0
19

[–] lofalexandria 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think there is value in this.

The sorting algorithm could likely be worked out to be based on a combination of views, clicks, comments, and total number of votes and potentially a rate value for each of these, whether by minute, 10 min, hour, or other increment.

I think you are right that no matter what is done or said people will ultimately use these buttons as agree/disagree buttons anyway so why not treat them as such and balance accordingly?

0
12

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

But then there's the potential issue, as @GeorgeBurns said down below, of someone making a really stupid comment or something that has no relevance whatsoever and being buried in downvotes, but with an algorithm like that it could still show up at the top of the thread. I think it's a good idea, but there needs to be a third option. Agree/disagree/irrelevant or something like that. There's going to be issues with just a binary voting system no matter how we give it meaning, I think.

0
8

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

Just add a little dot between the arrows that means irrelevant. Now the problem becomes, should that bury the post to the bottom just because its irrelevant because then we would be back at the situation of downvoat/downvote/what the fuck ever brigading.

0
0

[–] Rogerguy123 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The fact of the matter is that a binary system is the simplest and easiest to use. Sometimes simple is better, even if we could conceive of other ways of doing things.

0
1

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

A policy of collecting anonymous information about "like" or "dislike" makes it easier for political groups to manufacture consensus. It would incentivize factions to game this system in order to convert others to their subjective point of view or political position, by making a position seem more popular or less popular than it really was.

I would strongly encourage the site to instead adopt a culture where comments are upvoted for the time, effort, and thought they took to produce. I would strongly discourage it from collecting any information simply about "agree" or "disagree".

Even when we disagree with the conclusions of an individual post, a cultural of upvoting based on effort rather than agreeableness will increase the long term likehood that counterarguments will appear which repudiate that which we disagree with. That is, when commenters know that their argument will not be suppressed based on popularity, and know that they stand a chance of gaining an audience based on the degree of effort they contributed to the post, they will be more likely to take the time raising a counter-argument repudiating the initial argument which was disagreeable.

I believe that it will ultimately be informative and valuable to users, to work towards a site which aggregates well thought out arguments and counter-arguments, then it is to develop a site which simply collects anonymous data concerning popularity, where the validity and integrity of such data is impossible to verify in an anonymous setting.

0
1

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

I agree with you. The issue seen on other social media sites is that 'instant reward' of one liners just kills the intelligent discourse.

I am not telling that such one liners aren't welcome however they should have no values at all in whatever system is in place to count points.

There should be one minimum set of words before the text becomes eligible for 'points'. My personal preference goes for a semantic check as well to make sure that you don't go 'lol then add a bunch of ipsum lorem'

0
11

[–] rwbj 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I'm all for this. I actually choose not to never downvote for this exact reason. It results in censorship of statements and I think people should feel free to say whatever they like. If I could downvote without fear of it burying a post I'd happily begin using both buttons again.

0
3

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

What would happen in that world if we removed downvotes globally?

0
3

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

Also a perfectly reasonable idea. Perhaps the arrows could in turn be changed to one icon that somehow indicates something like "bump." You're not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing but just want it to get more visibility for whatever reason. The concept of a bump is something that I think would be a whole lot more intuitive than two arrows anyhow.

The downside with the idea of removing down votes is that I think a minority love their downvotes. I think they should also feel free to express themselves that way, so long as it doesn't directly negatively impact others. For instance with OP's idea there'd be absolutely nothing wrong with brigades. People don't generally brigade against spam or whatever, they brigade against controversial topics or at least topics they disagree with. A brigade would bring a topic up for discussion while also allowing a group to show large disapproval of it. I think this is a good thing. A brigade could explain why they think an idea or comment is bad instead of simply having the software hide it (along with their disapproval) away.

0
0

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

I suppose I am fundamentally against the idea of voting indicating number of agrees or disagrees, and think there is little value in collecting such information, and that any system which actually collects such information will be gamed, relentlessly, by those who could gain political advantage by making a position seem artificially more popular or less popular than it actually was.

If I could downvote without fear of it burying a post I'd happily begin using both buttons again.

If you disagree with something, why is it necessary to downvote out at all?

Why not raise a rational and reasoned objection to it as a reply, or simply save your upvotes for those who take the time to post the counterargument for you?

If the poster of a comment invested time and effort, then they are contributing to the site conversation and making it better. I believe we should be upvoting such people, even if we disagree with them.

0
7

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

Up/Down =Agree/Disagree

Left/Right = Relevant/Irrelevant

?

0
1

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

Ultimately: 'Highlight/Bury'

0
0

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

It would be funny to have sage/bury, but your idea makes the most sense.

0
1

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

I had a similar thought along those lines, but was unsure about how adding an extra dimension could be implemented. The up/down votes ostensibly correlate to the vertical positioning of a comment within a thread (whether sorted by "Top" or "Best" obviously, not for "New"), so how would left/right work? Or would we just have sort options that would go with "Most Agreed" or "Most Relevant"? I still think it's an interesting idea worth exploring, I just don't know how I would implement it.

0
1

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

Slashdot have the funny/insightful/informative/offtopic type of comment voting that is done via bullet selections on each comment.

I've always missed the extra dimension this sort of ranking options bring to the discussion as I found it freed people up to be on topic but still funny/informative etc.

If I had a choice, I'd just rip the idea straight from Slashdot and put it here, in addition to up/down.

That way you can mark a comment for it's semantic content then say you like/agree or dislike/disagree.

EG; this comment wasn't very funny would be a funny tag and a down vote.

It would also make sorting comments for reading easier to code as there would be clear classifications programmatically instead of some kind of nebulous 'best' algorithm.

If there were a limited list of default 'tags' for all verse, individual verse could also add their own, much in the way flair works on reddit, but this way is more supported and integration.
If an API was needed for an app the mobile app could then access the tags and permit sorting on the device without having to re-request data from the server.

0
0

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

Interesting choice in left and right. ;)


Edit: I dropped an "and."

0
1

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

Not really the first time it was suggested either.

0
0

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

It was intentional, just to mess with everyone who would notice and think on such things.

0
0

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

This should probadly be enough to seperate Voat from Reddit IMO.

0
6

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

I like it.

There are some problems with your sorting idea. Terrible comments will snowball downvoats, and probably dominate the top of some comment threads. Perhaps a third button, for "disagree." which indicates that you disagree with the post or comment, but want it to remain visible.

0
0

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

We do have a Report Spam button.. it could perhaps be extended to mark troll/junk comments?

0
2

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

Yeah.. but even if I think OP is an idiot and no one should read their comment, doesn't mean I want them booted off the site necessarily. And I don't want to shame people for sharing their opinions because even if their opinions are terrible and wrong, communication is the way that we make progress on that sort of thing. I'm leaning towards the three button combo: Upvoat, downvoat, and the "Gentleman's Button;" the disagree button. The Voltaire Button ha. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

0
5

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

This sounds like it would be like Youtube comments presently, and that sorting algorithm is terrible. Trolls rise to the top, and then more people respond to the troll, and it quickly turns to crap. Some users have suggested 2 axes of voting. That sounds better, but it might make for a less intuitive UI, maybe.

0
5

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

Wow, to be forthright I never thought of them as being relevant or irrelevant, but it makes sense. I'm guessing R/IR according to the topic of the sub, correct? Either way, I think we should consider what @Iofalexandria proposed about the algorithm, my only concern is stress on the backend.

0
0

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

what did lofalexandria propose?

0
2

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

"The sorting algorithm could likely be worked out to be based on a combination of views, clicks, comments, and total number of votes and potentially a rate value for each of these, whether by minute, 10 min, hour, or other increment." - Iofalexandria

0
0

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

On further thought, we should be careful not to create another vector for abuse, through artificial inflation of a topic. Bots will come.

0
4

[–] Rogerguy123 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't like it. I use upvoat/downvoat for good/bad. The problem with agree/disagree is that usually visibility is based on voting. That means that downvoting when you disagree is really just silencing dissent, which is very problematic. Not to mention that there can be very good posts that you disagree with, and very bad posts that you agree with. Reddit ended up with agree/disagree after a while, due mostly to newbies not really understanding how the system was designed to be, and the result is more echo chamber than discussion forum.

Most of the time what I think should be voted on is the effort put into a post and the quality of the thinking behind it, not the message itself. You can make a great post that I disagree with, but I'll still upvote, just as I did with the OP.

0
2

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

I upvoated you because I agree!

Honestly it's just hard to not; here or reddit, or any other site with the same supposed meritocracies, it just feels natural to upvoat what you like/agree with, and downvoat what you dislike/disagree with. I think with a more robust algorithm that allowed for this while not buying content that was mass downvoated we would see a much more user friendly site while not controlling content in a negative way.

Good idea!

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)