
How To Stop Hostile Jerks From Killing Your Social Site by Cory Doctorow - andre
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005
======
pg
Thanks, I have just been worrying about this recently. The site is now growing
to the point where people feel anyonymous enough to get quite rude in
comments. I've tried asking them to be civil. Sometimes it works, but not
always; and in any case it doesn't scale. So when I get back to the US in June
I will try to add some flame-retardant features. If anyone has any
suggestions, let me know on this thread.

~~~
jward
A few ideas:

1) If someone is downvoted, don't allow them to post for a set period of time.
It seems angry people post a lot in succession, especially if they get voted
down. More time to think and cool down.

2) Have a short timer (five minutes) stopping you from replying directly to
someone who replied to you. More time to think means logic gets to fight
emotion for longer and hopefully win over. I like reading strong arguments
until they degrade into emotional monkey flinging.

3) Check for votes for or against a person over a set time frame as well as
testing for variety. This would stop people who get a real hate on for someone
and downvoting all their comments to torpedo their karma.

4) Force people to enter a reason when they downvote. Just a simple one line
reason that would only be read by the moderators. Having to stop and think
about why you are making a decision and justify it to someone else would cull
a lot of the punitive downvotes. It would also provide you a place to start a
dialog with people who aren't adapting well to the site.

~~~
rms
point 1: Yes, except that I've had comments downvoted to 0 and then upvoted to
2... you shouldn't be penalized for an unfair downvote. Point 4 will eliminate
some unfair downvotes. No one (except me, maybe) will admit to downvoting
someone because of an ideological disagreement.

Point 2: OK, except it will sometimes be annoying.

Point 3: Yes, but it will be tricky to optimize this algorithm.

Point 4: This is the best suggestion to implement immediately.

~~~
ralph
_No one (except me, maybe) will admit to downvoting someone because of an
ideological disagreement._

I vote up a comment if I strongly agree with it. Conversely, I vote down a
comment if I strongly disagree with it. Those in between, which I don't feel
strongly about, I leave. Isn't that what the down vote is intended for?

------
huherto
What about dispearing the comment without the poster knowing it?

For example a variation of this would be: If a post has -2 votes, 10% of the
users will not see it. If it gets -4, 20% will not see it...etc. The poster
will always see it and he has no idea that he is being gradually ignored.

------
brianmckenzie
Make a word replacement filter.

If someone is causing problems just word-filter their name into something
embarassing. Or take a word they use frequently in their posts and word-filter
it into gibberish.

------
wschroter
what constitutes a negative post?

~~~
davidw
Something you wouldn't say in the same way to someone's face.

~~~
BitGeek
No, anything that disagrees with the common "community" view... in this case,
people's perception of what pg has said.

~~~
davidw
I've disagreed with things PG said in the past, like this:

<http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless>

I also think some of his "startups are the future" thinking is naive in that
it excludes many fields of endeavor where far more significant amounts of
capital are necessary to get anything going.

But I wouldn't have any problems telling him the same thing to his face, over
a beer. From what little I know of most people on this site, they all seem
reasonable enough that I'd quite enjoy talking with them about a variety of
things, even those we might not agree about.

~~~
BitGeek
I think you gave what should be the correct answer, but unfortunately, I think
in practical terms, it is not the current answer for this community.

------
sabat
Disclaimer: I don't really like Cory Doctorow very much.

This article seems very much like a lot of what Mr. Doctorow produces: it
shows a lot of promise (in this case by suggesting that he has a silver bullet
to the Problem of Trolls), but barely attempts to deliver.

There's no 'there' here! Does he suggest even one concrete thing we might do?
If he did, and I didn't see it, fine, I'll eat my words. From what I could
tell, he a) told us what we already knew about the problem, b) told us what
other sites have tried unsuccessfully, and then c) tries to tell us about
being a "troll whisperer" -- something about removing vowels and some other
vague "techniques".

There is no 'there' there.

Incidentally, if you're ever tempted to read a Cory Doctorow short story or
novel, expect the same thing: a premise that may seem compelling on the
surface, but with prose that has no substance. (You might accuse Thomas
Pynchon of the same thing, but at least that guy can write well. Cory writes
with the subtlety and beauty of a chainsaw.)

~~~
paul
Sometimes subtle ideas are very powerful. The "troll whisperer" was something
I hadn't previously considered.

The Wufoo's have another simple but apparently powerful idea -- on their blog,
they prefill the comment box with "everyone needs a hug", or something like
that.

~~~
SwellJoe
That's a really good point. You reap what you sow, and the Wufoos sow lots of
goodwill and good humor, and that's what they get in return (generally).
There's a lot of that kind of thing on their sites ("dinosaur buddy", "like a
champ", etc.).

I've been trying to start thinking like that in all of my interactions with
customers and users of our Open Source products. People take just about
everything, even bad news or criticism, better if it is from a friend.

