0
7

[–] astarkey12 [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I also have a separate but similar idea to go along with this: requiring users to actually click a link before they can vote on it. One of the biggest problems in /r/music and the impetus for creating /r/listentothis is people upvoting a post based solely on a band's widespread name recognition. That's why we had to create an ever-expanding Hall of Fame list in /r/music and popularity rules using a bot to reference last.fm in /r/listentothis. Users will vote Tool, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. to the front page every damn time if you don't forcibly stop them. There should be a requirement to at least click a link before a vote counts.

0
4

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

I'm opposed to this idea because it takes a lot of work to create content that is concise and easy to consume.

Images are a great example, and we even have a saying for such works, "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Don't get me wrong, I agree that shitty posts need to go, I'm just opposed to ranking them based on the amount of content.

0
0

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

Uhm, no, it's not. There are several meme generators out there. Most of the images of that caliber the submitter didn't create the picture, they typed in 1, maybe 2 lines of text, twiddled a resizer knob and called it good. It took me longer to write that last sentence describing the process than it takes to actually do it.

0
0

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

I'm sorry, my statement isn't complete, and I believe this lead to confusion.

I should have said: >I'm opposed to this idea because it takes a lot of work to create great content that is concise and easy to consume.

You are correct, shitty content doesn't have to take long at all. Great content, or even good content usually takes effort and to make it concise and easy to consume takes more effort.

Great content and shitty content might be close to the same "size" and take a short time to consume.

A nice quote on the topic: >“The letter I have written today is longer than usual because I lacked the time to make it shorter.” -- Blaise Pascal


Edits for clarity.

0
4

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

Sure that sounds great! But how?

The only idea I have is to fully disable top side voting and use comment voting to determine total post score. Or require a comment of >x characters in length before someone can vote on a post.

0
2

[–] astarkey12 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wish I knew - I'm just spitballing here. What about weighting votes differently based on domain? So imgur links would require twice as many votes to rise up the front page as say an article or Youtube video. The problem with this is that it would become a mountain of work to deal with because of how many domains there are out there, but if Voat restricted it to only the primary offenders like imgur, it could be beneficial.

0
5

[–] Danbear 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't know, that is dangerously similar to violating the spirit of net neutrality. I don't so much like that, because what if a quality post comes from Imgur?

I can see Image heavy subs having a different weight but if its the whole sub, who cares?

One of the things I hated about Reddit was how Subs would ban sources for ambiguous reasons. Putting voat weights on sources is almost the same thing.

0
1

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

The domain weight-list isn't a bad idea, it would take lots of maintenance though.

Also something which encourages good sources to get frontpage might be useful, as long as it doesn't affect the weighting when viewed inside the posts subverse itself. I wonder if you could reward a posts title similarity to the articles title too (at time of posting, sometimes the source edits their title some time after publishing)? I hate badly editorialized titles.

I suppose if the article had "Mayor pledges major transport improvements" and the post had "Mayor pledges major transport improvements" For the second year running. Then thats ok, so long as the title is in there. I want to see the articles title is all, that should be weighted higher, or not de-weighted for lacking it...

But thats hella complex yo.

0
0

[–] Gamerdog6482 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Now you're drifting into some dangerous territory: You're assuming that everyone uses Voat for the same reason you do.

 

Reddit got huge because it was a content aggregator. It would be awesome if videos and images could be weighted less than articles or self post in subs where that's relevant. However, it isn't always relevant, and if you start to implement deliberate systemic bias against certain forms of content then you're no longer a content aggregator, you're a content controller - and that's what we're trying oh so very hard to NOT be.

0
0

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

The only mechanisms I can think of to manage this are all rather a pain in the ass to implement. That said I couldn't agree more that it needs to happen, somehow.

  • Normalize scoring. Effectively, setting a top speed limit at which a post can acquire rank - not votes, - rank, as in where it appears on the page regardless of the score. You identify the speed at which the slowest kind of content can gain rank - such as a long news article - and you set a hard limit so that even if images gain 10x the votes in the same time period, their rank changes at the same pace as that news article. This is an arbitrary speed limit on how fast any post can rise. This also has a side effect of slowing down external vote brigades such as 100 people coming in at once from facebook to vote up a post. It also blunts the effectiveness of clickbait titles that make people vote without reading.

  • Validate consumption. This is far more tricky in the code I suspect... verify, somehow, that a person has clicked on the link and viewed the content before voting on it. If they haven't clicked on the link, their votes are added to the total but disregarded in the ranking. This would utterly nullify internal and external brigading in most circumstances.

  • Measure consumption time. This it seems to me is the silver bullet but it is also the hardest to code. Measure the time that passes between when someone clicks a link to consume the content, and when they come back to vote on the content. This would give a fuzzy but useful measurement of the amount of time it takes to consume whatever content is at the end of any link, and that number could factor into the ranking negating the advantage of quick consume content. I'd combine this with the previous one as well - if they haven't viewed before voting, disregard their votes in the ranking because they are being dishonest and we don't need to be counting their uninformed opinion on the content.

  • Create content classes. This is a hacky stopgap if the previous solutions are too hard to manage. Define certain general categories... images, videos, articles, default... and have the link engine run some kind of check on the site or the content at the other end. A quick sweep can count words/pages, check the length of time on a video, or easily detect a simple image. Everything starts in the default category, certain domains like imgur can be assigned the images category, youtube to the videos, etc. This gives an approximation of consumption time per category that can be used to smooth out the rankings. This sort of bias could also be enforced at the subverse level by the moderators as well.

  • Per-User Bias. This goes along with the content categories above. Allow a user on their profile page to rank what they are interested in seeing. For myself I'd rank Articles #1, Videos #2, Default #3, Images #4 in descending preference. If I were to set that value on my profile page, the rankings I see would inherit that bias, so I'd see very few images, many videos, and lots of articles in my feed, with images receiving the stiffest penalty. This has the advantage of allowing one to tailor the site to one's needs.

  • Karma decay. It would also be nice to have a mechanism for identifying reposts and assigning a penalty to them based on how long it's been since the last post of that particular link. If it's been long enough, no penalty is applied.

0
2

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

The only real issue I have with this is that Voat needs content and you don't want to do anything to dissuade that. If we penalize easy stuff like pics or vids the front page is going to grind to a halt. Deeper discussion is great, but if the front page gets clogged up with 3-5 day old v/askvoat questions it isn't going to hold many people's interest.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Gamerdog6482 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A system like this has been suggested to Imgur for years. It'd be even easier to put it into something like Voat, I think.

The issue of course is that you'd have to have the strictest possible filter for reposts, lest you err and censor a post that didn't deserve to be censored.

1
2

[–] djhamilton 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Image posts = 0.25 of a point. x4 votes = 1 point. Normal post = 1 point.

If you would say a image post gets almost 4 times the votes as a standard post.

Also this is my first post :) i hope to spend as much time here as i do with Reddit :) i like it so far :)

0
1

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

This would still weight things evenly and reflect its true popularity on the subverse its posted in, when viewd from that subverse, but when viewed from the frontpage/all, it would mean more content which takes longer to consume, floats to the top. It could only benefit the sites frontpage as far as deeper content goes.

0
1

[–] astarkey12 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I have no clue what the ratio of votes garnered (and speed at which they're garnered) is in practice over on reddit, but that would be something worth investigating to determine what the algorithm's ratio should be over here on Voat. Might be tough to do since a lot of that information isn't publicly available.

0
0

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

On my sub over there the ratio is more 10 to 1. We regularly get images with 100+ votes. Our discussion topics rarely break a dozen.

0
1

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

Users get x voats/day for posts, and unlimited for comments. This would encourage upvoating quality posts and not low-effort ones.

0
1

[–] Gamerdog6482 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It would also discourage voating as a whole.

In a perfect world people would ration their voats for good content. IN reality they'd just voat the first X number of things that shows up on their feed and then not voat on anything after that.

0
1

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

I like this sentiment, because in my opinion on a site this size, if anything, content which takes longer to consume should be rewarded more than bite size content.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)