Comment Rating Etiquette

I have often wondered what a comment needs to get a 4 rating, a 3, a 2, or 1. How do you decide what quotes to rate and what quotes not to?

For example, do you only give a 4 rating to posts who expose ideas that you agree with? Or do you give them to comments that are thought provoking and well spoken?

How does one decide?

And what does someone have to do to earn a 1? I often feel like I cannot give someone a 1 rating because I feel like that is for the most awful of commenters and I never feel like I am ready to label someone as that. Should we use 1 ratings to discipline trolls rather than trying to argue with them via comments, as I tried to do earlier today with user Copernicus?

Comment ratings are a potentially powerful tool, one of the greatest things about the Kos Community. How do you handle it? What are your thoughts on it?

•  Seems to me....

  you know 1,2,3, or 4 when you see 'em!

  by AlBerkCA on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:15:11 PM PDT

  •  well

    thats fine, but how do you decide?

    and one man's one might be another mans 4...

    by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:16:10 PM PDT

    •  for example

      i have been writing on here since january, and have gotten many good ratings (3s and 4s). today, however, i got my first ever negative rating (a 1) because i responded to a thread that i believed to be rather offensive and i said so...

      does that make me a troll? i don't know... i don't think i am a troll.

      i respect the comment rating system because i think it is a good way to promote positive behavior and discourage negative behavior, and it, like a free market economy, automatically chooses what kind of users it wants based on what other users think.

      on the other hand, does it contribute to the creation of a homogenous community, or are we willing to give users that disagree with us but have good reason a 4 rating?

      what do you think?

      by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:19:52 PM PDT

      •  People throw 'em around

        There's some spiteful rating that goes on.

        I think of it like this:

        0. - This is total BS
        1. - This person is either deranged or disengenuous
        2. - Dumb comment
        3. - Good comment
        4. - Funny or moving or containing valuable information

        You have to build up mojo before you get the power of the zero.

        I tend to only rate stuff 4's, and generally only when I see something funny or brave.

        by Outlandish Josh on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:56:58 PM PDT

•  I usually

  give 4s to comments that make me laugh, or that make a good point/say something particularly well.

  2s are for people who are being offensive or obnoxious, but not necessarily trolling. 1s are for trolls, and 0s are for trolls that aren't even making an attempt to appear like anything else.

  by cyclopatra on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:17:29 PM PDT

  •  I do pretty much the same thing

    :-)

    by Trix on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:22:21 PM PDT

  •  I like

    your system.

    by Pops on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:23:28 PM PDT

•  But that....

  all works out.  Not to worry.

  by AlBerkCA on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

•  It has seemed to me that

  for quite some time most posters rate what they read in terms of whether or not they agree with it. So many posters seem to identify as "troll" postings which are very polite, present real argumentation, and could generate thinking simply on the grounds that the individual rater simply disagrees with the opinions of the poster. Conversely, I have watched creepy, obnoxious, valueless schoolyard personal attacks rated as "4" or "Super" or whatever just on the grounds that the rater found the insult or whichever apparently enjoyable or cathartic.

  I have no idea frankly why the rating system is even maintained here. I assume Kos has a grand scheme in mind. But I seldom use the system myself, if I really get something out of a post I simply try to reply to it.

  by Copernicus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:18:32 PM PDT

  •  i am very glad you responded

    because your post was the one i got the troll rating on. and interstingly enough, i often view your content as troll material (not your posts, but your responses in the comments).

    as i have said to you in the past, however, i value your contribution because i think it keeps the community on its toes...

    by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:21:55 PM PDT

    •  this may sound still, but to the point

      ...

      stilwell, could you explain why you gave Copernicus and myself 4s?

      by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:30:51 PM PDT

      •  My guess

        Communication. Encouragement of.

        Copernicus of the House of Nader gets strong reactions, sometimes seeks strong reactions - in any event reactions ensue.

        I imagine Stillwell saw some communication and want to offer encouragement.  In my book, as good a reason as any for a 4.

        BTW - my critieria - good expressions of thought, whether I agree or not, almost always get a 4 if I remember to do it.

        An unexpected thought from an unexpected source can do it.

        And of course, everyone who agrees with me. (ok, not everyone, but admit a bias to those who agree with me as of course I think they are making trenchant points.)

        by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:45:52 PM PDT

    •  so many people here

      have been so profoundly uncivil to me in the comments section that, after a couple month hiatus that i took in sheer disgust with these sorts, i returned, and my new position is that i have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be anything less than deeply rude to those who are deeply rude to me.

      so, as far as the rude replies in comments go, i reserve those for people who are simply out-and-out creeps to me, and i'll continue to do so, though it is an exhausting, unpleasant, unfulfilling and worthless waste-of-time experience. candidly: i made a decision some time ago, after being too nice in my life and getting pushed around for it, to simply have zero tolerance for creeps. i'll not just stand still and absorb hateful insults, bullying, etc. again in my life.

      however, i don't use or value the rating system. in my experience, the rating received most of the time simply rates whether or not the rater disagrees with your opinions (this is when you are a "troll") or agrees with your opinions (this is when you are "super").

      by Copernicus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:44:21 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        It's hard being persecuted isn't it?

        by TealVeal on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:48:24 PM PDT

      •  I'm guilty

        But you started it, Copernicus, way back when when several people challenged your arguments and you struck back with invective and/or an extremely dismissive tone.

        That started the cycle, which persists to this day.

        by Crab Nebula on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:49:29 PM PDT

        •  we're not on speaking terms

          really, i meant that. do me a favor and quit pretending its otherwise by talking to me, please?

          by Copernicus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:54:07 PM PDT

          •  the arena

            And Copernicus maltreated other posters numerous times; this is not just between me and him.  Posters must take some responsibility for the tonality of their posts and how that can set others off.

            As you all can see, I made an attempt to speak here about events that are on the record (check posting histories.) And does Copernicus also attempt to step outside of his role?  This is like the cycle of violence in the Middle East.  

            I'll refrain from personal attacks in the future on Copernicus.  But I will continue to point out demagoguery and weak arguments on his part when I see it, and chastise him for insulting others just because they disagree with him.

            by Crab Nebula on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:59:29 PM PDT

            •  well said...

              i will refrain from having my debates get too heated and too personal, and i will continue to expect a level of courtesy and open mindedness to be maintained by all users in reference to the opinions of others. this is an ideal that i expect of others, and of myself.

              i have mistreated copernicus in the comments, and copernicus has mistreated other users. no one is perfect, but all are responsible. i admit my mistakes freely, and you are all welcome to read over my statements in the comments by clicking on my name.

              lets put the past behind us and move on in the hopes that all of us guilty of immaturity this evening have had the ability to reflect and will approach tomorrow with a new perspective and an open mind.

              by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:04:43 PM PDT

      •  i want to apologize, and i mean that

        i have said some really mean things to you over the lsat 24 - 48 hours, primarily because i disagree with your position but also in large part because i disapprove with your mode of communication.

        however, i do not, under any circumstances, believe that you are a troll. sometimes i think that your comments are a bit too heated, and i get fired up when i answer you. i am admittedly guilty of being drawn into arguments with you, arguments that i am just as responsible for as you are.

        i value your writing here extremely, though, and i do not want you to stop. today i was rated as a troll because i lost my temper and in doing so wrote with a tone that i would not have been glad to see from another user.

        i deserved what i got.

        but for all the crap i give Copernicus for his feelings about what it means to be a progressive and i sometimes feel that he loses his cool in the same manner that i lost mine this evening, i have never given him a troll rating to date because i think that the debate he starts is great for the community. i know i have never started a thread that has developed anywhere near the amount of discussion that one of Copernicus' does.

        I am really glad that i wrote this diary tonight, it really helped me to reflect on how i have handled myself this evening and how i am going to look at other users in the future. as for now, i am heading to bed.

        and to Copernicus, i look forward to your next thread, i hope it icites as much discussion as the last two have...

        by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:00:09 PM PDT

      •  In case anyone missed it

        I was profoundly uncivil to Copericus recently in a response.

        I apologized. As far as I know, he's never called me an asshole. I shouldn't have called him one.

        Also, those admittedly outrageous posts of his got me to thinking. See http://Maryscott-OConnor.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/14/225510/077 for what it led to.

        by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:40:57 AM PDT

  •  I totally agree

    For example, it's ridiculous that this diary entry implies that you're a troll. You've been here a long time, and you've contributed a lot to this site. Last time I checked, a troll wasn't a serious member of the community.

    I've found the same thing as you--people aren't rating comments based on how informative or well written or penetrating or amusing they are, they're all filtered through the most partisan of politics. Like, not just Democratic/Republican but every possible Democratic issue or faction.

    I think Kos' only scheme is that it does work to some extent--there are always nasty things trapped in the Hidden Comments box. When people aren't getting 0s for disagreeing with someone vindictive.

    by jbrjake on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:43:23 PM PDT

    •  this web site

      has become an echo-chamber and echo-chambers attract participants who in many cases do not make effective "raters" of diverse commentary.

      by Copernicus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:45:32 PM PDT

      •  I definitely agree with that statement

        I have no idea who you are or anything about the history of disputes between you and the diary author. Regardless, I definitely think dailykos is infested with left and dem groupthink that hinders those on the left from understanding the positions of those in the middle and on the right. There's too little a spectrum of debate here, and because of that many posters tend to view the political situation with much too rosy glasses. Those who don't understand their opponents' positions are doomed to spouting monologues instead of engaging in debate.

        I've been following tacitus.org too, which is currently transitioning to scoop from movable_type, and what I'd like to see is something like dailykos+tacitus - where those from all political views would be welcome as long as they engaged in polite debate.

        This is speaking as a refuge from kuro5hin, where trolling turned a very cool site into a nightmare of insults and noise.

        Cheers,
        
        --Maynard

        by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:19:53 PM PDT

        •  heh

          I've recognized quite a few K5 usernames over here, never really thought of us as expats before. I had to give up k5 because it took too much of my time, though (and now this site is threatening to present the same problem) Maybe we're just addicted to scoop :P

          by cyclopatra on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:45:29 PM PDT

          •  Dynamic threading...

            ...whoever coded that is God. :) --M

            by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:49:40 PM PDT

        •  Well

          you could do that, but it wouldn't be dKos.

          If such a site as you describe could exist, sign me up.  But frankly, what I see at Tacitus I find intellectually worthless for the most part.

          But that's just me.  I have to tell you, I think the problem with your proposal now is the "Right" will feel compelled to defend the indefensible, BushCo, so they will resort to lies, distortions and insults,  heck they do it now.

          Now, would it be reversed if a Dem were in the WH?  Probably, but that still proves the point.

          For all the gnashing of teeth over non-civlity, I think a number of interesting divergences of view are expressed here and discussed civilly.

          Gilas Girl and I have a running joke (well it's really her joke) whenever we agree on an issue - which is rare, it really is - check the netherworlds.

          And yet we have great exchanges (at least I think so, she may think she's dealing with a 5 year old) - why?  because there are some fundamental agreements on goals.  It is because of that that we can have good frank exchanges.  that is not possible, I think, in the type of site you suggest.

          by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:51:59 PM PDT

          •  Oh, I dunno...

            It's not like the folks at tacitus are freepers out to right-troll the internet world. Some of them genuinely like Bush and his policies, which is fair in any democratic republic.  Others are more traditional conservatives from the Jeffersonian tradition. I tend to get along well with the old-timer conservatives who just want the federal government off their back and a balanced budget. I may disagree with their anti-environmental and anti-national-health-care positions, but at least they're arguing from an intellectual foundation straight to the founding fathers. The neocons are on much shakier intellectual ground; Irving Kristol being a former trotskyite and Max Boot being just a lunatic.

            IMO tacitus politely accepts liberal views on their message forum better than dkos accepts conservative opinion. --M
            

            by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:05:19 PM PDT

            •  Could be

              Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

              On dKos, that is correct.  But that's dKos.

              I'll say this, tacitus demagogued like hell on kos merc comment.  I lost a lot of respect on that one.  and I ripped kos for the comment.

              by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:09:26 PM PDT

              •  Yeah...

                ...I kinda thought that whole merc comment thing was silly too. Whatever. Well, I'm on the East coast and it's 1:20am here. Time to crash - work work work tomorrow! Thanks for the chat. :) --M

                by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:14:48 PM PDT

    •  also, regardless

      of whether or not you agree with me, i am grateful your expression of warm words to me.

      i was not planning on being on this web site so long this evening, and largely i have remained drawn into what was earlier a very nasty, pointless, undending response to creepy attacks by someone who deems his/he disagreement with my views grounds for such. i do not intend to draw you into that fight by stating all this to you, i merely express gratitude that you express warm words to me, they are needed.

      i also need to have a beer, relax, and start making dinner for me and gf.

      have a good night.

      by Copernicus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:51:09 PM PDT

•  My scale

  4. - good/ excellent comment
  3. - decent comment WITH a flaw

             or
       brings up a good point but with a flaw
             or
       excellant comment, but something offensive or otherwise bad
  2 - I almost never use, mainly it's for a comment that is 'marginal' - not really offensive, but deserves a caution
             OR
       Someone I recognize who I don't think should be saying what they said

  1. - quite bad, offensive, stupid, mainly it's used for people who are rude to other posters
  0. - people I would spit at if I could.  

  Boy, I put a lot of thought into that.  My ratio of posting is probably about 20 4s to one 1 or 0, and almost no 3s or 2s.  

  by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:19:04 PM PDT

•  I'd appreciate it

  if someone could explain the ratings a little (yes I have read the FAQ about comment ratings but I am still baffled).  

  Is the comment rating the thing such as this

  (none/0)

  that appears after the title of each comment?  I thought that was the person's "troll rating" (is this the same as the "mojo" described in the FAQ?) and the number of raters.  

  If this thingy is the comment rating, where the heck is/are the rating(s) of the posters themselves?

  by destiny6 on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:20:09 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    thats the mojo... and the poster doesn't get mojo, you have to give it to them in a comment thats often referred to as a 'tip jar.'

    troll rating = comment rating. but the two higher level ratings are positive, while the two lower levels are negative.

    by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:24:06 PM PDT

    •  no

      the first number is the rating for the post. the second is how many ratings were applied.  (none/o) means nobody gave it a rating.  (none/1) means one person did, but the rating isn't calculated until two people rate.  after that it's an average.  so if you see (3.93/14) you can click on that and get a list of the 13 people who gave it fours and the one person that gave it a 3.

      so now the facts are partisan?

      by zeke L on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:33:37 PM PDT

    •  um...

      thats the mojo... and the poster doesn't get mojo, you have to give it to them in a comment thats often referred to as a 'tip jar.'

      No. Mojo is the ratings system for comments, developed by Rusty for Scoop.

      People who can't be bothered to join the community and post comments put out "tip jars" to get a reward for writing a Diary. It's using Mojo for something it wasn't intended to, which is interesting from a sociological perspective, but in my experience, obnoxious in practice. The only reason ratings are important is that if you get enough 4's you can grant 0 ratings to troll comments and help hide them. It's quite possible to do that by posting comments, thus tip jars have no real purpose.

      troll rating = comment rating. but the two higher level ratings are positive, while the two lower levels are negative.

      No, a "troll rating" is a rating of 1 or less. it's up to users to decide whether or not they consider a 2 a negative or a moderate comment.
      

      by jbrjake on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:36:15 PM PDT

      •  i was not

        promoting tip jars, i was just explaining that you cannot rate a thread, only a comment and that people who want to have their thread rated put out tip jars.

        and i know that a troll rating is not the same as a comment rating, what i meant was that in the context the the question was asked, yes the troll rater is the comment rater, its just that, as i said, troll ratings are the lower two...

        i agree with you about tip jars, needless... if your post was good, it will get responses, and if was not worth responding to, you know that the community did not really find it interesting or worth debate.

        by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:40:16 PM PDT

      •  Tip Jars

        Speculating: but I think tip jars became popular here because so few rate any comments at all, or those who do rate will only rate highly or lowly, that folks just decided to put out a tip jar for serious diary entries to gain mojo. I'd never seen anything like it before on other scoop sites... pretty weird custom, huh? --M

        by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:07:52 PM PDT

        •  Tip jars and diary ratings

          Sometimes the tip jar is indeed there explicitly to solicit mojo as in,

          "Subject: Tip Jar"
          "Comment: I'm a ratings whore."

          Other times, it may be used because someone sincerely wants feedback on his/her diary and unless there is a post there is no way to rate said diary, as in:

          "Subject: Tip Jar"
          "Comment: Rate this diary up, or down, as you prefer."

          Still other times, the more subtle not-a-tip-jar-tip-jar is when the diarist also posts a comment about his/her own diary, thus providing a place for ratings to occur should the reader be so inclined (but no solicitation for a rating has taken place).

          "Subject: aeou"
          "Comment: [some random comment about one's own diary]"

          I think the tip jars would go away if folks had the ability to rate diaries.
          

          by sheba on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:20:57 PM PDT

          •  That's funny...

            In my first diary posting I had people asking me where my tip jar was. I had no idea what these people were talking about. By my third I figured it out and put out a tip jar thinking it was the norm here. Now I see that a bunch of people consider it mojo-whoring (karma whoring?). I'm totally confused!!! :) --M

            by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:25:28 PM PDT

            •  Those who whore on their

              own diaries consider themselves to be normal.  They don't realize that they are whores (in the nicest sense of the word), and thus not normal at all.  

              by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:27:49 PM PDT

            •  karma whoring

              would be a good name for a band.

              by sheba on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:28:24 PM PDT

              •  Tip jars

                I think it is a fair way to get feedback on the diary.  No more no less.

                You don't have to rate if you don't want to.

                I actually think it is a good idea.

                by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:55:05 PM PDT

                •  Agreed

                  but for some reason I still can't bring myself to set out a tip jar unless somebody else brings it up.

                  Someday I'll ask theoria what my f*cking problem is in this regard.

                  by sheba on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:58:11 PM PDT

                  •  I gave you a 4

                    cuz you made me chuckle.  And theoria just laid out a new entry on the front on the Middle East thingy Bush/Sharon did today.

                    And, while it's serious, theoria has such a good witty style that you smile while reading the bad stuff.

                    by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:01:50 PM PDT

    •  the mojo

      is actually the aggregate rating that the poster has.  It's all the commenter's ratings added together in a complicated formula.  Nobody but Kos and Sydney Blumenthal know what that (the mojo) number is.  

      by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:37:20 PM PDT

  •  (none / 0)

    that means that no people have rated the comment, and those ratings average to a 0.

    (none / 1)

    That means that one person has rated the comment, and the ratings don't average yet, because they only average once two people have rated.

    (3.00 / 2)
    That means that two people have rated it and the two ratings average a 3 (could be two '3's, a '4' and a '2', etc).  

    etc.  

    The ratings are the pull down menu below the comment.  

    by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:32:50 PM PDT

•  2's and 3's

  I think 0's, 1's, and 4's are really easy to determine.  Just about the only times I give 2's and 3's are when I accidentally rated the wrong post as a 0, 1, or 4, so I go back and change it to a more moderate rating (usually 3, unless the post was pretty bad).

  by Fran for Dean on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

•  comment rating

  in theory i rate people based on the quality of the post, not whether i agree with it or not.  i think that's a good thing to remember.

  in practice of course, it's often hard for me to dissociate this completely, so it usually winds up that i give various posts 3 if i either think they're well written or i like the point they raised.  i try not to give everything i like a 4, since that's supposed to be for things that are truly excellent.  usually that means that i at least kind of agree with what is said, but not always.  i also try to give many more 2's than 1's on the negative end.  very few people are true trolls, in my opinion. also i reserve the right to downrate people simply for being abusive of other posters.

  finally, i think it's a good idea to go by the reply or rate, but not both rule.  not always needed, but it's certainly a good idea not to give people negative ratings just because you're in the middle of a flame war with them.

  so now the facts are partisan?

  by zeke L on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:30:02 PM PDT

•  My criteria

  a 4 is for a post that encapsulates an excellent idea, clearly involved serious thinking, and exhibits hard work, command of the material, and insightful (including funny) analysis.

  a 3 is for a good post or good idea that is incomplete, undeveloped, sloppy, or otherwise less than eye-poppiing for various reasons.

  a 2 is for a boring, inane, run-of-the-mill, or otherwise ho-hum post that does not add much

  a 1 is for a post that is irrelevant, derails the conversation, includes non-sequitors, or clearly indicates that the poster has not and will not actually read the material or the responses. 1s are for public mental masturbators.

  a 0 is for assholes.

  by RedDan on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:31:37 PM PDT

  •  I might add

    that I have and do give 4s to posts I disagree with...as long as the idea or the thought is well-put, well-researched, and well-presented.

    by RedDan on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:33:08 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      I will give 4's to folks I disagree with, but it's alot less often than the folks I agree with.

      by Show Me Dem on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:38:28 PM PDT

•  The Izixs system

  4. - Your comment made a point, was highly informative, had entertainment value above what I normally see around here, you argue a good point against me, or you try to battle 'trolls' and are effective at getting them to play nice for a change.
  3. - Pretty good. A lesser version of the above really. Often I put these on comments that have good points but don't really hit the nail on the head yet.
  2. - I rarely do 2s, and usually only when I'm reviewing hidden comments. Yes, I've given 2s to posts that everyone else and their brother has rated between 0 and 1, but then again, I'm reading the posts hours or days after they were made and am trying to be objective about it. Basically I put these on arguements that would be good if the anger wasn't making them appear crappy. I also tend to put these on comments that fail to meet the troll squashing of a 4, because sometimes just continueing an arguement with a troll is just feeding more fuel to an annoying fire and it would make more sense just to leave and ignore that person.
  1. - Here's where I start putting the more bisbehaving comments. Light name calling, illogical arguements with no basis in reality (as a strong warning really), and actively baiting a troller to continue an arguement so that one can possibly get the satisfaction of proving them wrong go here. Basically, those comments that aren't nice, don't play nice, and make things annoying for the rest of the community.
  0. - Super Troll is right. Heavy name calling, personal attacks, trolling, intentionally illogical arguements, threats, and the most unpleasant comments are the ones I give the old thumbs down via the zero. I don't like doing it, but when it needs to be done, and I see the offending comment, I rate it as such.

  And that's the general standards I use for giving ratings. Most comments go in the a-okay place that is between 2 and 3. And usually I don't rate unless a comment sticks out in some way (for good or ill).

  by Izixs on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:39:30 PM PDT

  •  puzzle

    i merely stated a fact about interactions between me and copernicus in a previous comment, and you inexplicably rated it a 2.  Perhaps you thought I was saying "I told you so?"   I was referring factually to historical incidents.  
    

    by Crab Nebula on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:43:39 PM PDT

    •  Cheerfully withdrawn

      Appologies, I think I took that part of the conversation out of context. My rating is withdrawn.

      I should of added that if I'm paying attention/am around, I'm up for considering appeals of ratings. But I'm going to bed now.

      by Izixs on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:56:15 PM PDT

•  a purely subjective scale

  4. - a post that adds something to my thinking, or is really funny/clever. I think real wit should always be recognized.  I don't tend to give 4s to comments I agree with just because I agree with them, but if they present a way of thinking about the issue (or a source) that I wouldn't have come to by myself.
  3. - i don't use this one very often, except to balance out what seem to me to be 1s or 0s that are used to register disagreement rather than "trolls".   I use it most often when I review hidden files (I don't like to give 4s to posts I think are really stupid, but if they've been unfairly rated down, to my mind, then I feel comfortable with a three).
  2. - I use this one rather often on a post that strikes me as inappropriately inflammatory, or self-aggrandizing, or aggressive, as a kind of "not cool" register.
  1. - don't use it very often but  when someone steps over a line of fairness or if somebody's too heavy handed with the sexual innuendo, gay bashing, machismo, or plain stupidity.
  0. - really offensive stuff, like the homophobe we had around here for a while.    

  by a gilas girl on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:40:12 PM PDT

  •  Just for the

    Hell of it - a 4.

    No actually I like your criteria.  Try to follow it but really don't I think.

    by Armando on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:51:16 PM PDT

  •  I agree and

    I also use 4's for strong agreement. In cases where I don't get new insight and it's not humorous but an opinion or thought that I might wish were more widely held or understood. Like a "high five" or a "whoop" at the end of live song in addition to the applause.

    by wegerje on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:16:04 AM PDT

•  my system

  i felt that after starting this discussion, i should explain my system...

  4. - a funny, interesting, or well spoken post that is without fallacious argumentation and with good support. i also tend to give this to comments that i agree with more than i would give a 3, just because its human nature to side with those you agree with.
  3. - a good post that says what it means and is spoken pretty well, but didn't stand out to me as much as a 4 would. i am not going to lie, i usually give 3s to comments that i view as well said, but that i may not necessarily agree with.
  2. - i reserve this for people who i feel are arguing without premise or are just being ridiculous. i rarely use it, and i plan to keep it that way. in fact, i don't believe i have ever given a rating less than three.
  1. - this is, in short, for assholes who are disrespectful of what i believe is a sense of respect and community that makes this site worth using...

  it is purely subjective and i admit it. it is the very reason i wrote this diary... i wanted to learn more about the basis for other people ratings to better determine how i am going to rate comments in the future.

  by Ian Hines on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:51:11 PM PDT

  •  Glad our exchange earlier

    Gave you a decent diary topic for the evening. It has been a worthwhile discussion.

    You get a 4.

    by Show Me Dem on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:39:42 PM PDT

•  The problem with ratings

  ratings are fundamentally broken. The problem is that it's all too easy for groups to organize through IM or IRC to wipe mojo on an account by mass ratings abuse. Either that or they can just rate each other up without regard to content. The net effect is that the vast majority of users who don't bother to rate are forced to view crap at the top (if they sort by comment ratings) because of organized rating abuse by the few.  Combine this with easy throw away dupe accounts and you have a situation where a small troll minority can dominate a site both through rating abuse and organized trolling. And god help kos if he opens the site up with an edit/voting queue. Kuro5hin is a prime example of how laissez faire site management leads to total community dissolution.

  Contrast this with Slashcode, where there's at least a secondary meta moderation system for the general user community to provide a check. Add the restriction that only those who add to the community with worthwhile posts and regularly meta-moderate gain moderator points for primary moderation and you get a stable feedback system to control trolls. scoop ratings don't come close. --M  

  by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 08:54:29 PM PDT

  •  i give you a 4

    and I have no idea what you've just said.

    by markymarx on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:10:00 PM PDT

  •  but as far as I know

    a Kos you can't thread comments by rating or mojo, so that's a moot point.  The only rating that affects (or is it effects?  the latter, I think) where the comment actually shows is a hidden comment.  Some others have said that this is a failing, but I think, considering how ratings use has evolved here, it's a good thing that you can't thread by rating.  

    by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:22:15 PM PDT

    •  besides

      unless (and even occasionally when) I'm looking at stuff in nested fashion, it's sometimes damned hard enough around here to follow the conversation. I can't imagine what threading by comment rating would look like.

      by sheba on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:25:30 PM PDT

      •  sorting by ratings; nested vs. dynamic threaded

        Sorting by rating works by thread. So, rated comments at the top are sorted by ratings, each subcomment is sorted by ratings at that level, each sub-sub comment once again, etc. There's no dissolution of thread coherency in the system.

        When the community rates honestly, by that I mean most members rate individually and not through dupe accounts, then you hit a threshold whereby the ratings work to sort comments by quality of content very well. The problem is that you need many many ratings for this emergent effect to occcur. And dupe accounts game the utility, of course.

        I'm really glad kos got dynamic threading working here. tacitus is broken and can't handle dynamic threading for some reason, which forces me to view nested. Feh. I don't like nested. :) --M

        by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:42:32 PM PDT

  •  I should add a few things

    I don't think that we have ever been dominated by trolls, and I don't think that we ever will unless trolls reach such a critical mass that they actually outnumber us.  That is pretty much inconceivable.  

    Also, because (besides hiding comments) the only thing that ratings mean is that it contributes to your ability to rate a '0', I don't think that there is much chance of misuse of ratings-- there's not really much point except for petty personal disputes that quickly peter out.  

    by skiddie on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:24:51 PM PDT

    •  Trolling: that's a bad bet

      The trolls are well organized, have lots of free time (unlike most of us who work for a living) to build mojo by posting plagiarized text, and will gladly run a long term campaign to shut a site down without site operators keeping constant vigilance. Kos should be careful because if they can they will organize here.

      As for petty disputes between community members, I completely agree. That stuff generally peters out or turns into a feud between two individuals, with most everyone else just ignoring their bickering. --M

      by maynard on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:32:57 PM PDT

      •  anti-takeover defenses

        I think we can defend ourselves, thusly...

        Some design and social dynamics of dKos can prevent organized trolls from permanently hiding non-trollish comments:

        • Individual users cannot set a rating threshold at which comments are hidden.  Comments are only hidden when they attract a very low rating average.
        • Many active community members will uprate a posting that was unfairly troll-rated.  If any decent person known to the community points out unfair troll-rating of their comments and asks for help, lots of people will uprate the affected comments, or even other comments of the victim.
        • If organized trolls do succeed in "exiling" a comment, it only takes a few trusted users wielding 4s to "resurrect" the comment from the hidden area.

        I could see how a group of organized trolls could give one another mojo to keep their own trollish comments from being hidden. To fight this however, a simple intervention could knock them out:

        1. Any decent community member who spots the pattern could make it known in the comments or a diary.  The pattern wouldn't be too hard to spot because obviously trollish comments would be rated highly, and mainly by relatively new members.
        2. Any one of a hundred-plus community members whom Kos knows and trusts could email Kos, describing the problem, and pointing him to the posted evidence.  It might not even require someone known to Kos to get his attention and stimulate corrective action.
        3. Kos, by himself or with some help from guest bloggers or our site developers, can cancel the trolls' accounts.  

        The trolls' many hours of patient work could be undone in about 2-3 hours of effort by "the good guys."

        I encourage anyone who sees holes in these defenses to point them out. Thx.
        

        by Civil Sibyl on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 11:52:51 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          Kos, by himself or with some help from guest bloggers or our site developers, can cancel the trolls' accounts.

          Kos has done that a few times. And when an account is cancelled, all the comment ratings that account made goes with it. People who had lost their trusted user status because of ratings from trolls regained them when the troll accounts were removed.

          by Aexia on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:23:09 AM PDT

          •  thanks for the historical facts n/t

            by Civil Sibyl on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:38:19 PM PDT

        •  The problem with your analysis...

          Your primary misconception here is that you seem to believe that the trolls are playing the debate and discussion game everyone else joins for; presuming they only game the system in order to push their political or social agenda. That couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, organized trolls have it as their agenda to destroy community oriented sites by whatever means necessary. They could care less about politics, culture or technology discussions. They're nihilists in this regard. To be clear, I'm not talking about people who disagree with your politics, I'm talking about organized troll groups like GNAA (the acronym of which I will not expand- you figure it out by clicking the link) and the folks who hang out on Slashdot Trolltalk. BTW: these links go to wikipedia so they should be reasonably work friendly.

          My point is that an organized attempt to disrupt this site would succeed without constant vigilance from kos as his editors filtering through the message base and removing those who abuse and game the site. It's hard work because figuring out who contributes and who is playing the game for nefarious purposes is pretty damn hard when they're using every propaganda trick in the book to obfuscate their intent. This means that as dkos grows kos will have to delegate authority to more and more editors or the site will quickly grow beyond his control.

          Unfortunately, I don't see how it's possible for the user community to self manage a site. Even slashcode sites require some editorial maintenance.

          BTW: thanks for an interesting and cogent reply.

          --Maynard

          by maynard on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:41:31 AM PDT

          •  how troll-teams specifcally to harm?

            Thanks for your reply.  And yes, I was assuming the trolls would have a social agenda.

            What would the organized trolls be doing to harm the site, if they are ideology-free?  Would their main objective be to destroy trust, or start fights between people who are members in good standing?

            So they would assume the speech of "Kossites," then later once they were known and broadly trusted, they would make a few of their utterances somewhat inflamatory to get fights going between others?  I could see that happening because it's similar to natural flamewars that sometimes  break out among regular community members.

            Or would it be more like contrived flamewars between troll-team members, that leave a bad taste in everybody else's mouth?

            Are their other harmful things they could do?

            by Civil Sibyl on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:37:24 PM PDT

            •  Yeah...

              Go browse the slashdot.org forum at -1, or follow the troll links on wikipedia and you'll get the picture. The kind of stuff you're talking about is only amateur-hour for the pros. They're organized and very serious about disrupting community and discussion by whatever means necessary. --M

              by maynard on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:16:16 PM PDT

              •  Thanks for the info, and the links. n/t

                by Civil Sibyl on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 09:10:05 AM PDT

•  As Usual, I Complicate Things

  My Criteria, in order of importance:

  1. Do I agree with the position taken -- or not?
  2. Was it a good point, funny, insightful, a new idea worth considering -- or the reverse?
  3.  Was it well crafted or badly put?

  As for the Troll rating, I use it for trollish posts. If I disagree with a point made, but don't consider it to be trollish, I simply refrain from rating it and/or comment to that effect.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:01:23 PM PDT

  •  This is where the etiquette comes in

    Rating a post based on whether you personally agree with its content is very rude, and stems from a misunderstanding of what the rating system is there for.  The point is to facilitate productive discussion, so criteria for a high rating should include things like:
    

    
    
    • originality
    
    
    • introduction of new facts/information
    
    
    • insightfulness of analysis
    
    
    • the elegance and skill with which a point is made
    
    

    criteria for a low rating:
    

    
    
    • repetition of points already made (though I usually let these slide
    
    
    • ad hominem attacks or vulgarity that's not sufficiently humorous
    
    
    • drunk/off topic
    
    
    • trolling (saying something patently stupid just to provoke annoyed responses)
    
    

    Don't use the ratings system as a tool for attacking those you disagree with; that's what replies are for.  The ratings system is for keeping the tone civil and the signal/noise ratio high - nothing else.

    by contraption on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:41:04 PM PDT

•  Personally

  I give out 4s when I think of it, when I run into a really well-thought-out or really witty post.  I give out 1s and 0s for posts that are just flat-out rude, and I usually reserve the 0s for users that have posted a whole series of obvious troll comments (like forest/popcorn/etc).  I guess I occasionally will put a 2 or a 3 but not often..

  I do use 4s occasionally as a corrective for posts that get unfairly hit will troll ratings because someone expresses an unpopular POV.  

  by daria g on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 09:23:37 PM PDT

•  jkl;

  I think I handle this much the same as other posters; I hand out 4s and 1s the most (I'm not special enough yet to give zeroes), and almost never give 2s or 3s.  Basically, any post I don't bother to rate is a 2 or a 3 in my head.  Really funny or insightful posts get 4s, and trollish or obnoxious ones get 1s.  

  I occasionally use 2s and 3s as correctives for posts that I think are getting beaten upon unfairly, but that's about it.  

  by Oolong on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:44:16 PM PDT

•  I'm easy

  When/if I'm moderating a thread, I give out 4's pretty easy. If you make a point that's even remotely well thought out, you'll probably get a 4 from me, regardless of whether I agree or not. 3 for a good point that's poorly made.

  I also give out 4s to posts that I might not necessarily think deserves a 4 but didn't think it deserved a troll rating.

  I give out trolls to people who repeatedly make inane arguments in the same thread. Making a stupid point might not get any rating from me but making post after post that basically says the same thing and being obnoxious while doing it... well, I'll probably troll every subsequent comment you make in the thread on principle, even if the comments taken on their own might not be considered trolls. I try to look at the behaviour in the entire thread. But it stays there in that thread. New thread; clean slate.

  Genuine accept no substitute trolls get super-trolls.

  by Aexia on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:30:39 AM PDT