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.
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...
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.
"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."
You see? I think he's wrong! But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters. I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution, rather than doing a Giles, throwing my hands up and saying it's all too hard, and can't be done.
You also seem to feel that by definition anyone that spends time on these sorts of discussion is exactly the kind of person that you don't want to see comments from. Bizarre. I mean, take PG for example. He has effectively adopted the strategy that I am putting forward - he takes a lot of time crafting his essays, but he doesn't make a lot of them. We all find these posts interesting enough that we hang out on his site, and in particular on HN.
My strategy was to try and capture that idea of quality over quantity. As far as I am aware, no one has attempted to moderate a site this way yet (although maybe I have just not visited the right site yet).
Anyway, do you have anything more constructive to say other than 'but, but, you disagree with Giles!!!!!'? Because, as I've already said, I started this converstaion by stating that I thought Giles is wrong - that I disagree with him is a given.
No, I merely stated that your "solution" took every "problem" that Giles observed, and magnified it: making all of those problems bigger.
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters. I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
Right, that was one of the problems he mentioned, and it's one of the problems I pointed out getting worse in your "solution." Your moderators would be those prolific posters: people who had time to be on the site regularly. The casual votes or submissions would be lost, and the system would continue to favor prolific posters. (OK, now I've brought this point up several times to you, you haven't addressed it, and you continue to act in a hostile manner.)
> You also seem to feel that...
I don't, but would like to note this fallacy of yours.
> I mean, take PG for example...
I read what he writes, and I'd recommend his recent essay, "How to disagree."
> As far as I am aware, no one has attempted to moderate a site this way yet (although maybe I have just not visited the right site yet).
Wikipedia is an example of this kind of moderated site with contributed content.
> Anyway, do you have anything more constructive to say other than 'but, but, you disagree with Giles!!!!!'?
Yes, I've mentioned it in every post, and you haven't addressed it, so I'll mention it twice in this one:
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters.
OK, so you _DO_ agree with him here.
> I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
And your "solution" goes completely against this. Moderators would not be, by definition, "quality" posters, but rather "prolific" posters. And if only moderators could submit content, we'd lose any casual "quality" submissions.