As the guy who had a lot of input into both systems, here's the scoop.

Moderation works reasonably well. There needs to be (IMO) more of it, but of high quality, so I'm looking for ways to encourage (or reward) people for making generally quality moderations. What's a quality moderation? Good question. Some ideas:

• One which helps establish the status of a post. Early moderations or moderation to posts which have few or no moderations count a lot.
• Moderation patterns which tend to agree, within reason, with the group consensus. Someone who's consistantly an outlier moderator probably isn't feeding much signal to the system.
• Moderation patterns which don't slavishly follow group trends. Moderation works best by increasing differentiation between comments (preferably in a meaningful way). A moderate devation from the norm is quite healthy.
• Patterns which aren't pedantically consistant. The guy who mods all 1s or all 5s isn't adding much to the system.

This is just off the top of my head, and I'm open to suggestions.

Moderation provides a metric. The other side of the stick is filtering tools, and Scoop doesn't have these yet. Reporting n and standard deviation will be most helpful, as will the ability to specify inclusion or exclusion criteria. This means that someone could request display of all comments moderated as: ( mean > 3 || std > 1.5 || n < 4 ) -- or all comments moderated above 3, or with a standard deviation greater than 1.5, or with fewer than four moderations, allowing perusal and input on less-moderated posts. I'd very much like to have such complex rules available.

The Mojo system also needs some work. Comment moderation is one metric, but there should be others. My current model is something similar to a credit rating -- Scoop is essentialy gathering all sorts of behavioral statistics on you -- when you started using the system, how often you access it, whether or not you post comments and/or stories, and how often, whether you post diary entries, how your contributions (stories and comments) are moderated, how your moderation compares with others. And some escapes -- I'd like to allow some administrative overrides for people who have: just recently joined, haven't posted comments, haven't been moderated highly, etc. The point being that by specifically allowing such admin overrides, it's clear whether or not a given user has earned their status or been granted it (at least to site admins). This has been an issue at Slashdot, by reports.

Mojo is supposed to be responsive to recent activity, but I think it's too hair-trigger. Still hasn't identified any non-trusted users, AFAIK. I'd like to see a longer run-out on comments, and a basis on total moderation, not average comment moderation for use in computing mojo -- it's too sensitive to singly-moderated comments at this point.

I'd also like to see some personalization -- ability to mark specific users as hot or not. Best suggestion I saw was to be able to specify a sort of per-user bonus score -- your own bias on a user would be to increase or decrease their perceived posting score by some amount. This could also be tied into a mojo system.