3 ms·

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already

by imron 11y ago

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already replied to a post.

jacquesm 11y ago
Karma economy: Every submitted link or comment: +1 karma, every upvote, another +1, but a -1 for the upvoter. In the case of a downvote on a comment: -1 for the comment writer, -1 for the downvoter.
- imron 11y ago
  I think the upvoter should remain karma neutral. That keeps a steady flow of karma currency entering the system, which is necessary when the primary mechanism for filtering and ranking interesting content is upvoting. If you penalise users for doing that, they'll do less of it, which will make the ranking/filtering less effective.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    The writing of good comments and the submission of good links will already do that.
    - imron 11y ago
      Not to nearly the same level. Like any major site, I would guess the majority of HN readers do not comment, or only comment rarely. Losing karma for upvoting means you need to comment if you want to upvote, and I suspect many readers will simply choose not to participate in either activity rather than try to maintain a positive karma balance.
- hammock 11y ago
  Each upvote on a submission: +100 for submitter, -1 for voter. Each upvote on a comment: +10 for commenter, -1 for voter. Each downvote on a comment: -10 for commenter, -1 for voter This aligns with the ladder of engagement, where there are 10x as many creators as commenters as voters, while keeping a steady stream of currency injection.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > 10x as many creators as commenters as voters It's rather the opposite. There are tens of thousands of potential voters, a fraction of that in comments and a fraction of that in quality link submitters (once you filter out the spam). Anyway, regardless of the situation there is an easy way out of this: measure and adjust accordingly, I'm sure 'arc' has the ability to define named constants. This would also answer the question 'what is karma good for?' once and for all.
    - hammock 11y ago
      Whoops you're right I had it backwards in that one sentence, typo.
RodericDay 11y ago
One paradoxical thing about discussions here is that often I see a bad post, followed up with a really good reply. And I want the two to be seen in tandem, but if I sink the parent I also sink the child. So I often upvote both. Just a stray thought.
- Bjartr 11y ago
  I would say that if a "bad post" has resulted in good discussion, then it wasn't a bad post. It might be in poor taste, but if that is a filtering criteria then you're going to get groupthink around controversial subjects.

by imron 11y ago

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already replied to a post.

jacquesm 11y ago

Karma economy: Every submitted link or comment: +1 karma, every upvote, another +1, but a -1 for the upvoter. In the case of a downvote on a comment: -1 for the comment writer, -1 for the downvoter.

imron 11y ago
I think the upvoter should remain karma neutral. That keeps a steady flow of karma currency entering the system, which is necessary when the primary mechanism for filtering and ranking interesting content is upvoting. If you penalise users for doing that, they'll do less of it, which will make the ranking/filtering less effective.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  The writing of good comments and the submission of good links will already do that.
  - imron 11y ago
    Not to nearly the same level. Like any major site, I would guess the majority of HN readers do not comment, or only comment rarely. Losing karma for upvoting means you need to comment if you want to upvote, and I suspect many readers will simply choose not to participate in either activity rather than try to maintain a positive karma balance.
hammock 11y ago
Each upvote on a submission: +100 for submitter, -1 for voter. Each upvote on a comment: +10 for commenter, -1 for voter. Each downvote on a comment: -10 for commenter, -1 for voter This aligns with the ladder of engagement, where there are 10x as many creators as commenters as voters, while keeping a steady stream of currency injection.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > 10x as many creators as commenters as voters It's rather the opposite. There are tens of thousands of potential voters, a fraction of that in comments and a fraction of that in quality link submitters (once you filter out the spam). Anyway, regardless of the situation there is an easy way out of this: measure and adjust accordingly, I'm sure 'arc' has the ability to define named constants. This would also answer the question 'what is karma good for?' once and for all.
  - hammock 11y ago
    Whoops you're right I had it backwards in that one sentence, typo.

RodericDay 11y ago

One paradoxical thing about discussions here is that often I see a bad post, followed up with a really good reply. And I want the two to be seen in tandem, but if I sink the parent I also sink the child. So I often upvote both. Just a stray thought.

Bjartr 11y ago
I would say that if a "bad post" has resulted in good discussion, then it wasn't a bad post. It might be in poor taste, but if that is a filtering criteria then you're going to get groupthink around controversial subjects.