MilkMiruku (mirukux) wrote in suggestions,

community entry karma system

community entry karma system

Short, concise description of the idea
moderaters can enable community members to mod community posts as good or bad. the moderators have access to this information, and can take appropriate action if required.

Full description of the idea
the system i purpose would be similar to that of the comment moderation system on slashdot, except that it would apply to community posts, rather than comments (as full on comment moderation on lj would probably be harder to implement/maintain). users could click a link in the posts talkread page, modding the post either up or down. a system incorperating different rational's behind the modding like that of slashcode's [ ] could also be a possibility (i.e., 'offtopic', 'flamebait', 'troll' and 'redundant' for modding down, 'insightful', 'interesting', 'informative', 'funny' for modding up, and 'overrated', 'underrated' for basic modding).

unlike the moderation system on slashdot which effects the order in which users see comments, this system is aimed towards providing moderators with community member feedback.

this feature is not aimed towards reducing troll posts (these are more or less self-evident to community moderators), but it would be useful for user feedback on posts of a more 'ambiguous' nature, i.e., if a users tone is upsetting many in the community, or if a user is posting too many off-the-main-community-topic posts.

a moderation system like this would require some qualifying conditions for those users who are able to moderate, like something similar to the slashcode implementation [ ] could be used. this part would have to be clarified.

this system might be over the top for small communities, so it might be a good idea to limit it to communities over a certain amount of members (say 100?). a minimum community membership level could also be a requirement if full comment (not just post) moderation was a possibility. older posts (over two or three months?) would have the moderation on them frozen). of course, all of this would be an optional feature for moderators to select.

An ordered list of benefits

  • moderators gain insightful feedback from community members on the content and quality of community posts.
  • moderators can use this information to take steps against certain users, or use the positive karma information if looking for a new co-moderator.
  • users would feel they have more of a say in a communities moderation (if a moderator doesn't want user feedback, they wouldn't turn the system on).
  • the moderation information would be private and for the moderators only (public information could be a possible option?), so users would not feel intimidated by having "this is a bad post!" all over their entries. users would have an avenue to vent about bad posts through, and the moderators could act on the information with discression.
  • An ordered list of problems/issues involved

  • possible misuse of the system to discredit users, although a 'one mod vote per post' and consise information made available to the moderators would make this easier to spot.
  • getting the 'who can moderate' qualifiers right (although its not essential as the system is only a feedback mechanism).
  • extra db space used up, although i'm not sure how much of an impact it would have as moderations would be like very short comments.
  • An organized list, or a few short paragraphs detailing suggestions for implementation

  • adding extra code and an interface to the [community] post page.
  • Tags: ~ historical
    • Post a new comment


      Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

      default userpic

      Your reply will be screened

      Your IP address will be recorded