To bury or not to bury?
Posted by Connor Boyack on September 25th, 2006
Folks, there has been some discussion on this blog, as well as others, as to how (or if) to buy articles.
Since I’m hoping the community can drive this web site, I’d rather get your input on the matter instead of deciding myself. So, how would you like to see this feature implemented? Should people be able to bury posts at all? If so, should it be by three votes? Or 1/3 of votes (i.e. if there are 24 sustainings, it would need 12 buries to be buried)? Or some other method you can think of? Or perhaps people should be able to bury an article, but it never gets deleted (their names would show up on the article page showing that they buried it)?
Any other ideas?
Should people be able to bury posts at all. YES.
1/3 votes sounds reasonable to me … however there should be a minimum of 3 burys before a post goes away, I think.
Left by danithew on September 25th, 2006
is burying even necessary? i can understand issues of spam or pornography, but three people having the power to censor a post just because you disagree with it is pathetic.
i say just hold off from the whole burying issue unless spam/porn becomes an issue. otherwise, just let sustainings (or the lack thereof) drive things.
Left by the narrator on September 25th, 2006
I think it is likely to generate ill will. The bloggernacle is small enough that you might have people start burying each other’s submissions as a return favor.
If you do decide to implement it, shouldn’t it be “oppose” instead of “bury” since “bury” is part of the “digg” metaphor?
Left by buriedPerson on September 25th, 2006
With as new as this is, there is little enough content that the censoring of truly offensive things is not a onerous task. Also, because of the newness there are few enough registered users that a passive failure to sustain hurts as much as an active bury. I would hold off on enabling burying until either the amount of content or the number of readers goes up.
Left by Starfoxy on September 25th, 2006
I like the bury/oppose option a lot! However, I’m not overly sensitive to opposition and frankly don’t care if other people are.
Moreover, I don’t necessarily think if someone opposes/buries a submission that they disagree or are emphatically opposed to the submission’s content; rather, I think it is just a good feature to enable only the really good stuff at the top. There’s just some stuff I don’t think is worthy of sustaining in and therefore I oppose it.
Left by Wade on September 25th, 2006
I think it is likely to generate ill will.
Who cares? I thought Sustain’d was all about letting the people decide what is good content and what isn’t? People will always disagree when they get opposed; whether they have “ill will” or not is their choice. Why should that be a factor in deciding good content?
Left by Opposition in All Things on September 25th, 2006
I’d like to see this place stay as friendly and positive as possible. With the community being so young there is a danger of alienating some users, consider most of your users are probably the same people that will be getting ‘buried’. If there begins to be a build up of spam or anti posts then I say add the feature, until then leave it out.
Left by Stewart Foss on September 25th, 2006
There’s just some stuff I don’t think is worthy of sustaining in and therefore I oppose it
if you don’t think it’s worthy of sustaining, then just don’t sustain. why the need to prevent others from sustaining it?
Left by the narrator on September 25th, 2006
I think burying should not mean “deleted”. I think an article that is buried simply means the article will never get to the front page.
I also think that there needs to be something more substantial than a simple bury link (similar to Digg). I think there is a difference between an article that is inaccurate and one that is outright spam. A bury “vote” should reflect those sorts of differences.
I would rather see buried votes be a proportionate measure rather than an absolute measure.
Left by Kim Siever on September 25th, 2006
Another option would be to have a opposed vote lead to a negative 1 sustained vote with the number of sustained, opposed and total score all being visible. A lot of opposed could then pull it beneath threshhold. I agree with many others however that burying anything this early is just going to create bad blood for now.
Left by Doc on September 25th, 2006
however there should be a minimum of 3 burys before a post goes away
Agreed.
i say just hold off from the whole burying issue unless spam/porn becomes an issue.
Posts not meeting the TOS are to be removed as well - not just porn and spam.
If you do decide to implement it, shouldn’t it be “oppose†instead of “bury†since “bury†is part of the “digg†metaphor?
I totally agree, and feel like an idiot for not contuing the church terminology. If/when the method is changed, it will be called opposing.
There’s just some stuff I don’t think is worthy of sustaining in and therefore I oppose it.
So are you, Wade, in favor of having an oppose function that doesn’t actually remove the post? Just shows that you oppose it?
People will always disagree when they get opposed; whether they have “ill will†or not is their choice. Why should that be a factor in deciding good content?
Amen.
I think burying should not mean “deletedâ€. I think an article that is buried simply means the article will never get to the front page.
What about once it’s already on the front page?
I would rather see buried votes be a proportionate measure rather than an absolute measure.
Proportionate to the number of sustainings it has? So, kind of like the 1/3 rule?
A lot of opposed could then pull it beneath threshhold
Once it is published, if it is pulled beneath the threshold, it would never make its way back to the front page, due to the day limit (a post must reach a certain number of sustainings w/in 5 days, for example, to hit the front page).
Left by Connor Boyack on September 25th, 2006
I agree with Doc’s comment that an opposing vote should be only a -1 in weight, as a sustaining vote is only a +1 in weight. This allows a person to choose, first, whether to express herself, and then whether to express by sustaining or opposing, but with only one vote’s worth of weight either way.
Left by Arosophos on September 25th, 2006
I don’t think that there’s really a need for an “oppose” button. Just don’t vote for it if you don’t like it. If it’s obviously porn or spam, report it to the site owner. If there is an oppose function, it shouldn’t remove the item from the site. I suppose one oppose should probably equal a sustain, but I think it would be far better to keep this positive. And I think that it should show who did the opposing.
Left by sootica on September 25th, 2006
I support the following:
Maintaining a bury function per TOS
Changing “bury” to “oppose”
Minimum opposing votes (~3)
Some other ideas:
What about making the “oppose” option available only on the front page?
Should the 1/3 threshold be raised to something like 3/8? If 3 out of 10 can bury a topic, that might be a little harsh.
Whatever happens, people will still whine about it. They’ll survive, however.
Left by Peter on September 26th, 2006
Opposition in All Things said about “ill will”:
Yes, I agree that deciding what is good content is the ideal. Are you sure that people will always vote based on what they think is good content?
If your posts were consistently buried by a certain user, and then you saw a new post by that user, how would this affect your vote?
How do we keep people voting based on the message rather than the messenger?
Left by buriedPerson on September 26th, 2006
How about this idea: When posts are first submitted, temporarily withhold the username from displaying until the post is published, buried, or one week (or other period) old, i.e. blinded peer review.
Left by WillF on September 26th, 2006
Bury or oppose votes can certainly be malicious and biased. Perhaps also a person who has registered under various pseudonyms could manipulate/skew the system by using burys to get rid of posts he/she doesn’t like.
At the same time, I think there are legit bury/oppose votes.
Perhaps bury/oppose votes could be accompanied by a required text entry box where a person would enter the reason for the opposing vote. These reasons would be published along with the bury info and could be judged accordingly. If a bury vote is purely malicious or due to political bias of some sort, then it could be removed.
I’m just brainstorming on the subject.
Left by danithew on September 26th, 2006
“What about once it’s already on the front page?”
It coems off the front page.
“Proportionate to the number of sustainings it has? So, kind of like the 1/3 rule?”
Yes, but I’m not as concerned that it be 1/3 specifically.
Left by Kim Siever on September 26th, 2006
I would like to see both how many people sustained a post and how many opposed it. On Christian Cardall’s site you can oppose, but it merely cancels out a positive. Then you can’t tell how many people really liked it.
I don’t think posts should be able to be buried (go away)
I do think you should delete anything truly offensive, but not merely controversial. (You’re so straight, you might need some other opinions first, though.)
Left by Bored in Vernal on September 26th, 2006
Absolutely. This is a voting system.
Left by Russell on September 26th, 2006
[...] Sustain’d is a community-driven website where users can submit posts of interest to the LDS blogging coterie. Once a post is submitted, it can be easily accessed and voted upon. A blog which gets many votes remains high on the list, and might even earn a spot on the coveted “front page.†A user can also vote against a post, or “bury†it. An early controversy which arose over at Sustain’d happened when some posts were “buried†and removed from the site by receiving 3 negative votes. At the moment, the bury function is being reevaluated by Connor as well as the other site members. [...]
Left by By Common Consent » The Difference Between Sustained and Sustain’d on September 26th, 2006