Design: Voting up or Down is Dead

Re:Design: Voting up or Down is Dead by JulianMorrison on Monday October 15, 2007 @03:44AM (#67962)

I see Slashdot in a darker light. To me it illustrates two principles. First, that there is a level of "firehose" beyond which quality-maximizing editors don't scale. Second, that an abstract judgment (up/down) is less abused than a list of judgments, all of which are necessarily trite. Handing the right to judge out by lotto only broadens the standard deviation of voters - if anything, it worsens the groupthink. "Power users" have more invested in a vote.

Thinking about what makes a vote worthwhile, there has to be some high barrier to entry (or any troll will pile in) and it must not itself be subject to groupthink (or it will result in an automated clique). In the case of Hacker News, I propose the metric: anyone who has founded or co-founded their own startup (defined as: in at the start, and has partial ownership) may vote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Design: Voting up or Down is Dead by angryearthling on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:40AM (#67998)

i don't think it is a lotto as to who gets to vote. those who participate in moderation and those who make comments that are voted up get to vote.

i think one of the very good things in the slashdot model is the cap at 5 on votes. it lowers the number of people who go out of their way to karma whore. what's the point when all you will get is 5 points?

i've used slashdot for a long time (my user id is 5 digits). every year new sites come along.

i used digg for a year before it degenerated into the mess it is now. it went downhill fast once it expanded from a tech only site.

i used reddit for 6 months. it has gone the exact same way. as i type this it has been offline for a day.

after giving up on these i always drift back to slashdot. maybe the question is why do i leave slashdot in the first place? what is wrong with slashdot that i look for other sites?

[ Parent | on HN ]