| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
RFC: Proposed comment policy changeRFC: Proposed comment policy changePosted Nov 21, 2004 23:58 UTC (Sun) by nicku (subscriber, #777)In reply to: RFC: Proposed comment policy change by larryr Parent article: RFC: Proposed comment policy change The number of excellent comments posted late by busy Slashdot readers with a score of 1 is large. The number of comments entered on Slashdot by people with too much time on their hands and little to say that are moderated highly is quite surprising. When I read Slashdot (which is increasingly less often), I read at a low threshold, since moderation is so broken there. Originally Slashdotters posted better comments than the average Slashdot post now. LWN does not need to tread that path.
(Log in to post comments)
RFC: Proposed comment policy change Posted Nov 22, 2004 2:35 UTC (Mon) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] The number of comments entered on Slashdot by people with too much time on their hands and little to say that are moderated highly is quite surprising. On slashdot.org, moderation for an article is limited to a uselessly low value, the cost of moderating an article is very high, and "metamoderation" makes the cost of moderating down significantly higher than the cost of moderating up. Originally Slashdotters posted better comments than the average Slashdot post now. LWN does not need to tread that path. I think the number of LWN comments I have to skim through is too high, and I have no reason to think subscriber-only posting restrictions will increase the signal-to-noise ratio enough to fix that. Larry
|
|
||||||||||||