News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by seanwilson on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @07:39PM (#15234066)
> It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources.

Are there site that do that? I know hackernews limits your voting abilities until you get so much karma.

Sounds like some variation of the above ideas would work great. The vote from a random troll who doesn't understand the community's rules shouldn't count as much as other votes but I'm not sure how you would implement it in a way that wouldn't be abused.

Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by chiefofgxbxl on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @08:02PM (#15234206)
> Are there site that do that?

Not news or commenting related, but a site like Newgrounds [0] (i.e. flash games and videos) has this feature. As you participate in the community more and contribute high-quality ratings, enforcement, etc. you gain more influence, making your votes carry more weight. Therefore an account that has been involved with the site for some time may carry more weight than a few new troll accounts.

It seems like a good model, but may still need occasional moderator intervention to prevent abuse here and there.

[0] http://www.newgrounds.com/

Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by viraptor on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @08:15PM (#15234304)
Slashdot uses (used?) meta moderation. You could review votes others did - not the value itself, but the category. "Do you agree this post is (interesting/insightful/funny/...)?"

Not sure how the results were used though.

Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by blisterpeanuts on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:09PM (#15234634)
On Slashdot, moderation power is (was) awarded periodically. Metamoderation was used to grade the moderators. If enough people disagreed with your moderation, eventually you got mod points less often. If people liked your moderation, you'd get mod points more often.

It's a way to police the moderators, a great concept at least, though it gets tiresome at times.

Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by seanwilson on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @11:05PM (#15235183)
I'd completely forgotten about this. Having to review votes from other users feels like work to me though. Having the community arrive at the community rules with metamoderation isn't going to always go along with the goals of the site either I would have thought.

I wonder if a similar system would work where 1) regular users vote as normal 2) moderators who strictly stick to community guidelines vote (e.g. vote up comments that add to the discussion, vote down trolls, silly jokes and rude comments) 3) only votes from people whose votes are consistent with the moderators are weighted heavily.

Maybe you could even be rewarded with karma when a moderator agrees with you to encourage it instead of it being hidden. Obviously all these systems are open to abuse and problems but just throwing out ideas.

Re:Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source c... by BatFastard on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:04PM (#15234613)
Slashdot comments have degenerated into uselessness.