23 ms·

It might. But that's only an issue if the rich don't deserve to get rich.

• ebiester 16y ago
  Alternative, it keeps away those who deserve to get rich but cannot overcome the artificial market barriers.
• thefool 16y ago
  Exactly, in this, the rich only get richer if they continue posting valid comments. Otherwise they get poor real fast.
  • mooneater 16y ago
    No, they get poor based on how many previous comments are being averaged in. So someone with a huge number of highly rated comments, could make a lot of dumb comments before it started hurting them. I'm sure pg will come up with an appropriate formula.
• hxa7241 16y ago
  Hold on, that begs the question -- how do we know who deserves? that is the problem. The whole thing has a circular dependency: if ranking acts as a filter, then higher rank means more readers, and that in turn means more upvotes and so a higher ranking. It is probably not so much the top being undeserving, but that deserving stuff gets missed. This seems to be a fundamental weakness in all similar 'ranking' systems, but I am not sure of the full character and implications... (There is certainly a substantial component of being an automated system of 'social-proof'. And the filtering can never be entirely effective: if you show everyone only the good stuff, the filtering would not get done at all.)
  • presidentender 16y ago
    The advantage here is that pg is giving an advantage to high averages, not high point totals. So there's less incentive to be a reddit/digg style poweruser looking for one upvote on thousands of comments, and more incentive to say something truly insightful from time to time.