Sunday, December 21, 2008

Moderation and 'ought'

I don't think I've ever linked to a specific post on Guido's site before, but this one on the economics of blog-comments is worth a look.

He's planning an experiment in the new year:

"....you will still be able to say what you like (within somewhat arbitrary inconsistent limits) without pre-moderation or registering. However there will be incentives for those who produce better quality commentary based on a new element of co-conspirator community rating. Good comments will be more prominently displayed, disliked comments will be less prominent. The biggest innovation is that it will be possible for readers to set their own tolerance thresholds. Poorly rated comments will be invisible to those who set their preferences accordingly. If you only want to see comments judged by co-conspirators to be witty, amusing or illuminating, set your threshold to "Recommended". Don't want to read foul language? Set your threshold to "U". Want to see all and any comments no matter how foul? Set your threshold to "XXX". If your commentary is consistently recommended your comments will automatically be more prominent in the future and may even get highlighted on the frontpage. Will it work? That is up to you."

On a related issue, here's a not-very-bright article about something called the 'ought' factor. Is this one of the divides between the left and the right? Do we - the left - think that people ought to behave in certain ways - towards some kind of common purpose?

And do the right think that it's foolish to even try to pinpoint that purpose - never mind attempting to achieve it in some hit-or-miss, bound-to-have-unintended-consequences sort of way?

No comments: