3 ms·

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

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
    > But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some disinterest. Come on, don't be like that. You started this thread! Let's just argue the pros and cons, there is nothing personal about that. > 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. But you said you believed that it will make people think harder before submitting a link, so we basically agree that the number of submissions will come down and people will focus more on what's important to them. bmelton's solution would be easy to implement and easy to understand. It will improve the quality of posts, and it will mean less trash on the /newest page as well, leading to better chances for good material to surface. By the way, I don't agree with bmelton about the last part where the cost of submission climbs steadily. Just make it a fixed amount. Let's say 20 karma. The only problem I see with this approach is that it will be easy for people with a lot of karma to abuse the system. Nearly every user name I click on has several thousands of points to spare. At this point I believe we are in danger of taking this whole karma thing too seriously.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      It only climbs on 'failed' submissions. If I submit something stupid, it eats my karma and costs more for the next submission. It keeps climbing until I post something good. This can decay over time, or be capped, or something like that, but the point is to penalize careless submissions.
      - Udo 16y ago
        Aren't they already penalized by the fixed cost? The problem I have with this is that for a new HNer, 20 karma is a lot. And chances are good that the first submissions won't be successful, so after a while it becomes easier to just make a new account and start over or abandon HN. It will lead to a lot of disappointment. Now contrast this with the "establishment", it'll be a meaningless restriction for regulars who have both a lot of karma and a lot of fans. I do like the decay idea, however. That would work. In fact, maybe there is some merit to having decaying karma totals altogether, not just for submissions.
bmelton 16y ago
With a delay on 'approval' from when it was posted, and a karma split to all submitters, why wouldn't I just watch /newest and repost all the articles that get submitted that look like they have even a little traction. I then don't have to come up with any new articles, I just watch /newest and leech karma from everybody who submits anything worthwhile.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  Because it doesn't even go to "newest" before either getting enough duplicates or enough time has elapsed?
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Ah, I didn't get that part. Yeah, that works. If you're going to have a plan in which karma is awarded for story submissions, that probably works as well as mine -- I just personally have found myself downvoting MUCH more than I ever have lately, trying to enforce quality. That most of the downvotes go to people with fairly young accounts isn't lost on me, and while I hate to be the old curmudgeon hollering about the decline of HN (especially since I haven't been here nearly as long as many,) I don't want the quality standards to suffer more unnecessarily.

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
  > But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some disinterest. Come on, don't be like that. You started this thread! Let's just argue the pros and cons, there is nothing personal about that. > 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. But you said you believed that it will make people think harder before submitting a link, so we basically agree that the number of submissions will come down and people will focus more on what's important to them. bmelton's solution would be easy to implement and easy to understand. It will improve the quality of posts, and it will mean less trash on the /newest page as well, leading to better chances for good material to surface. By the way, I don't agree with bmelton about the last part where the cost of submission climbs steadily. Just make it a fixed amount. Let's say 20 karma. The only problem I see with this approach is that it will be easy for people with a lot of karma to abuse the system. Nearly every user name I click on has several thousands of points to spare. At this point I believe we are in danger of taking this whole karma thing too seriously.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    It only climbs on 'failed' submissions. If I submit something stupid, it eats my karma and costs more for the next submission. It keeps climbing until I post something good. This can decay over time, or be capped, or something like that, but the point is to penalize careless submissions.
    - Udo 16y ago
      Aren't they already penalized by the fixed cost? The problem I have with this is that for a new HNer, 20 karma is a lot. And chances are good that the first submissions won't be successful, so after a while it becomes easier to just make a new account and start over or abandon HN. It will lead to a lot of disappointment. Now contrast this with the "establishment", it'll be a meaningless restriction for regulars who have both a lot of karma and a lot of fans. I do like the decay idea, however. That would work. In fact, maybe there is some merit to having decaying karma totals altogether, not just for submissions.

bmelton 16y ago

With a delay on 'approval' from when it was posted, and a karma split to all submitters, why wouldn't I just watch /newest and repost all the articles that get submitted that look like they have even a little traction. I then don't have to come up with any new articles, I just watch /newest and leech karma from everybody who submits anything worthwhile.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Because it doesn't even go to "newest" before either getting enough duplicates or enough time has elapsed?
- bmelton 16y ago
  Ah, I didn't get that part. Yeah, that works. If you're going to have a plan in which karma is awarded for story submissions, that probably works as well as mine -- I just personally have found myself downvoting MUCH more than I ever have lately, trying to enforce quality. That most of the downvotes go to people with fairly young accounts isn't lost on me, and while I hate to be the old curmudgeon hollering about the decline of HN (especially since I haven't been here nearly as long as many,) I don't want the quality standards to suffer more unnecessarily.