3 ms·

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 eq

by 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
        20 karma is, I think, an arbitrary amount, but the actual amount should be structured around 'how long it should take someone to get used to the rules around here'. Frankly, my biggest complaint of late is that too many people are posting too much nonsense, and while I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at some point or another, my concern is that as the nonsense gets more acceptable, we go the way of the dogs. Also, yes, there is an incentive to discourage growth. In years past, HN was self-selecting to the degree that only people who fit with the community would bother to stay. The old guard was ruthless with the downvotes, and exercised a mutual desire to keep the garden clean. Now, so many people join each day that it simply isn't possible for the 'core group' to exercise this control. Many would consider this growth a positive, but in an environment where the ultimate goal is to preserve its values, its quality and its intellectualism, then 'for the masses' isn't something that should fall within its description, or in the actions of its members.
        16y ago

by Udo 16y ago

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
      20 karma is, I think, an arbitrary amount, but the actual amount should be structured around 'how long it should take someone to get used to the rules around here'. Frankly, my biggest complaint of late is that too many people are posting too much nonsense, and while I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at some point or another, my concern is that as the nonsense gets more acceptable, we go the way of the dogs. Also, yes, there is an incentive to discourage growth. In years past, HN was self-selecting to the degree that only people who fit with the community would bother to stay. The old guard was ruthless with the downvotes, and exercised a mutual desire to keep the garden clean. Now, so many people join each day that it simply isn't possible for the 'core group' to exercise this control. Many would consider this growth a positive, but in an environment where the ultimate goal is to preserve its values, its quality and its intellectualism, then 'for the masses' isn't something that should fall within its description, or in the actions of its members.
      - 16y ago