Lets see what happens.
meta: Slashcomments implemented
My head is asplode.
...but, to me, a simple up/down vote still seems like the best way to go.
Appreciate the effort though on always trying to improve the site! And I'm glad the "new" marker is back!! I do miss the "top" button however.
What is this new brave world we are living in now? Nice to have the new tab back but this moderate button is going to take some getting used to.
This change is good. The drop box moderation seems a bit cumbersome but I am sure we'll adjust.
What is all this talk about IE?? Is there a new crappy browser out there called internet exploder? How do I download it! /s
Retired October 2010:
Retired April 2011:
Wolvy's at a bit of a loss as to how to plus now.
swipe at the drop-down menu, swipe at an option, then swipe at the "Moderate" button.
He's going to get tired.
:-( for Wolvy
:D for new Slashcomments!
Liked the up/down arrows better.
Agreed. its brian's blog, but if enough people object, it might be worth putting to a vote or something. also, im sure its just a bug, but i couldnt moderate you because i have already posted in this thread.
what is the little dollar shaped symbol in the top right corner?
EDIT; Yup, your ability to "moderate" goes away once you post (at least in Chrome).
What the f- is permalink?
It's not a bug, that's the way it is on slashdot too, and it is by design. The idea is that if you are part of a discussion you are no longer an objective moderator. Hopefully it's an option that Brian can turn off though.
It might be useful to stop people from downvoting every reply that disagrees with them. But it's probably more viable on Slashdot, which literally has millions of users. I'm guessing that if people that comment on a thread here can't moderate it, there will be few other interested people left to moderate.
All the maize and blue on these comments -- my eyes are delighted! Well, except for all the tOSU red...
Such as "ennui, "RBUAS-esque," and "Lloyd Brady-based," but beyond that I love it.
I fear that the new tags, as they are, don't capture all the reasons why someone would upvote or downvote.
Though I suppose you can still reply and say specifically why (which is really best [IMHE], however rare that may actually be).
It just dawned on me today that your name is WatersDemos. For the past six months, I've been reading it as WalterDemos.
In choosing this name, I picked out two words at random, and put them together, also at random.
By that standard, WalterDemos is as good as any.
there needs to be a WTF option.
Go Blue !
But again, I assume the system is meant to encourage replies to upvoted or downvoted posts so as to be more specific as to why a post was treated a certain way.
Most of the time, though, people upvote and downvote with no explanation.
So I guess this system gives at least some idea as to why those people upvoted or downvoted, even if not very specific. It's better than no explanation at all, and in that respect, it's better than before.
Just means you'll get posts grayed out and called trolling when someone just disagrees with the opinion. It makes it look like more than it really is (with a downvote) - I don't like your post. Ideally that's not how voting/moderating goes...but come on, we all know better.
that this system relies on intelligent and measured voting, well . . . I have my doubts for the reasons you articulate.
The rationale is certainly reasonable, but it does seem better - in light of the reality that a lot of votes are either ad hominem, or based on some personal distaste for the comment - just to have numbers. At least then such personal downvotes won't result in otherwise good posts having tags like "troll" attached to them, or being grayed out, as you noted.
I think I'm going to hate, not the trolling choice, but how people use it. Your comment was moderated as trolling which it clearly was not. The headaches comin on...
If we random Internet people are just honest this will work perfectly.
Can I set it to un-collapse comments that have been neg-bombed and might be worth reading (bombing) - maybe ones more than -5 or -10?
Collapsing prescient one word posts like "nice" would also be a good option...
It's taken me about 3 years to get the points I have now, so I'll probably be able to +/- people in late 2012/early 2013.
theory might be that it's because the post sux, but often it's the lightning-rod stuff that the conversation builds AROUND. Someone care to explicamelo?
love the new setup! the only problem I am encountering is the fact that I can't comment once I have posted in the thread - same issues that some have discussed below.
Is anyone able to comment after posting or is this something that needs to be fixed for the whole website?
Brian stole embiggen from EDSBS. Just sayin'.
Both stole it from Jebediah Springfield.
South Park did "Simpsons did it first" first.
Awesome! Thanks Brian.
Does anyone else think the kid in the middle row all the way to the right looks like Shawn Hunwick in monuMental's wallpaper? Or do I just have serious problems with letting go Michigan Hockey right now?
I'm going to agree with the general sentiment that options are not great in this case. I just want to say whether a post is good or bad and whether someone should get/lose points. I don't have a huge problem with this method, but I'd prefer simple up/down again.
Also, am I not able to show newest posts at the top anymore? That was great.
I can no longer see the moderation boxes, btw. There were there this morning (on my home computer) but now they are not (on my work computer).
Dont hate the playa hate his employer who has not seen the light of day w/ Chrome and Firefox.
Thing that pisses me off the most is that our IT uses FF BUT we peons who cannot install crap onto our machines have to use IE8 (full disclosure: IE9 really isnt that bad).
Edit: Ewww lil girl squeal I like how it highlights your post in yellow, sort of like the Chrome Extension but I'm not vain enough to have actually added myself to that list.
Can someone help explain something.
I don't get this whole collapsing thing. The lowest threshold I can choose is -1? So once something goes to -2 we can no longer see it? Am I interpretting that correctly?
edit: seriously, someone "negged" me for trolling? This is a legitimate question. Something that I also thought about, how are we to neg-bomb someone to Bolivia if the thread collapses after -2, or am I again still interpretting this wrongly.
i think i like it.
yay, and all that; but there's too much scarlet up in here.
damn work computer, and no control. IE6 and nothing else. couldn't even get my flash player updated without opening a help-desk ticket and waiting two weeks.
think i'm gonna quit this job.
edit: it's IE7, but still...
I'm just using your post as an example here.
Right now, your score reads "Score: 1 Trolling."
I guess I've understood "trolling" to be a bad thing, something you'd get downvoted for.
But here, it appears you've been upvoted. I don't understand.
Moreover, if I upvote you for "funny," and someone else upvotes you for "inciteful," then which one appears as the reason for the upvotes? I don't understand this either.
The Score label does not seem to change when you upvote/downvote someone unless you are the first moderater, which initially creates the first Score label.
For example, you had a Score: 1 with no label, which means that no one moderated your post. I just upvoted you with "Insightful". This created a Score: 2 Insightful label.
What, if anything, changes the Score label now? If 10 people upvote you with "Funny" does the label still remain "Insightful"?
Is it possible to upvote someone past 5?
E.g., I found a post that was upvoted 5 times, and read "insightful." I upvoted with the tag "interesting," and nothing happened. It continues to read "Score: 5 Insightful."
I tested this out. When I clicked "Trolling" for one of the +5 posts, it remained at 5.
It seems to keep your actual score, but will not display anything above 5.
and you're right - neither the score nor the tag changes for +5 posts regardless of whether you upvote or downvote.
I also downvoted a post with <5, and it went down by a point, but retained the same tag.
So this seems to suggest that achieving +5 is some kind of safe harbor.
Seems kind of arbitrary to me. Moreover, it doesn't reflect community sentiment concerning any given post.