3 ms·

I agree with you about the voting swings. I think that, more than the extreme numbers, may be why voting is starting to seem such a mob thing lately. It's a v

by pg 17y ago

I agree with you about the voting swings. I think that, more than the extreme numbers, may be why voting is starting to seem such a mob thing lately. It's a very interesting idea to have users see only the votes of other users they choose. One problem though is that it could easily lead to leaking who voted for what, which would make a lot of users (including me) uncomfortable. E.g. your pool is your 7 coworkers, and user x. One day you know all your coworkers are on a plane, and that you're therefore seeing user x's votes. Another problem is that it could be a lot more expensive to generate pages.

asdflkj 17y ago
You could fix the deanonymization problem this way: when you pick a trusted user, you can see not only his votes, but all his trusted users' votes, too. Maybe weigh the votes differently depending on how "distant" they are from you.
- pg 17y ago
  Hmm. Good idea.
- dschobel 17y ago
  This is a great idea. My original thinking was to suggest a combination of enforcing a minimum number of trusted users and then reporting a weighted average of your trusted users + the mass' rating but your solution is conceptually nicer since it adds the same noise to the vote but while extending the idea of valuing a particular user's judgement. The big technical issue will be computing these "trusted ratings" for every comment. The trust graph could be done asynchronously so that wouldn't be an issue.
b3eck 17y ago
During the experiment of not displaying points on comments, was the voting less volatile, with smaller voting swings? If it was, then hiding the points until a few minutes or hours after the comment is posted (i.e. until the volatility becomes reasonable) could replicate the effect. If not, then maybe the voting swings are inherent as a statistical property of any sufficiently large community, in which case you may want to display a confidence interval of the voting score instead of the score itself.

by pg 17y ago

asdflkj 17y ago

You could fix the deanonymization problem this way: when you pick a trusted user, you can see not only his votes, but all his trusted users' votes, too. Maybe weigh the votes differently depending on how "distant" they are from you.

pg 17y ago
Hmm. Good idea.
dschobel 17y ago
This is a great idea. My original thinking was to suggest a combination of enforcing a minimum number of trusted users and then reporting a weighted average of your trusted users + the mass' rating but your solution is conceptually nicer since it adds the same noise to the vote but while extending the idea of valuing a particular user's judgement. The big technical issue will be computing these "trusted ratings" for every comment. The trust graph could be done asynchronously so that wouldn't be an issue.

b3eck 17y ago

During the experiment of not displaying points on comments, was the voting less volatile, with smaller voting swings? If it was, then hiding the points until a few minutes or hours after the comment is posted (i.e. until the volatility becomes reasonable) could replicate the effect. If not, then maybe the voting swings are inherent as a statistical property of any sufficiently large community, in which case you may want to display a confidence interval of the voting score instead of the score itself.