For example, take the comment section of the post that was sitting at the top spot of the /v/all when I posted this. Every single response (at least right now) is a low-effort, low-content one-liner joke just rehashing the content. I'm sure these are people just trying to up their comment contribution points.
By strongly incentivizing reaching 20 or 100 CCP, people will try to comment whether or not they have something to say. For a lot of people, that means posting anything they can, over and over, until they reach that sweet, sweet threshold.
This works great for a small community! People become involved and aren't afraid to comment or fear rejection. Except when that community grows—especially when it grows rapidly—now peoples' voices are being drowned out by a whole lot of junk. It's becoming quantity, not quality.
Encouraging discussion and limiting the down-vote-filter are two of the site's strong points. Still, I wonder if there is a way to incentivize meaningful contributions.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ENTP 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
I think the easiest way to fix this problem is to increase the amount of upvoats you can give in a day. There are just TOO many comments and not enough votes to go around. I'll often see great comments that are still at 0 points or at 1 point. There is just currently no incentive to stand out with a quality comment, when you have the one-liners and low-quality comments nearly reaching the same amount of upvoats as the thought-out responses.
This also fixes the issue of people trying to RUSH to 20 CCP or 100 CCP. With more voats going out, you only need a few great comments to reach these marks. Compared to still having to write out 20 or 100 shitty comments to reach the same goal.
[–] Ujo [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Exactly! Voat incentivizes commenting and discourages (albeit, only slightly) upvoting.
If someone has already said what I wanted to say, I think my upvote adds a lot more than a separate comment. More people see what I agree with, and the people looking through all of it don't have to read the same thing twice.
[–] Beers ago
What if votes instead diminished in value with how many you used that day? So you have 10 or 20 "votes" per day, but you can vote on as many things as you want, your votes just don't have as much weight. If you vote on everything, your votes end up being like 0.01 of a vote or whatever