4
197

[–] InMediaRes 4 points 197 points (+201|-4) ago 

I have no problem with this, just make the user report/delete process transparent so that it can't be abused. Wikipedia does a fine job of having a consensus-based deletion process, which allows the user a fair chance to argue their case, leaves a paper trail, and can be undeleted later if a mistake has been made.

0
103

[–] lyzedekiel 0 points 103 points (+103|-0) ago 

Yes ! Let Voat be a real community link aggregator.

0
26

[–] lanceschaubert 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Agreed.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Skeleton227 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Let's do it

1
27

[–] ForgotMyName [S] 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

I'm happy with a transparent process, in fact, I'd insist on it. I think the addition of mod logs for the subs was awesome.

0
17

[–] EdwardAbbey 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Yes. No stealth shadowbans. We have to assume that everyone might try to be a jerk and put checks and balances in place.

0
16

[–] F1RST 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I'm going to hijack the top comment here.

There is nothing wrong with a user contributing content in large amounts. It appears it isn't spam, or advertising of a particular website. Thankfully, users are able to select what they upvoat and downvoat (once they hit their CCP). A lack of content is what drove users away from digg. If you have any issues, feel free to visit /v/admin or contact the Admins directly.

0
14

[–] admirablefox 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

"or advertising of a particular website." Right. All links from TrendyCrunch by a username that looks generated is totally not advertising for a specific site.

0
7

[–] Mr_Winsterhammerman 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

What's it like to work for TrendyCrunch? Do they pay you well?

0
0

[–] Partanimal 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

At first I totally agreed with you, but then I looked and saw that every link was from trendy crunch, so I am guessing it is a shill type thing.

0
4

[–] literalpotato 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I think full transparency is key to running a community. Secrets make me uneasy.

1
20

[–] jstyla 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

Perhaps a post to upvoat ratio?

So for example that person in your screenshot will not be able to upload after X amount of submissions until Y amount of people have upvoated posts or Z amount of time has passed. Whichever comes first.

And then of course tighten up the rules by going deeper with the algorithm by incorporating IP addresses, geo data, length of registration, voating habits and other attributes so that people who try to bypass this by using multiple accounts are also factored into the scoring system.

0
16

[–] ForgotMyName [S] 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I'm not crazy, I know there are going to be people that want to post their site on here, but this is ridiculous. The account could at least be named after the site to make it more transparent. And maybe keep it reasonable. Creating an account and then instantly spamming 9 posts in ~20 minutes is obviously over the top.

You're right, we have up/downvoat limits, but no post limits. Maybe that would help with this insanity.

2
13

[–] Do_Want 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago  (edited ago)

What exactly is the problem?

They are adding content to a site that is woefully lacking in it. Is it to get magic internet points? Sure, probably. So what, we're not going to run out.

Is it OC? NO. Again, so what? The entirety of the internet is like 7 people producing OC and 7 million reposting it for years. Who cares.

Is it shitty quality content? Yeah, probably. So is /v/new, /r/new, usersub at imgur and every other site that has a similar user base. Community voting will take care of it.

Why are we already trying to dissuade content contributions on a content aggregation site again? If it is really just spam, that's one thing, but too much content too soon shouldn't be an issue.

0
2

[–] DenebVegaAltair 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It should also include some function that also takes into account not just posts per time, but also total upvoats on the account. A person with 0 will be a gazillion times more likely to spam than a person with 10,000.

0
8

[–] brandy 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I feel like more number rules will just make it harder for someone who sees the site, gives it like 2 minutes of attention and leaves if they don't understand. Just a "report spam" option, and an option for sub moderators to whitelist/blacklist domains. That way if the person's spamming becomes a problem the whole site can be blocked.

0
4

[–] jstyla 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree that we shouldn't overwhelm people with rules but these algorithms are meta and needn't be disclosed to the public. I guess the basic rule of telling people "You have done this too much, please wait X minutes" would be the only time a user is informed, and these automated measures would drastically reduce man-hours.

When you Google something, you aren't told "we are going to check your IP address, your browser data, your browsing history, your cookie settings, and the other 50+ attributes we have collated." - they just give you the results while keeping their recipe hidden. The same can be done for Voat without disrupting the flow or confusing the public.

edit: grammar

0
4

[–] thuvia_1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

this would be bad for mods of verses that don't have a lot of upvoating subscribers. one sub that i mod in has 295 members, but not one post i've made has gotten more than 10 upvoats. i am really the only person who submits anything, so limiting my ability to make submissions would really kill it. i don't know if i passed some threshold or if that rule was dropped, but there was a limit of like 3 submissions an hour every 24 hours, and that was awful.

0
1

[–] jstyla 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm just freestyling ideas here but let's say the algorithm kicks into place; there should most definitely be provisions for moderators since they are key to making Voat successful so a post vs score ratio for a mod within their own sub would be more lenient than the scoring of mr.Triggerfinger who registerd two minutes ago.

0
2

[–] codyave 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This could take care of the gallowboob/karma-whore dilemma, where a user spams multiple subs dozens of times a day, but only deletes the unsuccessful ones. If their first handful of posts get reported as spam, then their shitposting limit gets throttled.

0
0

[–] dognose 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I must admit though, gallowboob and ibleeedorange submit some quality content, karma whores or no.

0
12

[–] SBareS 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

On that note, I think Vote's rules about blog-spamming are a bit too harsh. Quoting from the FAQ:

To be on the safe side, if you submit 10 links to various subverses on Voat, at most 2 of the 10 submitted links may be to the sites you are associated with.

If you are a regular content creator and submit stuff to your own sub, then this is obviously off. One has to realize, that there is a difference between posting one's own stuff and self-marketing.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am all for eradicating shit like this. But letting the community decide what is OK (ie. flagging), as suggested by OP is probably a better way to go than placing arbitrary rules about "your own" content.

0
3

[–] ForgotMyName [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What's that difference? You have a sub all to yourself, all you do is post links to your stuff... so, how are you not self-marketing?

The only distinction I could see is between a corporate account like, "TheGuardianNews" that only posts their own stuff, only gets to post X times a day, and has some kind of flair to indicate that it's a corporate account. For me this is about 1) not overwhelming the site with spam garbage from one source 2) making it clear that the poster has an association with the site.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] SBareS 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I believe there is a difference between using it as a communication platform, like many youtubers do with reddit, and using it for blunt advertising. It is the first we do not want, since this content is in the way of the community. While the latter obviously also has a quasi-advertisement effect, it actually does contribute to the community. In the end, such a rule exists to help the community from becoming a spammy mess, but limiting people whose most interesting contributions are likely the content they make to posting that 20% of the time has the opposite effect, namely giving them incentive to post other, likely less interesting, things 80% of the time.

0
0

[–] FitMachoNaziAtheist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Went back to reddit, voat is no different.

0
3

[–] SBareS 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Afaik, that is only in the reddiquette, ie. not really "rules". Reddit does not allow spamming, but afaik there are no official, strict judgements about what constitutes spam. That is very much on the contrary to here, where spamming is almost no less broadly defined than "self-promotion", noting that such posting will get you globally banned. I agree that what this guy does is downright ridiculous, and he should be banned, but both 1 and 2 out of 10 seem like completely unnecessary arbitrary limitations to me.

As an example, reddit user /u/mindofmetalandwheels (aka CGP Grey) almost exclusively (more like 9/10 than 1/10 of the time) posts his own videos and podcasts on reddit. But these posts allow users to discuss his content along with himself, and thus improves the community rather than it deteriorates it, which is clearly the case with an example like this.

Again, I do agree that there should be guidelines to what constitutes unacceptable self-promotion, but the current ones (ie. something from your own site) are simply too strict.

0
8

[–] SteamMachine 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Has anyone messaged the user yet? I believe in resolving conflict in the following manner.

  1. Politely point out how someone is fucking up doing something wrong and encourage them to do things the proper way.

  2. If the person is a defensive asshole does not see eye to eye with you then you take your complaint to a higher authority if you feel so inclined.

  3. The higher authority can determine how fucked up the person is to proceed and may let the user off with a warning or revoke posting privileges for a time.

Transparency starts with us. And we may have to assume that not everyone knows the ropes of this community, so we can show them the way. As nice as it feels, bringing down the 'report' hammer isn't always the best, first choice.

0
2

[–] natektronic 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Who are you with all of these rational ideas, and what have you done with the human being that was at that computer a minute ago?

0
7

[–] UberMentch 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I figure that's what downvotes are meant for anyways; community-driven filtering

0
3

[–] mvartan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It'd be sufficient to just be a form to post to /v/reportspammers

0
0

[–] luisbg 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And that subverse have an army of downvoaters.

0
3

[–] ironic_username 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

ya something to slowdown the posts that are really ads! or just something like that.

0
0

[–] Zooropa 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Isn't there a time limit for account for posting?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] hypercat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But there is no option to report something illegal in a post, you would have to message the mods with the users name? Or a link to the post?

Maybe the only report a post option would be if it contained illegal content? Then a message could be sent to the mods for review and removal if it was truly illegal. So instead of auto take down, review then takedown.

load more comments ▼ (36 remaining)