Bury
| Project: | Drigg |
| Version: | 5.x-1.31 |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | mercmobily |
| Status: | active |
Jump to:
hi,
I don't know if this is a bug-report or a feature-request, but here it goes:
Digg.com has a Bury button. www.sugarloving.com is a Drupal (non-Drigg) clone of Digg.com which also has has a Bury functionality. Almost every decent social bookmarking site has sokething similar to Bury button. Any social bookmarking site is unthinkable without a Bury button, and there is a very good reason for it: it allows the community to act collectively as moderators!!! To decide not only what is going to the front page, but also to keep the Upcoming section clean. It's a way to democratically monitor quality! If the Upcoming section is filled with junk, spam and obscene content nobody would want to go in there -- instead users would just read the front page.
But the Bury button allows to kill bad scoops at an early stage, thus dramatically reducing the workload of the moderators, as well as empowering the users.
I've tried implementing something remotely similar to Bury functionality with Voting Acions and the Down button, whereby if the scoop gets -2 votes then it is automatically Unpublished, but it seems like Drigg and Voting Actions don't work together because Drigg tries to take charge of its own voting actions. So the request is: _please_ Ether make drigg compatible with Voting Actions module, Or introduce a bury functionality.
Here's what I think Bury button should do:
1) X Bury button appears in links of teaser and full node.
If a logged in user with appropriate privileges clicks on Bury that teaser will fade away and disappear (AJAX???) from his view. He will not be able to see that content while being logged in, but other users may still see it.
2) If the number of Bury clicks for that content reaches a certain threshold, then that node gets automatically Unpublished or permanently Deleted.
Any suggestions, ideas for Drigg's Bury button?
#1
Hi,
I will definitely add this to the list of things I am going to do next: if a story has -N votes, it will get "killed".
The interface... will depend. I am a big fan of the select box (where people can choose the severity).
Bye,
Merc.
#2
I think it's better to keep Bury outside of the EVF module. What do you think? I mean I use EVF, but I've seen other Drigg sites that prefer using VotesUp/Down module or especially DrupalIt module because their JS is lighter and faster.
And besides, "Bury" is an either/or thing -- one must feel pretty strongly against a given content to actually want to "bury" it.
------
Another thing to consider is whether the number of Buries should count toward the overall number of Votes. I think it should, but I'm not sure if that's how Digg.com works. On Digg a node may get 3000 diggs, but if it gets 40 buries that suffices to remove it. Do you see what I mean?
So maybe it would be best if the number of buries does count as a minus toward the overall votes number (this makes sure that the node doesn't get to the front page too fast), AND also registers a separate number that counts only the buries. And it is on the basis of the latter that the unpublishing or deleting of a story should take place.
-------
Making the teaser fade away (disappear or implode) _instantly_ once Bury button is clicked (like on Digg.com and www.sugarloving.com) gives a feeling of decision-making power to the end-users -- and thus it is good for attracting returning/regular visitors.
#3
Excellent points drupalina.
I am really looking forward to seeing bury functionality in drigg!!
.
#4
Hi,
About this one:
"Another thing to consider is whether the number of Buries should count toward the overall number of Votes. I think it should, but I'm not sure if that's how Digg.com works."
This was a design choice in Drigg. There is no _real_ point in having a bury count and a "negative vote" count. Effectively, they _are_ the same thing. What I offer, with EVF, is a way to vote something -3, even -4. And in Drigg, there will be an option to decide how many _negative_ votes a story can get before it gets buried (or, even a "ratio" between positive and negative votes).
The bury option will be in the "drigg_promote" module, which (ironically?) is where it lives. It will be purely a vote-counting thing - the interface is a different story. The widget can be _anything_ ... anything that allows voting, that is.
Merc.
#5
Hi,
I wonder if any progress has been made on the "Bury" functionality, and if you plan to release it before you leave for Europe?
The thing is, if Extra Voting Forms module and/or Drigg could be made to work with Voting Actions module (i.e. so that they don't over-ride the Voting Actions commands), this "Bury" functionality could be accomplished in a very easy and customisable way using the Voting Actions module.
But, of course, that is a very short-term solution. And in the long-run Drigg should have it's own bury process.
thanks
#6
Hi,
In transit right now.
Merc.
#7
subscribing .-)
#8
Hi Merc,
I think some form of this Bury or "Sink" functionality is absolutely necessary -- even if it's at a very basic level at this stage ... like... If the down-votes reaches a certain threshold (i.e. -4), then Unpublish this node.
I think Votes Actions module has something like this, in case you want to copy some of the code. Alternatively, maybe you could copy/paste the existing code for Drigg Promote and simply reverse it's logic.
The reason why I think this is necessary is because some of my end-users are posting ridiculous scoops just to make fun or the site. And while other, more serious, users are pushing it down and down, it is still visible in the upcoming section until its time runs out, even when the karma for that scoop is standing at -7.
#9
Instead of a Bury feature that performs exactly like digg you could use the "kill drigg stories" feature already present in drigg... along with the Karma feature... so users with a certain minimum amount of Karma get assigned to a defined user role... these users are given access to "kill drigg stories". Everything needed for this is already there.. you could just enhance a little by putting a button "Kill" under each story instead of having to go to edit.
#10
Hi,
That would be an awful lot of power to certain users... I am not so sure.
Merc.
#11
Hi Merc,
I'm back. Had (still have) a whole load of troubles, so I disappeared from Drupal community for 1.5 months. Sorry about that!!!!!! Now I'm getting back into and will try to track the issues one by one.
@grawat -- I agree with Merc. What you're proposing is essentially making particular individuals as Moderators, and this goes against the logic of what Digg or Drigg is about: collective and democratic decision making (with regards to promotion and deleting). What direct moderation will also do is tilt the content of the site disproportionately in favour of a very small number of individuals, who can then hijack any Drigg site to their favour. Digg.com is already famous for this problem.
For now, there is no need to replicate the complex (and by far imperfect) bury algorithms that run on Digg.com and which take into account the karma score of a particular burrier and digger.
I think for now at least, as the first step to having some sort of community moderation, what would suffice is a simple functionality that would unpublish or kill or delete a node once it is below certain threshold (like -4). Once at least this is in place, then we can think of Ajax and other aspects.
I tried copy/pasting the existing code in drigg_promote Method 1 and reversing it's logic. But because I'm not a coder, I didn't get it to work :(
#12
I use: Flag content module.
http://drupal.org/project/flag_content
#13
@ cardentey, I use the Flag module too. But the consept of "Bury" or "Sink" funtionality carries a totally different meaning on Social Sharing sites like Drigg. Flagging an item will bring the node to the attention of the administrators/moderators, who can then either delete it or kill that story. But this implies a direct moderation. Sites like Digg.com, however, (at least claim that they) don't have direct moderation. Moderation on such sites is done by the "wisdom of the crowds" -- meaning if sufficient ammount of people are against that node then they Bury it. Drigg sites are all about Poeple-Power: so far this is true about the process of promotion, but not true about the process of discarding bad material. A module that is very close to what I mean by "Bury" in this feature request is "Comment Bury/Promote".
I have been running a live Drigg site since July. So, this request is based on my experience of how the crowds behave on a Drigg site (which pages they visit and how frequently they visit the Upcoming section). It is also based on reading a LOT about Digg and what makes Digg so popular with so many returning users daily. And by and large this is attributed to the fact that the editorial control of the site is passed on to the end-users through a system of Diggs and Burries. Digg is only half the story of Digg.com. What is more psychologically powerful, however, is the fact that you can click a "Bury" on particular node and that node instantly disappears right in front of your eye. When asked how is it that masses manage to kill bad content at the early stage, Kevin Rose replied, "Some people make it their purpose in life to hand out in the Upcoming section and just bury bad content".
And I can see patterns of similar behaviour on my drigg site: people look at the front page to see what's hot, but they also go to the Upcoming section to see the Latest news (which might be pretty interesting because they show the Latest and Breaking news, but will not make it to the front page because in 2 days time they will stop being news). But if the Upcoming section is filles with bad content, then people will stop going in they. And what I can see is that people do really try to kill content by voting it down, so what you have is a node with a score "-8" and nothing happens -- it is still listed there. That's why Drigg needs a Bury/Sink functionality in whatever shape of form...
#14
does anyone have a working alternative for this ? the spam module http://drupal.org/project/spam is what I'm using right now but it just allows me (admin) to mark content as spam... the advantage being that the module has a filter and as u keep marking content as spam, it learns what constitutes spam and then automatically marks content as spam... that reduces the burden of identifying spam. If there was a way to get the module to work for all registered user instead of just admin, I think it would be an ideal solution. From my experience with digg I think they use something similar where once a site has been marked as spam, they do not accept content from that site and similarly for users.
#15
suscribe!
drupalina have you found a solution for this?
thanks in advance.
#16
@feconroses -- nope nothing! And after a while the end-users got frustrated that their down votes amounted to nothing in terms of "user-moderated" site, and they eventually chipped away and my drigg project eventually lost its inertia and momentum and is now effectively at a halt. I tried doing this with Flag module and Voting actions, but because of the way that the drigg content type is written, there is really very little that one can do with a node. So I'm still waiting for Merc to come up with some sort of working solution for Burrying content based on votes.
#17
Thanks for the reply! This issue needs to be fixed because is as important as promoting nodes IMO.
#18
subscribe