I like the “hidden comments” feature. For those unfamiliar with it, the idea is that if enough users give a really low rating to a particular comment, the comment disappears from view. This allows the community, rather than the three “editors” of this site who have the ability to delete comments unilaterally, to be the primary enforcers of our Rules of the Road.
However, the system is not perfect. First, when a comment is hidden, not only that comment but the entire thread that it spawned disappears. This can cause problems, as it apparently did on a recent user post, since even if an initial comment is trollish, the resulting discussion may have some merit. I have raised that problem with our software guru, and we will await his response.
Second, there is a difference between giving a post a low rating because you think it’s stupid, or wrong, or non-constructive, and thinking that the comment should be deleted from the site. But the current rating system doesn’t really account for that. To address that problem, I have added a new comment rating score of zero, entitled “delete comment.” Under the new system, a comment must receive five or more “0” ratings to be hidden. I urge everyone here to use the “0” rating sparingly. It should be used only for abusive comments (personal attacks, for instance), not for comments with which you strongly disagree, or that you think are demonstrably incorrect. If a comment is wrong, rate it “worthless,” and then prove that it’s wrong with your own comment. Please only use the “delete comment” rating when you believe in good faith that the comment should not appear on the site at all.
Let’s try this for a while and see if it works. If it doesn’t, we’ll tweak the system again. Thanks.
I never knew about the hidden comment policy until the recent dust-up, but I think the concerns of those who were being censored were legitimate and this is a great solution. Nice job.
So am I correct that this is a higher threshold for deletion than there used to be? In the past, wasn’t it that five ratings of 3 would get a comment hidden?
I’m curious: is a personal attack only if it’s directed at someone who posted here at BMG (“David, you’re an idiot”), or is it also subject to deletion if it’s directed at a politician (i.e., if someone says “Tom Reilly is an idiot”)?
I think it’s allowable, though not necessarily desirable, to call public figures names, generally — unless you’re responding to them personally, here. The idea is to keep the person-to-person dialogue civil.
Here is a vote of confidence to the benevolent dictatorship of the editors–BCD. You guys have shown wide latitude for people to hang themselves and when you folks act unilaterally and delete comments, I figured it was justified. (Besides, the three of you seldom agree, so it was a sound check and balance system that offered wide latitude of comments and a very high threshold for dissent.)
<
p>
So in that vain, I trust your current attempt at developing a self policing system. One suggestion or request–can it some how be determined who scored a comment worthy of deletion? I know I can see who scored my comments, but when my comments were deleted because they were rated as “troll” (or at least the thread was rated as “troll”), I had no idea who did it. Naturally I assume people who strongly disagreed with me rated it as a troll as a way to censor me. But I have no proof, because I could not see who rated the comments as “troll”
<
p>
So, my long winded way of saying, I would like to see who rates to “delete” my comments–even if it is part of a thread.
<
p>
Lastly, thanks for listening and trying to come up with a better solution. I was really pissed that that thread got deleted. In general, Iâm still no fan of the rating system. Iâve seen some very petty â3sâ given out by some very petty people and it just raises the temperature on the blog. Sure I get plenty of 5s and 6s, but one âworthlessâ from someone you know did it because they hold an opposing view is far more infuriating than ten 6s. I now find myself doing the same petty stuff to people because they are petty with me. Life is way to short for this kind of shit.
Rereading the rules of the road, I noticed this, “certain Trusted Users we may designate from time to time based on their cumulative average comment ratings, can give comments significantly higher and lower ratings than those available for most users.”
<
p>
Has this been instituted? If so, or if it will be in the future, I have a question–if petty folks (example example–and if they want to defend their pettiness, please defend yourself) keep ratings things a three or worse, does that somehow make them “untrusted users” or will you folks take a more subjective approach? I’d be concerned about someone who achieves high scores from users that agree with them and they become one of those “trusted users” and having rating privileges that are “significantly higher” than other users and scoring other people they disagree with lower.
<
p>
There is no perfect system and all you’re doing is opening a can of worms. Bob, youâre the damn historian around here…this is a perfect argument for strong checks and balances and I think having a unanimous decision of the three branches of BMG government–Bob, Charley and David–is the best system. You’re just asking the mob to rule here. I was born a contrarian and folks like me eventually get tarred and feathered by the mob. Protect minority rights guys. Rant over and out.
has not been implemented due to technical issues. We’ll let everyone know when (if) the issues are solved.
that thread that was deleted is back, since under the revised rating system the initial troll-rated comment is no longer hidden. So you can check out all the ratings you like.
As the most annoying commenter on BMG (anybody want to arm wrestle for the crown, EB3?) I have been very pleased with the fairness of the rating system. I try to give good rating when deserved as well.