care about it. Most likely it is a well-argued post that expresses an opinion that some moderators are trying to suppress. For example, it could be of a political nature.
The fix is asymmetric moderation. A simple and easy method would be to square the up mods. So 10 up with 10 down becomes 90. (10*10-10) You could use a fractional exponent, or you could raise one type of mod to an integer power that is slightly different than the other. For example, raise up mods to the 8th power and raise down mods to the 7th power.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:23AM
The last line of a main page article should provide access to various different moderation levels. This is *really* helpful when using a slow computer with not much memory. For example, if I can't safely load more than about 150 comments, then I'd pick a level just below this. I'd like to see the line look like so:
Read 9, 23, 31, 55, 81, 202, or 666 comments.
In my example, I'd click on the 81 to view comments rated 1 or higher. I can't read at 0 or -1 because it'd hang or crash my web browser.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:29AM
The other site of old did this with your threshold settings. Might be worth re-introducing as an option, but the view can really confusing for newer users.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:40AM
It did not give you one-click access to all the different levels. It's not practical or sane to go adjusting your threshold for each article. You wouldn't know how many comments are available until after you make the adjustment, and remember that the adjustment is not so easy to make.
Life is hard with a slow CPU, a slow net connection, or limited RAM.
I actually think what I propose is less confusing. The old way offered a "Read more" link, and some numeric links. It didn't make sense; how do the links relate? Does "Read more" have a secret numeric value? (I believe so) With *all* the links being numeric, the meaning is obvious. You're choosing to see that number of comments.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:53AM
I'm not convinced it wouldn't be uncluttered and difficult to understand. I know when I see strings of numbers where I would only expect 1, my brain will seize up. Its possible I just lack imagination on this bit though. If you want to provide a mockup, I'll kick it over to the design team and let them look at incorperating it for mockups on the facelift the site needs.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:40AM
Problem: one early down-mod will prevent future up-mod because moderators won't see the comment.
Few people want to read at -1, but it is kind of required for moderators. (ones doing their job anyway)
Instead of having moderators pick comments from whatever they see at their normal level, it is better to pick the comments to be moderated and force them to be visible.
For example, a person with mod points might normally see 700 posts out of a total of 1000 in the article. The code could randomly pick 25 comments out of the 1000 to be made available for moderation. These 25 are made visible even if they normally would not be among the 700 that are visible to the example moderator. The result might be that the moderator sees 708 comments, of which 25 may be moderated.
These numbers and other details are surely in need of adjustment. That isn't the point. The point is that something needs to be done to ensure that all moderators actually see the low-rated posts. If somebody won't tolerate looking at the low-rated posts, then they don't get to moderate.
(Score: 1) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 19 2014, @06:03AM
Most people regularly read at specific(ish) times of day. It would be nice if you could keep a 24 counters per person in the db and use them to estimate when they will be online and try to smear mod points over people who will be active all day. This prevents, for example, awarding all of the mod points to people in North America and ending up with 8 hours of lots of moderation and 16 hours of very little.
There should be some bias given towards people who read stories without commenting. I frequently get mod points in the other place, but I don't ever use them because I very rarely read a story without posting at least one comment. It would be better for the moderation system to be biased against giving points to people with my usage pattern. Alternatively, let people like me flag comments that we think are deserving of moderation but not give the point, and then present them to other users and give them the option of saying which direction the moderation should go (so I'd be able to say a post needs modding up or down, but not which).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:27PM
Mod points are only granted to people who have clicked within the last five minutes (the mod script runs every five minuts), so who's ever awake is elligable. The sorts that by lastgranted ASC which creates a FILO queue to prevent moderator burnout. Right now, that's working to be roughly once a day, but as the number of active users increase, the time will begin to get longer and longer.
Still always moving