3 ms·

Why do you always post footnotes? It's starting to bother me a lot. Especially when you cite yourself. First.

bootload 20y ago
'... Especially when you cite yourself. First. ...' If you follow the post thread you'll see why. It's been asked here ~http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=14404 http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=14404 to death. 'hint': Meaning Economy ~ http://jeremie.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070328-000042 http://jeremie.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070328-000042
- jaggederest 20y ago
  Self quoting is bad form any time, it's worse when you do it recursively. Especially to boost your own relevance in google.
  - bootload 20y ago
    Do you have anything meaningful to add? I do ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=11826 http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=11826
    - jaggederest 20y ago
      Simple answer: yes. Relationship credit models have been pretty widely explored. A decent way to do it is to build a matrix of friends/enemies/etc and iterate over it until you have absolute values. Example implementation (not mine) here: http://bitchun.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitchun/tracker/ruby/ http://bitchun.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitchun/tracker/ruby/
      - bootload 20y ago
        '... Simple answer: yes... build a matrix of friends/enemies/etc and iterate over it until you have absolute values ...' Slashdot tried a model similar to this. The result you still got polarisation of views, short snipes without any real value. I don't think it's simple. Why? You can't change "human behaviour". Anything you do there will be some person trying to find a loophole. Joshua Schachter (delicious fame) went into great lengths in his talk on itconversation about this. Especially just with an algorythm approach. Though one thing I can think of that did more than anything for me was a points filter (meaning you can simply not view someones comments below a certain threshold ) . A more broader approach has better chances of encouraging (enforcing) good behaviour. One successful approach I have seen, can be found in the perlmonks (a perl programming) site where users gain karma through numerous means (time on the system, posts and moderation) enforced by a top down 'Benovolent dictatorship' and in effect a hierarchy. You join the site as a novice & work your way up earning rights through encouraged & enforced behaviour. For instance you have to be a certain level (say level 5) before you can front-page a post. Another level and you can join groups effecting the design of the site. This type of conditioning means for instance users don't have power beyond their maturity. If they do things out-of-line (say for instance random down-modding or excessive referencing) they can be pulled in before the inevitable kitten fights (al-la slashdot) begins. In time, as a user reaches a certain level (of maturity) certain rights are allowed. So the combination of brute user moderation and a more subtle framework encourages finding solutions to problems rather than /. type brawls. I don't think mere code alone solves undesirable behaviour in systems. And it would be a good area for developers with a 'psychology', 'group dynamics' background to explore and add more knowledge.
        jaggederest 20y ago
        The system I pointed out is free from those flaws, for precisely one reason: karma in that sort of system is always relative. That is, everyone moderates according to their own tastes, and nobody is 'better' than anyone else. It all sums to zero, the only filtering is by individual preference.
        bootload 20y ago
        'The system I pointed out is free from those flaws, for precisely one reason: karma in that sort of system is always relative ' Can you give me some sites that use this (aside from skype)? Can you explain how say person 1, rates person 2 and how the rating is viewed from person 2's point of view? ... or say person 3 observing?
        jaggederest 20y ago
        person 1 allocates one or many positive or negative points to person 2. person 2 shows person 1 as having higher/lower karma, person 1 shows person 2 as having higher/lower karma. Person 3 has no viewpoint unless they are in the system. There is no 'absolute' objective viewpoint without taking a stance. A user with no ratings of anyone sees everyone with the same karma. All four of the major extended interactions work too. (friend of a friend, enemy of a friend, enemy of an enemy, friend of an enemy) Another property is that it doesn't matter how many points you use. You may rate someone up or down as much as you desire, or make up your own rating system, whatever works for you.
        bootload 20y ago
        '... Person 3 has no viewpoint unless they are in the system ...' So there is effectively no visible karma? - unless person 3 intersects person 1 and person 2? That's a pretty good system. How do you measure (unless you have admin on the system) person 1 compared to person 2 and person 3? From the way I see this would it work on a system where a (visible) reward is given out for effort? (I define effort as creating links + comment). The reason I ask is that how do you encourage users here to add content and create a leader board? I know the constraints are bit tight, but if you solve this it would be worth recommending to features.

'... Especially when you cite yourself. First. ...' If you follow the post thread you'll see why. It's been asked here ~http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=14404 http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=14404 to death. 'hint': Meaning Economy ~ http://jeremie.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070328-000042 http://jeremie.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070328-000042

jaggederest 20y ago
Self quoting is bad form any time, it's worse when you do it recursively. Especially to boost your own relevance in google.
- bootload 20y ago
  Do you have anything meaningful to add? I do ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=11826 http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=11826
  - jaggederest 20y ago
    Simple answer: yes. Relationship credit models have been pretty widely explored. A decent way to do it is to build a matrix of friends/enemies/etc and iterate over it until you have absolute values. Example implementation (not mine) here: http://bitchun.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitchun/tracker/ruby/ http://bitchun.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitchun/tracker/ruby/
    - bootload 20y ago
      '... Simple answer: yes... build a matrix of friends/enemies/etc and iterate over it until you have absolute values ...' Slashdot tried a model similar to this. The result you still got polarisation of views, short snipes without any real value. I don't think it's simple. Why? You can't change "human behaviour". Anything you do there will be some person trying to find a loophole. Joshua Schachter (delicious fame) went into great lengths in his talk on itconversation about this. Especially just with an algorythm approach. Though one thing I can think of that did more than anything for me was a points filter (meaning you can simply not view someones comments below a certain threshold ) . A more broader approach has better chances of encouraging (enforcing) good behaviour. One successful approach I have seen, can be found in the perlmonks (a perl programming) site where users gain karma through numerous means (time on the system, posts and moderation) enforced by a top down 'Benovolent dictatorship' and in effect a hierarchy. You join the site as a novice & work your way up earning rights through encouraged & enforced behaviour. For instance you have to be a certain level (say level 5) before you can front-page a post. Another level and you can join groups effecting the design of the site. This type of conditioning means for instance users don't have power beyond their maturity. If they do things out-of-line (say for instance random down-modding or excessive referencing) they can be pulled in before the inevitable kitten fights (al-la slashdot) begins. In time, as a user reaches a certain level (of maturity) certain rights are allowed. So the combination of brute user moderation and a more subtle framework encourages finding solutions to problems rather than /. type brawls. I don't think mere code alone solves undesirable behaviour in systems. And it would be a good area for developers with a 'psychology', 'group dynamics' background to explore and add more knowledge.
      - jaggederest 20y ago
        The system I pointed out is free from those flaws, for precisely one reason: karma in that sort of system is always relative. That is, everyone moderates according to their own tastes, and nobody is 'better' than anyone else. It all sums to zero, the only filtering is by individual preference.
        bootload 20y ago
        'The system I pointed out is free from those flaws, for precisely one reason: karma in that sort of system is always relative ' Can you give me some sites that use this (aside from skype)? Can you explain how say person 1, rates person 2 and how the rating is viewed from person 2's point of view? ... or say person 3 observing?
        jaggederest 20y ago
        person 1 allocates one or many positive or negative points to person 2. person 2 shows person 1 as having higher/lower karma, person 1 shows person 2 as having higher/lower karma. Person 3 has no viewpoint unless they are in the system. There is no 'absolute' objective viewpoint without taking a stance. A user with no ratings of anyone sees everyone with the same karma. All four of the major extended interactions work too. (friend of a friend, enemy of a friend, enemy of an enemy, friend of an enemy) Another property is that it doesn't matter how many points you use. You may rate someone up or down as much as you desire, or make up your own rating system, whatever works for you.
        bootload 20y ago
        '... Person 3 has no viewpoint unless they are in the system ...' So there is effectively no visible karma? - unless person 3 intersects person 1 and person 2? That's a pretty good system. How do you measure (unless you have admin on the system) person 1 compared to person 2 and person 3? From the way I see this would it work on a system where a (visible) reward is given out for effort? (I define effort as creating links + comment). The reason I ask is that how do you encourage users here to add content and create a leader board? I know the constraints are bit tight, but if you solve this it would be worth recommending to features.