A new system to improve the behaviour of visitors to internet sites, by granting more draconian exclusion powers to moderators, is launching this week in the UK. The ReputationShare technology was launched in the US in April of this year by LOOKBOTHWAYS Inc, a US-based company that has already developed a number of systems …
Sounds remarkably well thought out.
I can start my own website (or own blog, if technically challenged) with no score at all. But adding a sentence to someone else's is a matter for a points system? The method that is always so fair when attempting to obtain credit, apply for a job, etc.?
Look here's the problem. If the initial score is high enough for your comment to be published, get a new email address each time you get banned. If it isn't, no-one can ever post and gain points.
And here's the other problem. The Moderatrix is kind and fair, but other sites could give me a low rating or give high ratings to their friends/trolls/spammers, affecting every other site, with no recourse for the other sites or the individuals.
Be the first to comment!
don't think I dare
There's a flaw in this plan....
".....it is likely that the downweighting applied to new addresses will become even more negative."
So, by trolling and flaming like right bastards from as many one shot email addy's as possible we can get this thing to a level where n00bs are automagically banned?
That'll be fun. Is there a list of places using this that we can get started on?
I wonder how ReputationShare are going to prove everything they pass on is truthful?
And when the moderators act up?
Sounds like a great way to vent on the fans of the team who just beat your team.
Do they really believe dedicated trolls will use the same email address at each site?
The ReputationShare software then applies a "one-way crypted hash algorithm", which converts the email address to anonymised format, and then stores it on the LOOKBOTHWAYS server.
So that would be SHA1 then?
Will not work and don't really want
So all I need is multiple free emails and I can keep spamming all I want.
Or I can create my own forum and like myself as much as I want
on the other hand I will cut down on the amount of forums I visit so to avoid the powertripping mods you get on some sites leaving me with negative karma
What about the right to free speech. Online was the last place you could speak your mind freely, now we have to avoid hurting others feelings.
Also sometimes it is just a bit of fun to flame especially on a site devoted to say a fictional whiny wizard, why should having fun there mean I am unworthy of commenting on the news on another forum when being serious.
SPOON FEED me my moral guidelines!
While you're there, could you please wipe my arse, too? I seem to have some lingering ReputationShare on my taint.
Well, there's the problem!
> Whilst the system currency is the unique e-mail address
OK Hands up those people who have one 1 email address. Hmmm.
Hands up those who have less than 20 (including disposables).
How about less than 100? .... really - that many, surprising
Finally, who's got more than 1000 personal emails and can create new one's with absolutely no effort?
Hopefully that clinches it.
If this wasn't such a lame idea...
...I'd have suggested that we find a way to plug this into 4chan to get some real housecleaning done. But as it's based on email - pffft. Fail, fail, faility, fail.
Oh, and systadmins never go rogue and try to blame users for their own shortcomings. Uhuh, no way...
So now moderators...
...not only have to decide whether or not to allow a post through, they have to actually score the posts?
I'm can't speak for Sarah, but that'd be too much work for my tastes!
Well, maybe not so bad on a small traffic site or if you have a large team of moderators, but still. I mean, I can see what this is trying to achieve, and it seems, technically, at least, it'd work (up to the point kindaian makes above, regarding multiple email addresses that are not associated in this system) but that's not giving mods extra sinister powers, that's surely upping their intake of alcohol and painkillers!
The solution to the multiple email problem
Your id card details and biometrics will be required before you can post on any forum, and before you can get a mail id on any website.
You will also have to key in your 128 digit PIN and stick a biometric probe up your backside before clicking on any link.
It's all for your protection, you ungrateful, eternally moaning lot.
(is that a -1 to my email address then?)
Fair enough it seems that if you have a low score to start with then, as a newbie, you cannot really do anything and if you have a high score then the trolls will simply get a new address with each new site or after each ban. So how about going down the route that some sites already use and have verified email addresses.
This would be something like having the admin sending you an SMS to your mobile or billing and refunding your credit card. For this you would start with a higher score and be less likely to become a trouble maker given that now they have your mobile number or credit card. Of course you can steal both of these items but then are there really that many cyber bullies into phone and credit card theft?
You could even associate the IP address with the mail address and give automatic negative weighting to anyone from Nigeria and Ghana. I'd love to know if all those attractive women that seem to want to contact me on Skype from there are real. I have my doubts.
I agree with Warren G
"The Moderatrix is kind and fair"
Yes indeed. In fact, I would go further and say that she is a shining example in all respects, and her opinions should, in fact, guide - nay, dictate! - international policy in every regard. Her intelligence is beyond compare, and her beauty makes Hollywood actresses weep in envy.
Can I has sum plus points nao pleez?
Just thinking about all the comments our illustrious Ms. Bee has to read and give a modicum of thought to makes my eyes want to crawl out of my head and hide under the desk... this seems like yet another thing to have to consider and manage?
Still, I think feedback for we commentards is a good thing (something more than followup comments titled @peyton - these often leave me wanting to weep for humanity, rather than reflect on my post) . Sometimes you honestly don't realize if you've been obnoxious. If every site one frequents keeps giving out negative points, it may finally trickle through that a change of style is required... tho the register is the only site I bother posting on...
Beer, for the one of many the Moderatrix might need ;)
But who moderates the moderators?
As a user of web forums, and seeing myself as responsible citizen, I naturally applaud something that will lead to the rapid exclusion of nuisance users.
However, some of the finest bullying, flaming and generally reprehensible behaviour I have ever seen on a web forum was down to one of its moderators. ['Fish' at http://forum.kismac-ng.org/ : this means you.] Could we at least have this two ways, so that if a forum moderator makes a nuisance of themselves they get excluded elsewhere just as if they'd been a user? No? Well so much for that plan then.
Incidentally ... since running a service like ReputationShare costs some money, not necessarily a lot, but some ... does LOOKBOTHWAYS Inc have a business model for this wheeze, or has she sorted out how to do everything with ReputationShare except pay for it?
This is my last post here, my so called "account" will be deleted. As far as I can remember, I have never posted anything even slightly polemic here, but I can't agree with this stupid idea; our privacy, or illusion thereof, has been eroded too much, a line must be drawn somewhere, and if some "enterpreneurs" want to profit from a vague moral panic, that's it. There isn't much an individual can do, except refusing to play along when he/she can.
P.S. The title was misleadingly funny, you may laugh as much as you want, by yourselves.
The Slashdot moderation system is pretty good. Yeah, there are holes in it and definite biases, but more often than not the good stuff bubbles to the top and the flamebait gets stomped on.
Tux, cos only a fool would think to slag off Linux on /.
Re: A flaw?
I don't know, it might be unworkable and possibly even unethical (snort, good one) and might be more work, but anything that might slightly diminish the amount of absolute evil wrought upon the world by horrible comments is A-OK by me.
No offence, boys. Most of you are barely evil at all.
Um, say what? Nothing's changed here. I'm still doing everything by hand and by eye. More's the pity.
What free speech?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it - that only protects you from the gubmint. You can *not* come into my home and start dissing my threads, I can regulate your behaviour any way I want up to and including kicking your ass out. Same goes for the Intartubes - if I pay for a website I'm the one having the right to freedom of speech, not you. Pay for your own website if you want to spew filth. And then watch what happens if there's some kind of conflict with the TOS behind your site...
I love cyber-stalkers, personally.
Dating sites might bias partner selection against cyber-stalkers.
Right, let's "bias" against them, shall we? Not rule them out altogether, or anything too nasty. After all, cyber-stalkers have rights too.
Ironically, all of 4chan is currently down due to a combined DDoS and spam attack. Prior to it going under, various posters were suggesting captcha-based solutions for the spam problem.
Amusing as it is to watch disenfranchised channers wandering the web in search of their brethren and/or whoever's responsible so they can exact revenge, I am rather miffed that I actually have to do some work now.
So did I get that right?
Plus is hard to spot so there's little chance on increasing your score.
Minus is easier so depending on how draconian the settings are you could easily drop down.
And you are started with a low score.
Hope they have a large negative range.
♫ The only way is down, baby, for you and me now. ♪
It won't work, and it will further alienate new users, especially in support and help fora. This is by nature, for if it didn't, the trolls can just log in with brand-spanking-new e-mail addresses.
I know that Ms. Bee's job is tedious and *mostly thankless, but effective. If an automated system is ever needed due to the large amount of traffic, then something like Slashdot's karma/moderation system could be used.
* Er, thanks Ms. Bee!
Re: It's stupid
Internet monitoring by the back door.
Any site attempting to implement this frankly ridiculous idea is automatically losing me as a user/customer.
I use different login credentials for every major site I use to make it impossible for all of my accounts to be compromised at once when one account goes tits up. I don't need something like this neatly combining all my online identities into one easily pwned package.
And what problem do these lunatics think their spyware is solving this time? Antisocial behavior on the internet doesn't bother me, or anyone else who takes the 2 seconds necessary to realise you can just ignore it.
If kids (or their parents) are bothered by stuff they see on the internet, kick them off. These are expensive and powerful resources they're playing with. Not lego. I'm tired of hearing how we've got to put up with censorship to protect children when no one ever said the internet was for children in the first place.
/Anyway I'm getting off topic.
"Also sometimes it is just a bit of fun to flame especially on a site devoted to say a fictional whiny wizard, why should having fun there mean I am unworthy of commenting on the news on another forum when being serious."
Well, I suppose your worthiness would be determined by the mods/other users of the said "serious" forum, if you told them all about your exploits on the "wizard" forum. But I suspect you don't tell them about that, do you?
phorm would of been usefull for this !
OMG WHAT DID I JUST SAY !!!!!!
"No offence, boys. Most of you are barely evil at all."
How's that for damning with faint praise? Here we are, trying our level best to outdo each other with our eviltude, and there you are telling us we're barely registering. Sheesh, might as well go and bait some Scientlogists or something.
Stephen Fry's recent appearance on Top Gear revealed Grinder to the wider world. (Grinder: Are you a cottaging homosexual and want to locate other cottaging homosexuals near you? There's an app for that.) Well, driving back from Cornwall on Saturday, we thought it might be fun to download it (didn't have it already, ok?) and check out any activity along the verges of the A303. The app, according to my mate in the passenger seat, is ruined. All he said was 'there's a lot of unpleasant people out there'.
So there's a problem with undesirables, but I don't believe cottaging homosexuals would necessarily want to exist on a list which would help Grinder discriminate between genuine and malicious visitors. And there's nothing stopping anyone gaming their profile. The idea's a bit weak.
More to the point, as if the Moderatrix would even blink at the opinion of lesser mods on her flock. As frickin' if.
@ Pete 2
"Finally, who's got more than 1000 personal emails and can create new one's with absolutely no effort?"
Er, plenty of people: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Catch-all
"Hopefully that clinches it."
I'm not so sure.
But who will Moderatrix the Moderatrix?
Oooh I just gave me funny chills! (don't tell the wife)
But seriously, finally someone who can pwotect me fwom all the nasty peoples. Don't be mean or we'll brand you "Stinky-head poo-pants". You gotta all be's nice or I'll tell the moderator
I can just imagine what the people who came up with this were like at school...
And anyway who says that the moderators of another site match your values? How seriously do you take a black mark from say the Mary Whitehouse appreciation society blog? I've banged heads with plenty of people over the years who take any form of dissent as trolling
This is one of the only sites I ever post on where virtually all my comments have been approved (except, I think one, but that was probably deserved)
Beer for Ms. Bee - rather you than me checking my drivel or the performance art that is amanfrommars ;0)
You can do that?
"that individuals... can challenge moderator decisions."
I... didn't even realize that was an option!
"I'm still doing everything by hand"
Queues up to be moderated by hand.
Re: But who will Moderatrix the Moderatrix?
You've had no comments rejected unless it was under another alias.
There may be an issue with values across the board, yes (and this place is particularly er, liberal) but some people are so objectively appalling that the only people who think they are justified in spouting what they spout are fellow trolls. And yes, when it's your own house, as someone said above, it's nothing to do with free speech - and there is indeed such a thing as hate speech. Not that I'm gonna get into that one.
I do occasionally get misty-eyed about the notion of people being less evil on the internet but I don't know that it's achievable. I'm such a hopeless idealist. Just been reading some comments on a story in a London paper about a young bloke who killed himself and seriously, I despair of the human race about 7% more than I did yesterday on the basis of those alone. There is quite literally No Need.
I think it sounds like Wikipedia, you know, where a group of insiders decide who's cool and who's not and get to push their own agendas.
These things always act to squelch free speech, people have the right to be wrong.
As someone with multiple email addresses, this will have no effect at all. I have a few semi disposable ones for trolling, etc, a few proper emails used for various sites, plus a couple of disposable ones for the 'please enter your email address here so we can send huge amounts of spam' fields some sites have.
Aside from the possibility of it being extended for government use, which I'll ignore.
ReputationShare is about making money. That in itself makes me uneasy.
Reputation is much wider than 'cyberbullying' and lack of 'courteous behaviour' on a site like this where technical content and insightful comments matter. There are some witless posts without profanity, but sans useful content too. How does this fit in with their concept of reputation?
Pretty language is intrinsically unlinked to useful content (although I note that those who post best also tend to be least offensive so there is actually a strong correlation, which is helpful).
I don't think that anyone's mentioned the implication - a reputation could be valuable for improving job prospects so a market is likely to develop for, shall we say, carefully cultivated pret-a-porter reps. This is likely to happen at the high-end if I guess right cos these would take time + money to develop (except if partly automated which effectively means spamming forums with gloopy niceness. I'm not sure they've thought this through).
Also valuable -> disputes -> courts -> money. They'd better have lawyers, which means their fees may soon have to cover much more than technical costs.
I appreciate it's a bloody drag for our mod to do what she does but I like this system, and she's blocked a couple of unwisely worded posts of mine. Much rather that than have them out in the wild (so, thanks Ms. Bee).
...hash collision. In other words, two different email addresses that produce the same hash total. And yes, it's very very very common.
Hashes do collide. And when a hash is used as an ID--oh my. It's "kitty bar the door!". I can just see the lawsuits flying now.
Moderation has been a problem since the Compuserve days. Then it was rather draconian, you bothered people too much, racked up too many complaints and *boom* you were banned.
Given you had to pay for access/membership and they knew who you were it worked well enough.
But the web is another animal. Anonymity is too easy, everything from changing your email address as often as you brush your teeth, to using proxies to obscure your IP.
Sounds like one of those "good ideas" that turn out to be "stupid idiotic ideas". Sigh.
Bluegreen> I appreciate it's a bloody drag for our mod to do what she does but I like this system, and she's blocked a couple of unwisely worded posts of mine. Much rather that than have them out in the wild (so, thanks Ms. Bee).
Wot he said. Some of my posts are a bit painkiller-inspired (not, not the same as House's, but evil stuff nonethless) and were rightly consigned to oblivion.
I for one welcome our new Apian overlady
yes, indeedy - doody
I was thinking more along the lines of spamgourmet.com, were anything you prefix your registered email account with gets mapped N :: 1 (where N tends to infinity). Same difference, by the look of it.
Failure in the basic assumption.
ReputationShare assumes that people WANT to have good quality discussion on their site but that trolls make it impossible.
This is not the case--or, rather, you don't need a special program to do it. As we see here, it's entirely possible to have quality discussion; just moderate everything.
However, lots of websites these days get their traffic from wannabe-bloggers who have flamewars in the comment sections. It's all a Who Can Be The Biggest Arsehole competition. "Reputation" is irrelevant to something like that, because a bad reputation is the whole idea!
The problem comes in when you get site proprietors who want to have it both ways--get lots of commentors (and lots of traffic), but they don't want to do the heavy lifting of moderation. But, again, this is not something that you're going to solve with a magic program; you just need to not be a slacker (or be one and accept the consequences.)
Come in Webster Pheaky,
Your time is well and truly up.
For the time being.
...is that Ms. Bee rejected my tongue-in-cheek troll-post satire!
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC