zlacker

>>gaika+(OP)
I think he has an interesting point about why these types of sites don't work very well. But I think he's wrong to say that there isn't any technological solution - you just have to do away with the idea that everyone is equal.

How about this as a solution: * Everyone can write comments. * Only moderators can vote on comments * Only moderators can submit articles * The number of moderators is fixed (at say... 1000?) * If a moderator hasn't moderated in the last 3 months, they are removed from the moderator list, opening up a vacancy. * The person that replaces the removed moderator is the commenter with the highest average point score for their comments (ie total points/number of posts), provided they have posted in the last month. It may be necessary to add a minimum total points score as well (say 100 points, and then it's the person with at least 100 points, and the highest average that becomes moderator).

This type of system should ensure that only things that interest people that themselves have been found to have interesting things to say will get voted up. There will still be trolls, but they won't be voted up.

>>demall+ia
Moderators? Points? This is a proposal completely ignoring what Giles is talking about. How would moderators be much different than what we have now? The people that spend the most time here would become the moderators, and we would lose a lot of the votes that "count".

>>sc+Pa
Well, geeez, I don't know, maybe because you only become a moderator after having demonstrated your ability to generate original and interesting thoughts!

Apparently you struggle with basic maths, so let me help you out: my whole point was that you should reward interesting commenters, not prolific commenters. Indeed, considering it's actually quite difficult to be both prolific and consistently interesting, being less prolific should assist in increasing your average.

But hey, I understand why your nose has been put out of joint. Based on your post here, you wouldn't make the cut for moderator...

>>demall+3b
> Apparently you struggle with basic maths

OK...

> my whole point was that you should reward interesting commenters, not prolific commenters.

In theory, great, but Giles' whole point was that in practice, this just wouldn't work. In the end, you're not rewarding interesting commenters, you're rewarding the prolific ones, because the prolific ones are the only ones who have enough time to spend on a site and be moderators. If anything, moderators should moderate content, NOT create it.

> But hey, I understand why your nose has been put out of joint. Based on your post here, you wouldn't make the cut for moderator...

And comments like this (and the first quotation) would make you eligible?

Really, though, it seems that a lot of people that could provide great content, but sparingly, wouldn't make the cut, either.