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 mrcoolbp on Wednesday February 26 2014, @08:33PM

    by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@dev.soylentnews.org> on Wednesday February 26 2014, @08:33PM (#7665)

    Posted on behalf of user: linsane (633):

    "Don't know if this thread is still active, but:

    gut feel is there are too many mod points kicking around at the moment and not enough commentators.

    a) there are few trolls around at the moment requiring down-modding (thus fewer points required to be in circulation at any one time)
    b) giving people mod points dissuades ppl from commenting
    c) comments are the make or break here
    d) with /. there was a nice middle ground where folk would leave your comment at +1 and not bother spending a point to up or down it. Here it seems the balance punts the comments straight up to +3/4/5 or straight down, with few left at 1
    e) combined with b), the short time period does also encourage holding back from commenting imho.

    The system will have to evolve over time but hope that helps for the moment..."

    --
    (Score:1^½, Radical)