Upvoting, reporting, collapsing: Is it a problem with a possible solution?

I also like Chasing's idea. The allocation aspect, coupled with providing a reason, will help temper willy nilly "opinions."

disagree with the allocation of votes...some us use NV more than others, and some articles are more lengthy, heated, etc, but do like the number system assigned to a COH violation as to why you reported,..and do away with the “no value” as it is worthless as a reporting tool, better off to use off-topic.

I have found some article seeders/moderators deleting comments simply because they disagree with them, no sense in complaining to the powers that be, these people just keep doing it, --I have found it is better just not to visit those seeders articles at all in the future and I have a few “ignore authors” on my list for that very same reason, however their stuff still shows up on my list of articles..how about an ignore that REALLY means ignore..

Would be cool if the ignore just ignored that person and didn't block out every comment in the sub-thread. I ask too much. :)

Same thing happened to me, too-- that person was suspended, too.

Now THAT would be a nice feature! If you're ignoring them, you should be able to really ignore them, and not have to deal with them on your own article.

I also wish we could filter the tracker. Put in words we DON'T want to track! yeah, I know its a pipe dream, so that 's ok. :-)

Viki, I sent you an email... :-)

I also wish we could filter the tracker. Put in words we DON'T want to track! yeah

Oh wow. That would be an awesome feature. I would have a list a mile long. "Rethuglican", "Libtard", "Teabagger", Pelousy"....the list would go on forever. =)

I dunno Viki, I've seen people change, sometimes someone on an ignore list may change, or seed some good articles. Its tough I know, but I'm just saying.

Don't give irresponsible users/thread moderators any of your time or energy.

Exactly! And when the temptation is great to peek and comment, consider that your visit is just another payment for a page view! Do we really want those seeders to be paid for our visit? :-)

That's pretty much evidenced by the fact that people are using the "no value" option under the '!' simply because they don't like a comment, getting that particular comment one step closer to collapse whether it's a violation of the CoH or not.

disagree with the allocation of votes...some us use NV more than others, and some articles are more lengthy, heated, etc, but do like the number system assigned to a COH violation as to why you reported,..and do away with the “no value” as it is worthless as a reporting tool, better off to use off-topic.

Put in words we DON'T want to track!

I would have a list a mile long. "Rethuglican", "Libtard", "Teabagger", Pelousy"..

I agree with these. And especially the last two. I would put things like "baby+rape" at the top of my filter list. I'm sorry, but those are not the kinds of things I want to read, ever, even as headlines.

Hi Viki,

I don't think I'm who you meant to reply to, but that's Ok, as I enjoyed your comment, as usual. ..lol

I happen to agree that people can change online. I think that comes from a combination of understanding and experience. For example, as a new viner, I thought certain commenting habits and styles were rude, but I have since learned that a bit of tolerance and patience is required, and that not everyone views online forums in quite the same way.

So, yes, change does happen; and from the experience stance, becoming familiar with other's idiosyncransies and habits goes a long way toward establishing a rapport. True, we might find someone we once had on ignore, has now mellowed and is worthy of our time, or we realized that just because we disagreed on a particular point, it doesn't mean we disagree on 'everything.'

Interesting that 'ignore' is going big time, so to speak, with their articles not showing up in the Columnist box.

I dunno Viki, I've seen people change, sometimes someone on an ignore list may change, or seed some good articles. Its tough I know, but I'm just saying.

It was Cried, Viki...#3.9

Hahaha! They'll probably figure it out.

Ahh, Ok... got it. Understood.

I was thinking about how I've experienced two users that told me they put me on ignore just because we have opposing views on a particular subject. People really do that??!! lol..

I know they do. I need more of a reason like yours to consider drastic measures. It's a personality issue for me, too, not so much if we agree or not.

It was Cried, Viki...#3.9

Um I was trollish to Viki? Sorry about that if I had been in the past. I know going back over my past comments that I was a sarcastic B. If it was I please let me know, I was never trying to be that (trollish) way.

If it wasn't I, can I ask you to please relieve my mind in that it wasn't?

Um I was trollish to Viki?

No, no, no! Viki was just responding to your comment but she didn't remember who had said it...

I don't know who the hell I was replying to. I wish I'd blockquoted it, at least, so I could figure it out!

I just was telling her WHO had said the comment she was looking for, about people changing.

I am so sorry, I should have made that clear by block quoting the part of her comment I was replying to.

heh, no foul no harm. Was only wondering because I had been much more sarcastic here years ago (I might even have seemed trollish)

merleliz, I've noticed that phenomenon on other polls. I think the count remains the same, despite an attempt to vote again. I messed with that on another poll one time, in order to figure that out.

CL1

I messed with that on another poll one time, in order to figure that out.

Oh?? You mean you weren't really trying to skew the results?? LOL!!

/Heavy sarcasm....

Hahaha...(I read sarcasm:)

I had commented to another author the same thing that merleliz did, and s/he said the system lets us look like we're voting twice (or whatever), but it's not tallying duplicate counts... it only lets us vote 'once.'

So, I played with it to see if that is true, and yep, it only let me vote once every time I returned to the article, judging by the numbers.

Well, CL...I just tested that theory. Went to the poll (the first one), which I have already voted in. I clicked on "view results"...there were 43 votes. I voted...yeah, I know that's messing up the poll but I wanted to see what would happen...and now there are 44 votes.

On articles that have a lot of comments...I always get an error message...I have to click on "stop running this script" to get any further.

I don't know what bubblegum means either...but I've gotten that one a lot.

We might as well just face up to it...with computers, glitches abound...could be my computer, could be my Internet connection, could be in the system here.

And as a co-worker of mine once put it...we never had the company shut down in the old days from computer errors...we just sharpened our pencils!

Merleliz... Thanks for the heads-up on that!

There truly must be something different going on right now from the 'tests' I made in the past. My ending counts always stayed the same.

I get bubblegum errors quite frequently; spiceweasel, not as often.

Glitches seem to be norm right now, perhaps due to all of the changes the programmers are making. ...Hopefully, they are "sharpening" their pencils, among other things! lol

I'm not sure I can buy into the notion that anyone would take the time to email others and say "vote down this comment!"

I have to agree with this. Especially with how rapidly some comments get collapsed. The timeline just doesn't work out.

First, someone has to e-mail a group of their friends. That takes a couple of minutes. Then, the friends have to read the e mails...that can sometimes take up to several hours. Then, those people have to log in, got to the "offending" post and hit the '!' assuming they decide they want to even participate in that silliness to begin with.

Yet I see many comments collapsed within the first couple minutes of them being posted. Personally...I think it's just a result of traffic to an article/seed.

Viki..... I just meant collapsing of articles in a "gang-collapse" that could be organized.

As for the collapsing of comments, I don't envision an 'organized' scenario, either. Most often, it would seem to be what happened to me, an obvious 'misfit' in an environment of 98% in opposition to my opinion... I wasn't 'high-fiving' and agreeing, so I was deleted (collapsed), and with five particular authors (now three, as one was recently banned and one left) that I've encountered, disagreement will more often than not, mean deletion. So, my point? I think community collapse is abused by a 'like-minded' community; and, comment deletion is abused by some 'serious' political and religious authors that have a personal agenda for posting here.

Yes, "anything can be abused." My opinion for a long time was that the deletion feature for the community should be removed; however, I can see how the "entertainment" value (not 'ha-ha' --rather, an interest and attraction value), as well as the obvious 'unique' quality, adds a special element that the other sites aren't doing. There is also appeal to a 'control' factor that might have many psychological benefits. I think we should not take our comments so seriously, and either 'play' or not play, accepting the consequences.

I think that is a great idea lauhal.

Agreed the threshold should be bumped up a bit... but not for advertising (obviously).

Perhaps Newsvine could raise the threshold for collapsed comments. When the community was really small, 5 (!) were plenty. IMO the thresholds need to be higher.

Or maybe (as I think someone else has suggested) the collapse feature shouldn't be activated by X number of negative reports but based a proportion. If X people make a negative report but X*30 upvote it, it doesn't make sense to me that it should still be collapsed.

I agree Lauhal and all, the threshold for collapse needs to be proportionate to the size of the community.

Viki, I agree, after having written an article about this a while back and thinking more about it, author deletion should remain.

I still question the 'full' value (sometimes, imo, there 'is' value) of community collapse, as I do think there is abuse when the majority of commenters are of 'like-mind.'

Red Wolf...

Your sliding scale concept is great!

That's a worthy tweak.

The only issue with that idea Red Wolf is that number of comments does not necessarily reflect number of unique users who have visited the page. Every now and again there are seeds/articles with more than a handful of votes on the seed/article and only a few comments on it.

If it's true that Newsvine is already measuring traffic over time to seeds/articles (to rate popularity/activity) that perhaps your sliding scale could be based on this rate rather than comment count?

An interesting issue popped to mind regarding this idea... when the scale slides back down, if already existing comments are subjected to the decreased requirement, then that creates an interesting problem.

So I think that a way around this is to either not subject existing comments to a decrease in the scale or to make things based on a percentage.

I'm gonna use 20% for this example...

We would set use ranges for activity to keep things simple so... something like 1-25 users/hour requires 5 votes to collapse. 26-50 users/hour requires 10 votes, and 51-100 users requires 20, and 101-150 would be 30... so on and so forth.

So lets say a comment is made and the activity is at 51-100 users/comments per hour meaning it takes 20 votes to collapse the comment and the comment instead gets something like 10 votes. A few hours later when the activity drops to 1-25 people/comments per hour, it makes the requirement only 5 votes to collapse a comment. So technically this originally comment with 10 votes would be collapsed (which would defeat the whole point of this system). But... if we're keeping a percentage of the number of votes to collapse versus the time period when those votes were made, we could give those votes a weight.

So those 10 votes made during that peak time represented 50% of the requirement to collapse. Now that we're down in activity... this percentage is carried forward and the comment would technically be at 2.5 votes to collapse. We can round off decimals pretty easily. But that would be one way to address how to handle comments with a sliding scale... I think.

The same scenario would work if say the comment was made when there was 1-25 users and 2 votes to collapse were made... that would represent 40% of the required amount to collapse (for that time period). Then activity peaks and 10 more votes are made against it under 51-100 users... that gives it 50% more to its required amount (for that time period)... making it 90% total. Then when thinks slack back off and the rate of activity is back to 1-25 users... it gets just one more vote... which represents 20% (for that time period)... the total percentage for the comment goes to 110% meaning that it would be collapsed.

Hopefully that all made sense...

And don't mind all this brainstorming on my part... I was thinking about the suggestion and the pros and cons and decided to spill out my thoughts (out of boredom) on a Friday.

Anywho... ooooh butterfly (chases).

...

Much more civil than meta-splosions past, I guess.

Viki:

Good answer. Scratch that. Best answer.

i wrote two versions of something else entirely and then decided I didn't give a @!$%#

I do that a lot, mostly comments, but some articles, and mostly because a headline was too irresistible to not click and something stupid was said. When my heart starts thumping heavily as I write, it's time to go... 99% of the time.

I like the idea of more specific reasons for reporting something, but the down vote would surely cause problems.

What if someone just doesn't like your article or your opinion, even if posted with respect? I could see it as flame wars, here and there...

But, whatever NV decides to do, I'm sure we'll all adjust.

What if someone just doesn't like your article or your opinion, even if posted with respect? I could see it as flame wars, here and there...

it happens all the time, usually if I see an article seeded/written by someone I don’t care for I just don’t go there, but lots of times you get involved in a discussion on an article and someone chimes in with insults and name calling, skirting the COH by not naming a specific viner but a whole group instead, we still know who the intended insult was aimed at...

Yes, especially if it is addressed to you, in a reply.

Such as "Dowser-- blah blah blah". I told the guy that if he had a general comment, to not address his comment to me, but to allow his comment to stand alone. And he told me to 'get over PC self', he wasn't talking to me. HUH?

I think that's an excellent idea, and could go a long way to mitigate any potential abuse of the reporting function.

I would also like the comment owner to have the ability to delete collapsed comments. There are times when comments really need deleting and once collapsed you have to contact admin to deal with it. Means some of the worst kinds of troll comments hang about longer than strictly necessary

see in NV.2

I think this is technically NV 3.0?

I would also like the comment owner to have the ability to delete collapsed comments.

I think that's a good idea, too.

I don't know the algorithm that gets used to promote an article in "Newsvine Live"; I tend to think that popular comments identified with positive votes gets worked into the process with the idea that well-received comments invite discussion. I wonder how long it would be before down-voted comments were used in the same way; i.e. not so much for steering away from inappropriate discussion but towards it.

infohack... Thank you, and I wish I could take credit for that, however, it was actually Viki that said it first - I was just commenting on it. :)

but often there are comments which don't violate the CoH, but serve no purpose other than to derail the conversation. I don't use it that often, but when someone jumps into the middle of a productive, intelligent debate with a complete non-sequitur that's clearly meant to troll, the "no value" seems to be the best response.

Yes, perfect example of needing a button of some kind. Because there seems to be ambiguity with the "no value" button (I once read someone say when they used it...and I found myself using it for a different reason), I wonder if the term was, instead, "off-topic," would then have a more universal meaning? I don't know. Fortunately, Tyler stated that they have addressed this issue with more reporting options.

a comprehensive system where Newsviners can earn trusted status, or reputation, based on their overall history.

I do not think this would work out very well, too many people on here would vote based on what side of the fence they are on..esp on the political seeds....much too subjective, as is alot of the banning/suspension thing as seen from here..

#20 Infohack (mentioned Chasing)

HuffPo has a kind of "trustie" or "super-user-moderator" designation and it's exactly why I like Newsvine. If NV goes the seniority route that will chase newbies away and alienate others.

Do you have a problem with Viki, Red Wolf, Rottlady and Luahal having Newsvine Guide status? The Newsvine Guide designation came about because of the need for designated user/moderators to help out.

Back then, Newsvine was a small enough community that they could be hand-picked to fill that role. All I'm suggesting is a merit-based selection process to give some Newsvine members similar status.

I think a lot of the problems that arise are due to the fact that the official moderators are stretched too thin - Newsvine has become too big a place to be policed by Tyler and Sally alone, and it leads to people feeling that the rules aren't being enforced equitably.

A few more users with the equivalent authority of Guide status, who have some authority but aren't directly responsible for enforcing the CoH, could maybe help out here and there.

Sometimes a simple reminder to respect the CoH goes a long way.

Infohack

Given the behavior of some long-time members, I'd be very hesitant to grant any kind of authority based solely on seniority.

I believe that's what N.C. Slim was referring to.

I never said it would be based on seniority. Vineacity is based on a number of factors. Contribution to the site through writing and seeding, connection with other users, votes and number of popular comments are all things that are taken into account already.

We can also lose a vine by having too many negatives - CoH violations, comment collapses, reports of abuse, so users with issues would never gain, or if a recent pattern could lose, their status.

I'm not really familiar with HuffPo, I doubt I've left more than a handful of comments there. But looking over their FAQ, the "superuser" sounds more like a marketing thing, since you have to connect to Facebook and Twitter and promote HuffPo. The community moderator, however, sounds like a good idea:

Q: What's a "Moderator"? How can I become one?
A: To receive the CM badge, consistently and accurately flag abusive comments. You'll be trusted to remove inappropriate comments from the site as long as you handle the task responsibly.

Community members who consistently and reliably flag comments that are removed by our moderators may be given additional tools that will allow them to hide or remove comments entirely. We take this ability very seriously and if you see any of the "community moderators" acting inappropriately, please report them to us.

Infohack #20.6

My seeds, articles or comments may not stack up when compared to Viki or someone else. I thought Newsvine was a platform about/for/of “equality.” Superusers or community moderators with badges reminds of the SuperPacs--people with more time, bigger hammers. OK. A little hyperbolic. But, as one, little person--shouldn’t my voice or vote receive equal treatment without an overseer (those with seniority) or an act of congress?

I'm just askin'

I'm on the fence as far as any sort of "superuser" status. I'm not sure how it would play around here. I don't know if it would help or make things worse.

I'm firmly in the: "No Way, No How, It's a Really, Really, Bad Idea" camp on that one. Only because we don't have it now and people still find ways to bitch about *favoritism*. I can just imagine how much worse it would be if some were given the status of "superuser".

The only way I see something even remotely close to that working is if it's on an earned and rotational basis. Say you go without a warning/suspension/etc for 6 months. You can then have stepped up "super-user privledges" for a month. The next month, it rotates to a different handful of people.

then who could complain?

LOL...really? How about every one who doesn't have a stellar history and makes false and vindictive reports on a daily basis?

Not that you would have to pay attention to the complaints, but trust me, they would flood in.

In a horse forum I belonged to, people who were long time users, worked as unpaid moderators, did every single thing they could do to help people who were new owners, or people who had horses with health issues, or training problems...went way above and beyond what you would expect, including making personal monetary donations/gifts to help people who were in over their heads and trying to sell horses because they couldn't feed them anymore...got on the wrong side of a little group of whiners and complainers, and ended up receiving death threats...yes, DEATH threats, threats of mutilating their horses, hurting their children, their farm websites were hacked, they had to change their phone numbers because of the number of malicious calls they were receiving and the police had to be called in.

We left and started a private forum that you can join by invitation only...but the start of the whole problem was that there was a small group of moderators and friends who had a "private" section where they could get together and discuss things they didn't really want to share with the world...husbands, children, personal issues...and someone found out about it and started a war because THEY weren't invited to join.

then who could complain?

The multitudes of Viner's who really, truly, genuinely believe that they are 'entitled' to carry a grudge against other users, believe CoH 1 is all about acting like Emily Post and that users should be banned for not giving others the level of "respect" they think they deserve and the folks who truly believe their non-violation reports over 'attitude' and 'tone' are founded and just.

I can just imagine how much worse it would be if some were given the status of "superuser".

Oh, hell, yeah.

then who could complain?

People who aren't happy unless they have something to complain about.

People who aren't happy unless they have something to complain about.

Listen to you. You're just bucking to be a "super-user". You're so much better, huh? Huh? You never complain...right? Huh? Good lord, Shannoscubie...it's really transparent how you're always sucking up to staff, you know that? It's obvious you're one of their favorites and some of us think it's really pathetic how you manipulate them.

(The above is an example of what I think would happen if we had "super-users". Forgive me...I knew Shannoscubie had a warped enough sense of humor that she wouldn't mind me using her in an example...lol)

There I go again, naively believing that the world is a good and just place.

Hahaha.

Just proof of the saying, Truth.. is stranger than fiction.

There I go again, naively believing that the world is a good and just place.

But we're talking about Newsvine...and no matter what people say, we DO come here to argue, even though some of us prefer to think of it as debate!

What are you talking about? I don't like to argue! I never argue! Nobody here on Newsvine argues! That just simply doesn't happen!

Viki needs a vodka...Viki needs a vodka...Viki needs a vodka...

(New Newvine mantra) =)

I can see Viki's point but I'm with Pat, on this one.

We've seen enough of the self-appointed Super User Syndrome, lately. It has been proven to be an insidious condition...

...

It's Friday. Another drink, for both Ladies, and put it on my tab!

I don't like the term "superuser" - it's a loaded term that smacks of favoritism and elitism even if well-intentioned. But I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of community moderators. We're talking about deputies here, not feudal lords.

I suppose users could be chosen democratically, with a nominating and voting process. But the danger is it would simply become a popularity contest, and there would inevitably be charges of favoritism.

I personally think a more egalitarian model is a meritocracy, where community moderators would be automatically chosen based on performance. Users could earn a rating based on criteria such as accurate use of the reporting tools, personal history of CoH violations, etc.

The rating would be a ratio of positive to negative contributions, similar to a feedback system used by e-commerce sites. It would be a measurement of quality, not quantity, so seniority wouldn't be that important.

Forgive me...I knew Shannoscubie had a warped enough sense of humor that she wouldn't mind me using her in an example.

You made me snort.

We've seen enough of the self-appointed Super User Syndrome, lately. It has been proven to be an insidious condition...

So did you. But for a different reason.

LOL!

This may be answered already elsewhere...but just out of curiousity, can a seeder or author set additional rules above and beyond the COH?

Such as forbidding the use of some of those cutesy little puns, such as Rethuglicans, Libtards, etc...in their columns?

(Honestly, I was here a while before I realized people thought they were being witty, I just assumed that a whole lot of people here couldn't spell.)

I feel that when people use the cutesy puns, they are being inflammatory...but that is just my personal opinion, it's obviously not against the COH or many posters here wouldn't be able to comment at all!

However, I think that IF a seeder could forbid such comments, make it clear that they would not be tolerated and delete them when they occur, it might cut down on a lot of the offensive name calling that is bound to devolve into personal insults and attacks, and perhaps improve the overall tone of the Vine?

Most of us can and do express our disapproval of political shenanigans without having to resort to such childish nonsense, so it really wouldn't affect the majority of Viners to refrain from such names...and the ones that it would really affect...well, if that is all they are adding to the discussion, it wouldn't be much of a loss to the conversation!

I never realized that it was a violation...there are so many comments that say "Teathuglican" and "Democrap" and the like that I always thought it was considered acceptable!

Thanks, Viki and Red Wolf, for clarifying that for me!

Viki:

It was never a violation previously and I certainly would have argued against making it one, based on the idea alluded to above, that such usage merely discredits the person employing it.

But, contrary to an assertion being loudly declared elsewhere in another context--that minds don't change no matter what--I'm changing my mind. When such usage reaches a critical mass, it comes to dominate the entire discourse, even for those of us who do not employ it.

I can't escape it, even on my own threads. And that deprives me of a right.

I so agree it is not acceptable in response to comment#20.30 and if the moderator wants to delete them it is her/his prerogative. As pointed out it can be considered inflammatory.

Just as some other innocuous terms can also be considered inflammatory depending on the context in which they are used.

cried:

My reading of the CoH as it's currently written and enforced is that it is allowable.

My point was that I'm changing my mind about whether it should be.

accidentally stumbling into the MSNBC threads

Nope, I've learned to back away s-l-o-w-l-y from those...making sure no one can notice I am there before I escape! Those things are S-C-A-R-Y!

where the owner refuses to moderate.

Or, in some cases...is using the terms themselves.

My point was that I'm changing my mind about whether it should be.

See, I thought that is was allowable, just because I've seen it so often...but other than to inflame and insult...I see no possible advantage of it being so. I have yet to see anyone at all convinced of the validity of another's point of view by being insulted...and the only reason to use such terms is to insult and denigrate. Of course, I suppose some people think they are being witty...and back in grade school I might have thought so also...but back in grade school we giggled if someone burped, you know?

Perhaps the New Newsvine will make it easier to report such attacks and end the slap fests before they get so far out of hand.

Of course, I suppose some people think they are being witty...and back in grade school I might have thought so also...but back in grade school we giggled if someone burped, you know?

Hahaha! That's exactly how some make me feel here---they are burping, and expecting everyone to think it's funny. That was perfect, merleliz! lol

Viki #20.36

I think it may depend if the word is being used to hurl at someone in particular like an insult, or it's being used as a general insult to a general segment of the population.

But presumably it's directed at anyone who doesn't agree with the commenter, and most of the time in that context, even if it doesn't technically violate the CoH, it's meant as an insult to half the people posting on any given thread.

If it's on my column, I'll delete it, whether it technically violates the CoH or not. I doubt Tyler or Sally would question it, worst case scenario they restore the comment but you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

If it's on my column, I'll delete it, whether it technically violates the CoH or not. I doubt Tyler or Sally would question it, worst case scenario they restore the comment but you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

Good policy and a good example to set for others.

they are burping, and expecting everyone to think it's funny.

My boss has an eleven year old that can bring his 9 year old brother and 7 year old sister to tears they are laughing so hard...with underarm farts.

I often think of them when I see a few people seemingly competing to see who can say the absolute most degrading and insulting remark aimed at another point of view they can dream up...scatalogical humor at it's worst, driven by pack mentality.

The kids look reasonable and mature in comparison...

scatalogical humor at it's worst, driven by pack mentality.

The kids look reasonable and mature in comparison...

Funny, expert pooh-flingers!

Yep, the kids are still intelligently funny, because corruption hasn't, yet, had a chance to take hold.