Comment 2H9 Re: Proposed mod scheme


Pipedot: let's make this site fly


Too late (Score: 4, Interesting)

by on 2014-07-12 14:00 (#2FB)

This is already awesome :-)
and it keeps on getting better

Re: Too late (Score: 3, Interesting)

by on 2014-07-12 14:11 (#2FC)

Forgot to mention it: little known fact, but Bryan has been super cool about implementing just about everything I've brought up. That doesn't mean it's a free-for-all, but it seems pretty clear to me that pipecode is destined for greatness and Bryan is totally open to feature requests and ideas. If it makes sense, I think it's a good bet it will happen.

I suggested a Twitter feed would be useful so we could get pipedot articles some publicity on Twitter, and it existed a couple of days later. Bryan mentioned I'm going to "Guinea Pig" Pipecode on the Dictator's Handbook forum. That's not me agreeing to engage in some experiment; that's me deciding pipecode would make the forum at the DH better, and I could use the Twitter integration.

So let's keep the feature requests coming. I think forum software has kind of languished over the past ten years. Web forums like PHPBB and the like kind of ate Usenet's lunch back in the day, and then Facebook ran rough-shod over the web forums. Slashdot was always kind of a refuge, until corporate boneheadedness killed the golden goose. My point is: there's room for innovation - especially now that people are getting sick of/disgusted with/bored with Facebook. This could be the next, big thing - especially if Bryan's vision of some sort of site federation where articles flow among servers becomes a reality. Imagine a system where dictator articles with a tech angle show up automatically on Pipedot, and tech angles that involve autocratic Internet shutdowns etc. showing up automatically over at the Dictator's Handbook. That would be awesome.

Re: Too late (Score: 2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-07-12 18:15 (#2FD)

Feature Request: I like moderation as it has been implemented on the various *. sites but I think there is room for a general purpose approve/disapprove or like/dislike counter for posts. This should not replace, supplant, or in anyway interact with the existing moderation system but instead it just allows non-moderators to show their support (or lack thereof) for a particular comment. If we had such a system I would have "liked" or "approved" zafiro17 previous comment.

Re: Too late (Score: 5, Informative)

by on 2014-07-12 23:29 (#2FX)

I've always struggled with the subtle differences between the slash-style moderation ratings. I mean, how much difference is there between "Insightful" and "Interesting" anyway - and, since it's the integer score that determines the comments visibility, does it really matter?

TL;DR; Use "Underrated" and "Overrated" - These are the generic "+" and "-" options. Articles will never be tagged with either of these two strings but will increase/decrease its score by one point.

Re: Too late (Score: 2, Insightful)

by on 2014-07-14 01:41 (#2G7)

Insightful and interesting are very similar and have lots of overlap. Those two also have some overlap with interesting. However informative is usually completely different from funny; a comment may be both, but if you look at slashdot, the difference in the sort of posts that get modded funny is obvious in practice. So basically, the descriptors are still useful, and probably shouldn't be discarded. That said, I think the main reason slashdot has insightful, interesting and informative is just in case someone with mod points thinks a post is informative but not interesting, or interesting but not insightful.

Proposed mod scheme (Score: 1)

by on 2014-07-14 09:37 (#2GA)

I think Bryan's got a point though.

"Funny" is pretty obvious. So is "informative": It provides new, useful information. "Flamebait" and "Offtopic" both speak for themselves. But "Troll" and "Flamebait" are damned close, that's for sure.

"Interesting" and "Insightful" is more subtle. Both provide information the reader finds compelling. Insightful is supposed to be more profound - some post of such high quality that the reader thinks the poster has unraveled the mystery, or touched upon the heart of the conundrum. Interesting is not as profound, and might just be a curiosity. But both go beyond simply providing more information.

I don't think I've ever used "overrated" or "underrated" though. And "redundant" seems rude.

Perhaps we're zeroing in on a better mod scheme? I'd propose:

Funny: on Slashdot I liked having a 'funny' tag so I could filter it out; I didn't appreciate those posters who just go for a quick laugh and add nothing of value.
Offtopic: useful, helps keep the subject on track and also filter out spam
Good post: a combination of interesting/insightful/whatever. Basically: Plus one
Flame/Troll: combine the two. Basically: Minus one.

There is no mod for "I don't like your post" because of the risk of abuse. Bad posts just sit and rot. But you can assign negative points to posts that intend to offend or derail the conversation.

Re: Proposed mod scheme (Score: 1)

by on 2014-07-16 16:28 (#2H9)

Man. I wish I'd read all this before I tossed out my answer to the poll post. This is good fodder.


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-07-29 06:48 Normal 0

Junk Status

Not marked as junk