Posted
Community moderation for reported comments and links
We are considering creating a new page to make moderation more community-driven and give users a way to earn trusted/top contributor status faster. The idea is to replace our admin-only report review with a community voting queue on a new page.
This is an alternative to the comments blocking proposal.
- Reported comments and links will be listed on this new "Contribute" page.
- The reporter automatically casts the first Remove vote.
- Vote weights:
-- Normal user: 1
-- Trusted contributor: 2
-- Top contributor: 3
- Voting "Remove" counts positive, voting "Keep" counts negative.
- Outcomes:
-- Score >= +10: content removed
-- Score <= -10: content kept and closed
- Voting impacts contributor progression:
-- Match outcome: positive score impact
-- Mismatch outcome: negative score impact
Early Feedback Wanted
1. Are +/-10 thresholds right?
2. Are vote weights fair?
3. Any minimum eligibility or account age needed before voting? "Low trust" users would be excluded.
This is an alternative to the comments blocking proposal.
- Reported comments and links will be listed on this new "Contribute" page.
- The reporter automatically casts the first Remove vote.
- Vote weights:
-- Normal user: 1
-- Trusted contributor: 2
-- Top contributor: 3
- Voting "Remove" counts positive, voting "Keep" counts negative.
- Outcomes:
-- Score >= +10: content removed
-- Score <= -10: content kept and closed
- Voting impacts contributor progression:
-- Match outcome: positive score impact
-- Mismatch outcome: negative score impact
Early Feedback Wanted
1. Are +/-10 thresholds right?
2. Are vote weights fair?
3. Any minimum eligibility or account age needed before voting? "Low trust" users would be excluded.
Comments (9)
Minimum age requirement is probably a good idea, but I may be biased, being in my sixties. 🙂
I dont think anyones vote should weigh in more.
I dont want to insult anyone but there are some Top and Trusted contributors who only have the title beacuse they just simply edit a lot, sometimes with solid info sometimes with easily disprovable false info.
I just had to report 5 pics on a babes profile where 4 was AI created and the 5th was not even her. And The fact that the image number could exceed the normal 20 means it was done by a Top Contributor.
Also so many babes were put and being put as carrer ended/inacitve beacuse they transitioned from mainstream porn to OF mostly by the same Top contributor where most times a simple click to their OF or quick search with their name and the word "retired" would bring up a tweet from them where the performer said "no i am not retiring i just don't want to work for a big company anymore".
All in all Top and Trusted contributors aren't infallible and if it get easier to get it it would be more so.
A simple majority should be enough to determine wheter or not something is over the line.
3.
Maybe some minimum account age and also some activity should be needed to vote. Like for example say you need a month old active account to vote and if you have been inactive for a month your voting is disabled until you have been active for a month.
I also think when a comment is geting removed the person who wrote it should get a notification and maybe a chance for appeal. Its not hard to imagine a user saying: "oh x person is so over rated" or "those new fake tits look awful" under a top babes profie and quicly getting 10 votes for removal whilst what they said is not crossing any line. Some comments might be unpopular and deserve a lot of thumbs down but that doesn't mean they should be removed. Free speech means everyone has the right to say any controversial/negative thing they want until they start calling people slurs or spreading misinformation.
The idea here is to make a system that lets the community decide which comments should be removed. Requiring 4 to 10 more "I agree" votes than "I disagree" should ensure this system only takes down those comments that are not ok, such as personal attacks, derogatory comments, or outright spam.
The link evaluation version of this is more straightforward: broken links and links posted in the wrong section should be removed.
Believing some people will not try remove any criticism of their favorites is wishful thinking.
Most people are way more emotional than logical.
I thnik if its not something we try to prevent beforehand its only gonna be a problem later on.
When voting on removing someones comment is just as easy as giving it a dislike most people who would have previously just given it a dislike will vote for its removal.
Which i think then would lead to either a lot of users complaining to mods or just straight up leaving the site without a word.
We'd monitor things and intervene if needed. Or bin it completely if it fails to deliver.
Derogatory, racist and personal attacks should be blocked without having to go through a voting session pr comment.
To me it seems easier to let each user hide comments from users. For me it's mostly to not have to see the "wanker crowd" comments all over the site. That way the wankers can keep posting to their hearts content. And users who want to read about their wanking can.