8 ms·

Upvoting something is not bad, but it becomes bad if every upvote is not based on an expressable reason beyond I agree, support, etc. with no valid reasoning.

Upvoting something is not bad, but it becomes bad if every upvote is not based on an expressable reason beyond I agree, support, etc. with no valid reasoning. Likes would be a lot more meaningful if randomly the user was required to express the reasoning behind why they liked something. If the user showed a pattern of not being able to express why they liked something, at the very least, other users would not see their vote as part of the count. This would also likely increase the cost for "like spammers" - but the real value would be that likes were more meaningful.

westbywest 10y ago
Responding, in the spirit of your comment, to acknowledge my agreement, rather than just upvoting invisibly.
- deathhand 10y ago
  But due to sheer mass of readers at what point does 'me too' become irrelevant?
  - wonderous 10y ago
    It doesn't, it appears be pointing out that simply receiving a comment would not be a measure of someone expressing that they are able to explain why they liked something in a way that's not simply repeating what's already been said.
    - deathhand 10y ago
      What would eventually happen though is that the comment quality will decline because people like to hear/see themselves communicate/talk. It's part of our ego from the human condition. I upvoted you - Reasoning being that you responded(something I like) - I also enjoy the run on sentence. It eventually becomes a circle-jerk. That is the problem with forcing replies. Voat is a good example of this.
      - wonderous 10y ago
        From another comment by me: "in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional." Voting as a signal to quality is as important if not more important than the comment quality. For example, HN as a vast amount of high-quality submission votes and related comments, but their still are a lot of spammy, off-topic, low-value, etc. submissions and comments. Key is to insure in any system that there's a cost to expression and that cost is relative to the value. Another related issue with voting is that users don't understand the intent of the interfaces use or misuse it to achieve an unrelated outcome. For example, some users on HN use flags as downvotes, but that is explicitly not what they're to be used for per the guidelines; those users happen to know the system and that the system weights flags in a way that's comparable to downvotes.
tabeth 10y ago
What you mention here is why I disagree with the fact that you can up OR downvote here without commenting. A comment should be required before you can upvote or downvote. All for similar reasons you raise here.
- wonderous 10y ago
  There are many times when someone already expressed what I wanted to say and liking what they said reduces the volume of text to read, but it's rare that I'm unable to prove beyond what's been expressed already that I in fact understand the topic and there's a reasoning behind my upvote.
  - wonderous 10y ago
    Following is an update to the above comment since I'm unable to edit it and copy-and-pasted from another comment by me: "in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional."
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I think upvoting is a good way to say "I agree but I have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation." Whereas I believe a downvote function should at least encourage a user to explain why. Otherwise it's impossible to know whether the downvoter believed the comment was inflammatory, offensive, off-topic, or plain just incorrect, which one would assume would be a call to explain as to why it was incorrect...
  - drusepth 10y ago
    You don't think a downvote function could also be a good way to say "I disagree but have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation"? I suppose it could be argued that in that situation a comment explaining a downvote (that you agree with) would already exist, and that an upvote on that comment would serve a similar purpose to downvoting the comment it disagrees with. There are plenty of times I disagree with a comment that don't deserve a response, however. Less frequent here on HN, but trolls trolling within the rules (to preclude moderation-based solutions) are an easy example of something that'd actually be better to downvote without a comment.
gmfawcett 10y ago
This is reminiscent of Slashdot voting. Score: 5, Insightful!
- brightball 10y ago
  I've actually always thought that the Slashdot algorithm was one of the better thought out approaches. You cap it at 5, give it a reason. Good behavior is rewarded with the ability to vote for a short period of time so you have to use your votes with some discretion for what you REALLY think needs attention...and if you comment on a story you can't vote on other comments. It's probably the best approach I've seen.
  - smacktoward 10y ago
    The Slashdot moderation system didn't start out great, of course; it was actually pretty simple in the site's early days: no cap on karma, karma scores displayed prominently everywhere, no meta-moderation, etc. Much more Reddit-like than the system in place today. Which turned out to be a disaster, as this kind of naïve scoring system is catnip for trolls. Over many years they slowly improved the system, with each improvement leading to a new wave of attacks by trolls looking for ways to defeat it, until it finally got good enough to make trolling unrewarding and the attacks died down. All of which is to say that the current design of Slashdot's system contains an enormous amount of valuable information about how to defeat trolls. You could write an entire book on all the lessons Slashdot had to learn the hard way along the road to making it what it is. Which is why it's so tragic that their experience has been more or less utterly ignored by the community sites that came after it -- looking at you, HN! -- who universally went with simpler, naïve systems like the one Slashdot started with, with the completely predictable result that they were as much a green field for trolls as Slashdot used to be. So much heartburn, all of which could have been avoided if we as an industry had an institutional memory that ran farther back than two or three years. What a waste.
    - smcnally 10y ago
      Rob Malda of Slashdot has shared some of that valuable information with The Coral Project community: https://community.coralproject.net/t/let-s-begin-at-the-beginning/410 https://community.coralproject.net/t/let-s-begin-at-the-begi...
Karunamon 10y ago
This is one of the things that Slashdot did right, and something I don't believe any other community like Reddit has tried at scale. My crazy dream: Something like HN or Reddit, where hovering over the vote arrow brings up a small list of reasons. ^ (Agree/Correct/Insightful/Funny) v (Disagree/Incorrect/False/Flamebait) All votes are counted as normal and the algorithm everyone sees is otherwise unaffected, but the magic happens where you give users the ability to sort by score and reason, rather than just score. This cancels out some of the hivemind suppression of unpopular or minority viewpoints, since most people are going to just click the bare button (which registers an agree/disagree vote). With one click, you can see insightful-rated posts which might be otherwise buried at the bottom of a thread. Similarly, moderators can sort by flamebait and perhaps take action.
Chaebixi 10y ago
> Upvoting something is not bad, but it becomes bad if every upvote is not based on an expressable reason beyond I agree, support, etc. with no valid reasoning. But that could just end up being a lot of noise, and it doesn't really address the social/psychological "content" creation problem the article focuses on. I usually want to read actual good things, not why someone thought something was good.
- wonderous 10y ago
  Agree; in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional.

westbywest 10y ago

Responding, in the spirit of your comment, to acknowledge my agreement, rather than just upvoting invisibly.

deathhand 10y ago
But due to sheer mass of readers at what point does 'me too' become irrelevant?
- wonderous 10y ago
  It doesn't, it appears be pointing out that simply receiving a comment would not be a measure of someone expressing that they are able to explain why they liked something in a way that's not simply repeating what's already been said.
  - deathhand 10y ago
    What would eventually happen though is that the comment quality will decline because people like to hear/see themselves communicate/talk. It's part of our ego from the human condition. I upvoted you - Reasoning being that you responded(something I like) - I also enjoy the run on sentence. It eventually becomes a circle-jerk. That is the problem with forcing replies. Voat is a good example of this.
    - wonderous 10y ago
      From another comment by me: "in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional." Voting as a signal to quality is as important if not more important than the comment quality. For example, HN as a vast amount of high-quality submission votes and related comments, but their still are a lot of spammy, off-topic, low-value, etc. submissions and comments. Key is to insure in any system that there's a cost to expression and that cost is relative to the value. Another related issue with voting is that users don't understand the intent of the interfaces use or misuse it to achieve an unrelated outcome. For example, some users on HN use flags as downvotes, but that is explicitly not what they're to be used for per the guidelines; those users happen to know the system and that the system weights flags in a way that's comparable to downvotes.

tabeth 10y ago

What you mention here is why I disagree with the fact that you can up OR downvote here without commenting. A comment should be required before you can upvote or downvote. All for similar reasons you raise here.

wonderous 10y ago
There are many times when someone already expressed what I wanted to say and liking what they said reduces the volume of text to read, but it's rare that I'm unable to prove beyond what's been expressed already that I in fact understand the topic and there's a reasoning behind my upvote.
- wonderous 10y ago
  Following is an update to the above comment since I'm unable to edit it and copy-and-pasted from another comment by me: "in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional."
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I think upvoting is a good way to say "I agree but I have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation." Whereas I believe a downvote function should at least encourage a user to explain why. Otherwise it's impossible to know whether the downvoter believed the comment was inflammatory, offensive, off-topic, or plain just incorrect, which one would assume would be a call to explain as to why it was incorrect...
- drusepth 10y ago
  You don't think a downvote function could also be a good way to say "I disagree but have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation"? I suppose it could be argued that in that situation a comment explaining a downvote (that you agree with) would already exist, and that an upvote on that comment would serve a similar purpose to downvoting the comment it disagrees with. There are plenty of times I disagree with a comment that don't deserve a response, however. Less frequent here on HN, but trolls trolling within the rules (to preclude moderation-based solutions) are an easy example of something that'd actually be better to downvote without a comment.

gmfawcett 10y ago

This is reminiscent of Slashdot voting. Score: 5, Insightful!

brightball 10y ago
I've actually always thought that the Slashdot algorithm was one of the better thought out approaches. You cap it at 5, give it a reason. Good behavior is rewarded with the ability to vote for a short period of time so you have to use your votes with some discretion for what you REALLY think needs attention...and if you comment on a story you can't vote on other comments. It's probably the best approach I've seen.
- smacktoward 10y ago
  The Slashdot moderation system didn't start out great, of course; it was actually pretty simple in the site's early days: no cap on karma, karma scores displayed prominently everywhere, no meta-moderation, etc. Much more Reddit-like than the system in place today. Which turned out to be a disaster, as this kind of naïve scoring system is catnip for trolls. Over many years they slowly improved the system, with each improvement leading to a new wave of attacks by trolls looking for ways to defeat it, until it finally got good enough to make trolling unrewarding and the attacks died down. All of which is to say that the current design of Slashdot's system contains an enormous amount of valuable information about how to defeat trolls. You could write an entire book on all the lessons Slashdot had to learn the hard way along the road to making it what it is. Which is why it's so tragic that their experience has been more or less utterly ignored by the community sites that came after it -- looking at you, HN! -- who universally went with simpler, naïve systems like the one Slashdot started with, with the completely predictable result that they were as much a green field for trolls as Slashdot used to be. So much heartburn, all of which could have been avoided if we as an industry had an institutional memory that ran farther back than two or three years. What a waste.
  - smcnally 10y ago
    Rob Malda of Slashdot has shared some of that valuable information with The Coral Project community: https://community.coralproject.net/t/let-s-begin-at-the-beginning/410 https://community.coralproject.net/t/let-s-begin-at-the-begi...

Karunamon 10y ago

This is one of the things that Slashdot did right, and something I don't believe any other community like Reddit has tried at scale. My crazy dream: Something like HN or Reddit, where hovering over the vote arrow brings up a small list of reasons. ^ (Agree/Correct/Insightful/Funny) v (Disagree/Incorrect/False/Flamebait) All votes are counted as normal and the algorithm everyone sees is otherwise unaffected, but the magic happens where you give users the ability to sort by score and reason, rather than just score. This cancels out some of the hivemind suppression of unpopular or minority viewpoints, since most people are going to just click the bare button (which registers an agree/disagree vote). With one click, you can see insightful-rated posts which might be otherwise buried at the bottom of a thread. Similarly, moderators can sort by flamebait and perhaps take action.

Chaebixi 10y ago

> Upvoting something is not bad, but it becomes bad if every upvote is not based on an expressable reason beyond I agree, support, etc. with no valid reasoning. But that could just end up being a lot of noise, and it doesn't really address the social/psychological "content" creation problem the article focuses on. I usually want to read actual good things, not why someone thought something was good.

wonderous 10y ago
Agree; in case it's not clear, this would be a control for moderation, posting it as a comment for non-moderators to view would be optional.