You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hello mods.

@Slug @MathGrunt @YourBlueIsMyPurple (I'm fairly Bashlet is inactive).

We need to now create a submissions policy and a comment policy if we want to make v/science a subverse, for... science.

Thus we need to begin discussing what shall be included in the submissions and comments policy. Users can pitch in too, but just as a side note, obviously not all ideas will be accepted. Here's a quick draft I threw together, it needs a lot of work


Submission Policy

  • Submissions that are vaguely related to science, politically charged in nature, or containing bias are not allowed.
  • Science memes or jokes are not suitable content.
  • Self promotion is not allowed.
  • Submitting links to only one domain repeatedly is not allowed: To be clear, links should be submitted at around a 9:1 ratio -- that is, 9 links from somewhere else for every post that is made from a source you wish to promote.†

† This rule is worded poorly. Any ideas on how to fix this?

Comment Policy

  • Spamming is prohibited.
  • Self-promotion must be strictly relevant to the topic of the submission, or strictly relevant to the comment thread and also somewhat relevant to the submission.
  • Self promotion must be clearly labeled as self promotion.
  • All comments should be somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.
  • Do not attack other users. v/science is a forum for open discussion, not a forum assaulting/aggravating other users. There are plenty of subverses where you can attack other users, but v/science is not one of them.

I also had an idea of a flairing system, where submissions are tagged by reliability, in a score from 1-10: A submission source that looks really shady should be given a lower reliability, perhaps 1 point. On the other hand, a well respected source such as NASA will have a much higher score, such as 8 or 9. Encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Britannica will be given a score of around 5 or 6.

Submitters and commenters can also include more sources in the comments -- if there are enough sources that correlate with the data provided in the main source, the reliability score of the post will rise. This depends on the reliability of those sources as well. If the sources in the comments also receive very low reliability scores, then it will take a great deal of them to raise the reliability of the submission. Conversely, if a shady source is provided, but the comments are full of reliable sources, the reliability will rise much more quickly.

Obviously this system is a lot of work, but I think it can improve the quality of the sub a fair deal.


If you're not uncomfortable with this, please provide which time-zones you live in (offset from UTC, eg. EST is UTC-05:00, ICT is UTC+07:00 and CET is UTC+01:00). This can be used to let users contact a moderator in their timezone for speedier response times.

0
2

[–] YourBlueIsMyPurple 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Submission Policy

Submissions that are only vaguely related to science, politically charged in nature, or containing clear bias are not allowed.

I made two tiny changes (in bold) because I think they clarify the rule slightly, but regardless, it's a good rule. Since we would be forbidding posts asking questions, though, I think we should at least make sure to link to /v/askscience in the sidebar.

Science memes or jokes are not suitable content.

I suppose so. We haven't had much in the way or memes and joke posts, but having an actual rule against it doesn't hurt.

Self promotion is not allowed.

Has this been a problem? I think it's fair that someone who has created a new subverse related to science might want to post (one) thread here telling people that they exist. I'll defer to the majority vote, of course.

Self-promotion must be strictly relevant to the topic of the submission, or strictly relevant to the comment thread and also somewhat relevant to the submission. Self promotion must be clearly labeled as self promotion.

Agreed.

All comments should be somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.

Yes... But honestly I'd set the bar pretty low for what is relevant to the topic. If a study is posted that is proper science but which concerns something political, I think it's natural people might discuss related politics in the comment section, for example.

Do not attack other users. v/science is a forum for open discussion, not a forum assaulting/aggravating other users. There are plenty of subverses where you can attack other users, but v/science is not one of them.

Agreed.

This is a good draft, but I suggest we make a meta post specifically about it, so as many people as possible have the chance to offer input. It is their subverse, after all.

0
1

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I made two tiny changes (in bold) because I think they clarify the rule slightly, but regardless, it's a good rule. Since we would be forbidding posts asking questions, though, I think we should at least make sure to link to /v/askscience in the sidebar.

I agree with these adjustments. And yeah, the sidebar needs some serious cleaning up. At the moment all the related subs are just kinda dumped there with no logical order.

Has this been a problem? I think it's fair that someone who has created a new subverse related to science might want to post (one) thread here telling people that they exist. I'll defer to the majority vote, of course.

Ah, I intended this rule to stop people spamming their external domains repeatedly. Advertising a new science related subverse should be fine.

Yes... But honestly I'd set the bar pretty low for what is relevant to the topic. If a study is posted that is proper science but which concerns something political, I think it's natural people might discuss related politics in the comment section, for example.

No disagreement from me.


We can put up a thread for user review once we are finished with this initial draft. When that will be could be right now or it could be in a few weeks time; I'd be done with exams in a few weeks which usually frees up more time for me, but the future for me is quite vague for now. I may end up being even busier later on in the year.

0
1

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

@MathGrunt @YourBlueIsMyPurple

I have made a small edit to the submissions policy. Please let me know what you think.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ah, I see. I think only Bashlet is inactive, although I haven't seen @Slug for two weeks so we may want to talk to atko about bringing in new mods.

0
0

[–] Slug 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hi TSG.

It's a pretty well worded and I agree with most of these policies. The only problem I have with it is the flairing system. It looks pretty good at first glance, but I can see some people complaining about the rather subjective nature of the flairing system. If it's "really shady" who decides that? Is there an objective way that we can decide it?

For example, Huffington Post has pretty much become clickbait at this point, but can occasionally have some well written articles. Does it receive a 3, or a 5?

I think that the flairing system could work, but it needs some more work before it can be fully implemented. Maybe a trial run of a week or so?

Submitting links to only one domain repeatedly is not allowed: To be clear, links should be submitted at around a 9:1 ratio -- that is, 9 links from somewhere else for every post that is made from a source you wish to promote.†

"Self promotion is allowed as long as it doesn't exceed one tenth of your submissions to /v/science. It must also be relevant." maybe?

My timezone is EST (GMT-05:00)

0
0

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, we're probably scrapping the flair idea at this point, someone suggested a better method. There's a main thread that's stickied with all the user's comments.