9
votes
We should have more actionable entity for tags
To give you an example list:
- Everyone should be able to add tags to topics, not just OP in creation
Tags are useful but only if they are correct.
OP could not get the right tags but the community as a whole could fix it over time. That would help browsing tags that actually reflect the content of the topics. - I should be able to tag my own comments. Sometimes you know you're posting off-topic or just a joke.
Tons of work planned on tags, they're extremely minimal right now and don't really do much yet (other than being a bit informative about the post). Making topic tags editable by other users will probably be one of the first things, since that will start making organization a lot easier.
I knew I read that somewhere already but couldn't put my hand on the fire for it :P
When topic will be able to be tagged by the community as well, you could implement quite cool things on filtering.
I'm imagining tags become used to index content in percentage, like:
Blablabla Topic
tags: tag1x20 tag2x30 tag3x50
You could determine that it's content match a filtering per tag2 only for the 30% of the users that tagged the content. That could be enough or not enough to appear in the filtered results.
Or as a very control maniac user I would like to set my filters to have custom threshold of tags.
Ok, I need to stop before the data-analyst in me comes out at 11 in the evening.
This is all coming (except being able to tag your own comments with
TrollFlameorNoisesince there is no reason to allow that, as far as we can see). However we need to implement the changelog / action auditing system first before we feel comfortable adding all these features since we need to be able to monitor for abuse.Yep, I agree that mostly someone would use "joke" or "off-topic" on its own comments.
I think tags like troll and noise should be removed since they easily substitute in as a 'downvote.' It only serves to take credibility from a commenter. I could easily determine for myself if something is noise.
If you check the announcement, or like I name it "the manifesto", the comment's tags are meant to be kinda "downvotes with a reason". They don't really downvote a comment but give hint to other user that a certain "branch" of discussion is going towards a certain direction.
Of course it's exploitable yes, but you must consider that a single "troll" is not going to be very indicative
Also, in future development, tags for comments could begin to show up only after reaching a certain threshold instead of immediately and showing the raw number like how it is right now.
Indeed. Currently, the visual difference between untagged and "Troll x1" is greater than the visual difference between "Troll x1" and "Troll x8", thus making the choice of that first person to tag it incredibly powerful. It leads to bandwagoning (people agreeing with a tag they wouldn't otherwise assign themselves) and people viewing the comment differently, as the tag primes them for what to expect.
A couple options I can think of:
This is an area that I think needs a fair bit of thought, because currently a single user's tag can change the perception of a comment disproportionately.
I doubt I would be driven to tag something as Troll/etc if it had already been tagged as such. At what point is it a useless pile on? I'd argue that if someone can assign a tag, others should be allowed to dispute it. But I honestly don't see the value in comment tags. At the most, you should be able to highlight fantastic comments and notify moderators of ones that fall afoul of the Code of Conduct. Maybe Noise is made less visible, like an HN downvote.
Exactly. The tags have no positive use. They don't seem at all necessary.
Their "positive" use is in allowing users to filter comments with them out (when we add that feature) and to alert trusted users that a comment needs to be looked at and potentially have action taken against it. They also are a bit of a honeypot for detecting bad faith users that misuse them (once we have action auditing in place). That is why they are necessary IMO.
As @safari said, they create
In order to prompt these 'trusted users' to take a look at the comment or user, reports of troll or noise or whatever should collect behind the scenes. At this point, the trusted user can decide what to do with the comment or user. If the comment is removed, maybe the comment could be replaced with a removal notice and descriptive reasoning for the removal. As for axing a user, I don't have any ideas of how to do that.
Yeah, I agree there... and it’s entirely possible the negative connotation tags will be moved to behind the scenes for that very reason. I am personally for moving them to ‘report’ instead of lumping them in with the tags that are ambiguous/can be viewed as positive (e.g. joke/off topic) but for now @deimos is just leaving them as is because we have bigger fish to fry first.
Yes, that is precisely the point of them of them. They accomplish what the downvote was originally intended to be. The difference is that downvotes are instead being used to simple say "I don't agree" and suppress ideas that contradict the hivemind, no matter how well reasoned, sourced or civil in tone. Whereas a tag simply lets trusted users know that a particular comment bears consideration for "mod" actions.
Once the action audit system is in place, if someone attempts to use a
NoiseTrollofFlametag simply because they disagree with someone then we can punish them for that, either by lowering their trust or if there is egregious abuse, simply temporarily or permanently ban them.Yes, but we need some means of outward expression of that judgment so others can filter it out and/or call trusted users attention to a potential problem.
Actually, that raises a question for me: is something "noise" simply because it doesn't add to the discussion? A few times I've noticed replies especially (e.g. "Thanks, good idea" or just "Thanks!") that make sense within the interaction of the individuals (i.e. a normal reply to a reply) but don't add anything on their own. Does "noise" have a strictly negative meaning as in the case of "troll" or "flame", or is it more neutral like "off-topic"?
Our original intent for noise was for it only to be applied to "LOL" type comments where they have no potential to spark meaningful discussion. Something like "I think this is funny because..." is not noise, however. Something like "Thanks, this is amazing!" would probably also fall under noise, but not necessarily noise that should be removed since it provides feedback for other users to judge the previous comment's usefulness. Once action auditing is in place we can start enforcing these standard though but for now, from what I have seen, noise is being misapplied a great deal.
Thanks! I appreciate your clarification. I saw a few "noise" tags where I was unsure, and maybe misapplied some myself.
When auditing is added, it could be good to have a mechanism to feed back to the user that applied a tag whether it was correctly applied. By training your users, you improve their value as a tagging tool, and if the feedback is consistent, they can feel more confident in applying tags.
No prob. And, Oh for sure... we're not just going to ban everyone that misapplies a tag. Most likely we will just correct the tag and then PM them explaining their proper use. If someone continues to ignore the standards then that's when we consider discipline.
We can even have trusted users eventually do this all for us as well and provide a little message for why an action was done/undone. We are currently discussing and fleshing out a meta-moderator idea for this very purpose but it is likely a ways off yet from being implemented.
I was actually thinking (longer term) of a way of essentially PMing all users who applied a tag (if there were multiple) as a single action - they all made the same mistake, so there's no point in going through and PMing them individually, right? Automatic positive feedback of some sort may also be worth considering - if a user feels like they're making a difference, they may be more inclined to be proactive.
Yeah that was basically the idea. The meta-moderation system we are working on would allow for consensus on actions (through trusted users voting on proposed actions), mass messaging when changes occur, etc... all while providing accountability and auditing. For now the plan is just to add a simple public changelog, manual edits and use PMs but that is just a temporary measure until we can work out the details of the meta-moderation system.
I'd agree - I feel like some of the more derogatory tags like "Troll" and "Noise" should even possibly be removed until the auditing is in place. Or, alternatively, let those types of tags require a Reason behind them that is publicly visible, similar to what mods see in a report. There's been a few comment I've seen tagged as Noise for no good reason (https://tildes.net/~talk/tl/what_are_your_favourite_podcasts#comment-46k, case in point).