Not every site. The Ars Technica forums have maintained a surprisingly high level of quality discussion over the years. Ars uses human moderators who read every post and enforce the rules.
There's also Metafilter. Or more spcifically, ask Metafilter which maintains one of the highest quality, large communities I've managed to find online.
Maybe there should be some kind of validation before you can start posting and taking part in the discussions.
A smart way of doing this would be to let potential new users write a bit about themselves, and let existing users vote on whether or not they should be allowed to post based on their introduction of themselves.
Another way would be to let new users have a quota of comments that could be raised if the initial comments were voted up.
Slashdot implemented something in something similar long time ago (I guess they still do it) and I don't know why nobody ripped that off. To start moderating your account need pass a certain threshold of "oldness".
I think the moderation is even more important because when people start modding down valid coments or modding up stupidity that's what make me want to leave. That's when I got annoyed with Digg +-2 years ago and Reddit +-1 year ago.
I've been wondering that too. Slashdot has gone through all of the problems that face digg, reddit, etc. And they have found some pretty good solutions through trial and error. They are even well documented here: http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml
Generally I am amazed that moderation systems are not better than they are, especially since the stakes seem to be so high in this niche right now.
Actually, instead of that, why not just assess their voting habits and allow posting at a certain threshold? Those users that continually upvote stories and comments that are considered "low quality" are held, be they new/old whatever. Get too low, and you can't vote either.
The only issue is you need to be very specific in how you choose to asses what is "high" vs. what is "low" quality. Too rigid and you basically encourage group-think, too lax; anarchy.
(Note: I would keep "karma" in place since it would help to distract from the "real" karma system.)
Perhaps I haven't had sufficient experience with Digg, Techcrunch, etc., but it seems a touch elitist to me to denigrate someone based solely on the sites which they choose to frequent.
Example: I browse youtube. A lot. I sometimes comment on videos. Now, read the comments on any substantially popular youtube video. A lot of noise, yes? So does that automatically make me an idiot or a bigot or illiterate? No, not necessarily. A similar argument can be made for TechCrunch, Digg, or any other website. The problem is the site, not the users.
In a sense, this is a fallacy of division: Digg is a noisy site with little, if any meaningful discourse. Therefore none of its users are capable of meaningful discourse.
@TheTarqin: The problem with these sites is, that they all "were" great places to go. But as soon as the userbase grew, they went downhill...
It's not so much about being elitist, than being afraid of things, we have experienced already at other places.
I suppose I can understand that, but I wonder if a better response might be of the "welcome, new users: here's how this site is different then you're used to" variety.
I understand that News.YC is pretty awesome. It's a fairly small, high-signal community, and I greatly appreciate that. I just don't understand this Digg-o-phobia. Perhaps it's just that I haven't witnessed the transformation you mentioned in other sites. Hacker News is really the first such website that has grabbed my interest.
Anyway, here's hoping it stays as interesting, vibrant, and high S/N ration as is now.
If there is an influx, the lack of fluff will scare them away for quite a while.
It was over about a 12 month period of time that reddit went from being occasionally political to being totally dominated by Ron Paul/Obama fanatics. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day.
Comments
We're screwed now... techcrunch isn't exactly known for its overly insightful comments.
Welcome digg-like users!
The arrival of less insightful people is inevitable. The goal should be presenting the site such that they matter less or don't bother coming.
Well put. It'll be interesting to see how pg and team handle something that every other site has failed miserably with.
I've got high hopes.
Not every site. The Ars Technica forums have maintained a surprisingly high level of quality discussion over the years. Ars uses human moderators who read every post and enforce the rules.
There's also Metafilter. Or more spcifically, ask Metafilter which maintains one of the highest quality, large communities I've managed to find online.
http://ask.metafilter.com/
The $5 price of admission seems to be beyond most 1337 hax0rz with funy p!cs and LOLZ.
Maybe there should be some kind of validation before you can start posting and taking part in the discussions.
A smart way of doing this would be to let potential new users write a bit about themselves, and let existing users vote on whether or not they should be allowed to post based on their introduction of themselves.
Another way would be to let new users have a quota of comments that could be raised if the initial comments were voted up.
Slashdot implemented something in something similar long time ago (I guess they still do it) and I don't know why nobody ripped that off. To start moderating your account need pass a certain threshold of "oldness".
I think the moderation is even more important because when people start modding down valid coments or modding up stupidity that's what make me want to leave. That's when I got annoyed with Digg +-2 years ago and Reddit +-1 year ago.
I've been wondering that too. Slashdot has gone through all of the problems that face digg, reddit, etc. And they have found some pretty good solutions through trial and error. They are even well documented here: http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml
Generally I am amazed that moderation systems are not better than they are, especially since the stakes seem to be so high in this niche right now.
Actually, instead of that, why not just assess their voting habits and allow posting at a certain threshold? Those users that continually upvote stories and comments that are considered "low quality" are held, be they new/old whatever. Get too low, and you can't vote either.
The only issue is you need to be very specific in how you choose to asses what is "high" vs. what is "low" quality. Too rigid and you basically encourage group-think, too lax; anarchy.
(Note: I would keep "karma" in place since it would help to distract from the "real" karma system.)
Insightful isn't a type of person, it's a type of idea.
It's a frame of mind, influenced by his environment. I'm inclined to agree.
Every person is a set of ideas.
You're very insightful.
Hmm. We are being downmodded because our conversation is apparently detrimental to this thread. Let's take our metaphysical thoughts somewhere else.
I think he's intending to show how the system might actually work.
I for one thought it was amusing. Regards.
Perhaps I haven't had sufficient experience with Digg, Techcrunch, etc., but it seems a touch elitist to me to denigrate someone based solely on the sites which they choose to frequent.
Example: I browse youtube. A lot. I sometimes comment on videos. Now, read the comments on any substantially popular youtube video. A lot of noise, yes? So does that automatically make me an idiot or a bigot or illiterate? No, not necessarily. A similar argument can be made for TechCrunch, Digg, or any other website. The problem is the site, not the users.
In a sense, this is a fallacy of division: Digg is a noisy site with little, if any meaningful discourse. Therefore none of its users are capable of meaningful discourse.
@TheTarqin: The problem with these sites is, that they all "were" great places to go. But as soon as the userbase grew, they went downhill... It's not so much about being elitist, than being afraid of things, we have experienced already at other places.
I suppose I can understand that, but I wonder if a better response might be of the "welcome, new users: here's how this site is different then you're used to" variety.
I understand that News.YC is pretty awesome. It's a fairly small, high-signal community, and I greatly appreciate that. I just don't understand this Digg-o-phobia. Perhaps it's just that I haven't witnessed the transformation you mentioned in other sites. Hacker News is really the first such website that has grabbed my interest.
Anyway, here's hoping it stays as interesting, vibrant, and high S/N ration as is now.
ugh, here they come... really hope place does not devolved into something like the digg/slashdot/techcrunch comment sections
it was nice while it lasted ; )
If there is an influx, the lack of fluff will scare them away for quite a while.
It was over about a 12 month period of time that reddit went from being occasionally political to being totally dominated by Ron Paul/Obama fanatics. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day.
It was faster than that. There was very little fluff in April 2006, and by August 2006 it was overrun.
lets put some really boring stuff for the next few days so we can push digg-like users away.
my thoughts exactly
ah blast..