Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by NCommander on Wednesday February 12 2014, @11:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the e=mc-hammertime dept.
As the to-do list of tasks continues to be whittled bit by bit towards launch, one large item remains: distribution of moderation points. While I wish I could reuse the existing Slash code, the fact is that this code is completely inappropriate for a site smaller than Slashdot. So, I've been working with a couple of users in chat to rework the underlying math so that mod point distribution actually works in a reasonable way. If you're interested in the potential algorithm behind this, read on. Be warned, it is a bit dry and technical.The current thoughts are that slash should enforce that a specific number of mod points must ALWAYS be in circulation, and in the hands of our potential moderators. Without going into too much detail, we're running off the assumption that the total number of moderations applied in an article should approximately equal the number of comments. To account for inactive users and for the constant flow of new articles/comments, twice as many mod points will be distributed.
Have I lost you yet? To reiterate, two mod points must exist for every comment in active articles. As far as problems go, having too many mod points in circulation is far preferable too little. If you don't understand why, I recommend trying to find +5 posts on other slash sites like Slashdot Japan or BarraPunto.

Here's an example:
Assuming that we have two articles with approximately 200 comments each, that means we need to have 800 points in circulation. However, if we stuck with the old Slashdot method of 5 points to a user, we'd end up needing to have 80 people read an article and not comment on it. Obviously, that's not going to work, and as we have more articles/comments, that number will only increase.

Instead, we'll limit the number of moderators to approximately 30% of active accounts who haven't moderated relatively recently. In this context, active means that you have logged in within the last 5 days. The process_moderators script will calculate how many mod points are currently in circulation, how many need to be in circulation, and how many, if any, it needs to add to the pool. It then looks at the list of eligible moderators, selects 30% of them, and hands them out. To prevent moderation fatigue, we'll cap the maximum number of points a user can receive, and by the same logic, also set a minimum. I don't know about you, but I'd be a little annoyed if I found I had gotten a whopping 1 whole mod point.

This should allow a relatively fluid system, and I hope, allow us to have something very similar to the moderation system we've all grown to love. I'm open to suggestions or even radically different ideas on how to improve this below.
 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by evilviper on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:19AM

    by evilviper (1760) on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:19AM (#2233) Journal

    I'm sure am not the only one who finds it annoying on slashdot when people hijack an early comment to get a position high on the page and take the thread in a completely different direction.

    A good comment is a good comment. If the story sucks, or there's a tangentially related topic that's notable, it can be a better discussion than the topic.

    Anybody that has anything productive to say, on-topic, will still say it. Those going off on a tangent will stay in their own little thread, and will only be modded-up if they have something insightful/informative/interesting to say. I don't see the harm, and I've never been upset that part of a discussion went off the topic the subby/editor wanted it to go.

    --
    Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
    dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
    github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
  • (Score: 1) by akinliat on Wednesday February 19 2014, @03:28PM

    by akinliat (1898) <akinliatNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 19 2014, @03:28PM (#2755)

    Agreed.

    The whole idea of off-topic always seemed a bit absurd to me. I mean, do we really need to be told what we can or can't discuss? I can't remember the last (long) conversation I've had with any friend that hasn't wandered all over the place, and it's one of the things I prized about /.

  • (Score: 1) by caffeine on Wednesday February 19 2014, @06:17PM

    by caffeine (249) on Wednesday February 19 2014, @06:17PM (#2913)

    >A good comment is a good comment. If the story sucks, or there's a tangentially related topic that's notable, it can be a better discussion than the topic.

    I agree.

    My issue is not with the comments being off topic, it is with the practice of placing them as a reply to an earlier discussion purely for page position. IMO, it is akin to pushing in in front of a queue. This is the reason why I think the off-topic moderation is not useful for this issue.

    I'd like the comments to be either related to the parent comment, or started as a new comment thread to the top level. This will make it easier to read and I think encourage more and better comments.

  • (Score: 1) by rcamera on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:20PM

    by rcamera (2360) on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:20PM (#3645) Homepage

    not only will they be off in their own little (or enormous) thread, but they may be modded as "Off Topic". if someone doesn't want to read through off-topic modded posts, they are completely able to weigh off-topic as very negative on their own.

    i've gone through and spent 5 "Off Topic" points in a day on a single off-topic thread. some of it was funny as hell, as i recall, but off-topic anyway.

    ot; i read at -1.

    --
    /* buck feta */