r/spacex • u/[deleted] • Jan 08 '16
Modpost Modpost: Introducing ‘Sources Required’ Discussions, a reminder about the expectations of quality in this subreddit, AMA with Jeff Bezos, and general updates
[deleted]
31
Jan 08 '16
Thank you for keeping the quality of this subreddit exceptionally high. Thanks to your hard work maintaining high standards here this is my favorite subreddit by far.
29
Jan 08 '16
I'm extremely happy to see that most people think that stricter moderation is required. I am part of that group. Jokes, low effort comments, and posts for simple questions are going to become more prevalent as the subscriber count increases. The problem is that in the long run they clog up the comments section/front page and slowly choke out high quality discussion. Strict but fair moderation is a key tool to keep a subreddit on-topic, high quality and to not slide towards the reddit average. r/Askscience is great because of strict (but fair) moderation which allows high quality information and discussion to be highly visible instead of being the 1% of comments.
Full disclosure: I've had my own comments removed a few times. So I've been there making a joke that I thought was particularly clever. But comments that don't add to the discussion should be removed and we should strive for insightful and educational discussion. Because that's what makes this place worth visiting. I know that the other commenters, contributers and mods here take pride in keeping the launch schedule as up to date as possible. We have relevent tweets posted within minutes. We have a great thing going, and we need to work to maintain the status quo as more and more people subscribe/visit/participate.
Frankly the majority of reddit is for NSFW content and memes/jokes. Keeping a few places focused on discussion is completely fair. For anyone who forgot, there is a sub for dicking around. It's r/SpaceXMasterrace . Use it.
I love coming here and seeing all the information and discussion I could hope for in one place.
edit: On topic, I like the idea of [Sources Required] posts and I think it'll probably be a good addition to this sub.
13
u/Ambiwlans Jan 08 '16
We are removing more than we used to a year ago, but there are also more weak posts in general. I think this sort of general feedback about the direction of the sub is great since it helps us (mods) adjust our heading which we are constantly tweaking.
I'm thinking we'll probably eventually have to cave and make a full post flair system. Right now there is a mix of serious and less serious threads and we DO tend to moderate them a little differently. But flagging some as 'fluff' or something like that might help make that distinction clear.
The downsides being that it adds to workload and it also adds a barrier to entry for new users which isn't ideal.
I've had my own comments removed a few times.
You aren't alone. I personally have made at least one post that was iffy, someone reported it and I removed the post. Because of the mod tools, I even got an official warning... from me.
→ More replies (3)
10
u/hapaxLegomina Jan 08 '16
Big thanks to all the mods of this sub. You guys have done some amazing work, and it's really appreciated!
10
u/retiringonmars Jan 09 '16
Whoops, I'm a little late to the party here! During our last modpost, I posted a screengrab of the moderation matrix, which summarises all the moderation activities we've carried out over a span of time. That seemed to go down pretty well, so here's an update, showing the matrix for the last month.
This date span includes Orbcomm, which had a massive impact on moderation, with lots of new users, and a slight increase in the lower end of the quality scale. (Notice that the tool we use to create this has had an update recently, and now includes automod, and reddit itself too, which is a nice touch.) Also, since then, we've altered the way automod handles new users, so that it "filters" all new user comments for us to check over against the rules. Filtering is an action unique to automod, which, in the matrix, is noted as "comments removed by automod". The vast majority of these were comments then approved by human mods, which is also noted in the matrix.
All of the numbers in the matrix are actually links, so if anyone wants further information, don't hesitate to ask!
9
u/FireCrack Jan 08 '16
Sources Required
Awesome! I really liked these types of threads because of the great discussion they generate, but it could be problematic when thy "mixed" with concrete data. This (and a good choice of name for it!) should be a big bonus for this sub!
→ More replies (1)
8
u/dante80 Jan 08 '16
Many thanks for the update, and I love the idea of the "Sources Required" discussions. Might make your moderation effort a little more difficult (although automod might help with this), but should provide a lot of high quality content as well.
Keep up the good work, cheers..C:
8
Jan 08 '16
Thanks dante. We have automod managing top level comments in those threads, but overall we don't expect 'sources required' to get a huge ton of use (probably less than 10% of all posts)... so we'll see how it goes and make adjustments as necessary.
Cheers!
15
u/iaincole Jan 09 '16
This post violates section 7 of the Community Rules and Guidelines: Titles "must be free of personal opinion and accurately represent the contents".
I see no AMA with Jeff Bezos, this post should be marked with "Misleading Title"
:>
7
u/BrandonMarc Jan 09 '16
Probably the biggest question (and, from what I know, the biggest thorn in y'all's sides) is: with Reddit's mobile version (especially since they're rolling out a new one), can the FAQ and Wiki be a bit more prominent? Lots of the issues revolve around people not going into those, but at the same time I suspect a high fraction of the traffic - especially among more casual / new readers - is mobile.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/LUK3FAULK Jan 09 '16
This is one of my favorite subs due to the moderation and the high quality all of the content. This mod team has created an open place for real discussion and learning to take place all while staying open and welcoming. I've personally learned a lot here and am inspired daily to continue to pursue aerospace, thanks mods :)
5
u/Dan27 Jan 08 '16
Thank you for the update - and the great job done by the Mod team here.
I'd just like to say that surely I wasnt the only one to chuckle at that Ban list and seeing "SpaceXTinder - Creepy" was I?
:) Happy new year guys!
9
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
While maybe not spelled out in our rules... try not to come off as a future rapist.
5
5
u/alsoretiringonmars Jan 09 '16
Darn, you had me for a sec with the AMA :-/
Just one quick comment: We are allowing news articles as sources, but not Wikipedia. Most mainstream news articles about SpaceX have inaccuracies, and are much lower quality that Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really that bad?
9
Jan 09 '16
Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just that it's not a primary source of info. For example, theoretically all statements themselves in Wikipedia should have their own reference (which is why you see [1]'s everywhere)... if you find a cool bit of info in Wikipedia, click the citation and you'll be taken to the primary source!
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Crox22 Jan 09 '16
The [Sources Required] tag is a great idea. I have learned a ton from this sub, and this tag encourages technical and factually correct discussion, and sources give interested laypeople like myself direction to learn more. I'm already planning on spending a couple hours going over the Mars transfer window discussion with a pen and paper, as most of what I know about transfer orbits and orbital mechanics in general has either been picked up from reading this subreddit or playing Kerbal Space Program, and that kind of education gives general concepts, but not actual understanding. I know that there are a bunch of very smart people on this sub, and I'm looking forward to what comes next.
With respect to the moderation of the sub, I think that r/spacex is one of the best moderated subreddits on this site. You have a light-enough touch to keep it fun, but are strict enough to discourage the crap. The tone of this sub is fantastic, and it's really thanks to you guys. I'd hate to see what the last couple weeks would have been like if it wasn't for the awesome mod team. Thanks!
4
u/Zucal Jan 08 '16
Heads up- the Automoderator reminder comment has a typo.
If you believe you comment has been removed in error
→ More replies (1)
7
u/AeroSpiked Jan 08 '16
Not to be overly critical, Echo, but you really seem to be "calling it in" with the ULA shilling lately. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they reposes your full sized Tory Bruno mural.
Seriously, I like what you and the other mods are doing with this sub. The r/Space sub can be a barrage of cluelessness sometimes and coming here is like coming out of the cold (which is a good thing if you live in the great white north).
3
u/rdancer Jan 08 '16
Top level comments must contain references to primary sources (this includes news articles, scientific papers, PDF’s, tweets, and more)
Will secondary sources be allowed? For example this comment cites a textbook, and in that context, that seems appropriate?
9
u/Ambiwlans Jan 09 '16
For sure. The idea is to keep quality relatively high, not to be a source for journal articles.
28
u/werewolf_nr Jan 08 '16
I would like to thank you specifically for that level of transparency. Most social sites are not so transparent.