Re:Ask HN: Wouldn't it make sense to calculate karma on comm...
by jstewartmobile on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:11AM
(#20027616)
Giving the big points to submitters encourages people to keep submitting. Maybe one of the other five will get lucky next time.
Re:Ask HN: Wouldn't it make sense to calculate karma on comm...
by Ultramanoid on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:20AM
(#20027647)
I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting or useful, but it gets ridiculous after a while. And not to do so seems utterly wrong from my point of view, since points are given to submitters, and receiving points grants them benefits.
Maybe if HN consistently registered the first submitted link and marked all others as dupes automatically. Even so, still seems a flawed reward system.
Re:Ask HN: Wouldn't it make sense to calculate karma on comm...
by masonic on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @03:47AM
(#20028073)
I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting
... then you are intentionally rewarding submitters of dupes?
Re:Ask HN: Wouldn't it make sense to calculate karma on comm...
by Ultramanoid on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @04:44AM
(#20028309)
So I should vote only the first submitter and to do so hunt down all the instances of the article posted before, to find out who was the first ? And that'd be the value in karma -- who submits first ? Sure, it'd make at least more sense than it does now, which is randomly giving hundreds of karma points to anyone.
Still wrong in my view, and worth giving more value to comments. I've already commented anyway, not sure why HN does not automatically register the first time a link is submitted and redirect the rest to the first one.
But how does it make sense to give 400 points to a submitter out of 5 who posted the same thing ? And often to an article which may not be neither the first, nor the best about the issue. That's what I mean by entirely random.
Furthermore, without threads and comments HN would just be another link aggregator from some relatively fixed sources.
And you prove my point about comments mentioning a-holes, in that useless ones would be downvoted while useful or informative ones would be upvoted, and quite rightly bestow karma and benefits to contributors deserving it. That would make sense. You wouldn't see actual a-holes, they'd be downvoted to oblivion.