5 ms·
I think a karma cost for posting stories is a really bad idea. Firstly, it would not solve this problem since Valleywag stories tend to get lots of upvotes. In
by dood 19y ago
I think a karma cost for posting stories is a really bad idea.
Firstly, it would not solve this problem since Valleywag stories tend to get lots of upvotes. Indeed, it would encourage posting link-baiting stories, since they also tend to be karma-baiting stories.
Secondly, it would stop people from posting borderline, but valid stuff. I often don't post things I'm unsure people will like, but many times posts that seem borderline to me end up getting loads of upvotes. With a karma cost for posting, people would simply not post these kinds of stories.
A karma cost for posting is a recipie for encouraging lowest-common-denominator stuff.
- cperciva 19y agoValleywag stories tend to get lots of upvotes. In that case, the "let's ban valleywag" approach is even more wrong. The problem of "garbage gets voted up" is one which ought to be solved long before the problem of "people submit garbage".
- dood 19y agoI agree, thats pretty much what I was getting at. I favor a systemic solution, not banning sites. The problem isn't that people submit bad stuff, its that the community upvotes it and has no ability to filter it.
- rms 19y agoI'd like to see tagging support in the software. I think that would go a long way towards helping. It just might be a long time before someone implements it...
- thaumaturgy 19y agoI see this often in forums that don't have tagging, where users say, "tagging will fix this!" I haven't seen so many forums that use tagging where it actually works in a very useful way.
- davidw 19y agoAgreed - it's a community problem, not a technology problem. A while ago I suggested a 'name and shame' approach, where 'bozo' votes, if there are enough of them, reveal who voted for a story.
- danw 19y agoSimply have a lsit of who voted up this article, and add a mechanism for changing your vote. It's easy to upvote something that's got a good title, then realise it's crap and not be able to retract your vote.
- Bluem00 19y agoCurrently, each person is left to give their own 'meaning' to a vote. I think that this approach would help define that meaning: A 'vote' is public support for the quality of an article, such that you are willing to associate yourself with it.
- davidw 19y agoWell... I don't know if you'd always want to display the list, as that opens up the potential for vote buying, because you can verify that someone has voted a certain way.
- Bluem00 19y agoGood point. In the case I described, someone could gain status in the community by consistently voting up good articles and voting down bad ones. This would add to the other two methods of becoming known to the community (commenting and submitting). Perhaps people who are respected would not want to risk tarnishing their image by supporting a bad article, and the support of people who would be willing to sell their 'vote' would be worthless? As an aside, I wonder if each of article submissions, comments, and voting could be thought to respectively show that a person is interesting, intelligent, and has good judgment?
- icky 19y ago