5 ms·

I think your logic is flawed. I'll click on something that says "Whoa, Node.js + Sinatra + Websocks = AWESOME!" and it could be the biggest link bait ever. UpV

by Tawheed 16y ago

I think your logic is flawed. I'll click on something that says "Whoa, Node.js + Sinatra + Websocks = AWESOME!" and it could be the biggest link bait ever. UpVote is my explicit way of saying, yes, this is indeed awesome.

benologist 16y ago
Then combine both actions?
- Tawheed 16y ago
  Right, I think up-votes done by people that didn't click on the link is an interesting case to look for.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Maybe, but I'll sometimes see something on the new page that I already know what it is (because I was thinking about posting it), or that obviously adds information about some existing story.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Sometimes the discussion is so good that I don't really care about how good or bad the article might have been anyways.
  - icey 16y ago
    There are often 3 or 4 items on the frontpage that I know are awesome because I read them somewhere else already. I don't need to read it again to share that - I'm certain that happens pretty regularly at every social aggregation site.
JoshCole 16y ago
If number of clicks compared to number of votes is correlated with the extent to which the title is link bait than couldn't link bait be handled more efficiently by giving moderators access to the metric?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  How do you quantify the 'linkbaitiness' of a title?
  - JoshCole 16y ago
    I had remembered reading about how you could use the rating system mentioned at http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.... to determine what was abusive as well as what was good. So you could quantify 'linkbaitiness' if you set the pos to be the number of people who viewed an item without voting for it, and n to the number of viewers, as long as people are less likely to up-vote linkbait than quality. I figured that the last bit is a big if so I just phrased it as a question.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by Tawheed 16y ago

benologist 16y ago

Then combine both actions?

Tawheed 16y ago
Right, I think up-votes done by people that didn't click on the link is an interesting case to look for.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Maybe, but I'll sometimes see something on the new page that I already know what it is (because I was thinking about posting it), or that obviously adds information about some existing story.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Sometimes the discussion is so good that I don't really care about how good or bad the article might have been anyways.
- icey 16y ago
  There are often 3 or 4 items on the frontpage that I know are awesome because I read them somewhere else already. I don't need to read it again to share that - I'm certain that happens pretty regularly at every social aggregation site.

JoshCole 16y ago

If number of clicks compared to number of votes is correlated with the extent to which the title is link bait than couldn't link bait be handled more efficiently by giving moderators access to the metric?

jacquesm 16y ago
How do you quantify the 'linkbaitiness' of a title?
- JoshCole 16y ago
  I had remembered reading about how you could use the rating system mentioned at http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.... to determine what was abusive as well as what was good. So you could quantify 'linkbaitiness' if you set the pos to be the number of people who viewed an item without voting for it, and n to the number of viewers, as long as people are less likely to up-vote linkbait than quality. I figured that the last bit is a big if so I just phrased it as a question.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]