| |||||||||||
On comment abuseOn comment abusePosted Nov 20, 2003 8:20 UTC (Thu) by jwharmanny (guest, #971)In reply to: On comment abuse by torsten Parent article: On comment abuse
Give each comment an 'abuse score'. Each time a reader clicks on the 'report abuse' link, this score is ++'ed for the comment. When ten readers or so have clicked the link, an LWN editor is notified about the comment. This score would be invisible for readers, but would spare much time for the editors. Also, spammers often troll in old articles, hoping that the editors don't notice them but search engines do. Therefore, it might be a good idea to block comments on articles older then n weeks.
(Log in to post comments)
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:10 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] Good idea -- but do it by "number of subscribers" only. We don't want a whole load of trolls attempting denial of service (through overloading the LWN staff) by jumping up and down on the "report abuse" button on every comment. If you limit it to "one report per account", you'll just get them creating fifteen or so accounts, and the LWN staff have to play "whack-an-account", as well as "whack-a-post". If you limit it to "one report per subscriber", the only way a troll could abuse it is to pay up to subscribe to LWN multiple times. And if they do go that far, the system could disable the button and delete all existing reports for a troll account on a quick clickety-click, and LWN would get an extra revenue stream... It would also be possible for the site to automatically gather statistics on which subscribers report abuse, and how often the LWN staff agree with them. Ultimately, LWN could give the best regulars the abililty to mark or remove comments without prior review by LWN staff. If you recruited regulars from around the world, you could get 24 hour coverage of abuse... Besides, the people who care enough about the site to want to moderate should be subscribers, anyway. Other variations could include making it clearer that comments and the "report abuse" button can be removed for accounts that abuse them. (Currently it looks as though the "right" to post comments is part of the package you buy with a subscription, potentially making it legally dodgy to ban subscribers from posting. But IANAL.)
James
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 11:40 UTC (Thu) by gyles (subscriber, #1600) [Link] That sounds like about the best suggestion so far.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:01 UTC (Thu) by phip (subscriber, #1715) [Link] I second that motion. I think allowing subscribers to report abuse is better than restricting who can post comments.Thanks for the great work on LWN.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu) by taruntius (guest, #1140) [Link] James' suggestion is indeed just about the best I've read so far. But as for this part: (Currently it looks as though the "right" to post comments is part of the package you buy with a subscription, potentially making it legally dodgy to ban subscribers from posting. But IANAL.)I don't think there's any problem with that at all. It's just a matter of the language used when the subscription is bought. As long as LWN's subscription policy includes a clause stating that posting comments is a privelege, not a right, and that said privelege may be suspended at LWN's discretion if the subscriber abuses that privelege, then there should be no problem. Consider a similar case: you may well have paid ten thousand dollars for a membership in the local country club, which entitles you to use the club's facilities. But if you always show up there stinking drunk and make a habit out of hitting on all the other members' wives, then the club would be well advised to suspend your priveleges. This situation seems to me similar to the classic "tragedy of the commons", but with one difference: because you have to pay to get access to the commons, you have an even stronger obligation not to befoul the commons precisely because other people are paying for access to it too.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] Quite. Make sure the right language is there, and there's no problem. It's too long since I signed up: I don't remember any legalese, and I don't know what's there now for new subscribers.
James
potential solutions to comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:56 UTC (Thu) by grunch (subscriber, #16603) [Link] I also concur with James' suggestion. A throttled reader-based rating system is certain to be a more effective and less burdensome system than a moderated system.I've only recently subscribed to LWN, and believe I have already received my money's worth for the year. Thanks!
On comment abuse Posted Nov 22, 2003 2:02 UTC (Sat) by crankydave (guest, #4835) [Link] I'd also like to throw my support behind James' "one report per subscriber" scheme."...give the best regulars the ability to mark or remove comments without prior review by LWN staff. If you recruited regulars from around the world, you could get 24 hour coverage of abuse... Besides, the people who care enough about the site to want to moderate should be subscribers, anyway." Limiting subscribers' privileges by limiting their posts won't encourage new (or renewed) subscriptions. And I don't believe it's in the best interest of the weekly to incur significant expense in terms of server upgrades and the editors time spent to manually moderate comments to safeguard the comments of non-subscribers. "Currently about 1/3 of the comments on the site are posted by non-subscribers, and almost none of those are abusive." --LWN Perhaps the number of trolls/ spam are small now but you reported the problem is growing and requires a long term solution to preserve the integrity of the publication. Prevention is crucial, don't allow them to get a foothold. Eric points out that "Limiting posting to subscribers would probably just create a knitting circle, a bunch of people talking all with (nearly) the exact same viewpoint." I'm concerned about an insular community, as well a the loss of peoples contributions who have significant expertise in a particular area, willingness to share, but no subscription. These people would still be allowed to comment while trolls and spammers could be quickly removed by a sufficient number of volunteers with minimal intervention needed by editors. One caveat, volunteers shouldn't be allowed to remove comments from other subscribers- That could get ugly. I'm assuming that very few (if any) trolls would pay for a subscription and since one of LWN solutions was to limit comments to subscribers, that isn't where the problem is originating. I don't like the idea of a full blown ratings system or Carma. Just simple removal of the offending comments. -Dave
On comment abuse Posted Nov 27, 2003 23:12 UTC (Thu) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link] I think James has it right. Allow subscribers (of which I'm not one) to click a button on troll posts. When it hits a limit it is chucked into the posting bin where the interested can still go and browse if they wish but no one is likely to bother.If you want it slightly more complicated turn it into a threshold troll limited thing so you only ditch trolls if it gets enough troll votes. You might even leave a little note in place of it saying comment moved to troll bin with 99 votes from subscribers. That must be as complicated as you get. The other concerns from /. readers are all valid.
|
|||||||||||