810: Constructive

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 02:01, 12 January 2014 by (talk) (Explanation)
Jump to: navigation, search
And what about all the people who won't be able to join the community because they're terrible at making helpful and constructive co-- ...oh.
Title text: And what about all the people who won't be able to join the community because they're terrible at making helpful and constructive co-- ...oh.


For every online community to thrive and for constructive discussions to be had, it needs to have a certain number of friendly, polite and helpful people. Spammers are opposite of that; they are people or organizations trying to sell certain products, with no regards to the rules of community or any discussions being made. In fact, some of them use automated scripts to simulate human beings, allowing them to quickly post identical "advertising posts" in multiple threads under multiple names, flooding the forums and stifling real discussions. Therefore, it is vital to prevent them from posting non-sequitur posts with links towards their websites and to prevent bots from registering.

Captcha is one of the methods used to prevent lots of automated registering of fake user names used by bots and spammers. It consists of asking a person to prove that they are human before registering them as user and allowing them to post on sites or forum topics. That is done by using pictures of words and letters that humans may recognize, but bots and OCR software have trouble with.

Now, artificial intelligence (AI) of bots have advanced so far, that Cueball has invented a new system. It asks of the users to rate a slate of comments as constructive or not, then asks them to reply with comments of their own. Megan asks what will happen when spammers find a way around his system, such as making bots that make constructive and helpful comments? Well, it turns out that is what he is trying to accomplish in first place, a thriving community helping its members with constructive and helpful comments, as well as coming one step closer to the singularity.

The title text investigates the consequences of such system further by thinking of people unable to give constructive and helpful comments, which are sort of people you don't want in your online community anyway.


[Cueball is talking to Megan.]
Cueball: Spammers are breaking traditional Captchas with AI, so I've built a new system. It asks users to rate a slate of comments as "Constructive" or "Not constructive."
[Close up of Cueball.]
Cueball: Then it has them reply with comments of their own, which are later rated by other users.
[Megan standing next to Cueball again.]
Megan: But what will you do when spammers train their bots to make automated constructive and helpful comments?
[Close up of Cueball again.]
Cueball: Mission. Fucking. Accomplished.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


I know just the guy to create this system. I'm going to PM him now :D (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

No guys, if spammers invent a bot which can give constructive comments, that will be an ***AI***, i.e. a major breakthrough in itself. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Mission. A-Fucking. Complished. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

One problem: trolls who rate everything as non-constructive. 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

But Trolls like that are also unable to make constructive comments, so they won't get counted anyway (at least, if the system is designed with any sense) Anonymous 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, isn't this how Slashdot works? 19:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I came here to get a better explanation of how the system would actually work. Assuming it operates at sign-up, the bots would go through and rate comments, which would have no effect if the system didn't already know whether they were good or not, then it makes it own comments that need time to be rated; so you would have to give it time to start 'contributing' to the community while waiting for others to rate it, or else users would basically be on a community-approval waiting list. So in short, I feel like the system is flawed; presumably because I'm understanding it wrong. (Bonus: Captcha while posting this) - Zergling_man 12:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)