Live data from Hacker News

The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

priceonomics.com

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#61
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like the same basic idea -- moderators putting a mark on posts that basically says, "An upvote for this is a negative contribution to the community." Is the problem with the general idea, or with one specific detail which could be modified in implementation (banning versus ignoring votes)?

The entire idea is problematic, massively , in that it allows for covert manipulation of a community. Why are a small handful of unaccountable people determining what is a "negative contribution", on the sly no less, when the whole reason for the existence of karma systems is to do that organically and by consensus? More importantly, what does such a system accomplish via deception that flattening such posts in a vis…

Because karma systems have systematic weaknesses that make them incapable of doing that in many situations.

Easy example: Let's say there are 10000 people who like cat pictures and 150 people who like long, in-depth articles. I'm one of the people who likes long, in-depth articles, so I make a forum for people to post and discuss long, in-depth articles. 10% of the cat-picture-lovers happen upon my forum and are delighted to see a new place that they can post cat pictures. My 149 friends and I downvote these cat pictures with all our hearts, but we simply can't outvote the 1000 cat-picture-lovers. Even worse, a cat-picture-lover can look at and upvote a hundred cat pictures in the time it takes me to read one long-form article, so the content that the forum is intended for is buried before even the 150 long-content-lovers get to see it. So the complete destruction of my long-article forum happens organically and by consensus, just like karma systems are supposed to work -- but it's not a desirable outcome!

Basically, karma systems are good at finding something that some group of people will like, but if that's all you want, subreddits are a bad idea, because the entire point of them is to focus on a particular thing and exclude other things that very likely more people would like to see.

Like I said, all the true* subreddits show that there are people who want to have more focused subreddits. The idea that focus should be impossible if a sufficient number of people who are don't have that focus stumble upon the subreddit just doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#62
post #8

Kind of off topic, but the "Aol" branding has always grated on me. It's an acronym, AOL, not a word.

Originally, yes it was an acronym, then they officially changed it to a word in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL

Really? And you downvoted me? My opinion stands: It's a stupid name.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#63
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, reddit did introduce a new search function yesterday, which pissed off mods of several subreddits. [1] Additionally they fired(?) an employee who acted as a interface between the r/IAmA mods and the people who do amAs [2], who are usually not redditors. So the mods of r/IamA set there sub to private. That means that only invited users can see the sub. From there quite a few other mods did decl…

1 is a long confusing extended metaphor, not an explanation of the search issue.

Yes, but it is the reaction of the search desaster by a guy who moderates almost 200 subs. So I included it as a primary source to show the frustration of the mods.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#64
Lets say, theoretically, that a similar ruling were found for some of the Reddit moderators. Wouldn't it be in Reddit's best interest to immediately terminate their employment and find a way to bring in more cost-effective moderators?

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#65
post #17
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yep, just like KFC is no longer "Kentucky Fried Chicken" - it's just KFC." The very first words at KFC.com are "Kentucky Fried Chicken" Doing a text search on the home page says Kentucky shows up two more times.

From 1991 to 2006, it was just KFC. http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.asp

NB: that Snopes page is part of its The Repository Of Lost Legends (TROLL) section, a cautionary lesson in false authority:

http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp

(And yes, I got sucked into the "Kentucky trademark" story too.)

While Kentucky Fried Chicken did change its name, it wasn't for the reasons given in that account.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally, yes it was an acronym, then they officially changed it to a word in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL

Yep, just like KFC is no longer "Kentucky Fried Chicken" - it's just KFC.

Yeah but they didn't change the logo to Kfc.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#67
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1991 to 2006, it was just KFC. http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.asp

NB: that Snopes page is part of its The Repository Of Lost Legends (TROLL) section, a cautionary lesson in false authority: http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp (And yes, I got sucked into the "Kentucky trademark" story too.) While Kentucky Fried Chicken did change its name, it wasn't for the reasons given in that account.

Thanks for that. I did already know firsthand that KFC had changed its name for a time. I found a source (Snopes) that confirmed it. Internally I was skeptical of the reasoning that was provided (since it conflicted with what I knew from more reliable sources), but the actual reasoning was tangential to my point

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing the single submission doesn't fix the problem. The people who upvoted things that shouldn't be upvoted are the problem. They may never notice that it was removed anyway. So now the subreddit (which may only have 15,000 users) has to staff dozens of moderators just to keep track of the shit. And those posts still polluted the subreddit. They can't be instantaneously removed. > Why do you suppose that is? Beca…

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this - but let me know if you ever start a community website, because I want absolutely no part of a place where I can be punished for not liking things the staff wants me to like. If you're going to run a community like that, why even have the people there in the first place? What you've just described is a blog.

I think what they meant was more along the lines of "for upvoting the things that are supposed to not be what the website is about".

If you are referring to the "Unless those users are punished for failing to evaluate."

I think that was meant to mean "unless those users are punished for not distinguishing whether the thing was in an appropriate location, and therefore upvoting something which does not belong where it is."

Not sure, but seems like a likely interpretation to me.

Post reply on HN