3 ms·
I'm not sure how to fight fluff, but I think there's a strong case to be rather zealous about it. It seems obvious that the direction of these communities is h
by h34t 19y ago
I'm not sure how to fight fluff, but I think there's a strong case to be rather zealous about it.
It seems obvious that the direction of these communities is highly reflexive, in that users are determined by content, which is determined by users, and on and on. Neither users nor content is an "independent variable"... they depend on each other.
So there's no reason to assume stability in the system. A big influx of new users + a few badly timed fluffs, and things could roll downhill in escalating fashion (the fluffs attract a few extra fluffers from the new users, who then produce more fluff, which attracts a few extra fluffers from yet-new-users, ...)
- Kaizyn 19y agoMay I suggest that fluff can be fought by NOT upvoting fluff links.
- h34t 19y agoI agree entirely, but in a limited way. That's sort of like saying that the way to change policies in a democracy is by voting; it's true, but as an individual (or someone involved in setting the rules/administering the technology of the community) there's a lot more that can be done to change a system than casting the single vote to which your citizenship/membership entitles you to. It's these other measures that I haven't got a good grasp on, and am curious about.
- pg 19y agoThat's hard. But the opposite strategy might work: upvote non-fluff links. Only a few percent of the users of a site like this ever vote. So if the "silent majority" who never vote made even a slight effort to vote up non-fluff stories as a way to protect the site, that would have a real effect.