Most Active Suggestions
From Voice of the Proletariat
Contents |
[edit] Quickie Navigation
Suggestion Box for banniNation Improvements New Items * Template to Add a New Suggestion * Most Active Suggestions (Moved to page because of too many comments) * New Suggestions Older Open Suggestions (These items are still open for voting!) * Suggestion Box Queue Items * Suggestion Box Comments Items (Tagging Items Included) * Suggestion Box Metrics Items * Suggestion Box Other Stuff Items Suggestions Being Implemented or Archived (Closed to voting) * Under Development * Quality Assurance * Implemented Suggestions * Stalled and Rejected Ideas Suggestion Box Total Table of Contents (ALL items not on main page indexed here) * Suggestion Box TOC
[edit] How to Vote
* Log in (same user/pass as Bannination) * Click "edit" on the section you want to vote on, * Find the line that corresponds with your vote, Yea/Nay * Add a comma to the last name in that line, * Type three ~'s to add your name without a timestamp, * Click Save.
Please click (edit) next to the subsection you want to vote or comment on, and not the entire page, to avoid accidentally erasing someone else's changes to this page.
[edit] Most Active Suggestions
Items that have received substantial amounts of votes (10+ in favor of) or comments, or are current "hot topic" items, are in this section for additional review. This section had to be moved to its own page due to length of comments causing problems when saving the main suggestion box page.
[edit] Metamoderation
- Submitted By: Vin diesel
- Submitted On: 20:59, 5 August 2007 (PDT)
Description
- This idea has several components: requiring people to select a "reason" when they downvote a post; being able to see the content of most downvoted posts by clicking through; and meta-moderating the votes so that some of the current abuses can be slowed down, if not stopped.
- First, when voting down a comment, you'd have to select a reason from a pulldown list, where the reasons could include NSFW, Hardcore, Child Porn, Personal Information, Harrassment, Spamming, Threats and whatever else.
The list is up for debate, and I know reed in particular has a problem with the ambiguous definition of "spamming", but there actually have been cases where people are just filling up pages with a single word like "desu" for repeated posts. Whether you think that's a good post or not, it falls under the commonly held definition of post spamming. (I don't think those actual posts got a negative vote by anyone, but if he hadn't stopped when asked nicely, I think they would have been zapped and the user deservedly STFU'd.)
The point is that if someone picks a reason and you (as a metamoderator) think they misused it, you moderate their vote so that they're penalized. Out of that list of reasons, several (child porn, personal information, threats) would have some kind of mark to show that they're illegal more than simply inappropriate; those posts would then only be visible to grahams and cranky, who hopefully will bring down the hammer on anyone who abuses those labels. If a post is zapped for any of the other (non-illegal) reasons, a link remains in its place so people can still click through and see what it was. However, the zapped postee's STFU index goes up a notch, so they are still discouraged from that type of post, even though people can still click through to see it. Hopefully this way people won't have to submit new threads to ask what it was.
- The second part of this is the metamoderation: available from a button on the main page, this would follow slashdot's model, with some minor changes. You're given a random selection of six to twelve posts from the previous day, that were voted below zero at any point (this includes posts that were voted back up to 1 or more). The names are stripped from the posts. You're shown how one random person voted on each post (whether they voted it down and gave a reason, or voted it back up when it was down), but you don't see who placed the vote. You just mark each post/vote as "appropriate/inappropriate", according to whether you think the person was using their vote correctly or trying to game the system. You would not be allowed to metamoderate the votes from a thread you'd participated in, as there's far too much probability of heavy bias there.
- There's still plenty of room for personal disagreement on how voting should be used, here, it's not meant to be anything perfect; it's just a way to clamp down on abuse of the system, by whatever standard each user has for abuse. It's similar to the existing nancy index, as a way of penalizing people who abuse votes, but I think it would fix several problems with the current system:
- Inability to see what was zapped, and submitting new threads about it
- Inability to penalize someone's vote after a post is zapped
- People voting/countervoting in the heat of argument when they're more prone to be emotionally caught up in what the flamewar was about, with no ability to moderate those votes later
- Votes and countervotes being heavily weighted in the current system by who you saw posting, as opposed to voting only on the actual content of the posts
Comments
- A legitimate critique of this system is that it's significantly more complicated than what's in place now, and that's usually bad; and also (as grahams always points out) very few posts are ever zapped.
However, going by the number of people who post in meta-threads about how voting is being misused, apparently quite a few people are very upset (and loud) about the handful of unjustly zapped posts. If people are that upset by it, I'd rather institute an oversight system that doesn't lead to more meta-threads across the site, than do nothing and continue to have those mega-complaint threads.
- There are a number of issues that I see
- 1. It's very complicated
- 2. There's a numbers issue. There was only one comment voted down today, so are we going to pick 20 meta-moderators each day and have them review the same one comment. In theory we could review stuff that was voted part way down and then back up, but we already penalize users in that situation.
- 3. Providing the list of vote down links could be problematic. Along with every post we'll send the words "Child Porn" - if your workplace has heuristic filters then they'll see that term 10s of thousands of times a day. That *might* cause problems. It also might really scare new users... Someone could easily perceive the existence of that option as indicator that it shows up regularly (which it does not).
- 4. How do we punish people? What's an appropriate punishment for the 3 people who played a part in voting down gahbrone's post today (if a metamod decides it was unjustified)? Right now they'd get a small hit on their nancy metric, but if we do that unexpectedly (and at a later date) then we'll get more questions about why the score is what it is? Do I have to send them an email explaining that their downvotes were meta-moderated as inappropriate..?
- 5. It's really not fun development work (and it'll be a lot of work and difficult to test), so i'm not really excited about doing it and lately i've been feeling a little burned out.
Grahams 21:29, 8 August 2007 (PDT)
- Some of those I don't see a good resolution to, but here's ideas for a few of them:
- 1. "It's very complicated": If you mean to code, I can see that, but as far as complicated to use, it never seemed complicated when I used the metamod system on slashdot. No more complicated than, say, how the queue currently works (and maybe less).
- 2. "Numbers issue": I think I was unclear by trying to be too brief. You wouldn't be limited to metamodding comments from the previous day. Rather, there could be a metamod queue; the idea is that posts which received a downvote (NOT necessarily all the way to a zap) would not go into the queue for 24 hours, to provide a cooling-off period on flamewars. They could stay there for, say, a week, or a few days. Any user who didn't post in the particular thread, would be given an opportunity to metamod any downvoted posts, for the following few days. The part about the nancy metric already penalizing people who vote partway down and partway up, IMO, is flawed: it only penalizes people who vote something down, it doesn't penalize people who try to vote crap back up before it gets zapped. Metamoderation would provide a nancy metric for both ways, instead of just one.
- 3. "List of downvote reasons": Yeah, you definitely have a point about the child porn thing. Two ideas: first, my web coding experience is very limited, is there no way to use javascript and/or CSS to define a single object of the pulldown and re-use it across the page, instead of having all the text sent over the wire with each repeated instance of the button? Second, you could maybe just use "illegal image" instead of "child porn".
- 4. "How to punish people": I figured the punishment would be identical to nancy metric punishment (or if it's changed, then they're both changed). They already have the chance for it to occur unexpectedly at a later date--people have complained about that before, but the nancy metric remains vulnerable to voting for two weeks after the post, right? AFAIK, slashdot never notifies you when you were meta-modded down, but I guessed that it happened to me once (only once) because it was an unusually long time between my mod privileges. And I knew the thread it probably came from, because I'd used my mod points to vote down posts that I figured would not otherwise be voted down--it was an issue that most people are ignorant about, which I had a lot of personal experience with. Sucks that they thought my votes were inappropriate when I modded down stuff for glaring inaccuracy, but it wasn't a big surprise or a big deal.
- 5. "Not fun to code": This is something I was wondering about already.. I don't think you've replied when I've suggested making the site open source (I may have missed it). I understand why you don't want some of the metric calculations to be open source--or other parts of the site which are sensitive to gaming, and where you want the mechanics to stay private as a level of defense against trolls--but is it possible to have a project be partly open source, and have some of the routines present only as "black boxes"? Alternatively, could you make it open source only to a trusted group? I think there were people at the site's outset who were volunteering to help with the code.
- Finally, even if the obstacles to full meta-moderation are too big a hurdle, it could still be useful to include two parts of it: the dropdown list of reasons for downvoting, and the ability to view non-illegal zapped posts. On reddit, I've noticed that anytime a post is voted down below the viewing threshold, I almost always click to see what it was, and I almost always regret it--I can't remember seeing a post that I thought was WRONGLY voted that far down. From how often people here start asking why posts were zapped, I think it could be useful even to just include that ability, minus the metamoderation (even though it leaves no way to penalize people who quickly zap a post, or who try to reverse votedowns on posts that end up justifiably zapped).
--Vin diesel 04:23, 9 August 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Vin diesel, Pizdets, Ratfucker, Eddyatwork, Gahbrone, joerandom, Anaxibios, Worldbeater,Xenotoxin, Sarmydoc, Space | Kesshi |
[edit] Internet. Serious Business.
- Submitted By: elchip
- Submitted On: Around July 21st
Description
Currently, when you submit an item, you have a radio button to pick between "SFW" and "NSFW." I suggest splitting this into three or four classifications:
- Breaking News. Really breaking news. A huge bomb goes off in London, a top administration official resigns, stuff like that. Always SFW, anonymous posts are disabled, and it gets fast-tracked whenever it becomes the highest-rated item in the queue.
- Serious Business. Politics, hard news, religion, global warming, evolution, very serious discussions. Always SFW, anonymous posts are disabled.
- Random Stuff. Anything SFW that doesn't fall into the Serious Business category. Weird news, interesting stuff, most science, most discussions. Always SFW, but anonymous posts are enabled.
- Not Safe For Work. Anything NSFW, be it discussions with questionable subject matter or links with NSFW images. Anonymous posts are enabled.
Using checkboxes, you can choose which of these three you want to see. To the left of each article, put a little icon indicating which type of item it is. In the queue, get rid of the "NSFW" downloading option and add another four links, allowing people to vote on which classification they think is most appropriate. So, a typical item in the queue (once someone clicks on "options"), looks like this:
This is a headline for an article.
www.bannination.com
Vote Spam Illegal Dupe Broken, Submit Better Headline, Report Duplicate
Flag Breaking (2), Serious (7), Random (1), NSFW (0)
The number behind each category shows the number of votes for that category; if the article makes the frontpage, it is put into the appropriate category. When the submitter chooses what his article is during submission, he gives that category +1 (or maybe +2 or +3 to give deference to the submitter).
Comments
- Although grahams has wanted to avoid "categories" or classification groups, I've actually wanted to have at least a general set of topics that could be used... this seems like a suitable compromise. Ratfucker 18:11, 21 July 2007 (PDT)
- I don't see how we can control the use of the Breaking News tag. It gets fast-tracked automatically which seems like asking for abuse. I guess it would rely on voters in the queue to vote down a breaking news story that was, otherwise, a good story. Also, I don't like disallowing anonymous posts in any type of thread, even though they are frequently used for shitposting. People would tend to avoid the random stuff category and only use serious business to avoid allowing any anon posts, and that would be bad. --Leperflesh 22:10, 22 July 2007 (PDT)
- Yes, people would presumably vote up other options. Elchip 11:47, 30 July 2007 (PDT)
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| Elchip, 8one6, Kesshi, Finkmota, MuninsFire, Double negative, swami-on-rye, Andbruno, Ratfucker, Mughi, Joe091, Token, Eddyatwork, CaponeX, roddikinsathome, Sarmydoc, Space, Howie_Feltersnatch | fark, joerandom, michaelmoron |
[edit] Strip Club
- Submitted By: Unknown
- Submitted On: Around July 8th
Description
Have a perma link for a NSFW Strip Club show up on the front page under the Beer Garden nightly at 9PM EDT and stay there until 4AM EDT.
Comments
- But are we agreed that this would not replace NSFW-marked 'post your NSFW pics' threads? --Swami-on-rye 22:13, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
- Any way to tweak greasemonkey or stylish or something so that it puts a cool custom graphic at the top of permanent threads (which now would only be the beer garden and hopefully the strip club)? --Vin diesel 22:28, 7 July 2007 (PDT)
- Why not have it show up all the time, but only if you're in NSFW mode? Elchip 19:19, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
- I like this, too. --Kesshi 15:11, 9 July 2007 (PDT)
- Hasn't this (the original suggestion) already been implemented? 0verlord
Voting
| Yea | Nay |
|---|---|
| brazil, Vin diesel, MuninsFire, elchip, Andbruno,Chippey, Kesshi,
Tess stickle, fark, Finkmota, Mughi, Eddyatwork, Worldbeater,Serpent6, Sarmydoc | None |
[edit] Navigation Box
Suggestion Box for banniNation Improvements New Items * Template to Add a New Suggestion * Most Active Suggestions (Moved to page because of too many comments) * New Suggestions Older Open Suggestions (These items are still open for voting!) * Suggestion Box Queue Items * Suggestion Box Comments Items (Tagging Items Included) * Suggestion Box Metrics Items * Suggestion Box Other Stuff Items Suggestions Being Implemented or Archived (Closed to voting) * Under Development * Quality Assurance * Implemented Suggestions * Stalled and Rejected Ideas Suggestion Box Total Table of Contents (ALL items not on main page indexed here) * Suggestion Box TOC
