[bhdz]

>There is, it's the downvote button. The distinction of why a downvote is useless.

How about a tag system associated with each posting? Then you can have just a scalar "weight" and a set of keywords (string labels), each with a designated meaning. You press a "plus" button or something, and a menu with optional tagging pops up (tag clouds can be used).

Some tags could be "spam", others could be "didn't read" and users can build their own threshold filters for tags. (0) spam; (4) didn't read; (3) incomplete; ...

[grzm]

I've thought about this, too. In particular, I'd like to, say, separately up vote "substantive" and down vote "agree". That said, how complex do we really want the UX to be?

As for "didn't read", if you're not interested, just move on. If you think the article is inappropriate and can, flag and move on. If you see a comment that looks like the poster didn't read the article, you can call civilly call out what is in the article, and perhaps down vote the comment.

[bhdz]

> how complex?

Yeah I thought about this very hard actually, and came to the conclusion that just a "weight"(+) button is enough.

And, if you care that much so that you would waste your time providing more ... contextual meta-info (about the weight itself), you simply need a pop-up and a quick way to select words from a common dictionary. Certain users can even make content "more spammish" by simply increasing the weight with a click (they agree with the labeling and they are "special" in some way).

This, and the weight itself should provide enough info for a comprehensive "decoration" of the postings.

[abritinthebay]

So... slashdot?

[bhdz]

Mmm, to be honest, I was never a slashdotter so I have no experience with it at all (strangely enough :))

[abritinthebay]

It has/had exactly that system but with also positive descriptors.

I can't fault you - slashdot hasn't been relevant for.. at least a decade.