An expert moderation system? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Mad Scientists' Laboratory

An expert moderation system?

This page's ID: 27817

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	And I will love doing so. :cool: What's very clear is that implementing such a system would happen in four major steps: - analysis, defining the early classification rules - implementation 1: with a given kb and inference engine, setting up the ES in "learning" mode. It would then ask mods a lot for advice (through an email/php system for instance). At this stage, it would popup with emails to mods systematically, asking "where should I put the following thread?" Based on the answer, it would set a new rule, and would discard an ambiguity. - implementation 2: after a couple of weeks, we could have it propose casual lists of threads it is about to archive for review At this stage, mods would receive emails transcripts of what it is about to do, and they could approve or correct, supplying a reason for the correction. Analysing required corrections is critical, discussing them together.. - implementation 3: a couple of months later, the system knows enough to run on it's own and report it's activity to mods, who should not have to correct it, or very rarely. ---------------------------------------------------------------- And I can try to get the first analysis started. My little finger says "if your teacher was right, a mod's task is not that difficult, and it's very, very specific", hence my suspicions. Expert systems work best whenever the task is specific. So let's "extract" the knwoledge of the experts together please. To me, a thread should be classified based on: - date - quality of contents - suitability of contents for broad audiences? Censorship or not? That's a whole debate per se - contributor names - maybe post count - uniqueness: does it really bring something new? And I can already lay out some rules based on that: - if thread is older than >... then consider for archival. - if thread quality is good then same as above - if thread contents is suitable then same as above - if post count is high... - if contributors make wonderful things... - if thread is unique and all the above holds true, then archive Btw, somebody can somehow "warrant" I do things very seriously lately, and it's Webshaman. Only thing is I don't want to disclose the details of the project I am making for him, and it's a bit different, but something "quite big and useful to the masses" too. For the above set of rules, some things are clearly easy to determine. Some are more ambiguous. - If thread contents is suitable > Means it doesn't contain curse words from a given list. Ambiguous expressions (you suck can be said for fun) should not belong to that list. - If contributors make wonderful things... it's easy but a bit odd ethically. Bots don't care about ethics, and the engine will love knowing who has an expertise in this or that field, mabye with a rating, even. Based on this rating, we could take this aspect in account. - If post count is high > Rarely means top quality, but means loads of interest, casually loads of fun. Casually bullshit. Can be considered easilly nonetheless, because it would just influence the archivability of the thread. Etc. And one final thought for today, before I get back to the Java assigment of the moment: Archiving Photoshop forum threads to the Photoshop archive, etc. Would be straightforward, but doesn't hold true in all cases. I guess we could leave that out for human mods though... since most threads get "moved" based on common sense if they're misplaced. Let me know what you think, and what I might have left out, it's just the first draft. Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu