We need the karma-equivalent of PageRank. Every vote should not be treated the same, just as Google doesn't weight every link equally. The "one user one vote" system is the equivalent of pre-Google search engines that would rank pages by how many times they contained the search term. But it can't be as simple as "votes from higher-karma users are worth more" because the easiest way to build insane karma is to build a bot or spam low-effort replies to every rising post. Still, the system needs to be able to extract the wisdom of the crowd from the stupidity of the crowd, and the only way to do that is to apply a weighting gradient to users and their votes.
No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
The problem isn't the points, it's the people. Everything starts to suck beyond some critical mass.
What if we had a community standing metric that flips only between "good" and "bad."
You get "bad standing" if the majority of your contributions in the last 6 months have a majority of downvotes than upvotes, but it resets after 6 months.
Everyone defaults to "good standing".
This serves the purpose of a metric to filter out trolls or bad-faith actors, whilst making "karma farming" pointless.
People commonly use the downvote button as a way to indicate that they disagree. I'm not in favor of punishing unpopular opinions when they're expressed in good faith.
But I also can't think of a system where "troll or bad content" can be separated from "I don't like what I read".
The more we push popular opinions the more of them will be shared, leading to communities becoming echo chambers and even good faith arguments against the common consensus will be lumped together with the worst of bad actors.
This is exactly what I dislike about Reddit.
But I also can’t think of a system where “troll or bad content” can be separated from “I don’t like what I read”.
Me neither. People would just push whatever button means "punish commenter". Slashdot tried for a while with multiple scores given per comment like "funny", "informative", etc. It didn't take off.
This is just human behaviour though friend, I don't think we can ever change that. People don't want to see what they don't want to see.. it's not necessarily a bad thing, and if you remove that power then you remove a lot of the motivation behind the platform.
I think voting has the potential to be very useful but what we want to move away from is the reactionary "I disagree with you / dislike your post, so downvote"
One experiment I would like to see is requiring a reason when downvoting. Factually incorrect, violates this magazine's civility code, trolling, etc. Some reasons might have overlap with the report feature, so a downvote for e.g. illegal content might automatically notify the moderators as well. This might be contingent on a feature that can impose restrictions for abuse of the report feature.
Although it is already relatively easy for anyone to notice when an account is blanket downvoting a thread. In theory, it's already a bit easier for users to sniff out bad actors because they'll either have a clear pattern of misbehavior or a conspicuous lack of account age or participation
I think the awards system from Reddit could work, just without it being monetized. The awards let you see how people feel about the comment, and it’s more than just good/bad, like/dislike.
It's very easily abused. Does Karma affect article and comment visibility on Reddit? I don't know the details, but if so I'd suggest that it not do so here. Maybe just have it be a number calculated from boosts, upvotes and downvotes that you can see on the profile if you are a mod trying to determine if someone tends to troll, but not something that has any affect on whether or not your stuff is displayed.
I'm not from reddit, what is a reputation and what practical effect does it have? Is it just upvotes minus downvotes?
I found a reputation in my profile of "1" but I don't have a clue where that came from. I'm not sure why we need to have scores associated with our accounts, that in itself seems toxic to me to care about (clout chasing).
Upvoting comments in threads makes sense, I'm just not seeing any actual practical connection with the thing called "reputation" on my profile. What does it do in a best case?
Honestly it's pretty good to have the transparency of who is up voting, and down voting. Makes it easier to figure out who's farming or not. It's pretty good against the trolls too imo.
Non-algorithmic ordering, auto-collapse replies after a certain user-preferred setting.
From this and other posts on this as well as comments I read and discussions that made me think about it, here's my suggestion.
- Upvotes and downvotes but lemmy allows people to only see upvotes in their client if they wish to (be it because they don't like the "negativity" of downvotes or because they're not very good at emotionally dealing with seeing their own comments downvoted)
- Some kind of summary of upvotes/downvotes a user got on his or her posts, per forum and only if enabled in that forum. The objective being to as much as possive avoid the gamification side of karma and its side effects (i.e. people taking it in as a "score" which leads to things like karma farming) whilst preserving the positive side of it as a measure of domain expertise or at least willingness to positivelly participate in domain specific forums.
Thats just like 9gag, reddit, and the king youtube bs. If someone sees downvotes as negativity, it is already to late for him on a normal platform. A downvote should be something the author should see and know about. And other users should see that too. As it is a good content filter against clickbaity/scammer or just chatgpt answers.
Whilst I personally agree with you that it's a good idea for an author to see both negative and positive feedback, I don't see what's the problem to allow the "criticism sensitive" types to protect themselves from criticism by toggling and option in their client which makes downvotes not visible to them (but it does nothing for others).
For clarity, my suggestion is not to allow people to disable downvotes, it's to allow them to not see downvotes in their own client - downvotes are still there and everybody else who hasn't "disabled downvote display" on their clients can still see them.
Think of it as a social interaction equivalent of installing ramps for people with disabilities on wheel chairs: nobody else is force to use the ramps but those who need them have them.