News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.