# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Randy W. Sims
# on Thursday 22 July 2004 07:56 pm:

>   A) Abuse
>
>      Authors abusing the system for political statements, to sabatoge
>      authors of similars modules, etc.
>
>     1) The usuall solution is a Karma type system. Number of reviews
>        contributed by a reviewer. Thumbs up/down for individual reviews
>        by a reviewer ("Helpfulness ratings"). Thresholds on Karma that
>        automatically invoke a moderator.

Okay, so if I go on a bashing-fest and then you come through and thumbs-down 
all of my reviews, I'll go through and thumbs-down your reviews too and then 
bash on your modules if I haven't made it there already.  Does that trigger a 
karma threshold of some sort?  Seems that it would be hard to detect.

How about peer-review of peer-review:

If I say that your review was bad, I think the next step is for you to defend 
your review (unless it has previously gotten a thumbs-up, in which case I 
must support my thumbs-down with a critique of your review.)

There may be a somewhat recursive process of attack and rebuttal here, but the 
point is that a mean review is likely not going to be defended, and even if 
it had received a spurious thumbs-up, a critical dismissal of said mean 
review is likely to be supported rather than dismissed (thus giving weight to 
the dismissal and counting further towards the thumbs-down.)

Recursion to level 3-or-so (pi) of the attack-rebuttal tree may invoke a 
moderator (or just a chanting, blood-lusting crowd/mob.)

Additional weight can be given to reviewers who have posted many reviews and 
received many thumbs-up, etc.  But, the idea behind the tree is that it 
localizes the debate to the review in question (rather than risk weighting 
solely on what may have been karma generated by a flaming disagreement about 
a completely different module's merits.)

Absolute dead-beats can still be identified by their failure to provide a 
rebuttal or continually reaching level pi() with nonsensical or null 
arguments.

--Eric
-- 
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit."
           --Ginsberg's Restatement of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics

Reply via email to