Beware the Comment Rating, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
The reason for this is twofold: First, one of the site’s main goals is to provide a place where locally relevant conversations that aren’t happening (generally because no one else is talking about them) can actually take place, and heavy moderation of people who only agree with each other doesn’t really further that goal. Second, reading every single post before it goes up would be a huge drain on my time, which is better spent writing content for the site itself.
But what about opening up a form of moderation to the users? One where you could decide what’s good, what’s bad, and what really needs to be shut down to prevent the actual conversation from derailing. Well, now you can.
On every comment, there’s now an option to give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” If a comment gets enough “likes,” it becomes highlighted. If a comment gets too many “dislikes,” it’s collapsed and must be clicked to be viewed. The comment doesn’t go away, but it is given a lesser status.
You can’t vote on your own comments, and only one vote per comment is allowed per IP address to curb trollery.
What’s interesting to me about this system is that, while I still have the power to delete SPAM and kill content which is clearly out of order, as a voter I have no more power to highlight or collapse posts than any of you. We’re seen by the system as peers in this respect.
One thing to note: The intention of this plugin is to allow some user control over the other comments. In a very real way, voting “dislike” on certain posts is akin to shouting someone down in an argument. Use this power wisely.
Also, it’s worth mentioning that the author of the post on which the comment appears can’t be shouted down, nor can I as the site’s publisher (that’s right, you’re stuck with all of my comments).
Have fun voting on comments. If we like this, and it doesn’t kill the conversation, we’ll keep it. If not, I’ll deactivate it and look for an alternative.
Steve Shanafelt
I really like the idea. It should be interesting to see how it works out. (vote like on all my stuff please:D)
I did.
Steve, I am impressed.
This is a professional response to the recent problem.
You have my respect for this.
Fondly,
o2
After I thought about it yesterday, I realized that in your many unfounded accusations, you also brought up one actually valid concern.
I don’t moderate the site for anything other than SPAM on a regular basis, but there’s really no way anyone can see that process as it happens. That’s fine if you basically trust the site and its admin.
But what about when someone doesn’t trust me, or assumes I’m shutting down conversation because I have some greater agenda? It hasn’t come up before, strangely enough, but I’m not entirely surprised that it took the hot-button topic of local politics to bring it to the forefront.
So, in that respect I suppose I owe you some thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. You clearly don’t trust me, and seem to think the site has some specific political agenda, rather than a generally progressive one. That’s understandable, I suppose.
But if it’s possible to address the overall concern with something as simple as a WordPress plugin, I’m happy to do it.
Well, let me focus on the positive in your note. Thank you. This isn’t personal. I don’t know you personally, just what you write. And that’s the point, really. Most of your readers aren’t going to know you personally and so your words have such great weight. Also, the absence of words, or subtle suggestions also have weight.
Actually, I’m developing some respect for you, Steve, which is probably more important that being liked (I learned that al long time ago). Thanks for not shrinking from the fight. A worthy opponent often becomes the most trusted ally.
Good luck with the new voting feature. It’s in the right spirit.
You’re an OK guy, Steve.
It’s no big deal, and I certainly don’t take it personally. I like a good verbal scrap every so often, and I’ll take respect over being liked any day.
This kind of conversation is important, and good things can come out of it. If you say “You’re being biased and here’s why,” I may vehemently disagree with that take, but at least it gives me something to respond to and think about. It’s part of the conversation. That’s better than everyone nodding in agreement all the time.
Also, after looking into it, I may owe you an apology on the sock-puppet comment I made. You were flagged as a potential sock puppet, but it’s not because of your IP address being tied to different user names, as I’d assumed it was. I’m not sure what the problem was, or why your IP was flagged, but it might have been because you had an unapproved post in the queue when I changed a system setting to get rid of a SPAMmer on the forum. If so, and you’re actually not sock puppeting, you have my apology.
Steve
I must change course on my earlier support for the new feature.
It appears that the feature has effectively erased my participation here, reducing me to “a man who casts no shadow”. There is but a faint sense that I was here, but alas, it is fleeting.
Umm, can we revisit the settings on this new feature? It seems that a handful of detractors can erase a person’s participation and effectively shut down the conversation. Maybe the feature is too powerful and people don’t respect the power of the thumb…
Maybe some of my new friends on your site will be happy I’m but a mouth without a voice. I hope not, I was just starting to feel a part of the “community”.
So, I ask humbly that we look at the feature and see if it can be adjusted. If not, I may be accepted by your other participants.
I await…
Chris
I’m hurt you thumbed me down on this, of all comments.
It’s 1AM Saturday and I’m confident, we’re the only 2 on the site.
How about a written response. What do you feel?
They can be adjusted. Right now, they’re set to collapse a comment if the negative difference between ratings is greater than 4. So, a comment with no positive ratings and four negative ones is collapsed, but a comment with two positive ratings needs six negative ones to meet the same fate. This is actually more forgiving than the default setting, which is 3. (In reverse, the exact same process is used to highlight posts.)
It’s what I warned against in the original post, this getting “shouted down” by other users. Part of it may be the novelty of the new tool.
But, I’m perfectly willing to put in a new setting. What seems fair?
SS
Well, it’s your site, but it seems to me that the mere vote count is very informational. They liked it, they didn’t. Having the ability to collapse the comment if too negative is pretty harsh. Why not set it real high so we get the votes and only collapses in rare cases. Just a thought.
So, let me get this straight: What you’re essentially asking for is that we go back to the very system you were only just complaining was inherently unfair? User ratings alone aren’t moderation — they’re trivia — and it’s the opposite of what you were only just asking for.
I’m happy to adjust the settings if there’s some consensus among the users that they’re out of whack, of course, but my concern is that adjusting them beyond a certain spread — “real high” — would defeat the entire purpose of having them. They’d just be a popularity contest, rather than actual user moderation. What’s the point in that?
careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
Woot! Fun with voting! Gonna love this feature
I like the feature. Even if “shouted down” the comment is still available – with only the effort of ONE MORE CLICK on the “click here to see” hyperlink.
Seriously, doesn’t the fact that people voted it down make you all the more curious to click on through???? It did me! Five people thumbed this down? Maybe it’s juicy!
So, OO, you are not silenced! You are highlighted conversely. Revel in your uniqueness!
p303
You know what, I didn’t even realize that the comment was still available. You are absolutely right and I retract my earlier opposition. It appeared that the comment was removed forever. Thanks 303!
Also, Steve, I was asking for moderation. There are many ways to moderate. This wasn’t exactly what I had in mind, but it is an improvement.
Please elaborate on the kind of moderation you’d like to see.
O-squared – cool! Retractions rock, when appropriate. Thanks back at ya.
See, you are not being silenced, you are worth the extra click – if only to see what pissed everyone off!
Am I right in noting that we are unable to “thumb” Steve at all? Is that the perk of admin?
You can vote my comments down, but they’ll never collapse because I’m the site admin and my word is the law. (Also for obvious practical reasons.)
I was really just poking fun.
Seriously, you aren’t removing posts with 4+ dislikes, just collapsing them. They are there to be viewed and read; you just have to click through.
I have a new goal in life: 4+ dislikes! Hmm…how to piss off the most of you, the fastest????
you are quickly becoming my hero, 303.
Thanks. So I guess I can count you for my thumbs down counter????
Actually you can vote a dislike on Steve IF he isn’t the writer of the original piece. The original author of an article is the only one who gets a by on comments, but they can get a dislike on comments elsewhere if they didn’t write the original article.
For example, say Steve commented about on my column saying (gee that was really dumb, (like that’s going to happen) then you could vote dislike. He didn’t write the original article so he’s in the voting loop. But I could say anything I wanted in reply and you’d be stuck with no chance to vote on my snarky remark.
This gives the impression that a minority view is wrong, very Orwellian. I don’t like it. Collapse me for my disapproval now, I expect. Objective Observers collapsed writings are hardly visible when clicked on. I’m very disappointed Steve.
I don’t get that. I introduced this plugin specifically because OO was complaining the moderation was unfair. I’m not sure how, since I only moderated for SPAM, hate speech and libel, but I tried to act in good faith and address it in a way that would allow the users to moderate collectively. It was the most democratic, consensus-based solution I could find.
If people aren’t into the comment ratings, they can be turned off. The ratings system can also be adjusted, and I’m still waiting for feedback on what the users think is are good settings. I think I may even have some control over how collapsed comments look.
I’m happy to work with new ideas and address concerns about the site, but to address specific issues, I need specific feedback. If you want the collapsed comments to be made more visible, I see what I can do to address that. If you think the spread to shut down a comment should be 7 rather than 4, I can certainly address that.
I’m certainly not trying to shut anyone down, I’m trying to respond to a valid concern about how the site is moderated. If this doesn’t work, tell me how you’d like to see the problem addressed, and I’ll see what options I have available. As it stands, this is approaching a “You suck, Steve,” kind of tone for me trying to actually improve the basic functionality of the site and give the users MORE options, not less.
No one’s being shut down. The comments are still visible when clicked on. Personally, I like the comment rating system. So far I’d say it’s shown the Spark community has more cohesiveness than I would have thought. I think that’s a good thing.
I don’t even see where it has too much potential for abuse. The only people likely to have their comments collapsed are people who either come here to make baseless claims about something that was written, or people who come looking to pick an unprovoked fight.
If I’m wrong on that, and legitimate, thoughtful comments start getting collapsed for ideological reasons or something like that. I’ll freely join the other side on this one and call for the removal of the system too. As of now though I see it as a net positive for the Spark.
Also, what’s so Orwellian about a feature that allows READERS to vote down comments they don’t like and for comments they do like? Quite the contrary, it sounds very democratic to me.
Steve said:
“As it stands, this is approaching a “You suck, Steve,†kind of tone for me trying to actually improve the basic functionality of the site and give the users MORE options, not less”
Try not to lose heart! You know how humans are; you do all this work and build us a free place to play, we use it and never say thanks, and only give “feedback” in the form of you-suck-esque complaint. Human nature.
I thank you, Steve! Even when you suck – hahaha.
p
I think it’s a good feature, it’s not particularly draconian, and I think it will take more than 2 days to see how it works. It may take another controversial issue for us to see how it REALLY works. I do like the affirmation that 3 or 4 people like what I said…
That said, I notice that comments that are voted down turn a lighter gray, and often the whole thread of responses to that comment become gray, and if a comment in that thread gets voted down, it gets even grayer when opened, and they do become hard to read. Chances are good that I’m going to look at those comments anyway, like p303 said. That setting might be worth tweaking, but I’d let them collapse or highlight at the appropriate point.
I second the motion to tweak the gray value of the collapsed comments. It’s a little bit too light, and difficult to read. I think being collapsed is enough to deter readers who trust the vote (even though lots of us will get curious and read it anyway, but with a general idea of what’s coming).
Collapsing at 7 might be necessary at some point, but I also agree with Phillip that we’ll really need to see how this pans out when there’s a big response to a controversial article.
I can really see this feature coming in handy with those 100+ commented articles though.
In the book “1984″ when Winston was in the Ministry of Truth getting tortured, he was being manipulated to believe that a minority of one must be convinced they’re insane to conform to the Party, -is the context of that comment.
I don’t think anyone will honestly deny the majority of comments here are from liberals and democrats and it’s not like this rating system is a flagging system for inappropriate speech, but a general approval or disapproval system which will undoubtedly go along ideological lines. Even if there were a majority of conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists comments I would still be raising these concerns.
..If you stand by the claim that this is a place for all views to have a fair shake then this system is going against that.
Though it is very democratic, as in the majority can censor the minority.
What percentage of readers do you think never comment? I’d bet a majority from the stats you sometimes run Steve. Are they to be denied the views deemed unpopular by the $10 elitists?
..I didn’t mean it to sound like, “you suck” but I do think it’s going against your long ago past statements of equal representation of all the peoples of Spartanburg’s views, not just the majority of those who frequently comment.
The very light text does need to be changed if nothing else, but mainly it’s that collapsing a statement that the majority boo’s is saying that person has a second class view. Let’s not create an ideological caste system, because that’s what will happen, no doubt.
I say a compromise would be to keep the voting system, but no collapsing. If someone calls for violence or slews obscenities, a flag button for that, or simply contact you about it.
..Yet, I really believe people should be willing to articulate why they like or dislike something, rather then hiding behind a digital thumb, and if they’re too lazy, or unable to do that, then what merit would their approval or disapproval bare anyway?
Spoiler SPOILER SPOILER!!! I still need to read 1984. Damn it.
I’m still gobsmacked that my attempt to introduce user-based comment moderation — about the most un-Big Brother thing I could do, since I’m actually turning control over to the site’s users — has earned me a negative Orwell comparison.
I would like to reiterate that commenting and the user-moderation AREN’T part of the paid membership program. Only additional things like the Pure Gold forum and private messaging are.
No one is losing anything. While I like the new comment rating system, I’m not married to it. Maybe we can switch to some kind of user “karma” system instead.
As far as these developments being an example of me going against the original vision of the Spark for anyone with a minority view, I’m certainly open to any libertarian, anarchist, socialist or any other “ist” who can write decently, meet basic weekly deadlines and focus their view on Spartanburg to contribute to the Spark. That hasn’t changed one bit, and we could use the content.
When I click through to see the collapsed message, it pops in as big as any other post. Perhaps. chAng has a setting that needs tweaking?
Every time we throw a statement out into the universe, the hearer/reader internally thumbs us up or down, if only subconsciously – so now we get to do it on this forum. So what.
It amuses me. I like it.
Alright, damn it!
I want to get collapsed!
You all SUCK!
You’re stupid and your mothers dress you funny!
Come on! Show me some hate!
Ran out of room on the thread I started, but Katie, here’s the movie if you want to watch it, but the book is better of course, mainly due to the internal dialog that couldn’t be easily brought over into film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940
I think I reacted too quickly, I don’t know that you spoiled anything really–I just saw 1984 and a few nouns, and I flipped.
Thanks for the link to the film (which I actually have queued to watch eventually), but I’ve made a vow to read the book first.
Also, back on topic, I know you addressed this question to Steve:
“Are they to be denied the views deemed unpopular by the $10 elitists?”
I’m not sure, but I think you’re mistaking that only those who pay $10 can vote on comments. Just wanted to let you know that all readers can vote on comments.
I know, and I understand the miscommunication, I just got tired of writing out the words, “those who frequently comment as opposed to passers by, or those who read but don’t comment.”
I figure at minimum those that frequently comment are the ones getting memberships. -and I jest a little there too putting it like that because money is soo tight for me right now I’m doing good to keep myself and my dog fed, even with working. I honestly can’t afford to donate, hell, I’m picking up garbage to get into the festival I’ve helped throw for over 10 years.
So what really goes on in those super secret forum threads anyway? The rumors I’ve heard is cake, ice cream, and 80′s karaoke.
Don’t you have a Gold-level membership, though? I thought I have it to all of the Spark’s writers, past and present. I’ll double-check, and if not, I’ll add you.
I guess I didn’t. You have one now … Elitist swine.
Absolutely right: User ratings are available to all users. In fact, I don’t think you even have to be logged in, since it’s tracked by IP. (Not sure on that, though.)
The Gold-level members get access to their own forum, and likely some more stuff once I figure out how to stitch it all in together, but regular users aren’t losing anything. They’re just not getting access to the additional content.
I’m still not an elitist swine, but no worries, it’s not very appealing when put like that.
heh heh heh
Steve called you an “elitist swine!” How’s it feel now?
Hang in there with the finances. Times are tough for many. I am having to “rob peter to pay paul” as my Grandma would say. Hopefully, the tides will turn soon and we’ll all get back on track!
I do like the visual irony of this post now that I’ve added the “Gold” member icons.
Keep that vow to read the book first! Orwell is best in his original form, as is Kafka (if you are current on your own meds, which clearly was NOT!)
Again, to be extra clear: I’m fine altering the system. Just complaining that it doesn’t work or is unfair, however, doesn’t help me address anything. The reason this plugin was installed was to allow moderation of the site by someone other than me. For practical reasons, that HAS to be the users. And just voting someone down without the option of it actually impacting the comment itself doesn’t do anything other than make this a popularity contest.
So here’s the deal: At Katie’s rather reasonable suggestion, the spread has been set to 7 rather than 4. The collapsed comments have also been altered to be more readable.
If you really don’t like the plugin, even after these changes, please suggest an alternative you’d like to see. Examples and options can be found here, and I’ll be happy to consider alternatives: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/search.php?q=comment+rating
Where is the need for this system, really?
So you’re open to representing all views of writers but not of those who leave comments?
It’s a popularity contest one way or the other, only the unpopular get collapsed. If it were simply a flag system to mark hate speech, obscenities, or the like, it would be fine by me.
It’s a tool that could too easily be used to maintain the websites status quo and demote minority views in the comments. You say all opinions are really supposed to be welcome, but this moderation system goes against that, with it being used under a “like” or “dislike” pretense.
What else is it then if not a popularity meter?
The rating system is completely controlled by the readers. Anyone can rate. Nobody’s comments are being obliterated from existence, they’ll just require an extra click if someone wants to read a collapsed one, which can actually serve as an extra enticement to actually read the comment as I believe p303 pointed out.
I couldn’t possibly see how this could be a bad thing. It brings the readers into the site in a more concrete way, encourages participation by people who may be to shy to comment, and serves as some sort of minimally intrusive, uber-democratic comment moderation system.
The positives FAR outweigh any potential negatives. Of course if that turns out not to be the case, it’s easy enough to do away with the system.
Katie’s idea of moving the spread up to 7 is a good one, and should make any arguments of “tyranny of the majority” harder to make, and the collapsed comments needed to be easier to read. Now that those very minor concerns have been addressed, the system seems like a great idea and should be left on in my opinion.
As I said before, it is very democratic, as in the majority can censor the minority, be it 4 people or 7, the oppositional view can clearly be marginalized. Why not promote logical debate for that rather then hiding behind a thumb?
What are these positives that supposedly far outweigh the negatives Chris?
Could it not be inclusive for readers who are either too lazy to comment or lack the interest to comment without the collapsing feature?
How is it different from a popularity contest, be it the individuals popularity, or the ideas popularity being presented? ..and why do unpopular ideas need to be marginalized and collapsed?
..and why is this even needed to begin with? ..because one person asked for more moderation you’ve been bending over backwards? Jeopardizing what really is an issue of the integrity of this site. That one person seems to see the same faults with this as I do, also someone who isn’t into the status quo view of the majority of people who comment on this site, as far as I can tell.
Censor?
This form of moderation is so mild. There’s no use of deletion or omission involved with this new system. Doesn’t censorship require those that criteria?
It implies to the reader before even viewing the collapsed comment, if even they bother to read it, that it may have been something inflammatory or derogatory, or maybe hate speech or.. something negative to say the least.
-but what if the majority were conservatives and they collapsed the only liberals comments for saying they liked Obama or something? Would that not be going against the whole motto of the Spark for equal representation and open dialog?
..but I may be mistaken, and writers may only have the privilege of equal representation, that is until Steve clarifies that from his last comment on this thread.
Sure, the majority on here isn’t made up of conservatives, but it’s no stretch of the imagination to see one could be “shouted down” collapsed, and marginalized by anonymous folks in opposition to a worthy debatable view for ideological reasons.
Yeah, but that’s still not “censoring”. I know it’s really just semantics, but calling it as “censoring” implies much more restriction than what’s actually happening here on this site.
So far there’s been little or no “shout downs” of carefully and thoughtfully written, considerate, (while still maintaining respectful disagreement) comments. And certainly no “censorship” of them.
I think it’s just a wait’n'see. I’m really curious to see what happens when another controversial topic arises.
“The Spark isn’t supposed to be a liberal rag, but rather a place for all views.”
And it is. If it’s coming across as a “liberal” rag, it’s because two of the most frequent posters are cuckoo for topics that tend to be associated with “liberal” politics. The site has a “progressive” bias (in that we want Spartanburg to move forward culturally and economically), but that’s not tied to any specific political ideology.
If there was an anarchist, for instance, who was willing to write about the topic in a local context, I’d be happy to publish them. Same for a socialist, a green, a Libertarian, or even a die-hard Republican with fresh ideas on their mind.
But that’s an unrelated topic to whether or not this plugin actually provides useful, user-influenced comment moderation. Can a minority view be made less visible? Sure. But so can an offensive, hate-filled comment. Neither are taken down from the site, however, they’re just made slighly more difficult to see.
I’m also completely open to alternatives.
Well I already said what the positives are, but ok I’ll quote myself:
“It brings the readers into the site in a more concrete way, encourages participation by people who may be to shy to comment, and serves as some sort of minimally intrusive, uber-democratic comment moderation system”
“How is it different from a popularity contest, be it the individuals popularity, or the ideas popularity being presented? ..and why do unpopular ideas need to be marginalized and collapsed?”
I give the Spark’s readership more credit than you do obviously. I don’t think anybody here is “popular” enough to get their comments liked all the time. I suppose you could say that I have more confidence in our readership than you do. I don’t see things breaking down along ideological lines. I believe we’ll have a genuine meritocracy on our hands.
“..and why is this even needed to begin with? ..because one person asked for more moderation you’ve been bending over backwards? ”
So changing it back for the one guy who doesn’t like the new system is somehow better?
“Jeopardizing what really is an issue of the integrity of this site. That one person seems to see the same faults with this as I do, also someone who isn’t into the status quo view of the majority of people who comment on this site, as far as I can tell.”
I think the integrity of the site will be just fine
I can’t help that you feel like you’re not “into the status quo view” on the Spark. In fact, I’m not even sure that there is a status quo view, but if there is it’s because of the people who’ve decided to put time and effort into making the site what it is.
Speaking personally, I can say I’ve done a fair amount of work for this site–nothing even approaching Steve’s mountain of work though–and I’m sure that’s helped shape it in some ways.
As Steve put it to me once when quoting Woody Allen “90% of life is just showing up.”
You’ve had the chance offered to you several times to help shape the direction of the Spark. All you had to do was “show up”.
That’s all I do. There’s nothing special about it; I just show up.
So if you want to start throwing rocks at Steve or me about the supposed direction of this site, maybe you ought to save a few of them for yourself, because you’ve had an open invitation to be a part of this for a long time now.
If you want to stand on the sidelines and complain that’s fine, but don’t act you haven’t had plenty of opportunities to get in there and shape what’s been going on yourself.
Who’s throwing rocks dude? Why do you want to constantly criticize me for not having a weekly column anymore. I was under the impression that it’s my choice on how to contribute, or not. I have just as much a voice as anyone else on here and no less, that is unless I’m collapsed for speaking my views with this system.
The one guy who asked for moderation sees the same potential for abuse as I do.
I’ve articulated my opinion on this thoroughly, I don’t want to repeat myself any more, but it will be used as an ideological popularity tool, and it will give the liberal majority the ability to minimalize the non-liberal minority.
The Spark isn’t supposed to be a liberal rag, but rather a place for all views. This tool will change that, but that’s probably great news for you. I on the other hand see it as potentially jeopardizing the integrity of this site, being a venue for all types of views.
“Why do you want to constantly criticize me for not having a weekly column anymore.”
I just think it’s total BS for somebody to complain about the direction a site has taken when that person has had an open invitation to directly influence the shape the site takes.
Several of us put a lot of time and effort into this, and to have somebody cry foul and make insinuations by saying the Spark will be a “liberal rag” doesn’t sit well. And it especially doesn’t sit well when that same person can’t be bothered to sit down at the keyboard for an hour a week to have his own voice shape that “liberal rag”.
It is your choice not to contribute here, and honestly I don’t care if you do or not. Sometimes though, I think you prefer being the guy standing on the outside of something throwing rocks at whatever “establishment” you don’t like.
That’s cool for you I guess, but when you try that approach here it’s not going to fly. the “establishment” here at the Spark is what it is because of who showed up to shape it. You could have showed up, but you didn’t.
As far as the rating system. I think you’re seriously jumping the gun by writing that it’s going to be some ideological popularity tool. You ignored what I wrote about it, but basically I think our readers are better than that.
I will say though, if it turns out that I’m wrong and well thought-out, honest conservative, libertarian, etc comments are being voted down just for ideological reasons, I’ll join you in calling for they system to be taken off.
If it’s used to vote down flame-bait and the like–which is my guess–then it will be a great new addition to the Spark for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Either way though, the system just started. I think we should give it time to work or fail.
Hahahaha!!! (At the idea of the Spark being “establishment” in any way. It’s still just a scrappy little blog with big dreams.)
Dang, if you move it to seven, how will I ever get collapsed. I said mean and hateful things about each and every one of you yesterday and STILL didn’t get a diss!
Lighten up folks. It’s like an applause meter, not a gong. It’s a lazy “Yeah, what he said” not the “thought police.”
On SHJ forum, you can set an ignore feature and choose to NEVER read the posts by people you think are windbags. Steve isn’t doing that here.
Cut the man some slack. He doesn’t have the power of OZ, he’s just a dude peaking out from behind the curtain.
I don’t even have a curtain. It’s like a tea towel at best.
It’s sad that you’re saying those that don’t currently write for the Spark don’t have any voice in this locally based online community. I thought everyone had a voice, my how things are changing here it seems.
I’m very happy just writing my Parody Paper Press News articles and being featured in the blog report, even if I wasn’t featured I’d still be doing it. Last week I didn’t really feel like doing one and it was no big deal, no stress, no deadline. I don’t need another non-paying occupation, I do it for fun, bottom line.
Steve, you’re kinda acting like I criticized you rather then this new rating system. We all know this site leans to the left, but even if it leaned to the right, the point I raise is about this site as a venue keeping the premise of ideological neutrality in general. With this tool you’re allowing the majority to do away with that neutrality, and shrugging off the responsibility for it.
It may not be a problem for the most part now that the bar is raised from 4 to 7, but to write off my valid concerns as throwing stones, or jumping the gun is like saying “so what?” to pandering to the majorities view rather then standing by your claim that this is a place for all views, and a level playing field for all.
It shouldn’t be left up to me to write about politics on here to keep this a place where all views can be heard equally.
Chris you can portray me as “not thinking the readers are better then.. [voting against their ideological preference]” ..or put whatever words in my mouth, or make up how I feel about whatever suits you, but what about the lingering masses that never comment on here, what about those “shy” readers? Who’s to say they won’t? Who’s to say people won’t assume that’s what it’s there for? If it didn’t collapse a comment at all I would have no problem with it, but as is it has obvious potential consequences.
..but I guess we’ll just wait and see from the looks of it, and hopefully you’ll be true to your word when it is shown to be the case, which shouldn’t take long at all.
But they do have a voice, or rather, several of them: There’s a free user forum, there are user comment which are open to everyone (even if they run the risk of being shouted-down), and there’s a Reader Soapbox feature anyone can use to have their own post on the site with no more moderation or editing than a staff writer would have.
Everyone is eligible for all of these. You don’t have to write for the Spark to access them.
Minority views have long been welcome here. Heck I’ve been the one found with the minority view. I’ve even had a couple dislikes to my comments already.
What I hope this system does is help curb some of the juvenile behavior that can take place when debates get heated. No one like a slap fight, even if it is with words, and we’ve had a couple of them in the past. Maybe enough people demonstrating their thoughts on the tone of a conversation by voting dislike, it will help the participants in question to return to acting like the adults we all are.
I don’t think the intent is to be a popularity meter. This coming from someone who was picked last on every team she took part of. All this is, is an attempt to open moderation to more then just one person.
Also I think the novelty of this new toy will quickly wane, and we’ll be ignoring it before long.
What comments have you clicked “like” or “dislike” to Sylvie, and why?
If I really like what the person is saying or it makes me laugh they get a like. If the comment is intended to be inflammatory, derogatory or just plain mean, they will get a dislike. I will also likely ignore the buttons more then use them unless a comment really stands out
If someone was promoting a view you agree with, would you likely give it a thumbs up? or more importantly.. if someone was giving a view you disagree with would you give it a thumbs down? And regardless, do you think others would give thumbs down to opposing views from theirs?
There is no real defined usage of this tool for strictly being for inflammatory or derogatory remarks. It being a “like” or “dislike” set up in no way implies that either.
Do you not think the majority here, being liberals and democrats, could easily collapse all opposing views due to their majority numbers? ..and even if the shoe was on the other foot, does this not defeat the purpose of an inclusive community dialog, as is the stated purpose of the Spark?
it isn’t the point of view that would necessarily sway my vote towards a negative, but how that viewpoint was demonstrated. One can disagree yet present their opposing views in a respectful manner. Being snarky give them a greater chance of showing that I don’t care for that statement.
For the record, I tend to be more conservative then others here. I don’t always agree with them and they with me. But I can try to be clear on what I think while working not to belittle how they think…and if I get into such a discussion I will try to refrain from voting in it.
Sylvie, but you do see the concern I present, not that you yourself would vote opposing views away, but others may. Especially when it’s anonymous?
That’s my whole point. The majority view holds monopoly over what could be presented in the comments, and I think the Spark is going against it’s stance on being an equal platform of discussion, claiming not to pander to one ideology over the other. This system of giving the readers the power to collapse unwanted comments though makes the minority marginalized if the majority abuses this tool, which could easily be done. It doesn’t even have to be an organized effort, it seems it would simply be a consequence of the system itself.
Do you disagree?
it could happen Chang, on that I agree, but I don’t think that if it does it will be all that common. Let’s see what happens with the next hot button topic before we jump to conclusions on what is right now just a theory.
Again I think that the like/dislike feature will be less used once we get past the novelty of the idea. I could be wrong on that, but I know I dont’ have enough time to vote on everything someone says here, or do I care to.
From what i see the comment rating system is for informational purposes only. Its just to give you an idea of what the other readers think of a comment. It doesn’t actually do anything other allow you to make a quicker and easier judgment of something.
I’m sure most readers will still find it necessary to further explain there thoughts by actually typing something out rather than clicking a little thumb.
While i wont give a “at a boy” for the rating system, i wont shoot it down either. I feel the spark is moving in the right direction.
I’m just waiting for someone to compare me to Hitler for trying to add meaningful user moderation to the site.
Steve Shanafelt=Adolf Hitler
There
You know Steve, it does kinda look like you have a nose beard in that pic. Sieg Heil!
I’m rocking a Rasputin-like beard at the moment. Maybe someone can think of an appropriate world villain to compare me to.
Hmm… real or fictional?
OK, I am now officially tired of this whole debate. Let’s see how it works.
Steve, don’t take it personally man. I just see the obvious potential for abuse of the whole thing as being inherent in the system. For that reason I don’t like it, and I don’t think it is needed to begin with. Sure it’s a novel new toy, but from what justification there seems to be for it there could simply be a flag button for derogatory remarks. If it’s for informational purposes the collapsing aspect isn’t needed.
Just looking out for the underdogs, and hoping to see this place remain inclusive to all views of those in Spartanburg.
Don’t worry, I’m not taking it personally. And I’d prefer criticism to no feedback, although most of all I’ll prefer the constructive kind.
If this solution doesn’t work to address the basic need for additional moderation of the site — moderation that doesn’t originate with me — what does?
Like I said, I’m not married to the plugin. But it seems like a step backwards to get rid of it. So what can we do to address the issue in a meaningful, user-influenced way?
I commented above before I saw this reply Steve. I suggest a simple flag button.
If a rating system is still wanted I’d suggest a thumbs up plug in system, without the thumbs down one.
A great example of this is on the articles at: http://www.newsvine.com
Let me know what you think.
No reply at all on my constructive suggestion above?
I haven’t had time to take a look at what variations of the idea are available for WordPress. I’m not against it, but thus far you’re the only one asking for it. My initial thought is that it doesn’t give meaningful moderation ability to the users, it just gives them a way to report questionable content for me, meaning I still have to be the sole voice of moderation.
That doesn’t address OO’s basic point that it’s unfair that the people who post the content moderate the comments. It keeps the status quo of centralized power. It’s a benign dictatorship, rather than a partial democracy.
Why does it need to be democratic? In a democracy 51% can screw over the other 49%, that’s hardly a fair thing to strive for.
Was OO the only one who called for this change? ..and if so, why do you make it a point that I’m the only one calling for a truly fair change?
I’m just wanting to make it fair for all, not just the majority. I hope you understand.
As it was you had to go through and moderate all posts. A flagging option would only have you moderate those very few posts that were flagged. Do you believe so many posts will be flagged as to take up all your time?
I see it as a very fair alternative to the way it was (as to your time being used up), and especially to the way it is currently (with the potential for the majority to degrade the comments of the minority).
Please take this into consideration.
My time isn’t really the issue. Moderating the posts takes a negligible amount of time, since I basically let everything slide except for blatant hate speech and SPAM (which is generally caught in the filter).
But OO did have a good point which speaks to an ethical issue I hadn’t considered before: Is it fair to leave all of the moderation up to a single person? And I starting thinking: Shouldn’t the people who use the site have a voice in that moderation?
And if we’re going to have user-moderation, the two options are to appoint user-moderators like you’d have on a forum — tricky business for all kinds of reasons — or to go the democratic route. Of the two, I personally prefer the latter, because I’m a big believer in democracy.
A flagging option alone doesn’t have a democratic function to it. It’s really no different than what we had before, apart from allowing other people to influence my decision-making process; It’s still a dictatorship. But, it also doesn’t accomplish any kind of consensus, and it doesn’t allow for the gray-area, third option of having a collapsed comment that’s clearly unpopular, and perhaps edging up against something I’d remove from the site, but perhaps not bad enough to justify deleting outright.
Instead of a black-and-white situation — a post goes up, or it gets deleted — we now have a gray option. We didn’t have that before, and I think that’s too valuable of a thing to casually dismiss because there’s potential for abuse.
I’d like to see if the novelty wears off, or if this is actually a viable tool to make the site more interactive. Again, I’m not married to it, but I think it’s too early to made a decision one way or the other.
But I also see what you’re sayng, and I’ll look into some other moderation options in the meantime. If there’s a decent flagging option available, I’m fine giving that a shot, and the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. User karma options are another possibility.
I thought you were kidding before when you mentioned a user karma option before. How does that work?
“Karma” plugins are also called “reputation” plugins. Instead of rating individual posts, users themselves would have their overall contribution to the site rated. I’ve seen this set up so that there can be all kinds of ratings — humor, insight, trollishness, whatever — but this accomplishes a different kind of thing than our current plugin.
Basically, it says: “The other users consistently think these things about this users comments.” It gives you some information to know if someone is actually contributing, or just kind of making jokes or trolling, for instance.
It could be set up to auto-collapse the comments of people who, for instance, are regularly “flagged” for offensive posts.
There are quite a few things like that available on various CMS programs, but I don’t know the extent of what’s available on WordPress yet. When I have more time, I’ll look into it.
Some quick examples of various commenting options:
Star Ratings (this would allow comments to be rated, but that’s it) http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/gd-star-rating/
IntenseDebate (has user karma and rating)
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/intensedebate/
Disemvowel (marks user as a troll, removes vowels from their comments) http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/controll-disemvowel-comments/
I found another website that uses this feature. It is a humorous photo site and there is one feature that I like about it. First you have to click on comments to view them. The comments is not the main feature of the sight, the photos are. However they use the same like/dislike feature so viewers can decide whether or not they like a comment someone is leaving about the photo.
The like/dislike rating is set differently then ours, and if someone’s comments gets too many dislikes it just collapses that one comment, not linked comments. You just have to click on it to view. Maybe we can eventually move to that.
The moderators of the site seem to have a hands-off approach to comments. I realize we are unique in that staff does have a lot of input, but I happen to like this system.
Can you post a link to that site? I’d like to see what they’re using and how it works. I may be able to alter our plugin to do the same sort of thing.
be warned. It’s one of those train wreck photo sort of websites. you know what I mean. It’s awful but you can’t help looking.
Anyway, under each photo is a small link for comments. you should see how they do it there.
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
I can set the Spark to work this way, but I’ll have to turn off the “threaded” commenting that allows us to respond to individual comments. We’d have to decide that user moderation is more important than the ability to respond to a specific comment. I’m open to either idea, as they both have their merits.
Also, the site is pretty funny. Maybe a little cruel at times, but who hasn’t had the same kind of thoughts about other people when they’re at Wal-Mart?
Personally I like the threaded commenting. And I think it is part of the appeal of The Spark. I just wanted to show another example of a website using the like/dislike feature, but in a different format.