You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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'