5 ms·

Tell HN: A proposed change to assigning karma to submissions

There's a very long thread about karma, submissions, comments, bots, and improving HN over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443 One of the proposals in particular strikes me as having real potential: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216 Problem is, it's deep in a long thread, and not many people will see it. Hence I post this to help it get some attention. It's not mine - tt's better than anything I've thought of. (edited to fix the link (even though it's (not clickable)))

nbpoole 16y ago
Link to the proposal goes to a blank page (just the header, no content)
bmelton 16y ago
The proposal is taking me to a blank page. Edit: It's fixed now. Disregard.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh !!! Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry - dogfood, dogfood - check your work, use what you produce, follow the links properly. Mea culpa - apologies - link now fixed.
bmelton 16y ago
I liked my idea better. The basic proposal is that submissions cost x karma, where x is a predefined value that should be relatively small (say 25, 50?). To submit a post, you must have at least x karma, and you SPEND that karma on the submission. If the article is upvoted at least x times, the karma is refunded. If it doesn't, then that karma is gone. For 'failed' articles (meaning articles that did not get enough upvotes to attain the refund), submissions from that submitter now cost y karma, where y = the previous x * 2. Assuming x is 25, my second submission after a failed first submission now costs 50 karma, but only has to reach y/2 karma to get the refund. The refund action sets x back to the default, base x value.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I agree that your proposal will most likely make people think harder before submitting, but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several people who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded. The scheme lunk to here helps to prevent the rush to submit, and therefore allows time for reflection, while simultaneously rewarding people more equitably. All the schemes proposed have good points and bad points, but I think gjm11's proposal has lots of good points, and some good features that yours doesn't have. To some extent, of course, it's irrelevant, since none of these are likely to see the light of day. Having said that, gjm11's scheme seems fairly simple to implement.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    In my scenario, there is no X+1 award. The only karma you get for a story submission is the karma you get back if it proves of value. There is no award for submitting a very good story whatsoever.
  - Udo 16y ago
    I like bmelton's idea better as well. > but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several people who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded I don't see the point why the system should hand out gold stars for effort. Whoever comes first, gets to host the thread. What's wrong with that?
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      Personally, I see that effect as part of the cause of the rush to submit mediocre links, and I don't think bmelton's idea will fix that. Further, rightly or wrongly, I get a vague sense of injustice knowing that one person submits a valuable link and gets loads of karma, while someone else independently submits the same link moments later and gets none at all. It doesn't seem fair. I know, life's not fair, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something, but even so, it nags at me. A good system should be fair, and be seen to be fair. If it isn't, it's like a code smell. Maybe it works, for some sense of "works," but there's probably a better way to do it. But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some disinterest.
Udo 16y ago
> 1. When a link is submitted, it doesn't actually appear on HN until a certain (fixed?) time T has elapsed after its first submission. And what is T going to be? That means HN won't be able to react quickly if something unexpected comes up. > 3. Karma from article upvotes is shared equally between all those users. Doesn't that mean people will submit "obvious" links even more often, because shared Karma off a large cake is still easier than making an insightful comment. At least right now, people have to check whether the link was already posted. With this proposal, I'd just have to submit every Slashdot and Quora link known to man and be assured that I'd get karma for it. > 5. Breaking news doesn't appear on HN as quickly as it does now; but if lots of people are submitting it, it still gets in pretty fast. (Maybe good, maybe bad.) I think this is a solution to a non-problem. Even though a duplicate link-checker would be great for HN, the real issue is low-quality links that sometimes make it onto the front page; every once in a while even a submit bot finds something interesting. I'm fine with that, since the overall quality of articles is still very high. If we're actually complaining about how every blog blurp of certain HN personalities makes it to the front page, then I'm afraid the problem is not with the site's code, but with the way we personally handle reputation around here. And I don't really care which user gets the karma for the next jacquesm story.
revorad 16y ago
A much easier change would be to simply not give users karma points for submissions. Karma only for comments. Those who object saying that there won't be any incentive left for submitting are clearly on HN only for the karma. It won't be so bad to lose them.
- notahacker 16y ago
  The other reason in favour of doing that is that comments get both up and downvotes and therefore represent the net perceived value of the user's contributions. New post submitting is almost guaranteed to be upvoted. (I don't know whether flags give negative karma, but I'm pretty sure people flag less often for different reason)
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Clickables: Proposal: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216 Parent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443 (edited to fix the link)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
pclark 16y ago
over engineering to solve what problem?

nbpoole 16y ago

Link to the proposal goes to a blank page (just the header, no content)

bmelton 16y ago

The proposal is taking me to a blank page. Edit: It's fixed now. Disregard.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh !!! Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry - dogfood, dogfood - check your work, use what you produce, follow the links properly. Mea culpa - apologies - link now fixed.

bmelton 16y ago

I liked my idea better. The basic proposal is that submissions cost x karma, where x is a predefined value that should be relatively small (say 25, 50?). To submit a post, you must have at least x karma, and you SPEND that karma on the submission. If the article is upvoted at least x times, the karma is refunded. If it doesn't, then that karma is gone. For 'failed' articles (meaning articles that did not get enough upvotes to attain the refund), submissions from that submitter now cost y karma, where y = the previous x * 2. Assuming x is 25, my second submission after a failed first submission now costs 50 karma, but only has to reach y/2 karma to get the refund. The refund action sets x back to the default, base x value.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I agree that your proposal will most likely make people think harder before submitting, but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several people who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded. The scheme lunk to here helps to prevent the rush to submit, and therefore allows time for reflection, while simultaneously rewarding people more equitably. All the schemes proposed have good points and bad points, but I think gjm11's proposal has lots of good points, and some good features that yours doesn't have. To some extent, of course, it's irrelevant, since none of these are likely to see the light of day. Having said that, gjm11's scheme seems fairly simple to implement.
- bmelton 16y ago
  In my scenario, there is no X+1 award. The only karma you get for a story submission is the karma you get back if it proves of value. There is no award for submitting a very good story whatsoever.
- Udo 16y ago
  I like bmelton's idea better as well. > but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several people who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded I don't see the point why the system should hand out gold stars for effort. Whoever comes first, gets to host the thread. What's wrong with that?
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    Personally, I see that effect as part of the cause of the rush to submit mediocre links, and I don't think bmelton's idea will fix that. Further, rightly or wrongly, I get a vague sense of injustice knowing that one person submits a valuable link and gets loads of karma, while someone else independently submits the same link moments later and gets none at all. It doesn't seem fair. I know, life's not fair, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something, but even so, it nags at me. A good system should be fair, and be seen to be fair. If it isn't, it's like a code smell. Maybe it works, for some sense of "works," but there's probably a better way to do it. But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some disinterest.

Udo 16y ago

> 1. When a link is submitted, it doesn't actually appear on HN until a certain (fixed?) time T has elapsed after its first submission. And what is T going to be? That means HN won't be able to react quickly if something unexpected comes up. > 3. Karma from article upvotes is shared equally between all those users. Doesn't that mean people will submit "obvious" links even more often, because shared Karma off a large cake is still easier than making an insightful comment. At least right now, people have to check whether the link was already posted. With this proposal, I'd just have to submit every Slashdot and Quora link known to man and be assured that I'd get karma for it. > 5. Breaking news doesn't appear on HN as quickly as it does now; but if lots of people are submitting it, it still gets in pretty fast. (Maybe good, maybe bad.) I think this is a solution to a non-problem. Even though a duplicate link-checker would be great for HN, the real issue is low-quality links that sometimes make it onto the front page; every once in a while even a submit bot finds something interesting. I'm fine with that, since the overall quality of articles is still very high. If we're actually complaining about how every blog blurp of certain HN personalities makes it to the front page, then I'm afraid the problem is not with the site's code, but with the way we personally handle reputation around here. And I don't really care which user gets the karma for the next jacquesm story.

revorad 16y ago

A much easier change would be to simply not give users karma points for submissions. Karma only for comments. Those who object saying that there won't be any incentive left for submitting are clearly on HN only for the karma. It won't be so bad to lose them.

notahacker 16y ago
The other reason in favour of doing that is that comments get both up and downvotes and therefore represent the net perceived value of the user's contributions. New post submitting is almost guaranteed to be upvoted. (I don't know whether flags give negative karma, but I'm pretty sure people flag less often for different reason)

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

Clickables: Proposal: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216 Parent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443 (edited to fix the link)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

pclark 16y ago

over engineering to solve what problem?