3 ms·
I'm voting for the discussion here. Mechanisms are worth a try. Votes from people who haven't clicked the article should be weighted differently. Also worth tr
by Detrus 16y ago
I'm voting for the discussion here.
Mechanisms are worth a try. Votes from people who haven't clicked the article should be weighted differently. Also worth trying is a timer after you click the article. If the user skims the article in 20 seconds, that vote should weigh less than a vote after several minutes.
Then see if weighing votes differently increases the quality of top stories.
- zacharycohn 16y agoThe article linked above took me about 20 seconds to read... I like the idea of a timer, but there's no way you can set a timer that will equate well to all the links submitted.
- Detrus 16y agoYes and tweets have the same problem. A thorough fix would scrape the article and measure the length.
- crasshopper 16y ago> tweets have the same problem Can you explain what you mean?
- Detrus 16y agoSometimes tweets show up as top stories on HN. A tweet takes a few seconds to read and vote on. So the timer idea would not allow tweet stories to get to the top unless the timer knew the story was a tweet. But most stories are not tweets and not short, so should take over a minute to read.
- crasshopper 16y agoThat's an excellent suggestion with different implications than mine. Hiding / colouring the ^ would tell the users that they shouldn't be upvoting before they read. But as you say, there are a variety of complicated mechanisms behind-the-scenes that could simply give low weight to votes by non-readers. You could also mess with the time-mechanics of upvotes with various properties, with the goal of just killing happenstance cascade upvoting. And this could vary with site traffic. However, there is always a danger to adding more knobs to tweak.