Contributed by dhartmei on from the feature-bloat dept.
As an experiment in dealing with this, there's now a moderation feature which allows all readers to supply feedback about the quality of comments. Besides the link to post a follow-up comment there are now two additional links, Mod Up for comments you consider worth reading for others, and Mod Down for those you wish you hadn't read yourself. Moderation results (mod sum/count) are shown after subjects, and comments with sums below a threshold can be omitted from listing. Readers who don't actively set a threshold see all comments, as before.
Whether this is a useful approach will have to be seen, and the scheme will likely need adjustments. But let's try to gather some feedback first.
p.s. I just noticed that my "clever" script grepping for bad crawlers and worms in the web server logs and adding them to a pf blacklist table was including "POST", so I've been refusing connections from you after you posted a comment or article. Major blunder on my part, all fixed again, sorry.
(Comments are closed)
By Wouter (81.171.1.3) on
By Anonymous Cheese (68.121.246.189) on
By Anonymous Coward (80.200.231.254) on
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (62.65.145.30) daniel@benzedrine.cx on http://www.benzedrine.cx/
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (64.139.7.172) on
By Berk S. Daemon (67.71.33.3) on
By ltratt (213.78.76.242) on
BTW, excellent work on getting this up and running so quickly Daniel!
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (62.65.145.30) daniel@benzedrine.cx on
That's not exactly "per user", but I'll add features to prevent mass voting through scripts (from distributed addresses) soon.
I'm curious, wouldn't most readers prefer not having to log into accounts? And if abusers would go as far as scripting an attack from hundreds of different IP addresses, wouldn't they just as well create that many fake accounts (using separate email addresses), too?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (80.230.156.29) on
By Anonymous Coward (196.30.79.198) on
By Nate (66.207.129.194) on
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (2001:470:1f00:250:1::1) daniel@benzedrine.cx on
If you set no threshold, you see everything (including the bad stuff). Set it to 0, and you only see comments with values 0 or above (omitting comments with values less than 0). Same for other threshold values. Large positive or negative values are probably useless.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.72.99) on
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (2001:470:1f00:250:1::1) daniel@benzedrine.cx on
If you're tired of re-entering your value (it's remembered across links, where possible), use a bookmark like http://undeadly.org/cgi?thres=0 to start with threshold 0.
By Nate (66.207.129.194) on
By mk (217.162.14.216) on
By ltratt (213.78.84.127) on
> And if abusers would go as far as scripting an attack from hundreds of
> different IP addresses, wouldn't they just as well create that many fake
> accounts (using separate email addresses), too?
It's relatively trivial to make account creation difficult to spoof (hence those irritating, but hard to spoof, "type in the letters from this picture to your right" things), or at least hard enough that most people who could automate it probably wouldn't bother ;) The bar on that can probably be set higher than stopping spoof moderating.
Personally I think posting should not require logging in (though frankly it's a lot easier if one posts regularly to a forum and it remembers one settings from post to post). Moderation should. Moderation implies responsibilities which I think in this case means having to use an account.
Another cool thing some forums do if you log in is to show you the new messages since last time - that can be a real time saver if one uses a forum regularly!
By almeida (66.31.180.15) on
By James Frazer (24.76.168.86) on
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.72.99) on
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.72.99) on
(Yeah I know, I should insert a troll here, but I'm not good at that :-) )
By Iota (66.229.57.24) on
Comments
By Iota (66.229.57.24) on
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (62.65.145.30) daniel@benzedrine.cx on
The case where both numbers of negative and positive votes are more or less equal is probably moot (the sum stays around 0). The more interesting question is whether (8/8) (only 8 votes, all up) should be treated the same as (8/100) (100 votes, 54 up, 46 down).
If you have suggestions for formulas (with explanations of their benefits, preferably based on experience ;), let me know. As input we have number of positive and negative votes (and therefore total number of votes, obviously). The result of the formula should be comparable to one (or more, though that would make things more complicated for users) threshold value (integer, float, percentage).
By Anonymous Coward (140.226.190.34) on
By Paul (24.218.166.207) on
this gets extremely annoying after one or two comments...
Comments
By Daniel Hartmeier (62.65.145.30) daniel@benzedrine.cx on
Comments
By Paul (24.218.166.207) on
if things in the real world got done this fast...
anyway, that is much better...
the last thing i've noticed has to do with the way comment trees are displayed, it is often the case that comment trees show all comments at a given level under a given node... this is not the case here, but is at www.kuro5hin.org, for example
i like the way they do it, and believe that it is an improvement for those who want to read all comments
ask if you want/need clarifications about what i mean, going to K5 should be clarifying, but if that offends your sesibilities.... ;-)
Paul
By cAPTAIN^k (203.97.68.33) on http://www.boneyourmother.com
By cAPTAIN^k (203.97.68.33) on http://jodi.org