2 ms·

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 sub

by 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.
- Udo 16y ago
  I believe you are essentially right about this. Leaving aside the fact that the quality of comments left by the "old guard" is not always in proportion to the upvotes they get, I agree that as HN grows the problem of quality control is essentially a problem of karma inflation. With this inflation, the weight of an individual vote lessens dramatically and it becomes especially evident in the article submission mechanism where there are no downvotes at all. Encountering a user with less than a thousand karma points today is exceptionally rare. That's why 20 points feel so arbitrary. The more I think about this, the more I believe the karma system itself is vulnerable to issues scale. There are a number of ways to "fix" this, but I don't think any of them will actually be implemented here because they would change the nature of the community too much.

by Udo 16y ago

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.

Udo 16y ago
I believe you are essentially right about this. Leaving aside the fact that the quality of comments left by the "old guard" is not always in proportion to the upvotes they get, I agree that as HN grows the problem of quality control is essentially a problem of karma inflation. With this inflation, the weight of an individual vote lessens dramatically and it becomes especially evident in the article submission mechanism where there are no downvotes at all. Encountering a user with less than a thousand karma points today is exceptionally rare. That's why 20 points feel so arbitrary. The more I think about this, the more I believe the karma system itself is vulnerable to issues scale. There are a number of ways to "fix" this, but I don't think any of them will actually be implemented here because they would change the nature of the community too much.