3 ms·

I'm distinguishing it between the "intended" way of using the site by making posts and then the community organically votes on it, and some unintended "manipula

I'm distinguishing it between the "intended" way of using the site by making posts and then the community organically votes on it, and some unintended "manipulated" way where content is artificially voted upon or otherwise given an advantage over other posts.

elliekelly 6y ago
And when someone posts OC, a photo, for example, to a small subreddit or at a low-trafficked time of day and a "karmawhore" screenshots the photo and posts it to several highly trafficked subreddits would you consider those upvotes organic or manipulated? It's my understanding that this is a common tactic used by people who are "karma farming" on an account. I can certainly understand how the karmawhore feels the upvotes are organic but I can also see how the owner of the original content would very much consider those upvotes manipulated. And when a karmawhore lifts content and uses a title that insinuates it's their content ("My Dog Spike Doing Funny Thing"), I think the fuzzy line between organic and manipulated feels a little less fuzzy and lot more manipulated. Not just for the content owner, but for the content consumers as well. I think there's some expectation, at least some of the time, that an "organic" OP will interact with commenters and provide more detail in response to questions and it can be disappointing when you come across an interesting post only to realize that isn't the case because OP is just looking to maximize eyeballs & upvotes.
- nsilvestri 6y ago
  The _votes_ aren't manipulated though. The content is exactly the same even if the person "stole" it. It's immoral and scummy, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition.
  - Quekid5 6y ago
    Depending on specifics it could also be outright copyright infringement. (Just reusing a link wouldn't be, but e.g. reuploading a video would be.)
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    I wouldn't call all of the votes on a stolen post called "My Dog Spike" organic though either. Users have been manipulated in some, perhaps small, way because they've upvoted a post they otherwise might not have. How many of those people would have upvoted the same post titled "Some Random Guy's Dog Spike"? I suspect fewer or karmawhores wouldn't frequently use that tactic. > I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition. I suppose that's kind of my point. Your definition and perspective come from your experience on reddit as someone who posts that way. But there are other people who don't play the game of karmawhoring who might see things differently. It seems to me it's a very blurry line that is difficult to define and largely a matter of perspective. The people who have mastered the system feel it's a matter of merit while the rest feel its a matter a manipulation. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

elliekelly 6y ago

And when someone posts OC, a photo, for example, to a small subreddit or at a low-trafficked time of day and a "karmawhore" screenshots the photo and posts it to several highly trafficked subreddits would you consider those upvotes organic or manipulated? It's my understanding that this is a common tactic used by people who are "karma farming" on an account. I can certainly understand how the karmawhore feels the upvotes are organic but I can also see how the owner of the original content would very much consider those upvotes manipulated. And when a karmawhore lifts content and uses a title that insinuates it's their content ("My Dog Spike Doing Funny Thing"), I think the fuzzy line between organic and manipulated feels a little less fuzzy and lot more manipulated. Not just for the content owner, but for the content consumers as well. I think there's some expectation, at least some of the time, that an "organic" OP will interact with commenters and provide more detail in response to questions and it can be disappointing when you come across an interesting post only to realize that isn't the case because OP is just looking to maximize eyeballs & upvotes.

nsilvestri 6y ago
The _votes_ aren't manipulated though. The content is exactly the same even if the person "stole" it. It's immoral and scummy, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  Depending on specifics it could also be outright copyright infringement. (Just reusing a link wouldn't be, but e.g. reuploading a video would be.)
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I wouldn't call all of the votes on a stolen post called "My Dog Spike" organic though either. Users have been manipulated in some, perhaps small, way because they've upvoted a post they otherwise might not have. How many of those people would have upvoted the same post titled "Some Random Guy's Dog Spike"? I suspect fewer or karmawhores wouldn't frequently use that tactic. > I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition. I suppose that's kind of my point. Your definition and perspective come from your experience on reddit as someone who posts that way. But there are other people who don't play the game of karmawhoring who might see things differently. It seems to me it's a very blurry line that is difficult to define and largely a matter of perspective. The people who have mastered the system feel it's a matter of merit while the rest feel its a matter a manipulation. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.