• Everyone
• Trusted Users
• Registered Users
• No One

Thanks!!!

In researching some different ways to improve the site, one idea I ran across involved changing the paradigm that a Scoop site works under. As currently setup, there is a basic premise that in order to be a "trusted user", one has to earn that.

This proposal would involve lowering the threshold to become a trusted user to something like 3.0 or possibly even a tick lower (2.75? 2.50?). This is different in that it assumes any registered user is trusted to be part of the community and help deal with problems like spam, crapfloods, etc. Thus, they have the same ability as anyone to view and rate hidden posts. It effectively means the only ones who would not have the ability to see the hidden posts/rate them would be those registered members who were acting in such a way as to lose trust. (OK, anonymous visitors as well - that is a different topic that I will be addressing. Let's stick with tweaks for the registered members first. :-) )

Please reply with your thoughts on this.

Good idea?
Bad idea?
Does it prompt some other idea you have?

Thanks for your help!

   * 0 - (zero), this is the lowest rating a comment can be given and is only available to users who have "trusted user" status. This rating should only be used for comments that are obviously spam (by obviously spam, I mean something like providing nothing but a link to some other site, usually selling something questionable) or porn. Use caution in using this rating - it should only be deployed in cases of obvious abuse of the site.
    * 1 - (one), this is the lowest rating that can be assigned by normal users of the site. Probably it's most effective usage would be in rating obvious trolls. If a comment is just way off-topic, is comprised of nothing but ad hominem attacks, so poorly written as to be almost unintelligible, then it may qualify for a 1 rating.
    * 2 - (two), the next rating up indicates there is perhaps something of value in the comment. But perhaps the writer included a lot of extra material that really had nothing to do with the topic, or their presentation was pretty bad due to language or gross generalizations, exceedingly faulty logic. Basically, a good try, but keep working on it if you want to earn some respect.
    * 3 - (three), this is the average rating for comments on the site. The comment makes a good point or two or contains some good, worthwhile information.
    * 4 - (four), is where we start to move up in the range to comments that include good points, provide some good information, something that makes us think, to go "hmmm". Or, at least puts a smile on your face. The writer keeps the post on topic and stays away from cheap techniques like name-calling.
    * 5 - (five), the top of the range, this should be reserved for posts that are exceedingly well written. Perhaps they make a point or include information that sticks in your mind even after you leave the site. Perhaps it inspires you to do your own research. But in at least some way, you think it is something that everyone should read.

Thanks!!!!

One issue that has come up repeatedly is that there aren't good ways to move and copy comments. This means that it would be difficult to copy worthwhile comments on some issue into section for that issue. There's a lot of good stuff in older comments, but it's hard to make use of.

Some issues like an author's right of attribution have already been pretty well covered. If we collect the comments, later people could rework them into archived articles on the topics. This would, of course require more topics and thus a change to the topic display.

More legal documents (particularly those that don't duplicate Groklaw) and more links would also make the site more of a resource. That's part of Groklaw's attraction along with PJ's ability to churn out articles night and day. It's like selling cars. First you have to get them into the showroom.

Of course this is all easy for me to say. I wouldn't be the one doing the work.

Finally, as an author of some articles and diary entries, I'll say that it's discouraging that the articles that attract the most member comments are those that get caught up in a flame war, and then most of the comments are off topic. It seems like people  look to see how many new comments there are, and if it's more than 3 or 4, they figure something must be going on and jump in.

The problem is that these aren't usually the articles we want if we intend older articles to be a resource. Those articles shouldn't become dated. If we can't find a way to encourage people to write those sorts of pieces, we won't have any. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the psychology of motivation is pretty obvious.

With articles, of course, unless they are controversial, anyone who has anything to say, will have already said it during the editorial phase, so not much happens after it's put up. Again, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect the controversial articles are the most likely to become dated and thus not be longterm site resources.

Before I get into some more mundane topics, I suppose I'll throw this one out.  Can't wait to see what it generates.

Should PR's be allowed to post comments?

Anyway:

A 0 rating is to be used for messages that are obviously innapropriate, such as SPAM, pornography, infringing material, violations of the law and incitements to same etc.

It is also to be used for messages whose primary purpose is to harass or annoy members or to interfere with the functioning of the site.

It is often necessary to consider the context of the message to decide if is a 0, since to consider each message in isolation is to invite gaming of the rating system by a series of individually borderline messages, even though their collective effect is obvious.

It is impossible to come up with a list of features, such that the presence of any one makes the message deserve a 0. Rather, there are a number of negative factors to consider. Presence of multiple negative factors in a message or sequence of messages indicates abusive intent,

The factors are

extreme abusive language. Permission from the target of the abuse is a mitigating factor, but the failure of the target to speak does not imply permission. Abuse of public figures is allowed more latitude except where the intent is clearly to stir up controversy that would involve the site.

Deliberate and repeated use of extralogical or eristic methods of argument, where the intent is to frustrate and obstruct discussion.

Repeated posting of the same complaints or criticisms, particularly without regard to the discussion. The repetition needs to be sufficient that the abusive intent is clear.

Defamatory remarks, particularly if they continue after a warning

repeated posting of the same or very similar messages where the offense is flagrant

Religious or ethnic hatred. Since anyone can start a religion and any 2 related people an ethnic group, this requires some judgement. Factual statements about religious groups and their members are permissible unless the intent is clearly disruptive. Thus, Jewish terrorists under Menachem Begin blew up the King David Hotel is a fact. He said so in his autobiography. Generalizing this to all Jews or even members of the Likud party crosses the line. Those depending on the fact exemption should be on very solid ground and prepared to defend it. The burden is entirely on them.

Even borderline material if it is off topic and appears intended to annoy, but the intent must be clear and the offense repeated.

1. Disable PR posts. Nobody here likes PRs. To quote br3n "i don't care about PRs they don't count"
   
2. Show all posts, let people browse at higher numbers.
   
3. ditch scoop. Try wordpress or even slash.
   
4. Disallow articles or diary entries about OSRM, PJ, Stallman, Perens, Ravicher, Eggers etc. You guys have beat on them enough already. It's getting repetitive and boring. Dare I say it? It's a crapflood.
   
5. Enforce your own rating rules.