8 ms·
It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes fro
by Pxtl 9y ago
It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources.
Then the hack: this is a newspaper. They have no reason to be fair. Give community moderators super-credibility. So they can upvote people and not just give their comment visibility, but by upvoting they incidentally give them credibility for future comments. And in turn, those commenters' upvotes are more powerful as well, thanks to the credibility lent by the community mods.
It creates an echo-chamber, of course... but ultimately, that's what people want.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- inetknght 9y agoWhat people want isn't necessarily what they need. When people's needs are satisfied, they want more of that. So let's satisfy their needs instead. Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance.
- laretluval 9y agoDo internet comment sections satisfy any need?
- 52-6F-62 9y agoIf they provide an avenue for topical and reasonable discourse, then yes. People (at least some people) tend toward the need for discourse to temper and test their ideas. I mean, you're commenting on HN.
- brad0 9y agoWhat makes HN comments great that other comments systems don't have? It's the guidelines. By writing guidelines that promote useful discourse you allow everyone involved to learn more about their own biases and shortcomings. Every person that writes their opinion grows when reading the varied responses (as long as they're open to other people's perspectives).
- hacking_again 9y agoThe text-only interface with no 3rd-party ads plus the smart person cult of YC / PG contribute a lot.
- memeCrasher 9y agoSmarter and more insightful commentators. That's pretty much it. Once the population gets too big and the level of discourse too low, the intelligent people will move to greener pastures with better signal:noise ratios. Slashdot's moderation system didn't save them, and HN's moderation system won't either. I've yet to see a comment system that promotes signal:noise ratio over groupthink.
- rocqua 9y agoExactly, HN works because of it's audience. This leads to weird incentives though, promoting HN to widely might worsen it by diluting the 'good' audience. Not to forget the discussion about who is part of the 'good' audience, that discussion is bound to be toxic.
- eevilspock 9y agoSo you don't think HN has groupthink? Doesn't every groupthink community describe themselves as "Smarter and more insightful commentators"? I'm pretty sure Trump or Clinton voter websites consider their signal-to-noise high and everyone else's low.
- ouid 9y agoIf the article is written in a way that isn't honest, I expect the top comment to describe how, and I expect the top comment to that to be a rebuttal. The best comment doesn't always reach the top, but it often does, and it's usually somewhere to be found. The exceptions are usually found in heavily moderated or highly specialized forums.
- enraged_camel 9y agoIf they didn't, HN wouldn't exist. ;)
- ant6n 9y agoHN is for the news of course.
- _jal 9y agoNow there's a contextually amusing question.
- magic_beans 9y agoWhat are you doing right now?
- laretluval 9y agoSomething I want to do, not something I need to do.
- fragmede 9y agoInternet commenting, wherein people use modern technology for group communication, facilitates the top two, possibly the top three levels on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The base layer accounts for physiological needs like food and water, but past that base layer of physiological necessity, human beings need interaction with other human beings in order not to be a robot. Things like friendship and familial connections, which are are facilitated by social media such as Facebook. And, really, what is Facebook but Internet commenting on baby and cat photos of people you are related to in some form (by choice or by birth). If we accept that humans are social creatures, and social media is able to connect people, then it is possible to say Internet comment sections are able to fulfill some needs that people have. Displaced football fans working far from home may not be able to find a local group that also supports their home team in a far away place, but there's a digital clubhouse for the displaced fan's home team somewhere on the Internet. This may not satisfy a need like food or water, but people organized into geographically-based, sometimes tightly-knit communities before the Internet. That modern technology allows us to organize into loose-knit communities through the use of "Internet comment sections" is to realize J.C.R. Licklider's dream of an inter-networked computer system.
- s73ver_ 9y agoNeeds aren't as profitable.
- inetknght 9y ago"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."; whether Henry Ford truly said that or not is immaterial as the quote itself is the point I was trying to make. And your comment really rather touches on it. Peoples' needs aren't as profitable -- not until what they need also becomes what they want.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoI've never heard that quote used in that context before. That's interesting. I've always ascribed it to something closer to Kuhn's paradigm shifts.
- interstitial 9y agoNeeds + Rent-seeking + monopoly = risk-free profits
- ameister14 9y agoTell that to an oil or pharmaceutical company.
- aiyodev 9y agoThen why waste time and effort pretending to be democratic? Why have votes at all?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance. But they are excellent at driving activity => pageviews. Which is where the money for newspapers comes from. Nothing to be said beyond that - the induction of outrage and divisiveness is a desired feature, not a bug, from the POV of media companies.
- spynxic 9y agoYour solution gives merit to the individual for making the comment as opposed to the the content of comment itself. Similar to a democracy where the individual is a representative of quality content.
- sampl 9y ago> It creates an echo-chamber, of course... but ultimately, that's what people want. I want to eat ice cream every day, but I also want to feel good and be healthy. Let's give people a little credit--if they're aware of their biases and are given tools to overcome them, a lot of folks might make the right choice.
- jamiek88 9y agoMeanwhile the right merrily balkanises and wins elections over and over because their people are whipped up by their echo chambers about death panels or pizza shop pedophiles or made up controversy du jour. The opposition can take the moral high road all the way to irrelevance. As a counter point. The NYT's job is to sell subscriptions. Faux 'balance' isn't going to sell one subscription to a Trump voter.
- Splatter 9y agoOr perhaps the right wins local, state, and federal elections because a large portion of the country doesn't like the solutions the left proposes.
- danjayh 9y agoI find the typical stereotypes about conservative voters to be kind of amusing. I'm fairly young, and I have an BSCE, MSEE, and a very decent paying job doing tech work. I'm a libertarian and I vote conservative because they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Based on what I've seen in the media about people who tend conservative, I don't exist ... that or I'm actually either a buck-toothed uneducated redneck, a white nationalist, or a geriatric nursing home resident and somebody forgot to tell me :). Also - regardless of how great their new system is, the old adage holds: "Garbage in, garbage out."
- JakeTheAndroid 9y agoJust devils advocate here, but could it be you're the minority of that demographic? I'm libertarian, and vote all over the map, but likely lean more liberal. I know plenty of well educated, employed conservatives. But, a bulk of voters in Trump's corner are not you. It's like going to a Free Speech rally. Some people are likely there just for speech, but if Neo-Nazis show up, and cause a ruckus, they're the face of the movement. Same goes for Antifa and taking over other peaceful protests. So, I think the disenfranchised, middle of the country, uneducated, unemployed person is simply the face of the cause. Unfortunately, some people only see things at face value.
- kiba 9y agoIt creates an echo-chamber, of course... but ultimately, that's what people want. Done right, it will allow diversity of opinion without turning the comment section into an unreadable ranting mess. Do you really want to read a commentator who post the same screed about republicians or democrats on every story?
- seanwilson 9y ago> It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources. Are there site that do that? I know hackernews limits your voting abilities until you get so much karma. Sounds like some variation of the above ideas would work great. The vote from a random troll who doesn't understand the community's rules shouldn't count as much as other votes but I'm not sure how you would implement it in a way that wouldn't be abused.
- viraptor 9y agoSlashdot uses (used?) meta moderation. You could review votes others did - not the value itself, but the category. "Do you agree this post is (interesting/insightful/funny/...)?" Not sure how the results were used though.
- BatFastard 9y agoSlashdot comments have degenerated into uselessness.
- blisterpeanuts 9y agoOn Slashdot, moderation power is (was) awarded periodically. Metamoderation was used to grade the moderators. If enough people disagreed with your moderation, eventually you got mod points less often. If people liked your moderation, you'd get mod points more often. It's a way to police the moderators, a great concept at least, though it gets tiresome at times.
- seanwilson 9y agoI'd completely forgotten about this. Having to review votes from other users feels like work to me though. Having the community arrive at the community rules with metamoderation isn't going to always go along with the goals of the site either I would have thought. I wonder if a similar system would work where 1) regular users vote as normal 2) moderators who strictly stick to community guidelines vote (e.g. vote up comments that add to the discussion, vote down trolls, silly jokes and rude comments) 3) only votes from people whose votes are consistent with the moderators are weighted heavily. Maybe you could even be rewarded with karma when a moderator agrees with you to encourage it instead of it being hidden. Obviously all these systems are open to abuse and problems but just throwing out ideas.
- MarkPNeyer 9y agoHow about this: separate buttons for "this is a good/bad argument" and "i agree/disagree with this" then give more voice to people whose votes on these two axes are orthogonal. this rewards policing bad arguments on your side, or finding good arguments on the other side.
- rocqua 9y agoIf it is known that visibility is tied to "good/bad argument" rather than "agree/disagree", I'd expect most people to start using the 'argument' buttons for signaling their 'agreement'.
- MarkPNeyer 9y agoit's tied to both. to gain visibilty, need to vote "good argument, but i disagree" or "bad argument, but i agree with the conclusion" a naked 'good argument' or 'i agree vote' costs a small amount of karma. a 'i agree, good argument', costs a large amount of karma, because those votes should be rare.
- brad0 9y agoThank you for expressing this. Our usual news providers are mostly biased. What I'd love is to see a tool that allows you to see fact from opinion and the ability to see multiple perspectives. In Australia there's a government run TV channel that have programs that attempt this. Good journalism is hard to find though. As technologists we've built this system that optimises for page views. Surely we're capable of building a system that optimises for the truth instead.