[theforum] Suggestion for comment moderation

[Seb]

>> For an example see slashdot.org.
>
> I think there are huge differences between an evolt.org article getting
> 10-20 comments, and a slashdot.org article getting 200-1000. Unless we
> used a very different scale, then I'm not sure that we have the crowd to
> make it work.
>
> One thing that we could do is select people (from thelist? From a set of
> volunteers) to do something similar to jury duty (like /. Moderating).
> Maybe for a few days or a week, they'd be responsible (or help out) for
> perusing a list of latest comments to be posted, and selecting those to
> be highlighted.
>
> Maybe comments could be highlighted for 'Quality', or (valid)
> 'Counterpoint'?


Well, the main idea here is to solve two issues that have been identified:

1. To quickly throw water over flamewars and slay any trolls that occur. 
(For example, ppk's most recent articles have attracted a great deal of 
negative attention.)

2. To do this in a way that does not go against our principle that users 
own their own comments by censoring the website when we don't censor the 
lists.

I suggested that collaborative filtering could be of use here, and trolls 
and flamebait can be judged as such by the community rather than by the 
content group, with obvious trolls and flamebait not being visible in a 
default view of the site.

I also think that as an added incentive, the results of comment moderation 
should be visible as a sort of confidence indicator on each user's profile, 
so that consistent offenders are clearly visible as such, and users who 
contribute more are recognised for their contributions.

- seb

-- 
http://poked.org