Discussion about the new voting system
3 comments
Heh, will we end up with a full stock market, where you invest your karma in stories/comments hoping they will go up in popularity? That would discourage upvoting stories that you think may have already peaked in popularity. You'd be better off upvoting the stories/comments that you feel are most underrepresented. The challenge about implementing something like this would be to keep the UI simple.
This would lead to uniformization of discourse, but I'm afraid any global opaque karma system will do that. If I was to do a news system, I'd make it so you could somehow select people so their ratings have more weigth in your view. So content would be rated on an affinity graph that is personalized for each user. A way to do this without complicating the UI is to just derive your affinities from your votes. Now this would be an incentive to vote on the stuff you find interesting, rather than on the stuff you think will be popular.
This would lead to uniformization of discourse, but I'm afraid any global opaque karma system will do that. If I was to do a news system, I'd make it so you could somehow select people so their ratings have more weigth in your view. So content would be rated on an affinity graph that is personalized for each user. A way to do this without complicating the UI is to just derive your affinities from your votes. Now this would be an incentive to vote on the stuff you find interesting, rather than on the stuff you think will be popular.
To stop people trying to game the system, ratings of articles probably shouldn't be visible.
I'm new but is it part of the system to not allow new users the ability to down-vote?
I like the idea of actually using the karma instead of just having karma for karma's sake.
I like the idea of actually using the karma instead of just having karma for karma's sake.
Interesting. So can you increase your voting power by simply upvoting stories that are already popular?
Or does the system favour people who upvote good articles _before_ they become popular?
By the way, I don't bother upvoting articles that already have huge scores (because really, what's the point?) Will this have a negative impact on my voting power?
I suggest the "good voter" system should ignore upvotes on articles that are above a certain threshold.
Or does the system favour people who upvote good articles _before_ they become popular?
By the way, I don't bother upvoting articles that already have huge scores (because really, what's the point?) Will this have a negative impact on my voting power?
I suggest the "good voter" system should ignore upvotes on articles that are above a certain threshold.
I think there will be a temporary higher amount of voters on the New queue, seeking for a bigger voting power, which is a good thing because the good stories will get to the main site faster. Maybe it won't be temporary as newcommers will strive for power and the easiest/only way is voting the good stories soon.
However, consider this situation: A speculator comes around, voting up at random (thinking "someone will have to raise this one up") and then another one appers, seeing that a story already has 2,3 or 4 points, he could raise it up to just because it will earn him a better voting power... Will the system be able to deal with this (altough I'm not really sure this is a real threat)?