you are not signed in - login
Search
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
March 26, 2008 - 8:42pm — Trev McNaughton
Rating System Brainstorm
Starting this blog as a way to focus ideas on the current user comment rating system. A recent thread regarding an emotionally involved discussion has pointed out some difficulties with the new "karma" system. A few of the sites users have inputted their frustration with the system as it stands.
I hope this thread will get a workin system going, based on what the usership requests, so it can be implimented and used. Keep in mind, that any system can be abused, and its up to the user to maintain some level of composure with any user-moderating system. Other sites similar to this one, have used the same system and it seems to work out, so how can we get it right for the LC? Proper documentation will need to be updated as well.
Current System Overview
As it stands, the system has been stated as confusing, the wording may not be an appropriate or paints an ugly picture of whats to come. Making users feel that the ratings are personal, or content based. Originally it was designed to allow users to rate the behavior of commentors, and not their opinions.
- 0: Hostile Neighbor
- 1: Worse Neighbor
- 2: Bad Neighbor
- 3: Just a Neighbor
- 4: Good Neighbor
- 5: Great Neighbor
The above are the current rating levels, users can apply to specific comments. Some feel that this is more of a direct attack on someone being rated, or enables cliques to form, and dominance on the site to by a few members to happen. It has been proposed in another thread, that the rating values be changed from stating what kind of neighbor the user is, to how the're behavior is reflected.
So I'm opening this up to the users of this site, to assist us developers in modifying this system more appropriately. Please and thank you. Its hard for the few of us to know what will work, and what won't without input, and testing..
(3 votes)
Trackback URL for this post:
http://londoncommons.net/trackback/5762
This work's Creative Commons license
More info about Creative Commons Licensing
Upcoming events
- The Winks! with Secret Mommy! and A Horse and His Boy(Event)(3 days)
- LC Development Session(Event)(5 days)
- London IMC conflict resolution meeting(Event)(7 days)
- Gathering of Mother Earth Protectors(Event)(9 days)
- Miwa Gemini with Guitar Bomb and Sam Allen(Event)(10 days)
- 2008 London Artwear show(Event)(14 days)
- 2nd Annual Ashley & Stephanie Daubs Memorial 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament(Event)(21 days)
User login
Tags
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 89 guests online.
Recent blog posts
- New footage shows O'Reilly's behind the scenes look
- Dreaming Bear Kanaan Speaks of Peace In Middle East
- People before Profits! Support the KI 6
- Vermont Peace Activists Occupy General Dynamics Weapons Plant
- Bolivia and current affairs
- Olenka & the Autumn Lovers, wsg. Cotton Jones Basket Ride
- The Church of Oprah Exposed
- Toronto March & Rally for Palestine
- bikes.
- Evil Wizard's Birthday Pub crawl
Recent comments
- grey links
16 hours 17 min ago - maybe
2 days 15 hours ago - Hey,
2 days 16 hours ago - Jer,
Did you change the
2 days 18 hours ago - Reminder!
4 days 15 hours ago - Robert Lovelace on
4 days 18 hours ago - Gone
5 days 11 hours ago - Honeywell
5 days 16 hours ago - OCAP Email
5 days 17 hours ago - To See If I'm Smiling
5 days 17 hours ago
Active forum topics
Latest image
Random image
Poll
Where do I see myself mostly fitting in as far as making it a better habitat in my region?
Agriculture and Food Security
11%
City Finances / Services
0%
Economy
0%
Environment
22%
Health
4%
Social
44%
Energy
0%
Security
0%
Transportation
7%
Small business / local business
11%
Total votes: 27
Comments
Initial ratings for new accounts and old accounts.
I noticed that new accounts seem to start out with an initial Karma rating of 0. Does this mean that their comments would also be hidden until they have a higher rating built up? I could see that being a tough obstacle to overcome since most routine comments usually don't garner a rating.
The flip side seems to be that accounts from before the introduction of karma recieved a initial rating of 5. One effect I see of this is that if every one starts off with such an artificially high rating. Any rating below that (i.e. a 4 "good comment" or 3 "neutral comment") lowers a user's karma and is in effect a negative rating. The other effect of this that I've seen is that users with older accounts who have consistantly left low rated comments still enjoy a relitivly high Karma...
I think that if every one started out with a initial rating of 3-"neutral", it would go a long way towards balencing out all these problems. Would it be possible to reset everyone's Karma to 3 and start out new users at the same?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
anonymous ratings
I wonder if having anonymous ratings would work better? I have a hunch that folks may be reluctant to leave ratings for fear of a backlash over a bad rating. I could be worng too...
I think that if this helped the number of people using the ratings, misuses of the ratings would be mitigated by the volume of honest ratings. maybe there could be an option to leave a brief description (one to two sentences) about why the rating was left in place of the name of the person leaving the rating?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
ratings in one place?
I think it would also be cool if people could see all the ratings on their comments in one place. That way people could see more clearly how their conduct plays to the community at large and why.
Something like the 'track' pages on our accounts, with a link to each comment that has been rated, along with indivdule ratings listed below. I'd imagen this sort of page should be private to each user...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
on/off
So, I can't seem to see where to select if i want to hide or show low rated comments anywhere in my account settings...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
located below content
mike,
that setting is located below content, and right above where comments start..its in the same place you set how the comments are sorted, from newest first or newest last, or threaded or flat etc..
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37hiding in plain sight...
got it...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
A separate block would help.
A separate block would help. And the descriptions have to be about comments - that's the system's purpose. '
I vote for Trevor's last suggestion.
Also, I'm pretty sure that this issue is contentious enough that we should bring it up at the next general meeting - whenever that is.
Ratings necessary?
Is a individual-comment rating system really necessary? I appreciate the rating system on slashdot because stories continually get hundres of responses and get rated by tens of thousands of people, which leads to a sort of 'wisdom of crowds', and I'm able to quickly browse through and read the really good commentary. But does this idea transfer to something on the scale of London Commons? Seems like it may be more likely to generate ill-will.
distrust?
Problems with the language aside, I wonder if part of the problem some people are having with the comment rating system is simply distrust. Do people not trust their fellow users not to abuse the system?
I think for a first round, the Karma system hasn't done too bad a job hiding negative comments.
policing
well here I go about to piss everyone off again, but I have to say that I have put some thought into my interaction with people on the LC and the new ratings system. It seems that generally people find problems with my posts, opinions and whatnot, and if they were actually read and considered perhaps the reactions to the words they would not always be met with suspicion and hostility.
I have had to try to end a recent thread SEVERAL TIMES by explaining that sensitive and deeper issues were involved and it was innapropriate to continue unless in person, and that the thread was originally supposed to be in the events pages and not an online discussion for good reasons. There has been two weeks of spamming, email mayhem and ensuing problems that we were trying to clear up and avoid prior to the posting of the meeting notice! We then saw a lot of sh$t slinging. Many who replied continued to insist upon a reconciliation meeting after the other party had refused. I suppose this is "proof" that people are not really reading my posts, yet they (my posts) were only attempts at damage control and and then rated poorly! Why, because I was perceived as being a 'bad neighbor" and not that actually I was trying to stop further damage and from people talking about issues that directly affect others who were not online and therefore it was innappropriate, while a forum for the discussion was being provided in person in the near future.
I feel that the rating system could make people feel uncomfortable using the LC for these reasons also: every post is at the whim of whoever decides to play moralist at that moment. The post can never stand alone for others to be judged or considered as a part of a discussion because the option is always there for someone to devalue it. In a medium that is responsible for constant misunderstandings such as online discussion and email why add more layers?
I don't feel the need to rate anyone's reply, that's what replying is for. If someone is making an ass of him/herself it will be evident in the post itself. If I have something to say I will reply and not rate them.
I am not completely deterred from using the LC, however I likely won't involve myself in online discussions ever again. I find a lot of the time use actually causes infighting among familiar people, I don't want to speak my mind here for fear of drawing heat on me: someone always wants to criticize what I have to say whether its an opinion or an attempt to defend or protect someone or something. I guess i really just don't want to debate people, which is what it comes down to here on the LC. We see each other sometimes on a daily basis or at social events and seem to pretend that nothing transpired on the internet. There are people who actually love to jump on me online and have never conversed with me in person!! One such person even came to one of my house parties and didn't even say hello to me! Its funny i guess, but not the sort of community behaviour I want to see.
I really don't think a lot of users actually take the time to read my posts before deciding what to fire back at me. If I didn't know anyone personally on this site (and know that you are all good people) you bet your ass I would never use it.
In short the ratings system in my opinion feels like policing. I understand that this is an experiment and appreciate this unique resource that we have: one of the good things about living in London.
ambivalent
those of you who know me in person know that I am emotional and passionate, however in this discussion recently about ratings and indymedia I have been really trying to curb the problems that started before this online discussion that concern people other than myself, I'm not as emotionally invested as you may perceive, and so please don't think i was angry when I wrote stuff: I am writing this now because what does bother me is the feeling that my intentions are misinterpreted or misunderstood, and my critique of the community and the commons is not out of anger or even frustration, perhaps mild disappointment and ambivalence. i mean it sincerely that the commons is great and one of the now several progressive institutions of this community, along with the empowerment centre, the food coop, the unity project, indymedia and such others.
that being said I will continue to use it for info exchanges.
perhaps a block?
maybe we could create a block that better explains whats happening. The lack of info might be the challenge to the system, and users may feel misinformed by it.
sort of like reminder that comment ratings are based on the tone/civility of the comment itself, not the individual, or the views being expressed in the comment.
I don't think we'll find a perfect system of moderation.. some users get their backs up when told to behave, and state its an authoritarian system, but then when the power is presented to them to handle it fairly by usership, they argue its unfair.. and in both cases, state its cliquey.. so I don't know..
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37trev sayz: 0: Hostile
trev sayz:
I like the scale above, but I'd change 'off topic response' to 'neutral' or something similar.
This gives an option thats niether positive or negative. Also, i'm not sure that there's a consensus or a broad attitude that off topic replies are a hinderance to discussions or negative. I guess the above could imply that off topic responses are nither positive or negative, but then it sort of doesnt leave room for a similar rating for an on topic response...
"some users get their backs up when told to behave, and state its an
authoritarian system, but then when the power is presented to them to
handle it fairly by usership, they argue its unfair.. and in both
cases, state its cliquey.."
Paridoxical, inna'it?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
like offtopic
I like "off topic" because that way users can hide stuff thats off topic.. so if a discussion gets extremely large, and extremely off topic, they don't have to sift through a bunch of comments to find only the replies pertaining to the OP.
maybe it could be "off topic / neutral" to imply both .. sort of the middle ground.. it would work..
paridoxial, inna'it?
hah, whats that book you love so much... oh yea catch 22...
I think people could abuse any sort of system like this.. and thats fine.. the good thing is, it doesnt delete comments, just gives the option to hide them.. alot of sites do this.. its the way of the road buddy.. if/when that happens, a record of who is abusing it exists for either intervention, or the abusers credibility will be questioned... not to mention others may retaliate in kind... heh karma war.
does it have to be called "karma"?
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37what about something like a
what about something like a seperate ratings for neutral and off-topic? something like:
-or-
I'm also looking at the labels of 'insightful' and 'inspirational'. they seem to again address the substance rather then the conduct. I don't know what those could be replaced with, I'd have to think on it for a bit. But then again, I get the impression that people really only care about their negative ratings...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
one more idea...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
another possible direction
Another possible direction is to use a scale that reflects the action instead of a value judgement. The scale could range from hide to show. For example:
Not so sure about wording, but the idea is that comments could be hidden for different reasons than just because they're uncivil. Comments could be hidden because they are off-topic (which doesn't really fit into the idea of civility for me) or because they contain personal information that should be kept from the eyes of Google.
vote
I'd go for that..
I also think that maybe changing it from "rating" to some other verb might be wise as well.. say something like "comment visibility action", but less dumb
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37woah
+1 for this
seems pretty straight forward.
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37for the time being
For right now, I've changed "neighbour" to "comment" until we can figure out a scale that more accurately describes what the rating system is supposed to be about.
Jer and Trev
Alex - first and second
Neil - ratings necessary?
Jeff - comment - post rating
Just wondering if you plan on addressing these comments. Or are you going to continue to ignore legitimate concerns about this system? Not trying to be a jerk here, but I think dismissing these valid criticisms is not very Neighbourly. ya know?
And when I say 'dismissing' I mean the only two people who have the power to change this are setting up the binary of - comment ratings stay unless you (the trouble maker) can provide something better/don't you trust your fellow user? - Which is giving almost no credit to the criticism and is attempting to position the critics themselves as the real problem because they don't know what they're talking about.
In addition - why is Alex's picture gone? and why is (not verified) beside his name?
I ask these questions sincerely so please dont ignore them.
"Participatory democracy postulates low energy technology. Only participatory democracy creates the conditions for rational technology." Ivan Illich
http://radicalblogs.org/lpps
not dismissive
If I seemed dismissive to these individuals, I wasn't.. infact I started a whole thread on the subject with the hopes it would focus attention on improving the system, and get feedback centralized into one spot. instead of having to sort through a huge discussion regarding another topic. but if thats dismissive, then so be it...
I'm not sure what the point of this was though jeff, are you telling us to remove it? I haven't heard many ways of improving it. If you're concerned about the binary of the site being controlled by 3 people, wouldn't deleting this feature be just as bad as keeping it? 3 people suggest we don't need it.. while alot of people are using it, and have given feedback to me saying they like it..so I'm inclined to keep it on the system.
however, I started this thread to address some issues I noticed folks mentioned. I haven't read every comment on this site, so its impossible for me to address every issue, especially when they're in threads I've stopped paying attention to. I posted this, in hopes if others had reservations they would inform us of them..
It seems that you're dismissing us here Jeff, and that I'm not very friendly to. I do understand your frustration, but keep in mind that we're volunteering our time, with little to no input from users. we only get input when its not exactly what they want, and in this case it just hostile feedback.. give us a fucking break! We're addressing stuff, we're adjusting stuff.. the beta is still up.. not much has been finalized. but as it stands, we need a user driven form of moderation since there has been a huge issue with people feeling that they're being policed on the site.
If you have suggestions on how to improve the system I'll listen to them, and there's a good chance they'll be used. However telling us to ditch them for the sake a few nay-sayers is probably not going to happen.. unless a larger population speak out against it.. and if that happens fine, the feature will be removed.. the users of the site determine the site.
sorry if this has a harsh tone, I'm tired, and stressed about trying to get middle ground on alot of issues on the site. gettng yelled at regarding not acknowledging comments I haven't directely responded to doesn't help.. I don't have a lot of time for this site anymore, infact I have an inbox full of personal messages I havent even fully read or responded to.. so I'm sorry.
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37the straw - reminder to myself
Dont worry about it then Trev. unfortunately you didnt understand what i was saying and instead of asking for clarification, you have again, for the dozenth time, dismissed my points (the same way as you did with starting a new thread to deal with Alex's comments). you and your brother dont have to worry about dealing with healthy dissent anymore as you guys have systematically made this environment so unfriendly for us we all end up leaving.
it wasnt that long ago when this site received a huge amount of "input" for site development, which has almost entirely disappeared (you might want to really think about that), except from the same old group agreeing to everything you do in the same old ways - of course a few people in this group have disagreed on light issues that have little significance to the systemic power dynamics on this site. but again, dont worry about that, this is just some stupid, unfounded jargon coming from someone who really doesnt know what hes talking about - right?
some how you have forgotten that i have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours helping this site get to this point - as a volunteer - so really, give that sob story a break.
the two of you are my friends in the real world. Let me remind both of you that this is not the real world. I would rather maintain those friendships with the two of you then go through a giant fight that lasts for weeks/months as we have seen on LC TWO times in the past which results with nothing changed. no policies to keep a check on this system, no structure that can be called into question... essentially no transparency of the real power that exists.
lastly, this is not a grand exit, rather it is a reminder to myself that I can no longer use this site for anything more then publicising events.
Lizzi - you are about to become a very wealthy spacebuck holder.
the opt-out rant
this is where I tell the community at large that I'm opting out... I'm handing in my keys to the london commons labs..
I can't handle this stress.. I started o the dev team to try to better the site I had felt at home on, and for that I got hostile abuse for not reading the minds of people to get stuff perfect.. I tried, I guess thats enough.
I'm not trying to play the guilt card, I just honestly can't handle this extra stuff in my life when I can't see much positive outcome from it. I learned a lot, and have a good chance at a new career. So I'll quit while I'm a head. If anyone wants to take my spot, I'd gladly show them the ropes, introduce them to how things are done..
this isn't meant as one of those "dramatic" rants where I don't get what I want so I throw my desk up in the air and scream "you can't fire me!!! I QUIT!!", though it'd be cool to have one of those features on the site.. this is just my acceptance that I've come so far, the stress has come to a boil, so I have to accept it is what it is, and opt-out.
Its not surprising that the community in london rare achieves greate strides and victories.. we can't even have civil discussion on small topics without someone's heart breaking..
Jer, Thomas, I'm really sorry to do this, and I'll discuss it further in person my work load and stuff, but I have to do this.. a stress induced heart attack is something I wish to avoid..
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37oh crimmeny!
...that's a lot of spacebucks! i'm touched and tickled by your generosity Jeff, just wish it were under better circumstances. what i think i shall do is spread all these bucks round to the "poors" in our community. get ready for a mass redistribution of imaginary wealth!
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
*ahem...
Or, I could hold them in trust... and do great things with them in the meantime. maybe invest them in a spacebuck hedge fund? I bet i could double those spacebucks! gimmie'em and let the market decide! We should work something out in private (messages)...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
nope.
i'm redistributing them and thats final.
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
i didn't want to have to do this...
I'm afarid my friends in Langly will just have to stage a coup then...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Seriously though...
Jeff, I hope you didn't hit that delete account button while I was typing this...
I think we can probably agree that the LC's been having an identity crisis since it got off the ground, and probably even before then. From the storied history of our glorious flame wars, I've noticed a few reoccurring themes when it comes to the nature of the 'Commons:
-> Protective inclusiveness vs. radical inclusiveness
-> Structured moderation vs. minimal moderation vs. self/collective moderation
-> Groups of users setting the agenda
-> *comment ratings would fall here i think*
->Decision making structures
This is a pretty simplistic summery of some of the themes and I'm sure folks will differ in their interpretations from of what the key issues are (compared to what's above. There's a few more themes that i haven't quite wrapped my head around yet as well).
I think the concern is that comment ratings will act as a filter for less popular content, no?
Personally, I think the comment ratings system is an idea worth trying for the purpose it's intended. What it is intended for is discouraging rudeness and hostility within posts, not to rate the opinions and substance of the post. From looking at the IMC thread, I think it's done well for the most part, but by no means is it perfect. I think it's been pretty transparent and obvious when ratings have been retaliatory and when ratings have been used by folks on opposing sides for comments they simply don't agree with. Hopefully misconceptions of the intent of the feature have been cleared up, and over time we'll be able to get a clearer picture of how well it works.
I'm going to start a thread where folks can discuss other issues above as well as other things relating to people's ideas about the identity of the LC community in hopes that this thread can remaine focoused on the commet ratings and karma...
Lastly fellas', I'd really try to dicourage a pissing contest over who's put more time and effort into the site...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Please listen to what is called community
The concern, as I have heard from many people, is the idea of a rating system at all for a group of people that know each other. This is not some Tech website or chat room full of strangers - these are your friends and community members! In London - in flesh!
Stop implementing such competitive devices that play to our negative human nature!
When those who have all the power to create the system (because that what the LC is, a structure that is based on a system) care for their own thoughts and opinions over others - it's clear where the LC is inevitable going.
Collectivist Anarchists/Socialists vs. Individual Anarchists Libertarian sums it up.
(Academic approach the world vs. non-academic approach - I feel that's a divide you create Mike, more than it exists in reality)
2 members (and more to come I'm sure from what I've been hearing) delete their LC account over the rating system: who is in charge here? (Don't answer - it's a lame joke nowadays)
This is a terrible system that has been adding to a negative experience of the LC for many people.
There is no Identity crisis occurring here - just the lack of a sincere community. Even when the community asks for something, the 'gatekeers' make the decisions. This is 'rule of the strongest' here as has been since day one.
Those who speak of 'self-moderating' are all white males and by no coincidence either. I'm sure this comment might upset some, but it only shows you don't understand my point. But continuously some fail to understand that even with equality of availability of resources does not constitute equality. Please don't give me the whole 'oppresion exists- but not here' line again. This website is not any more magical than other groups/institutions/systems.
If you guys can't even figure out why the rating system is such an affront to many of the people belief system then you really don't understand your online neighbours and, in some cases, your real life comrades.
This website is not run by consensus but by electronic forms of ancient Greek democracy (at best) and those who maintain the system.
But really I'm just repeating myself here as we all are on any LC conversation (I got to admit the logo of the LC is great - round and round we go!) and I expect nothing to be done about it but simple name changes and not substance changes as many have suggested (ie. get rid of the rating system).
weighing in
Hey,
I just thought I would weigh in here on a few points I feel need addressing.
Re: academic approach vs non.
I do believe that education and class create divide and that it is just as valid of a power dynamic as the rest.
Knowledge is power and the manner in which people communicate can (unintentionally often) be quite exclusive.
I think that your comment sheds light on the fact that you do have power that you aren't acknowledging and I believe it came off as dismissive to those that are more aware of it (being on the other end of that spectrum) and that isn't just Mike.
Re: power structures
There are many ways that people can assert power, online and in face to face interactions and we all have our ingrained racisms/sexisms/etc.
I think the most dangerous thing is when people stop being critical of their own behaviour (possibly believing themselves immune) and that's when power becomes abused.
(speaking in general terms here, not about a specific person in this conversation)
That is the nature of the beast, those with power don't recognize it and often refuse to. I think it is our responsablilty as friends and community members to address these types of things when they come up to help dismantle these types of structures.
I understand and appreciate that this is what is happening right now with the commons and I think it is totally valid.
I think the big question now is how do we make it better? how do we fix this?
I (being one of the people most involved with the LC- being white, but CERTAINLY not male.) am totally committed to taking the time to work together with people to try to make this site more what it needs to be for the people who use it.
I think a lot of people have expressed their desire for this kind of work.
It pains me to see my friends and communtity members, who, I believe strongly, have the ability to work well together, be so unwilling to compromise even slightly their positions to attempt to work towards a solution and resort instead to aggressive/angry/sarcastic banter.
I have great respect and love for most of the people involved with this site (not just dev/admin..but community) and I choose to believe that we can make this work if we are willing.
.....
the end!!!
Does trying differently not meaning trying at all?
Hey Rachael,
I would agree that academic vs non-academic is a power divide...I'm just not sure how it's playing out here and attempts to understand this have been frustrating.
I understand there have been times I have done this or people have felt this, but I can't identify in an example. Has my previous post been so?
When I have asked Mike to cite examples of this, I get nothing.
I feel there is a resistance to anything that is 'academic' but none of my friends point out examples of this. When I call something out I hope I've given a clear example of what I'm talking out. I ask for this help to understand where this is occurring.
Working together doesn't always meaning agreeing, but it does mean following though on group decisions. I won't comment again on this regarding the LC.
But if anyone, sees me using academic exclusive language (without the attempt to explain it) or anything else - please challenge me!!!!
'Our friendship is made by being awake."
Rumi
academiks
This is such a pickle to be in...to come from a working poor family and to feel so empowered by my university education is wonderful, i think its super awsome that i'm excited by ideas and don't let patriarchy convince me i have no business, or i'm not smart enough to contribute to knowledge production. but then, at the same time i feel alienated within it because of class and gender, but then also when i leave the institution i potentially engage in discussion or behaviour which alienates differently conscious people with inaccessible language and ideas...the reality is that i know what certain things are and mean because i paid for that knowledge. people who don't pay for it don't have access to it (easily). the other reality is that that knowledge and those meanings and ideas and were formed, formed i tell you (and they are not natural, nor are they universal), by other people who pay for ideas and then get paid for the ideas which they then produce and call their own. what i am taught and have access to and recieve at the univsersity is specific, its a commodity, its a political act and it doesn't mean that i know it all. i know shit really. there is so much knowledge that isn't measured or counted by institutions, that's not in an archive, or a library. and that is such positive and beautiful thing, and its also so very legitimate and i hope we can keep lots of knowledge informal and outside of institutions and keep them in our minds and on our streets. above all, i hope i can learn from lots of people in london, and share what i know too, without arrogance, hierarchy or the exchange of money! yay for free ideas and giving them away to eachother. and for being humble! and if i'm being a big smarty pants, please humble me, just like dan said too.
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
rachel
this is a really awesome response. i think you set a great example of how to express your concerns in a logical fashion meanwhile expressing your emotional state at the same time.
well done lady.
and thank you for bringing up some very important points.
lovely love.
yes!
I would like to add my support to Rachel's lovely way of articulating and addressing things. BRAVO!
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
I don't think we're on the same page
OK, I don't think we're even on the same page when it comes to what Comment Ratings are meant to address, or the scope of this issue and the ramifications behind them. Is that a safe assumption? I do understand why some folks view ratings as an affront (and Dan, implying that I don't understand is really condescending. I'd really appreciate it if you'd drop that whole shtick). I just don't necessarily agree with your interpretations of it's affects and implications. If comment ratings are misused, then you're absolutely correct that they would serve to reinforce some of the power dynamics that have manifested themselves on the site. But I strongly believe that if used as intended, that is to address the tone and civility of comments, rather than the opinions or ideas within them, that this feature does more to diffuse and distribute the ability to shape the 'Commons into something much more positive then it has been.
I think this feature is important precisely because we are mostly all peers (hopefully friends too
). I think the history of this site (and others) shows that real names alone is not enough to ensure civility here. I think some folks just don't get that what is posted here under their name affects their reputation within the real community. There are people whom I've organized with in the past who I would not organize with now, due in large part to their conduct here. Ditto for people who I'm friends with who I'm reluctant to interact with now for the same reasons and people who made a bad first impression on me here who I never knew well and now don't wish to. I think the aim of this feature is to give people an indication of how their conduct on the site is interpreted by the larger audience of their peers before it starts to damage their reputation in the real world. I think we've all noticed posts from people who are eager to point out what an ass someone else is being, but seem completely oblivious of what an ass they're making of themselves at the same time and are baffled and hostile when they're called on their behaviour...
I think this features aim is to encourage civility, not enforce it... and not to be negative or competitive. I think it also aims to distribute this 'authority' to anyone who cares to participate in moderating comments. I think the features biggest weakness is the small number of people who are using it. It's a new feature, so I think it's to be expected that only a small number of people are using it at this point. Obviously, I hope that number will grow exponentially, which I realize may be an unrealistic expectation. But we'll never know if comment ratings aren't given a chance. I can see how the small number of people using it can yet be interpreted as the same old group of users setting the agenda, but I think that may have more to do with the newness of the feature, poor initial communications of it's purpose and with one particular aspect of it that I think may make people reluctant to use it for fear of a backlash. That aspect is having the names of people who leave ratings made public. I understand this is meant to discourage dishonest use of the ratings to diminish the comments of opponents in a discussion or argument. I'd personally like to see an anonymous system of ratings with perhaps an opportunity to leave a brief note (1-2 sentences) explaining the rating. I think if we could get more people using the ratings, any abuses of the ratings would be mitigated by the volume of ratings being left. I think if the initial ratings on a comment didn't reflect the actual civility of the comment, it would be pretty obvious and ratings would eventually average out with something more appropriate. I understand that some people feel the Comment Ratings have contributed to a negative experience on the commons, but I strongly feel that the endless cycle of flamewars has done much more harm.
This thread is intended to encourage that input, but only a relatively small amount of people have weighed in. Of those, there is clearly a trend against this feature, but nothing has been offered as an alternative in addressing the problems with civility we've seen. If there are Ideas of how to address this problem by some other means, please please please, offer ideas for an alternative. Personally I don't believe leaving the problems with civility we've seen unaddressed is a wise option. Actually, I think it would be much more harmful. I don't really care if this is the feature that addresses the reoccurring civility issues we've been having here, but I feel pretty strongly that it needs to be addressed in a way that makes the community responsible for moderating itself for the most part. Again, any ideas, alternatives or proposals that address this issue would be very welcome.
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Software fetish
Lately there also has been more of a focus on software (ratings, "groups", "contacts", etc) and less of a focus on human beings.
Software always gets in the way of interpersonal relationships -- to an extent.
Did someone say spacebucks?
I'll take some of those spacebucks if you're giving them out...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
i'm sorry mike
i just rated your comment as a zero (which we all know means hostile) because i was worried about losing some of my shiney new spacebucks, in less than a minute i've become a greedy monster! having over a thousand spacebucks is not all its cracked up to be. It is so easy to lose sight of what's really important while you're hording your spacebucks.
also, question, can we go back and change how we rate a comment if said rating was done in moment of spacebucks induced hysteria?? or any other kind of impetuous momentary failing resulting in a rating not reflective of our usual goodnaturedness?
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
rich gettin richer
I don't think you need anymore.
-r.
a response
Sorry if it looks like I've been dismissive.
Of the two comments from Alex you linked to, it really seemed to me he was talking about the current implementation, specifically rating people as good or bad neighbours. In one, Alex says he doesn't see the connection between a user's behaviour and the validity of a post. The connection is that the comment rating system is meant for dealing with flamers, not political opponents. It's a system designed to help users deal with bad internet behaviour in their discussions.
Re: Neil's questioning of whether it's necessary on a site this size, I think it will definitely come in handy, especially for large discussions. We already get some discussions that have dozens of comments. Hopefully as the site grows we'll get more. I think that focusing on rating comments and not the individual will remove a lot of the potential for ill will. It also takes a lot of pressure off the shoulders of moderators. If the Karma system can work, it means a lot less difficult decisions for moderators, and a lot less power that has to be wielded.
For your comment--no, clearly the intention is not to push down dissent. The intention is to provide a way for users to participate in limiting bad internet behaviour. It could very well be the case that too many LC users are too politically motivated to resist rating down well-written comments that they disagree with. Maybe we need a way to restrict abusers of the system from making ratings.
There is information about Karma and comment ratings in the help pages. Go to the help menu, click on site documentation, then click on the Karma and Rating Comments link either at the bottom of the introductory page or in the help navigation block on the right. Or just click here. It's a book page, so anybody who wants to can edit the that page to help make it clearer.
Currently users can see who rated comments. This was done to provide some accountability, but perhaps hiding the individual ratings would decrease retaliatory negative ratings.
Maybe it won't work at all for this site, but I have to say it's barely been given a chance. It's really only come into play on one discussion thread, and that's with the unfavourable "good to bad neighbour" scale. I think it has a lot of potential, but only time will tell.
Alex's user picture is gone and his name has "not verified" beside it because he deleted his account. The "not verified" is what would appear beside the names of anonymous commenters (if we allowed them). The site now understands Alex's comments to have been left by an unverified (non account having) user.
ratings and power.
hey fellas;
the issue of the 'comment ratings' seems kind of important to the folks who have weighed in on it.
i would just like to put my 2 pesos in.
i don't like it (yet?... i'm pretty sure that i won't like it later). i would rather trust in people to comment in a civil way. so there it is... i say 'trash it'.
however, i hope more members/users post their opinions
on the issue of dynamics of power:
the few people that develop the site hold power over the members/users of the site -- ie. we as members/users navigate the lcdev team's creative product -- i hope you realize this (actually, i know you do).
if the point of the LC is to strive for a website that can be a working model of (online) consensus-based decision making, then a larger work/time committment is necessary to seek out the opinions of more if not most users/members for feedback.
PEACEonTHEstreetsOFoldEAST...
-mp (a brown-skinned-male)
good comment
Good comment Matti. I just wanted to point one small thing out, that is that point of the LC website isn't to create a working model of online consensus. Anytime the site's software "makes" a decision automatically based on user feedback via ratings, it uses an average of all the ratings. That's different than both voting and consensus.
Previously on the old site, content (not comments) was voted +1 or -1 to the front page. If a post reached a score of 3, it was placed on the front page. The problem with this, which was discussed at the LC meeting at the RSF last year, was that 1 or 2 users were systematically voting -1 on every piece of content that they didn't vote +1 for. Because nobody else did this, it meant that content effectively required a score or 4 or 5 to get to the front page. Another way of looking at is was that if 3 people voted for it to go to the front page, but 1 user voted that it shouldn't, it would not go to the front page. Taking an average of people's ratings out of 5 sounded like a fairer idea, so a (consensus) decision was made at the meeting to implement the stars rating system on the upgraded site.
This particular comment moderation system was chosen (from a selection of very similar ones) because it uses a rating on a scale instead of the +1/-1 model and therefore is similar to the content rating system. It also simply hides low-rated comments as an option, instead of out right deleting them (which some of the other comment moderation modules for Drupal do).
Personally, I don't know if true consensus would be possible online unless it only involved a relatively small group of people.
That's not to say we couldn't use a better system of soliciting and dealing with feedback about how the site works. Hopefully having regular meetings again will help too.
nerd scale?
0= pwned
1= n00b
2= neutral
3= Haxor
4= 1337
5= 10100111001
I don't think I'm nerdy enough to come up with a really accurate nerd measurment scale (although I know some people on here are.)
....this is an approximation for illustrative purposes.
-r.
lol
i can has cheezeburgr scale?
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
yes!!
5 cheezebrgrs!!
kthxbai
-r.
the numbers
The numbers have to be 0 to 5, especially for the Karma score on your profile to make sense.
idea
I had an idea earlier about this, before it even became an issue. perhaps we could just change them from ratings, to however they pertain to the subject at hand.. so maybe an example:
sorta borrowed from slashdot's rating system.. that way users could hide anything thats been rated offtopic to hostile, and not think of it as a judgement to their character..
.
\x69 \x20 \x61 \x6d \x20 \x31 \x33 \x33 \x37i like this.
i like your idea trev. especially how the off-topic comments can be remove from a blog if you are not signed in. that kind of cleans up the angry langauge for potencial users browsing the site. i also like the wording of 'blah blah response' as the rating is directed toward the persons comment or idea not the individual. i think that is important as it could be easy to be hurt by someone saying you're a bad neighbour due to commentary which may have just been a moment of emotion based or plain old irrational responses. it kind of leads to the idea that you can be horribly wrong about an idea or a reaction but it does not make you a horrible person.
i suppose also it will be interesting to see what is 'inspirational' on the LC as such a mix of politics, social events. and giggles are present here.
lastly i like the way this is being discussed, it is accessible to everyone.
my font seems so tiny. how queer.
let's not rule out rating people's characters just yet...
Maybe we should just have a separate rating just for people's character. say, a scale from 'saint' to 'P.C.FuckingGoof-Fink-RatBastard' and various (read: lots of fun and interesting) ratings in between. That way there would be less confusion over what the criteria civility ratings are evaluating...
*is he joking? or is he serious?*
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
i think the description is the problem.
I think that if that the ratings are about civility of comments then the discriptions of the ratings should reflect that.
What about the removing the 'Neighbor' refrence and replacing it with 'comment'? The scale of great-good-just a-bad-worse-hostile also doesn't really address the civility of the comment. maybe something from 'very civil comment' to 'hostile comment'?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
simplify?
I'm just reading a thread on kuro5hin about comment raitings. One idea there is to simplify the ratings to something like "Discourage," "Neutral," and "Encourage".
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
easier with promote/bury method
Figuring out the words to use would be easier for a system like Slashdot or Digg that uses a +1 or -1 comment rating system. On Slashdot you have options like "+1 Insightful", "+1 Funny", "+1 Interesting" and "-1 Flame", "-1 Off-topic".
There is a different user driven comment moderation system for Drupal that uses the +1/-1 model instead of the scale of 0 to 5 model that we use. The problem with the other system was that it deleted comments instead of just hiding them. I was worried about the potential for abuse if comments could be deleted after enough -1 ratings. With the system we're using (called Karma) low-rated comments are displayed but can be hidden if the user chooses. Low-rated comments are also hidden from anonymous users.
I think some combination of the scales suggested by you and Trev would work.
umm
I really don't want to complain, you guys are working so hard. I just don't get the ratings system, I have been rated 0 a few times, not that I give a sh$t, but for defending some people who have been harassed, trying to do damage control and trying to explain the original intent of the post regarding indymedia. In this occurrence I don't see the necessity of the system, it seems very arbitrary, and I won't use it because I would feel like a bully. perhaps it would be best only for an appointed editor to use.
Please don't feel the need to explain my ratings, believe me my feelings aren't hurt about it! I think in this case it has been used as a tool in hostility by some in the heat of the moment, not simply to exercise good judgement. perhaps it is unnecessary. god things get complicated on line!
not meant to be personal
I appreciate your concerns Amelia. That's why we're looking into changing the names of the various ratings so that they focus more on the comment than on the individual. Hopefully its intent will be clearer then.
The potential for abuse of the comment rating system is why all users can see the individual ratings. If someone is consistently abusing the system (e.g. rating non-flame comments low because of political disagreement) the records will be there for anybody to point out.
Comment rating systems like this one work on other websites to let users moderate themselves without the need for authority. I think it can really help this site as people get used to it.
In the discussion today on the IMC thread there were lots of comments that got rated low, some by me. They're all still visible once you've signed in, so nothing has been deleted.
This being the first major discussion where Karma has come into play, I was really interested to compare what was visible with low-rated comments hidden versus low-rated shown. That's what I think Karma's effectiveness should be judged on--how well it hides negative comments for people who don't want to see them.