At your website, widely known in (already not narrow) circles, thousands of users. The word almost offensive for the associate: we are not users, we are authors of this blog. Actually, the word "user" at you can be seen only in EULA or, maybe, in a personal account there is something it seems "date * by the invitation of the user * by user * is registered *".
Audience of the project — progressively conceiving people who are interested in X — your blog thematic. Perhaps you are not going to be limited only to the blog: the thematic websites, TV and radio channels, logs, newspapers — as this everything together is called, forgot. The project is equally interesting H-there and to journalists, and also all those for whom X — it is not simple N letters of the alphabet.
So why to you to introduce restrictions?
Authors you have different: someone writes really high quality articles behind which the wide experience and mind is visible. Others show activity in comments that too is important: many readers, having seen that they article long, read comments before of article to understand whether it is worth wasting in general efforts to understanding of the author's statements. The third the posts and comments cause desire to punish the author and to somehow limit its activity — to podzatknut its verbal fountain in readers.
If to implement this desire through an opportunity to vote for the user, and to limit in something authors with negative balance of voices, we receive samoreguliruyeshcheesya community. Pobochki — conformism and "closing of a Gestalt".
Users are afraid to express the opinion openly. In anonymous vote nobody, of course, hesitates. But in what do not agree with the author, he does not learn. And not everyone will decide to go against opinion of the majority in comments. Solution: strictly dozirvanno to enter a possibility of anonymous commenting. It can be the privilege of users with big positive balance of voices, or an opportunity for everyone weekly, or the day off on April 1, for example.
Closing of a Gestalt
An opportunity to vote demotivates the person to comment. Perhaps it and is good: it is less than senseless comments.
How to limit authors
Restriction for commenting frequency
Inadequate users with negative balance of voices can initiate interesting discussion in comments, but in the discussion let adequate prevail.
Restriction for writing of posts
Beyond all bounds can write only those whom the community assesses positively. Not to hammer the blog with uninteresting posts, users with negative balance of voices can write posts only once in several days.
Restriction of functionality when commenting
Prohibition to unpopular users to put big pictures, video and links it is clear. On the other hand, the impossibility to issue the quote or to make a spoiler frustrates. It is not preference, but need for observance of rules of decency.
Whether it is worth resetting the counter of voices?
Can be the cause of such solution:
The desire to make a rating of articles is more fair by deprivation of part of community of an opportunity to vote. For example, to limit "Chukchi not writers"
Not really logically: if my balance of voices allows to vote what difference, for comments or for posts I received these votes? Or to evaluate a dish, it is necessary to be the cook?
But in general such measure does not cause a negative among not restrained users so it can be done.
Reason that most of authors only comments — nakrutchik
On opinion of those who fairly collected the votes, but gets under this criterion, it is possible not to pay attention — besides nobody will take offense.
This article is a translation of the original post at geektimes.ru/post/238367/
If you have any questions regarding the material covered in the article above, please, contact the original author of the post.
If you have any complaints about this article or you want this article to be deleted, please, drop an email here: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We believe that the knowledge, which is available at the most popular Russian IT blog geektimes.ru, should be accessed by everyone, even though it is poorly translated.
Shared knowledge makes the world better.