Re:Ask HN: Idea Sunday
by fragmede on Monday April 14, 2014 @12:02AM
(#7584471)
I have some ideas for improving the efficacy of online voting systems, but starting a new online community is hard. Even just starting a subreddits is hard, and I imagine that to be lower-friction than creating a stand-alone site, given Reddit's large existing user base.
If you have an online-community that you run and would like some ideas to combat vote-based-on-agreement, here are a few that I've thought up or come across:
(Not claiming that these strategies are ungameable).
* Limit the number of upvotes a user can give per day, thus making votes more valuable.
* Force users to space-out voting, allowing only 1 upvote every 5 minutes.
* Vote value: Votes are valued more the less you do it over a certain period - so if you only upvote once per-day, that post gets more points than if you upvoted everything in /new. Choice: Do it hidden on the backend, or could be interesting; do it in a user-configurable format. Give users, say, 100 points per-day and are allowed to upvote transparently - you can give one thing 100 points or four things 25 points.
* Time-delayed voting: votes are only allowed after a certain amount of time has passed since you clicked on a link. A well thought-out and reasoned article should take at least a couple of minutes to read, so I can upvote that after I read; I'm not likely to wait around to upvote an image-macro with fewer than a dozen words unless it's really special.
* Karma cap, both negative and positive: Limit max positive karma to something low, say 50. That's high enough to see that a user isn't brand new but isn't trivially attainable. That way, it's fine to get to the cap, but posting inane one-liners attempting to reap thousands of points for a single comment isn't so tempting. Limit negative karma to something lower, like -100 to dissuade trolls, while still showing that a user is disagreed with. Hopefully that encourages discussion for the sake of discussion.
* Meta-voting: You vote on how many points a post got, so if a pithy but well-timed comment that says "lol butts" gets a lot of points, you can vote to say that the post didn't deserve those points. Make this a limited power granted to a select (but changing) group.
* Make downvoting cost karma: If it cost karma to downvote, that could be a higher bar to drive-by-disagreeing.
* Not sure if it's a good idea, but turn the script around. Instead of trying to avoiding the Pepsi-Blue Advertising syndrome, charge money for votes transparently adding points to a post or comment. As users can still downvote items, it becomes expensive to elevate a bad piece of advertising. Maybe extend this to users by allowing users to receive money for lots of highly-rated comments. Or perhaps use Dogecoin as your currency of choice as the real-world value of 1 Doge is so low that it's effectively free in small quantities, but not actually free.
I don't think allowing the masses to vote on things is a bad idea, but it's an idea that needs some refinements for best effect.
If you have an online-community that you run and would like some ideas to combat vote-based-on-agreement, here are a few that I've thought up or come across:
(Not claiming that these strategies are ungameable).
* Limit the number of upvotes a user can give per day, thus making votes more valuable.
* Force users to space-out voting, allowing only 1 upvote every 5 minutes.
* Vote value: Votes are valued more the less you do it over a certain period - so if you only upvote once per-day, that post gets more points than if you upvoted everything in /new. Choice: Do it hidden on the backend, or could be interesting; do it in a user-configurable format. Give users, say, 100 points per-day and are allowed to upvote transparently - you can give one thing 100 points or four things 25 points.
* Time-delayed voting: votes are only allowed after a certain amount of time has passed since you clicked on a link. A well thought-out and reasoned article should take at least a couple of minutes to read, so I can upvote that after I read; I'm not likely to wait around to upvote an image-macro with fewer than a dozen words unless it's really special.
* Karma cap, both negative and positive: Limit max positive karma to something low, say 50. That's high enough to see that a user isn't brand new but isn't trivially attainable. That way, it's fine to get to the cap, but posting inane one-liners attempting to reap thousands of points for a single comment isn't so tempting. Limit negative karma to something lower, like -100 to dissuade trolls, while still showing that a user is disagreed with. Hopefully that encourages discussion for the sake of discussion.
* Meta-voting: You vote on how many points a post got, so if a pithy but well-timed comment that says "lol butts" gets a lot of points, you can vote to say that the post didn't deserve those points. Make this a limited power granted to a select (but changing) group.
* Make downvoting cost karma: If it cost karma to downvote, that could be a higher bar to drive-by-disagreeing.
* Not sure if it's a good idea, but turn the script around. Instead of trying to avoiding the Pepsi-Blue Advertising syndrome, charge money for votes transparently adding points to a post or comment. As users can still downvote items, it becomes expensive to elevate a bad piece of advertising. Maybe extend this to users by allowing users to receive money for lots of highly-rated comments. Or perhaps use Dogecoin as your currency of choice as the real-world value of 1 Doge is so low that it's effectively free in small quantities, but not actually free.
I don't think allowing the masses to vote on things is a bad idea, but it's an idea that needs some refinements for best effect.