0
7

[–] crankypants15 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Just trying to think this through where things might go wrong.

Submissions ... containing bias are not allowed.

Do you mean containing obvious bias? Or is there some standard we should look for? Just because I find a science article interesting does not mean I have the time or resources to run my double-blind study with 10,000 participants.

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.

I happen to like ScienceDaily and I don't visit a lot of other science-y sites. So I might post links from there a lot, but this rule prohibits me from doing so. That rule doesn't sound open-minded in the pursuit of sharing information.

Self promotion must be clearly labeled as self promotion.

Do you mean when I create a post or a comment to a post? Are we allowed to post a link to a how-to page we made showing beginners how to make a simple LED flashlight for example? Or is there a /v/diy area? If we are only able to post links to science news then the sidebar should say that.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] crankypants15 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Ok, so those self-promotion links pulled up all posts containing "merryfile.com" on voat.co?

0
6

[–] WhiteTigerScream 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I would add, in some fashion:

  1. Do not ask questions that can be answered with a simple google or wikipedia search (there is a user who purposefully does this in order to avoid submission ratio rules).

  2. Clickbait titles are not allowed; if the original article has a clickbait title, please rename it appropriately.

But those are really just personal preferences.

0
4

[–] HenryCorp 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I like the rules. Regarding the "poorly" worded "one domain" rule, this seems like a meta rule that should be applied to determining what is spam/self-promotion. How about:

Domain dumping is not allowed: At least a 5:1 ratio for links submitted -- i.e., no more than 1 repeated site for every 5 links shared, including those posted to comments.

I altered the rule a little to make both less and more restrictive to help prevent comment spamming/self-promo and so people with a relatively small range of trusted science sites don't get banned. Not sure how 9 was determined, but if you have a concentrated area of expertise, that may be pushing the limit of available sites.

0
0

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

Why should anyone care what you think about how to run a sub? In your own sub, you delete comments for completely arbitrary reasons. Under this submission, you deleted the comment below two times, and then you banned me.

He neglects to mention that if farmers weren't controlling weeds with herbicides, they'd be doing it the old fashioned way by plowing. Plowing makes weeds just as dead, but it takes way more energy than spraying and has a much larger carbon footprint.

Proof.

0
3

[–] tentonaraft 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

How about banning clickbait sources like HuffPost?

1
0

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

Possible solution: We will not ban sources purported to be "clickbait", but we will issue warnings for clickbait titles. @Slug @YourBlueIsMyPurple @MathGrunt

1
0

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

I agree with you here. Banning websites outright is something we should avoid. I mean, even BuzzFeed, one of the biggest clickbait websites around has some very informative articles. Look at this one for example: How Oliver Sacks Helped Introduce The World To Autism. The article is well written, informative, and doesn't even have a headline that's overly clickbaity. But if we banned Buzzfeed, we'd never get to see it.

I think it's best if we enforce a "no clickbait title" rule and issue warnings for people that post clickbait, rather than banning entire domains outright.

0
3

[–] Reow 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

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?

"No more than 10% of a user's submissions should come from any given domain."

^ Would be more succinct and get the point across.

0
3

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This works out better. Noted.

0
3

[–] Reow 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not sure if someone's said this already, but it might be worth whitelisting legit journals etc. Some people have fairly narrow fields.

1
3

[–] ExtremeSquared 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

My problem with the science sub on Reddit was with the soft science submissions. Consistently the highest voted submissions were psychology or sociology articles from non science journals. It quickly became drivel with real science articles on the second page.

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

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] P8rtsUnkn0wn 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I agree. The rating system is a good idea. I don't really know what an automod can or can't do...or the effort involved in building one...could it be programmed to auto rate certain sources and put like an "unrated" tag on the unknowns until a mod can check manually?

2
2

[–] PandoraTheFirst 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Do you have a suggestion for a rule that would reduce "soft science" submissions without necessarily banning them outright?

2
0

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

Not one that will make people happy. I think brutal moderation is what it took to clean up Reddit science.

0
3

[–] P8rtsUnkn0wn 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

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.†

How about this?

Submissions from a user or mod promoting a specific site/domain must do so at a 9 to 1 ratio with nine submissions from different sites/domains for every one promotion submission.

I like this rule but I think it'll be tricky to make sure it's nine different sources....but at the same time if someone is not meeting that expectation but no one notices, is there harm? If there is, then this strict rule exists to stop it.

Also, you folks were talking about conversations that might stir off topic conversation, politics for example. If this is allowed then I think its parameters must be clearly defined...like maybe it needs to focus on actual policy(ies), legal ramifications, etc. to keep it from becoming v/politics

0
5

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Both of these are big issues that we need to think about carefully before proceeding. The 9:1 ratio will indeed be hard to keep up, and yeah, I don't think it's very harmful if they do it in a way so that they aren't noticed. For example, a ratio of 8:1. Usually those people aren't spamming, and we probably won't notice. But it will definitely be noticable with blatant self-promotion where someone has a 1:1 ratio.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

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

So have a rule saying repeated promotion of individual websites by a user will be open to moderator scrutiny and may be deleted

0
2

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

Disallowing politically controversial things is just another way to say censorship. Let the users vote on things like. Mods shouldn't be in a position where they need, or are able, to make such judgements.

It's a slippery slope if ever there was one. If I want real science I will go read journals, this isn't the right place for that level of control.

The rest seems fine.

1
0

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

Please read this and let us know if you still have these concerns. Politically charged is not the same as politically controversial -- we will equally remove posts that are politically charged, regardless of where on the political spectrum they are or how popular/unpopular they are. If a scientific study shows that climate change isn't real, then it's not for us to remove even though it's unpopular -- with that being said, this will be done on a case by case basis because there are simply too many factors.

Someone in this thread suggested two-factor moderation, where two moderators have to agree before a post is removed. This has some limitations based off timezone, but if we can make it work we will. As far as I'm aware, all moderators here have varying political views, so censoring content that is disliked by one moderator is difficult.

0
1

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

In that case you need to change the wording, because what you wrote isn't the same as what you linked.

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

That means that something that is strongly related to science, contains no bias BUT is politically charged will be removed. I do not accept that that means something different from political controversy. If you mean simply things that are more political in nature than scientific then there is no need to add the other clauses. It may not matter that something contains science for it to be political in nature. Equally, something can be perfectly scientific and politically charged ad/or controversial at the same time.

It is not appropriate to suggest that something that is (in the opinion of the moderators) politically charged or biased should be removed even if it is perfectly scientific in nature. But that is exactly what your first bullet is suggesting.

This isn't actually just idle griping, it is a serious error in wording. Hopefully it is just a serious error in wording.

0
0

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

If an article is focused science and is presented in a neutral way then it can't be politically charged - the other two rules cover the use case.

load more comments ▼ (20 remaining)