0
3

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

I don't think you come across users all the often more than a few times for this to be useful. I think it would be really cool to see how many time you upvoated a person though.

0
2

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

(WTF, now it ate my reply without even giving me the goat?)

I don't think you come across users all the often more than a few times for this to be useful.

The network effect should be able to compensate for that, as like-minded people are likely to upvoat each other, if not directly, at least in a criss-cross fashion. Of course, how much useful it would be largely depends on the weighting function used. Individual vs total upvoats given is just an example. One could consider also a fixed extra % for each upvoat given, or any number of other possible functions.

0
2

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

It definitely will in large node networks random graphs become connected amazingly quickly. This would essentially PageRank voats on an individual basis. Storage could be mitigated by limiting effects to top positive/negative as some function of total user base. Not much more that a few hundred gigs of data even after complete world signup.

0
2

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

LMAO at "giving me the goat". That should really be a thing on this site. Like a phrase we use for shit, you know?

ie "Hey don't give me the fucking goat! You know what I meant!"

0
1

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

I enjoyed this so much have a downvoat with my 5 ccp. Jk just seems like everyone is getting worked up over nothing .

0
4

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

just seems like everyone is getting worked up over nothing

Well, there are legitimate worries about the possible abuses of the simple up/downvoating system without any form of checks and balances, and it just happens that, this web of trust thing is something I've been thinking about for a while, actually (ahem before Voat even existed ahem), so I thought this was a good opportunity to try and give it a go.

0
1

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

I do agree with you, just giving u a hard time. Maybe a laugh. I know this is a huge problem with other sites.

1
1

[–] weezkitty 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It seems really complicated and hard to understand. It would probably be similarly difficult to code.

A quick tip: If you get a "verifying your bits" message when you hit submit, you can usually recover it by pressing back. At least on firefox

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It seems really complicated and hard to understand.

Wow. And this is actually the simple version (the complex one weights other users based on common up/downvoats). Is there some aspects that you find particularly hard to follow? Maybe I can explain it better.

It would probably be similarly difficult to code.

It would actually be relatively straightforward (it's very simple to express in mathematical terms, and for the little I know about the structure of the database, all data is already there).

A quick tip: If you get a "verifying your bits" message when you hit submit, you can usually recover it by pressing back. At least on firefox

The problem is, I realized it too late (I had switched to another tab right after pressing submit, and when I got back it had already irrecoverably lost the post 8-/)

0
1

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

I'm a little confused too. Maybe it doesn't matter for calculations, but some voting numbers might be missing. Missing voating patterns for user C, and also not sure if user B ever gave any voats to user A or were those 90 upvoats given to any other use except A. Here's what I gather - top header row for the user giving a voat, and rows for each person they gave votes to:

edit: or better yet, how would this below random voating history play out when B's post is 23 real points, C already upvoated it, and A is now viewing the post?

User Voats given by A Voats given by B Voats given by C
To A - 34 10
To B 13 - 15
To C -2 4 -
To Others 100 55 3
--- --- --- ---
Total 111 93 28

0
0

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

It is certainly interesting, though I do think that circlejerks would be even worse. However, I don't think that this should be official. It would be better if it was an independent plugin or application.

0
0

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It is certainly interesting, though I do think that circlejerks would be even worse.

But mostly to those within the circlejerks themselves. Say that you come across a post or comment that is obviously circlejerky. You downvoat it (as circlejerks aren't exactly contributing to the conversation, typically), and that single downvoat weights down all contributions from the circlejerkers (for you). So I think in the longer run it would smooth out the circlejerk effect from outside the circlejerk.

However, I don't think that this should be official. It would be better if it was an independent plugin or application.

Even assuming the Voat API gives access to all the information (which I don't think it does, actually) it'd need to make too many queries and compute too much stuff to be practical if not implemented in Voat itself.

0
0

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

I'm not so sure, it would also bring down all contributions with the same opinion, as circlejerkers vote each other, though it may smooth out as you say.

Even assuming the Voat API gives access to all the information (which I don't think it does, actually) it'd need to make too many queries and compute too much stuff to be practical if not implemented in Voat itself.
I don't think it fits with Voat, and if it's implemented, Voat has to do all those queries and computations, which costs Voat more.