Integral - so I don't clutter this thread with off-topic posts, can you open another thread entitled "Constructive Comments to Improve MW user rules" - I have some suggestions and I would like feedback (even though I don't expect any movement on them).
Fix't
No problem PI. I know it was tough to get anything to stick on the MW boards without being removed by overzealous user moderators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Suggestion #1:
ReplyDeleteAdd a "Hide" and "Ignore" feature.
This would be a selectable option next to everyone's post. It would hide the post ONLY FOR the person who selects it. If they don't want to see the post, that is their prerogative, but don't punish everyone else because of it.
On top of the "Hide" feature, allow an "Ignore" feature. This would allow someone to hide all posts from any particular person. It could have an option to hide just their posts, or their posts and any replies to it.
As a bonus and for ease-of-use, if someone hits the "Hide" button on a particular user say more than 10 times, you could ask the user if they want to ignore the other user indefinitely.
You can also make this feature more automated, for only those that want to allow the community to make up their judgement for them. As an example, say if more than 5 people hide a post, you can OPT to have the system automatically hide it. Similar rules could be allowed for people who want automated ignore behavior.
The above rules of automation would solve a major issue that I'm sure MW is most concerned with ... those viewers that either don't have accounts or don't frequently sign-in or participate. They could default any guest or new account to follow the automated system with pre-set acceptable defaults. In effect, this accomplished the "report post" feature, without striking down posts that are of interest to those who don't want undue censorship and/or filtering.
Just my two sense. More suggestions to follow.
...
Oh, and THANKS Integral for the new thread! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSuggestion #2:
ReplyDeleteEliminate the "featured post" on the right side of each article. It usually is a reflection of when most people looked at the article, rather than value of its content. More importantly, this feature encourages abuse by people spreading thumbs-down and thumbs-up via multiple accounts.
.
Suggestion #3:
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to allow thumbs-down and thumbs-up (a point to be debated later), give everyone a maximum quota for an hour (or other time period). As an example, only allow people 20 thumbs-down and 20 thumbs-down per hour. This will hamper scripting on the site.
Another suggestion is to list how many points people got from thumbs-down, and how many from thumbs-up. Not just a generic "ratings" column. And when their ratio gets completely out-of-whack, an Admin reviews their account.
..
Suggestion #4:
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to allow reporting by users (also a point to be debated later), use the same "quota" idea outlined in suggestion #3 to limit the number of messages a given user can report per day. This will discourage serial reporters.
.
Suggestion #5:
ReplyDeleteStill under the assumption that user moderators are still used (debatable):
Require a minimum number of posts by a user, along with respectable ratings for those posts, before allowing someone to be a user moderator. This to avoid situations where someone has something like 76 reports, but only 25 posts (see my comments about bobg in the other thread). This prevents the Jennies of the world from having too much power.
Also, require a user to have an active account for a minimum number of months before being eligible to be a user moderator.
I'm not endorsing user moderators. I actually think the Admins should be the only moderators. User moderators are just ripe for abuse. But I'm guessing MW is doing this for budget reasons, so I'm suggesting upgrades.
.
Suggestion #6:
ReplyDeleteUnder the assumption there is user moderators:
Put all reported posts into a "holding bin" where the reported user can see those who are policing the message. If the user wants to appeal the decision, he can ask the Admin to intervene and personally review the reported message.
If the reporters have overstepped MW guidelines, they get a mark on their record. Once they exceed a certain number of marks, they are barred from being a moderator.
If the person with appeal is rejected, they get a mark on their record. If they exceed a certain number of marks (probably much higher number than moderator mark limit), their account is suspended depending on their history.
From these so-called appeals, the Admin should publish several examples of messages he deems acceptable and unacceptable. The community can access them, if they choose, and get some guidance. That way everyone is up-to-speed.
Might sound corny, but since most of MW guidelines are completely subjective, none of us truly know the thresholds. This would help clarify the interpretation of MW, and let people decide if they are willing to accept those limits (or move on).
.
Suggestion #7:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, assuming there are user moderators.
No hidden moderators. List all user moderators. If their reporting is legitimate, they have nothing to worry about. Allowing them to "hide" in the shadows is simply encouraging them to overstep their bounds.
.
Suggestion #8: (this would be Suggestion #1, if these were ordered in terms of preference.)
ReplyDeleteNO USER MODERATORS.
Have MW invest a little money into beefing up Admin support for the site. There would be benefits to MW, eliminating grudge-related censorship or filtering, and encouraging people to stay on-topic. People would feel a lot less personally and ideologically attacked if the moderator worked for MW. Well, at least they could rationalize it as a business decision, and not a vendetta.
.
Suggestion #9:
ReplyDeleteThis came from CynicalGuy no less than 20 minutes ago. And I agree.
"Reset the [thumbs-down] mechanism so that when someone gives a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down", their name and avatar appears at the bottom of the original post, just as if the thumber had replied to the post. This would give the original posters the opportunity to respond to thumbs that they disagreed with and MW the opportunity to monitor and punish anyone who is abusing the system. Those who are following the rules need not worry and those breaking the rules and/or acting maliciously would be exposed and would have to answer for their behavior."
If someone can get a message to CynicalGuy, tell him to come take a look at this thread. I would like his input. He is preaching the same thing I am: transparency.
.
*** Special comment about CynicalGuy statement above:
ReplyDeleteWithin a few minutes of posting this on MW, his post received an immediate THREE THUMBS-DOWN. And, gee, look who is online - ehofner. Doesn't anyone get it?
.
Suggestion #10:
ReplyDeleteDO NOT give points for thumbs-down, thumbs-up, censoring, or other categories that encourage abuse.
.