> Nor does the threshold for endorsing comments have to be karma. That was the obvious choice for a v1, but it would be easy to incorporate or substitute other things like account age or average comment score, or even introduce randomness.
I don't have a sense anymore for the quality of comments on Slashdot but Slashdot has had a form of random moderation for long time. I do wonder how the goals and ideals are (were?) different between HN and Slashdot and how these differences manifest themselves in moderation policy.
Slashdot is a lot better, however, because it is user customizable. Comments are rated on various attributes like if they are funny or insightful, then users can adjust the scoring of posts based on their preferences. It is also social - you can adjust posts of people you mark friends or foes. It is also policed - meta moderation moderated the moderators. As someone who has run internet forums and picture sharing sites before, I know the problem isn't finding moderators, the problem is finding moderators who don't get ban happy and enforce rules just for the fun of enforcing.
I don't have a sense anymore for the quality of comments on Slashdot but Slashdot has had a form of random moderation for long time. I do wonder how the goals and ideals are (were?) different between HN and Slashdot and how these differences manifest themselves in moderation policy.
A good overview of Slashdot's history and though process on moderation can be found here: http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml