META - On Slashpoints

Submitted by stubob on

Since it hasn't been explained very well, here's the rundown on "slashpoints."

1. What is the new system? The name and moderation system is borrowed from slashdot. Slashpoints are their attempt at self-moderation, in the same way the thumbs-up/thumbs-down was. I'll quote their FAQ:

How did the moderation system develop?

Before Moderation

In the beginning, Slashdot was small. We got dozens of posts each day, and it was good. The signal was high, the noise was low. Moderation was unnecessary because we were nobody. It was a different world then (Ed: it was also 1997). Each day we grew, adding more and more users, and increasing the number of comments submitted. As this happened, many users discovered new and annoying ways to abuse the system. The authors had but one option: Delete annoying comments. But as the system grew, we knew that we would never be able to keep up. We were outnumbered.

Sound familiar? Continuing:

How does moderation work?

Moderation takes place by selecting an adjective from a drop down list that appears next to comments containing descriptive words like "Flamebait" or "Informative." Bad words will reduce the comment's score by a single point, and good words increase a comment's score by a single point. All comments are scored on an absolute scale from -1 to 5. Logged-in users start at 1 (although this can vary from 0 to 2 based on their karma) and anonymous users start at 0.

There are a number of key differences between this system and slashdot's setup (not everyone gets to moderate everything, for one), but the basic premise is the same: pick the word that best describes your feelings toward the post. Good words == points++, bad words == points--

2. How does all that tie into what we've got here? We used to get points for a up-vote, and lose points for a down-vote. Now, you get points from a good moderation, and lose from a bad moderation. In addition, the points tracking allows you to view only the top-rated comments in a topic, i.e. Comment Viewing Options, View +1, +2, etc. So the system isn't really all that different, but you get an adjective to go along with the post. This will hopefully be modded by 5 people "Informative", for example, and be seen as +5, Informative. I think the adjective is the last one used, or the most commonly used one. The points are capped at +/- 5 to avoid "negging to Bolivia." Once more from the FAQ:

What is a good comment? A bad comment?

A good comment says something interesting or insightful. It has a link to a relevant piece of information that will add something to the discussion. It might not be Shakespeare, but it's not Beavis and Butthead. It's not off topic or flamey. It doesn't call someone names. It doesn't personally attack someone because of a disagreement of opinion.

Some of my favorite "bad" or off-topic comments are things like "Slashdot sucks!" and "This isn't news for nerds!" and "Moderate this XXX!" Any of these may be true, but they're probably off topic!

3. This system sucks! That's not a question. I agree that the categories are unfair, that they're unbalanced. There's no direct correlary to "Flamebait", etc., but it's the best they've got. Try to pick the best you can find, and if nothing matches, just pick something that shows either "Good" or "Bad." The adjective doesn't really matter. It's not really so much for punishment/reward, as it is for selecting good comments and filtering bad ones.

4. Ok, make a prediction or something. The way this is set up here is similar to slashdot's original set-up. Everyone moderates all the time, and points are visible (slashdot has gone to a basic Good/Bad "karma" setup for years). If the module allows it, I think moderation will become an occasional thing, not an all-the-time option. It really only takes a couple points per thread to weed out the good and bad.

5. Bbbbut-my points! Ahem:

Karma used to be a number, now it is a word, this sucks!

People like to treat their Slashdot Karma like some sort of video game, with a numeric integer representing their score in the game. People who do this simply are missing the point. The text label is one way we've decided to emphasize the point that karma doesn't matter. Karma is used to remove risky users from the moderator pool, and to assign a bonus point to users who have contributed positively to Slashdot in the past. It is not your IQ, dick length/cup size, value as a human being, or a score in a video game.

To sum up, the whole system is a change from the Reddit/Digg model where everything is give a plus or minus, but the end result is the same: good votes improve your points, bad ones take them away.

(Stubob, slashdot ID #204064)

jericho

May 20th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

This has gotten way too complex.  It was best when you just voted up or down and it didn't cost points to do either.  Simple and easy.  It seemed to work just fine to me.

Skunkeye

May 21st, 2011 at 2:58 AM ^

I'll never understand why the old system that worked so well was replaced.  When Brian decided to make neg-bombing cost a point, the signal to noise ratio decreased markedly.  This was completely predictable.  Now we have this dumb new concept and it won't drive the idiots away either.  Yes, it hides them easy enough if you filter but now you miss good stuff too if some clown bombs a comment before anyone else sees it.  Just put the old system back already.  Please.

The Barwis Effect

May 21st, 2011 at 9:12 AM ^

[N]ow you miss good stuff too if some clown bombs a comment before anyone else sees it.
You just nailed the main problem with this current set up. I realize that, yes, you can adjust the filter, but that requires some degree of effort and/or computer competency on the part of the user. Most will probably roll with the default settings, and, as a result, miss some of the "good stuff", as Skunkeye says.

bdsisme

May 20th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^

...the end result is the same: good votes improve your points, bad ones take them away.
FALSE. Posting gives you one point. That's it. If we had to use one of the karma systems used by a major information-gathering site, why aren't we using Reddit's?

stubob

May 20th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^

That's the way the slashdot system works, so I figured that feature had been brought over.

Put me into category 3: don't care, understand both systems. I just think it's funny how many people are making the same complaints that get leveled at slashdot. It's been a couple months, get over it.

I'll give Brian the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was something with the Up/Down system that either lead to the MGoCrash, or he has more plans for the system than we've seen.

Michigan Shirt

May 20th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

The points are capped at +/- 5 to avoid "negging to Bolivia."

I thought that being able to neg to Bolivia was supposed to help the mods (as there are not that many) and that our "voices" helped the mods easily find Trolls, isn't this more difficult now? I know we can post into the Moderator Action Sticky, but I would think that is normally only used for the really bad posts.

Edit: I just noticed this, but the points are capped at +5/-1 not -5.

justingoblue

May 20th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^

I really don't like the -1 to +5 situation. Especially since Brian is talking about putting points back online, why should a statement like "Dick Rod should be fired cuz he didn't beat O$U" or "Cowhoke..." not get negged fifty or sixty times? Similarly, why should an insightful or informative comment only be given five points?

I think the new system is fine, but there should be a few modifications, IMO:

  1. Make "flamebait" and "trolling" worth -2, leave the others where they are.
  2. Maybe make "insightful" and "informative" worth two points.
  3. Get points back to working and costing points for negging.
  4. Get rid of the -1 to +5 range.
  5. I'd like to see the poster name in the preview line. If something by a poster I like is collapsed, I want to read it; if the post is by someone who I feel is annoying, stupid, whatever, then I don't want to click.

vbnautilus

May 20th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^

I really don't like the -1 to +5 situation. Especially since Brian is talking about putting points back online, why should a statement like "Dick Rod should be fired cuz he didn't beat O$U" or "Cowhoke..." not get negged fifty or sixty times? Similarly, why should an insightful or informative comment only be given five points?

I think the answer is because once you start using the score of a post to filter the content on the page, it helps to not have too many gradations.

If a comment is negged to -1, most of us are not going to see it any more. The system has done its job; the bad comment has gone away. If I want to see only the very best comments, I threshold at 5 and see only those. 

In short the new system is geared towards filtering the discussion rather than rewarding and punishing the authors. 

justingoblue

May 20th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^

Good point, but you can do both, it isn't mutually exclusive. Why not have the same thresholds but allow the points to decrease further? You could still set it to -1 or +5, but the post could be at +/-70. Also, it would give an idea as to whether it's Magnus getting negged just for having "Magnus" next to the post, or whether it's an actual troll.

clarkiefromcanada

May 20th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^

The democracy of the neg is failed by this new system that essentially limits the power of the board by hiding posts that go to -1. In the old system guys who were actual trolls were just punished by the actual users of the board as opposed to a rather small cohort who might take someone to -1.

The end game on the current system is that it takes the power from the end user and just moves it to the Slashdot 'system'. Pointless.

Some things don't need changing Brian Cook.

BrownJuggernaut

May 20th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^

I don't agree with the flamebait/trolling part because you have people who abuse their right to vote like in the Tigers/Sox thread the other night. I checked back later in the night and almost all of mine MAgoBLUE's posts had been collapsed and categorized as flamebait or trolling because we're Sox fans. On top of that, the voters don't get punished for voting down, so it's a free for all. "I'm not going to get hurt if I mod as flamebait or trolling, so I'll do whatever I want."

Additionally, the categories available are not sufficient at all. It's so hard to categorize a lot of posts that may deserve votes.

justingoblue

May 20th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^

If it costs two in order to neg two and you can get plus two, I think it evens out. I just like the idea of putting more emphasis on insight or information and more penalty for trolling. Obviously it would be abused, but as you said, it already is.

Skunkeye

May 21st, 2011 at 3:07 AM ^

All good except 3b.  You can't bomb a prolific but bad poster to Bolivia so quality dropped dramatically once free negging was eliminated.  People may have thought that some people were unfairly giving massive negs but that is the only way to keep people in line.  On the whole, the only people that really got hurt but free negging were the jokers.  Yes, we all got bombed occationally but it made you think twice before making a low quality comment.  It shouldn't be hard to figure out that that was a good thing.

wile_e8

May 20th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^

I like it too.  This system has actual consequences to good an bad posting, both to the good/bad post and to future posts.  Also, I like that it has somewhat fixed the e-peen contest that the original moderating system had become.  Now, there is much less posting soley for point-total purposes.

Desmonlon Edwoodson

May 20th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^

Since we're all breaking the cardinal rule for fight club anyway...What is the RPI formula for Karma?  I seem to be oscillation from 1-2 from post to post.  Someone said that the moderator's karma affects the effect of that person's moderation on your karma...which like...whoa...

justingoblue

May 20th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^

It takes into account your last x number of posts IIRC. So, let's assume the number is five, if your last five posts have all been plussed big time, you'll have a high karma until none of those posts counts anymore.

Again, just IIRC, but it seems reasonable.

ken725

May 20th, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^

I bet that if we took a vote, a large majority would say that they hate this system and want to return to the old one. 

Can someone create those fancy online polls so we can actually see how many people hate the new voting/moderation system.

Michigasling

May 20th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^

Because it's actually the first comment that gets you labeled.  So "Normal" will stay normal whether you vote it insightful or interesting.  But your input will give a higher-rated normal than before.

And I'd like to moderate you as "clever," but you're already insightful, so it doesn't matter that "clever" isn't an option.

EDIT:  Geez, I'm wrong!  Unless something's changed, I could swear that every other time my moderation choice didn't change the pre-existing label.  So lazily I just gave you a positive normal, and I accidentally wiped out your insightfulness!  I'm so, so sorry!

MAgoBLUE

May 20th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^

There's no need to reinvent the wheel.  A simple up and down voting function works perfectly.  If anything needs to be said you can just type a response.

dmblue

May 20th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^

I wish we could go back to the old system.  This new one hides my posts for some reason, and I don't have a drop down menu on people's posts for some reason.   

Sometimes the simpler option is better.

dahblue

May 20th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^

Points...points...blah blah blah...

More importantly, can anyone tell me if it's possible to change settings so that threads appear ordered newest-to-oldest (as they used to).  Many thanks in advance.

Don

May 21st, 2011 at 8:38 AM ^

of posbang and negbang, but it seems to me (and a lot of other people around here) that it wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. Informative, funny, insightful comments were posbanged, and idiotic, misinformed, or trolling comments were negbanged. It may have had some drawbacks, but It was all pretty simple and it worked easily. I rarely "moderate" a comment these days because it's overly complicated.