@krom:
It's an intern position so it doesn't have to be a legal wage. It's basically not a proper job and should not be treated as such. I already work full time which is why I'm only half considering applying. Sure I could do it during my lunch or when I get back from work but even though I probably read Giz about an hour a day anyway I'm not sure about having it be mandatory for me.
But as I said, a little bit of cash for something you do for free isn't too bad a deal. Even if it is a pittance.
You might want to make this job a little easier by narrowing the comments this person looks at to the ones that have already been approved to comment once by the star bellied sneetches. Most of the stared commentors do a pretty good job of promoting anything thats worthwhile. You may also want input on bann hammering too. I have seen a lot of spam that has washed in the great "Red Tide" thats trying to sell me jeans for $10 at their site. (Genuine Rolex for only $7 though! Thats such a deal, that I ordered 6 for Christmas.) ;) #comments
You realize that works out to $100 for 20 or more hours...that's $5 an hour...that's not even CLOSE to min. wage in this state. Otherwise I'd apply. Could be an ideal 2nd job. #comments
@Software_Goddess: The position is for an intern, so you're supposed to be thankful it's more than $0. However, many internships these days pay quite nicely, so I can't really see the point... unless it's a means of starting a career in the blogging industry? #comments
Isn't there a way for the Giz to automate this task?
For example, ask all the star commentators to approve of messages like you are now. Then have your comment system calculate a simple ratio of approved comments vs. non approved comments for each new commentator. Anytime that ratio exceeds 70% or any other hurdle you set, the commentator is approved.
@Noobs-R-Us: That handles approving new commenters. In fact, that may even sorta be in place (I've on occasion approved a pink comment and seen "comment and commenter approved").
But what about the almighty banhammer? Do you have an algorithm that can determine the appropriate use of kicking the living crap out of an obnoxious flame-baiter? Just how many times could someone question Jesus' use of questionably-SFW pictures in an article, or reference, yet again, Frucci's most humiliating review before they've gone too far? And how can a computer know when someone is raising unnecessary hell over one of Ponies! sarcastic comments?
No. Man has not yet built a device that can replace the Germanic gods yet. #comments
@Noobs-R-Us: But I think this would ignore the fundamental Slop Drudge nature of the Comment Intern. Isn't it also their job to actually IP ban people who are spamming or are grossly inappropriate? Your idea would cover the approval, but the Hammer of Banning would go unwielded. #comments
Now, they have to also set the parameter of how many minimum comments a new users has to make before the system starts that calculation since you don't want a noob to get in with just 3 or 4 approved comments to skew that ratio. #comments
@NorwoodIsMyHero: In accordance with my meritorious system of approval we should also use this same method for ban hammering. People who get lots of "report" this comment tags, i.e. high ratio of report vs. non report comments gets to have their comments reviewed by the editors. That way you automate the process so that only those with lots of offensive comments get flagged. Letting a real person approve the ban rather than completely automating that process also prevents shenanigans like others gaining up on someone by misreporting their comments.
BTW, what ever happened to the "report" tags next to comments?
@Noobs-R-Us: But then you have the problem of people spamming the report button. It just creates more work for editors, who would have to then ban the report spammers. At least, that's my take on it. #comments
@Noobs-R-Us: I may be wrong, but I think a commenter must be approved more than once to actually become a full-fledged commenter. Of course, that's why your idea is better (assuming all comments are reviewed), since instead of having a preset limit which would eventually allow even the shittiest commenter through, you could use the ratio system, which would prevent a shitty commenter from eventually getting approved because he had a few decent comments. #comments
@Duckspwn: The way to get around this is to let only star commentators see a "report" button.
Basically, you want your star commentators to do all the dirty work for you for free. Damn, I can't believe I just said that! I must be really dumb and can't work for Google.
Application sent and fingers crossed. If it would please the Comment Demigod Selection Committee, I could also sacrifice one of my choicest comments. A satisfying aroma in the nostrils of the Norse gods. #comments
@Gordonium: God, those are killing me. I love my star, but I hate having to see that 12" garbage posted several times in the same thread. I think they should give us star wielders the ability to banish posts like that to limbo whilst the wielder of the banhammer gets to decide whether to ban or approve it. #comments
11/17/09
It's not bad, especially since I do that for free right now. #comments
11/18/09
11/18/09
It's an intern position so it doesn't have to be a legal wage. It's basically not a proper job and should not be treated as such. I already work full time which is why I'm only half considering applying. Sure I could do it during my lunch or when I get back from work but even though I probably read Giz about an hour a day anyway I'm not sure about having it be mandatory for me.
But as I said, a little bit of cash for something you do for free isn't too bad a deal. Even if it is a pittance.
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
"You must be over 18"
"Doesn't matter"
"Over 18"
I chuckled to myself a little.
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Still... #comments
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
100 dollars!!! And I ain't no intern. #comments
11/16/09
For example, ask all the star commentators to approve of messages like you are now. Then have your comment system calculate a simple ratio of approved comments vs. non approved comments for each new commentator. Anytime that ratio exceeds 70% or any other hurdle you set, the commentator is approved.
See, simple! #comments
11/16/09
11/16/09
But what about the almighty banhammer? Do you have an algorithm that can determine the appropriate use of kicking the living crap out of an obnoxious flame-baiter? Just how many times could someone question Jesus' use of questionably-SFW pictures in an article, or reference, yet again, Frucci's most humiliating review before they've gone too far? And how can a computer know when someone is raising unnecessary hell over one of Ponies! sarcastic comments?
No. Man has not yet built a device that can replace the Germanic gods yet. #comments
11/16/09
11/16/09
Now, they have to also set the parameter of how many minimum comments a new users has to make before the system starts that calculation since you don't want a noob to get in with just 3 or 4 approved comments to skew that ratio. #comments
11/16/09
BTW, what ever happened to the "report" tags next to comments?
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Basically, you want your star commentators to do all the dirty work for you for free. Damn, I can't believe I just said that! I must be really dumb and can't work for Google.
11/16/09
11/16/09
Shenanigans! #comments
11/16/09
i'd be willing to regulate a la carte for zero pay, though. #comments
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09