3 ms·
The point is to give users a reason to vote on stories other than for "that warm feeling of communal good". If you aren't convicted about the destination of an
by Judson 16y ago
The point is to give users a reason to vote on stories other than for "that warm feeling of communal good".
If you aren't convicted about the destination of an article, then you won't vote. Karma makes HN game-like.
Its about making content that other people like, not content that a few people have filtered for.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jaekwon 16y agoThis system would only promote the common denominator. For example, divisive (but good) articles would get less voting attention because people would be afraid of voting the wrong way. No?
- Judson 16y agoSince we don't know exactly how people would react to given incentive/risk profiles that would undoubtable differ story to story we can assume two scenarios: - Stories that have perceived "deadlocks" would be considered volatile. They have a great chance of "breaking out" with large support, so they would be voted on early by supporters to reap the reward. - Divisive stories/comments would scare away any voters and eventually only stories that were beneficial to the entire community would be voted on. So in this scenario, this system helps to define the community. edit: Also, the problem that you describe isn't isolated to my system. In the current HN system, people don't comment on stories because they fear that their comment will be "divisive" and attract negative votes. My system encourages voting, which would reward someone for voting on a "-3" comment (that makes it back to 0 or 1) that is beneficial to the conversation.
- jaekwon 16y agoPretty interesting. I'd like to see it in practice.