Which voting moderation technique scales better, crowd sourcing or manual administration?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
My belief is that the current voting moderation system - manual review - does not scale well. I recently proposed that crowd-sourced initiatives were the solution. RM has chosen to defend the current structure.
Resolution: Crowd-sourced voting moderation features scale better than manual administrative voting moderation techniques.
--Pro will be forced to argue using crowd-sourced solutions alone, as agreed.
--Con will be forced to argue using manual, human-labor solutions alone, as agreed.
*Merit: Each idea is to be judged on its ability to handle increased traffic with regard to vote moderation capabilities.
*Crowd-sourced: In this context means computer algorithms that make use of feedback from the general Dart population as opposed to feedback from specific mods.
*Scale: Meaning the ability to handle a growing amount of work (votes needing moderation) in a capable, labor efficient manner.
- The most popular wins, up-vote only scheme where up-votes cost nothing in terms of in-site currency or hopefully real-life too (meaning on top of the fee of membership, not inclusive of that). A prominent company who brought this into the mainstream Internet were Facebook (who realised removing the down-vote could not just inflate the up-votes as the only way to express dissatisfaction with one thing is to up-vote things that oppose it but realised there was psychological benefits and kept users pleased and hooked to the site even if many hated what they did so long as those people didn't get to comment abusively and couldn't down-vote)
- The 'this vs that' mentality. Either works by:
The concept of proportional representation is not entirely present in manual moderation as it works far more by appointment than popularity or direct voting but the reason it is a false dichotomy in this debate is that it revolves around avoiding mob-rules, alt-abusers (which is linked to bot-abuse if you can get away with that), many 'fools' voting down good quality reasons for deciding (RFD) and many voting up a non-offensive, upbeat but poor quality vote in reasoning.
- Alt-accounts can often be automatically detected with cookies by examining a users IP address and geographic location.
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Mob rules", however bullying and collusion are quite easily detectable when you know what to look for. This ties into what you were saying about percentages.
- Ignorant voters or "novices" get conditioned quickly using reinforcement mechanisms described above
The fact that Pro admits they may need to be incorporated and that it's blatantly the mods and humans (not AI or algorithms) that will need to constantly alter the weighting or ability to so easily vote on votes makes my case for me.
"Debating is a fine art combined with science that takes severe finesse to judge."
I state this: The thing that good votes are based on is not how many people like them. This is precisely irrelevant and corrupt a system to based it on. A good vote is based upon good reasoning, analysis of the arguments, processing the logic and interactions of it deeply so on and so forth.This means, the positive reinforcement is going to be more for people who make votes (whether good or not) that many like and punish those that makes votes (whether good or not) that many dislike.
The ultimate authority must be mods and that everything about incorporating crowd sourcing is going to increase the complexity of the system,
incorporating crowd sourcing is going to increase the complexity of the system, need many more updates to the website, cost more manpower in the mod team and tech team to spot cheaters etc