META: MGoBlog Moderation Survey: Let your voice be heard (maybe)(UPDATED)

Submitted by Noleverine on July 6th, 2011 at 12:51 AM


So, we have had this new moderation system for a while.  Brian asked us to give it a chance, and I believe we have been using it long enough that each of us have given it a fair shake.  

A lot of people (myself included) don't like the new system, so here is the chance for everyone's voices to be heard.  Like it, love it, or hate it, I created a survey where you can share your opinions.

I don't know if Brian will pay any attention to this, but I thought it might make people feel better to vent their hatred/love for the new system.  In a day or two I will update the thread with responses people have given.  If anyone can think of any other questions I should add, leave them in the comments.

Brian, if you would like the login information so you can view specific answers, please let me know, I'd be glad to share.  Also I can add any further questions you may be interested to ask.


Survey Here


EDIT: If mods want to bump this to prevent it from getting buried once people actually wake up, in order to have a higher response rate, I won't argue.

UPDATE: So turns out Tater was kinda right.  Nothing is ever free.  After getting 100 responses (surprised that many people were up late last night) it is asking me to sign up for a paid account to see over the first 100 responses.  Therefore, my counts will only include those responses (sorry if you were after that).

Question 1: Do you like the new moderate system?

YES: 16%

NO: 84%


Question 2: What don't you like about the new system?

Too high/low threshold (higher than +5/lower than -1): 30.3% (ed: this was added after a few people already responded so not actually representative)

Too many choices: 20.2%

Not enough choices: 16.2%

Choices not representative of how I view comments: 54.5%

Choices too vague: 23.2%

Requires too much thought: 20.2%

NO NEGBOMB!!!!: 67.7%

Too complicated: 26.3%

Other: 15.2% (includes write-ins: doesn't moderate anything; less incentive to post well; doesn't effect mgopoints; overengineered slashdot nonsense system; no need for labels like "normal," flamebait", etc.; viewing threshold complaints)

Question 3: What would be the best system of moderation?

Current system: 4%

Old system (+/-): 56%

Combination featuring a simple +/- with a "flamebait, trolling, funny" if seen fit: 29%

New system with general +/- if your reasoning doesn't fit into predefined categories: 2%

Get rid of them all together: 4%

Other: 5% (includes write-ins: no user moderation at all; fewer down voting options; added option of wishing terrible misfortune on the poster; adding more adjectives)





July 6th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

This looks suspisciously like a CPA (cost per action) offer.  It's not nice to make money off of Mgoblog unless your name is Brian Cook.  

I fell for it and completed the survey, but I didn't sign up for survey monkey.  

This would make a nice legitimate thread.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:07 AM ^

Surveymonkey is just a free survey site I used.  Not trying to make money, I am in no way associated with surveymonkey, the just offered creating a free survey, and I used it.  It has worked well for us at my job before.

You don't have to sign up for anything to take the survey, it just gives you the option at the end if you'd like to make an account (which you can do for free if you have surveys you'd like to create).  

Hardware Sushi

July 6th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^

Ehhhh I don't know about it being representative. If you're just going to claim a survey with the quickest 100 responses is representative of an entire community, you might as well hold off on actually doing a survey, just make statements and claim them to be true.

I think this survey is NOT representative because you're polling the specific MGoPopulation of individuals that respond ridiculously quickly and are always on MGoBlog at work.

Since my vote/comments weren't included, here are my responses:

- Is the new system fine: Yes.

- What is bad about the old system: People take MGoPoints too srsly. In my opinion, the reason for points is to filter out idiots, not make you feel better about yourself or be a badass with 5000 points. The board, for the most part, does a GREAT job of getting rid of idiots.

If you are basing any of your self-worth on MGoPoints (and many are who do are in denial), you need to stop coming here for a little while. Nothing Brian can do about that with his voting system.

big gay heart

July 6th, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^

tater, you're a moron.

survey monkey is a third party data collection service that tons of professionals, academics, and the like use to host online measurement tools.

survey monkey is not unlike a lot of online can pay for a membership and use the service ad free OR you can use a limited version of the service and be subjected to advertising.

in this case, after you take the survey, it dumps you onto a page advertising one of survey monkey's membership options/services. that's it. there's nothing nefarious going on here. if you had taken ten seconds and googled survey monkey, you would have very quickly been able to discern that.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:25 AM ^

I miss the old +1 / -1 system for a few reasons:

-When threads reach greater than 50 comments (which is common now and almost expected during the season) it was much easier to sift through comments with very high (or low if you're into that kind of thing) point totals.

-The fact that this system has a range of -1 to 5 seems like a huge flaw to me. First, not all 5s are created equal! Some worthwhile posts have deserved much more than 5. Perhaps more importantly, not all -1s are created equal either.

In the end, this site is Brian's to run as he so chooses, but I have seen several people agree with these sentiments.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:34 AM ^

Only change I would like to see would be some form of auto-lock from posting if you get enough negs within a certain period. That would help cut down on the stupid when no mods are around.


July 6th, 2011 at 2:28 AM ^

Without constant stupidity, there is no chance to negbang/Bolivian a person.  Plus your system is way easier to abuse.

And let's face it, not every negged comment is actually somebody being a troll.  People neg liberally when somebody dares to disagree with their point of view.  So you could be making well reasoned, thought out posts, and 3 mouth breathers decide to get you tempbanned for an hour.  Not a great outcome.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:39 AM ^

I wish a max of +/- 5 on respones would go back to the old way.

Ive always thought starting a thread that gets a a ton of responses deserves more points.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:44 AM ^

I like the old system because good posts were properly rewarded and bad posts were punished. It gave the community more control to moderate. The current system the moderation means nothing.


July 6th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

I think all of the people complaining about the lack of reward/punishment are missing the point of a moderation system. The reward/punishment was only a byproduct of Brian's attempt at a simple system to weed out trolls. And once people started taking notice of this byproduct, it led to a lot of posts solely for the purpose of increasing the e-peen listed next to their posts and not adding value to the board.

This also led to many poor posters getting untouchable point totals where they were invincible. Anyone remember Tom Hagen? And Tater could routinely make stupid posts like his one at the top of this thread, because he balanced it out with lots and lots of homeriffic posts to gain back the points and more.

On the other hand, the current moderation system, while lacking the rewards, actually does a better job of moderating the posts. Which, by the way, is the whole point of a moderation system. Make a bad post and it disappears. And you still get a  reward or punishment. Make a lot of bad posts, lose your ability to moderate, and your posts start out hidden. Make a lot of good posts, and you start out higher rated and shielded from occasional bad posts until they become frequent.

But because these rewards don't turn into e-peen under your avatar, many posters don't like it. I say any moderation system that limits its effects to highlighting good posts and hiding bad posts is an improvement over that.


July 6th, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^



It only takes one person to downvote a comment for that comment to disappear.

7/6/11 1:16AM


Too easy to down vote. Nobody agrees on everything, but one troll or pissy disgruntled hater can (does) blank an entire thread. If something deserves to be blanked, it should (will) take 2 downvotes.

7/6/11 1:15AM 

Not being able to see negged posts

7/6/11 1:11AM 


You can change the threshold for comments you view.  I have mine set at the lowest possible so I can join in the laugh at stupid posters and get my (meaningless) neg in.





July 6th, 2011 at 2:42 AM ^

Just go back to a modified version original system.  +1 point for posting, -1 point for voting for the user voting either up or down.  +1 point to the user who gets the upvote, -2 points to the user who gets the downvote. +10 points for diary creation, -50 points if said diary is incoherent and is moved down to the board.

If you're truly concerned about downvoting/hiding trolls, this system should work fine.  It also cuts down on the circle jerks that were posbang threads.  It keeps the total number of points fairly evenly spread, on what hopefully is a constantly slooowly increasing number (as post generation is +1 point, and negging is essentially -1 point, as long as we average more posts than negatives the system should be constantly increasing)

The only thing this doesnt do well is reward good posts, because as we saw, apparently people aren't willing to give up their worthless Mgopoint to give somebody else a Mgopoint.  I'm actually fine with how that situation turns out.  If you're relying on Mgopoints for validation... I don't know what to tell you.

Mr. Robot

July 6th, 2011 at 2:54 AM ^

But I honestly never did undertsand how it works exactly. Like, I get the descriptors and that I'm suppose to pick one and "moderate" the post, but I still don't get where the numbers are coming from...


July 6th, 2011 at 7:06 AM ^

I find the moderate button so worthless that I rarely ever even use it. The moderate button is actually the furthest thing from what it really is, which is a labeling button. So many more of the posts in a thread are of the variety of lol, I agree, and other space fillers.

The worst part is that some of the long time members who don't post as much, can't even create a thread because of their points expiring.


July 6th, 2011 at 7:15 AM ^

The best way to go about this is to donate money to Brian with a note saying you'd like the point system fixed. Voicing complaints lets him know you want change; giving him money makes it worth his time to change it.


July 6th, 2011 at 7:45 AM ^

I'm not so much expecting action from this one thread-- I was more interested in getting the community's opinions on this to see if it is widely thought the system needs change.  I understand money greases palms, but the first step is seeing what everyone thinks.  If people don't want a change, a 20 and a note wont do any good.


July 6th, 2011 at 7:22 AM ^

I've been an Mgoblog member for almost three years, and sometimes I post quite a bit, and sometimes not. I have an issue with points expiring, and maybe with points in general. I'm starting to wonder why there's a punitive nature to points. Maybe when a guy is clearly a troll, or when his grammar is atrocious or when he gets his facts glaringly wrong. But really, it's the points expiring that gets me. 


My suggestion is this: once a member has reached a certain number of points, those points can never expire to the point of not being able to post. As American Express has famously said, membership has its privileges. Being an upstanding member of Mgoblog should afford me that privilege. 

ND Sux

July 6th, 2011 at 7:31 AM ^

is seeing huge upvote/downvote counts.  We have some funny characters on board here, and I am constantly entertained.  I like to see them rewarded with a 30+ once in a while.  Ditto on the douche-neg meter. 

Also, I don't think points should expire with age.   


July 6th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^

I pretty rarely see a post worthy of a massive pos- or negbang, but when there's a REALLY well-thought-out and insightful post or an extremely stupid, inflammatory remark ... well, I feel like the point (no pun intended) of the system is to encourage good posting and minimize bad posting, and having the votes actually impact your MGoPoint total (and therefore your board credibility and ability to do things like start threads) was a positive in that direction.


July 6th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^

I'm pretty neutral on points expiring, although if I had to vote, I would prefer they last forever.

It's been negatively affecting me of late, but I can see the purpose: If you haven't really contributed enough to the board over the course of the year, it seems possible that you're (for lack of a better phrase) out of touch with some of the current topics and users and should get knocked down a level in your MGoPoints, which is essentially nothing more than a credibility level.

Like Wendy said, it really only becomes an issue when you can't post things. Maybe there could be a "floor" for longtime users, like if you've been on for x number of days, your points stop expiring once you drop to 100 points. That might be too complicated, but it's an idea.


July 6th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^

Were becoming socialist. Neg me your cares mean nothing....I know no politics. I'm still ready if the zombies rise but I will miss Football and this Blog.

Seriously points expiring sucks, but I did hate the POS bang parties. I also liked losing a point for negging someone. Fuck it , dancing monkeys.


July 6th, 2011 at 8:18 AM ^

I have found that I post much less than a year ago.  Granted there hasn't been as much great subjects to pull me in lately.  The main reason I know I haven't posted at the rate I did last year, I have seen my point toal drop by over 600 points and we all know you can't be negbombed anymore. 

If points don't matter, then I guess I'm just OCD, but if they don't why do they exist?   I believe most people associate someone's knowledge/experience/whatever with their point total.  If you have 10,000+ you must be an old-timer and/or posbanged to hell and back, back when you could so you must know something.

I took the survey and "voiced" my opinion, not that much of it probably matters.  I don't have a better system, except that the old system helped control some things, but when a chosen few decided that going against the grain was a bad thing, undeserved negbombing came to many who just voiced their opinion.  Last time I checked this is a free country and you shouldn't get stoned for having a contrary opinion.


July 6th, 2011 at 9:07 AM ^

I like the new system, honestly.  It might not allow bombing, but generally the flamers wind up getting blanked out and anything that's worth anything stays in the blue.   All you have to do to upvote anyone is click 'moderate' and the person will get a normal point.  It's not sexy, but I think it works. 


July 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^

As someone who rarely posts, I think I like the new system better, but I am also probably not in the best position because I am not as active in the conversation.  However, the new system makes it much easier for someone like me, who mostly just reads the comments, to surf through the relevant ones.  I think there are a lot of "Long time readers, first (or not many) time poster" people that frequent this site.


July 6th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^

I liked the other system where you could vote either up or down as many times as necessary.  It was simple and it worked.  I absolutely hate when I type out a thoughtful post and someone comes along, doesn't even read past the first sentence, and labels it something like "offtopic" or "overrated".


July 6th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

I have lost basically 4,000 points under this new system.  I don't like it.  

How do you lose 4,000 points you say?

Well, last you don't have a job and post all the time.  Most of your posts are meant to be funny, and thus receive numerous up-votes.  You get a job over a year ago.  Don't post as much.  New system does not allow for up-votes for being funny.  Points continue to fall away.

The system sucks.  


July 6th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^

I hear you and will work on improving the existing sytem. I'm generally happy with how the new system highlight stuff I actually want to read, however, and don't plan on going back to a straight version of the old one.

If you are logged in you can set your browsing threshold to whatever you want, which means for you you can go back to the show-everything style.