5 ms·

The problem with this is it makes every submission into a karma game. If submitting costs karma, it will cause more people to think "will this earn enough poin

The problem with this is it makes every submission into a karma game. If submitting costs karma, it will cause more people to think "will this earn enough points?" before submitting links. ... but that's not what you want people to think. You want them to think "is this interesting and on-topic for HN?" They're not the same question, as much as the former tries to approximate the latter. If people focus too much on points, you're likely to get more groupthink and more industry buzz (since that stuff always gets a gazillion upvotes) instead of interesting articles. Certainly, people think about link karma already, but I think this would make it worse. Creating a cost will cause even people who don't think about karma to think about it, even for just a moment -- which is probably not what you want.

silentbicycle 16y ago
I wonder about that, too, but think it'd be worth experimenting. The cost should probably be small. I find myself wondering, "if I submit this now, will enough people be awake/etc. to notice it before it spills off the page?" That has deterred me from submitting more interesting content than costing 2 or 3 points ever would. Also, a lot of those upvotes come from duplicate submissions. I don't have detailed info, but probably a significant percent, likely enough to lift them out of the new feed and onto the front page. Or, maybe duplicate submissions shouldn't give the original an automatic upvote? I don't know.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Or, maybe duplicate submissions shouldn't give the original an automatic upvote? Why shouldn't they? The fact that someone else indepedently thought the article was good to submit seems to be at least as strong a sign of interest as a click of an arror.
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    The problem here is that it doesn't distinguish between these two cases: 1. Multiple people independently submitted a content they found, because they found it interesting. This is (generally) good. Maybe it's not the community's cup of tea, and gradually fades away, but that's fine. 2. Somebody notices some fresh, overtly linkbait-ish article. They post it ASAP, hoping that fifty other people will be slower on the draw, netting them fifty upvotes. (Those people may be doing it for the same reason.) Either way: fluff gets submitted. Maybe it has fifty upvotes, maybe there are fifty others that just crowded out something really fascinating. This sets up a feedback loop that rewards posting things because they're linkbait, not thought-provoking. I suspect that rewarding duplicate submissions too much tips the scales towards rewarding submitting linkbait. Looking at the new page basically ever backs this up. I don't know if adding a cost to submissions, reducing duplicate-submission karma, penalizing everybody involved for flagged->deleted articles, or what will help, but that seems like the root of the problem, so let's talk about it!
    - eru 16y ago
      Interesting lottery-effect.
theli0nheart 16y ago
Even though it might not be the perfect way to estimate topicality for a comment/submission, karma is the best thing we have. As things are at the moment, groupthink is a huge problem no matter what rules you place on the system. You can't really stop it. Everyone thinks about karma to some extent as it is, given that you can only do certain things with a certain amount of the stuff (downvoting, flagging, etc).
- DarkShikari 16y ago
  Even though it might not be the perfect way to estimate topicality for a comment/submission, karma is the best thing we have. I don't think so. "Topicality" matches "lack of flagging", not "many upvotes". Or at least, it should -- there should be some standardized way, used by most HN members, of marking that they don't think a submission is good HN content. This actually brings us to a very common problem on HN caused by the fact that you can't downvote links. It works like this: Suppose you have two links, Link A and Link B. Link A is stupid TechCrunch linkbait, and Link B is an interesting scientific article. Link A is something everyone on the site understands, and 100 people upvote it. But in reality, suppose 2/3 of the people on HN actually would have downvoted it for being a terrible article -- but couldn't -- because there's no downvote. Link B doesn't have as wide an appeal and gets only 20 upvotes, but nobody thinks it's a bad link. Yet despite 2/3 of the people on HN thinking that the TechCrunch article is terrible, Link A rates way higher than Link B. While downvotes have their downsides, the fact that HN has no link downvotes basically guarantees that stupid linkbait industry buzz fills the top stories constantly. This is basically the HN equivalent of the Bikeshed problem. It also gives people an incentive to submit the most linkbaity, overdramatized links possible, because the goal is not to submit good links: it's to submit links that get lots of upvotes. And when there's no downvotes, the best way to get upvotes is to get as much attention as humanly possible.
- teyc 16y ago
  Have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks#p/u/21/7ZGCPap7GkYaround http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks#p/u/21/7ZGCPap7G... 31:00 at Tumbularity.
revorad 16y ago
That's why i feel its best not to give any karma for submissions at all. karma only for comments.
- hugh3 16y ago
  That's a good idea, actually! Seeing a bunch of people discussing an article that you submitted should be sufficient reward in itself.
- ptn 16y ago
  I second this. It baffles me when I see an article with 100+ karma and 5 comments. How can something be so interesting and yet spawn so little discussion? It makes no sense.
  - thekevan 16y ago
    Not at all. I can see many instances where an "upvote" is a stamp of approval--almost like applause. Discussion is not always necessary.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    As pg says, those are usually very good articles. I'd say the first impetus to comment is to correct, the second to add relevant detail. When the article doesn't need either, it's good.
- pg 16y ago
  Actually a high ratio of comments to upvotes is a bad sign. That usually means there's some kind of religious argument going on.
  - solipsist 16y ago
    There are two types of articles that belong here on HN. The first type includes articles that speak for themselves. Everyone learns from them, but fell little need to comment unless they have something small to chime in. This type should have a low ratio of comments to upvotes. However, the other type includes articles that provoke people and cause discussion. It doesn't just include contributing comments, but rather it contains debates and opposing opinions. These types of articles need a balance between a low and high ratio. However, the religious arguments you speak of are usually easy to find. These arguments are usually found in a deeply nested comment thread. Once you discard of fourth level comments and all the noise below, you should find that the ratio of comments is a pretty good signifier of the quality of the article.
eli 16y ago
If you don't think a story will get 2-5 up votes, then you probably shouldn't submit it. And I assure you that people who don't think about karma (I couldn't care less) will continue to not think about it.
- DarkShikari 16y ago
  If you don't think a story will get 2-5 up votes, then you probably shouldn't submit it. Unless a link is linkbait attention-whoring or breaking news, it's basically luck whether it gets that first upvote in its first few minutes to cause it to hit the front page. If you patrol "new" often, you'll see this constantly: tons of things in "new" are relevant articles, but still have no upvotes. This problem only gets worse as HN grows in size. Now, obviously, I have >4k karma and I shouldn't care at all about such a small karma cost. But the psychological effect exists regardless.
  - eli 16y ago
    But, uh, so what? Does something bad happen if your karma goes negative? That might be an issue. Otherwise, I don't get why people care.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    Adding to your comment, it could also encourage group-think: "I'll only submit what I know others find cool." Note: I'm saying this as someone who submits stuff I think is very cool but doesn't get voted up very often.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      I'm pretty surprised by the amount of fundamental attribution error displayed in this thread. If each of us is so confident of our own abilities to rate articles impartially, be objective, etc., why are we putting so much thought into how to ensure that we can keep each other objective? If I believe that I can do it, why can't I believe that you can do it too?
      - 16y ago
keyist 16y ago
You want them to think "is this interesting and on-topic for HN?" My earlier proposal (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2242453 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2242453 ): deduct karma from submitter and _anyone who upvoted_ on submissions that were successfully flagged. That should get people to think the way you mention not only when submitting, but when upvoting as well. Improve the submissions and comments will naturally improve -- submissions that are one-sided/gossipy/demagogic tend to attract similar comments. Whereas submissions full of technical content are often rich with links to further reading, contrasting viewpoints with cited evidence, etc. (Disclaimer: observations in this paragraph may be subject to fundamental attribution error).
- T-R 16y ago
  I think there would need to be a little more to associate the action with the punishment. Since the point deduction would be pretty delayed from the voting, voters might not recognize which votes were poorly placed, and wouldn't learn to place better votes.

silentbicycle 16y ago

I wonder about that, too, but think it'd be worth experimenting. The cost should probably be small. I find myself wondering, "if I submit this now, will enough people be awake/etc. to notice it before it spills off the page?" That has deterred me from submitting more interesting content than costing 2 or 3 points ever would. Also, a lot of those upvotes come from duplicate submissions. I don't have detailed info, but probably a significant percent, likely enough to lift them out of the new feed and onto the front page. Or, maybe duplicate submissions shouldn't give the original an automatic upvote? I don't know.

kenjackson 16y ago
Or, maybe duplicate submissions shouldn't give the original an automatic upvote? Why shouldn't they? The fact that someone else indepedently thought the article was good to submit seems to be at least as strong a sign of interest as a click of an arror.
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  The problem here is that it doesn't distinguish between these two cases: 1. Multiple people independently submitted a content they found, because they found it interesting. This is (generally) good. Maybe it's not the community's cup of tea, and gradually fades away, but that's fine. 2. Somebody notices some fresh, overtly linkbait-ish article. They post it ASAP, hoping that fifty other people will be slower on the draw, netting them fifty upvotes. (Those people may be doing it for the same reason.) Either way: fluff gets submitted. Maybe it has fifty upvotes, maybe there are fifty others that just crowded out something really fascinating. This sets up a feedback loop that rewards posting things because they're linkbait, not thought-provoking. I suspect that rewarding duplicate submissions too much tips the scales towards rewarding submitting linkbait. Looking at the new page basically ever backs this up. I don't know if adding a cost to submissions, reducing duplicate-submission karma, penalizing everybody involved for flagged->deleted articles, or what will help, but that seems like the root of the problem, so let's talk about it!
  - eru 16y ago
    Interesting lottery-effect.

theli0nheart 16y ago

Even though it might not be the perfect way to estimate topicality for a comment/submission, karma is the best thing we have. As things are at the moment, groupthink is a huge problem no matter what rules you place on the system. You can't really stop it. Everyone thinks about karma to some extent as it is, given that you can only do certain things with a certain amount of the stuff (downvoting, flagging, etc).

DarkShikari 16y ago
Even though it might not be the perfect way to estimate topicality for a comment/submission, karma is the best thing we have. I don't think so. "Topicality" matches "lack of flagging", not "many upvotes". Or at least, it should -- there should be some standardized way, used by most HN members, of marking that they don't think a submission is good HN content. This actually brings us to a very common problem on HN caused by the fact that you can't downvote links. It works like this: Suppose you have two links, Link A and Link B. Link A is stupid TechCrunch linkbait, and Link B is an interesting scientific article. Link A is something everyone on the site understands, and 100 people upvote it. But in reality, suppose 2/3 of the people on HN actually would have downvoted it for being a terrible article -- but couldn't -- because there's no downvote. Link B doesn't have as wide an appeal and gets only 20 upvotes, but nobody thinks it's a bad link. Yet despite 2/3 of the people on HN thinking that the TechCrunch article is terrible, Link A rates way higher than Link B. While downvotes have their downsides, the fact that HN has no link downvotes basically guarantees that stupid linkbait industry buzz fills the top stories constantly. This is basically the HN equivalent of the Bikeshed problem. It also gives people an incentive to submit the most linkbaity, overdramatized links possible, because the goal is not to submit good links: it's to submit links that get lots of upvotes. And when there's no downvotes, the best way to get upvotes is to get as much attention as humanly possible.
teyc 16y ago
Have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks#p/u/21/7ZGCPap7GkYaround http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks#p/u/21/7ZGCPap7G... 31:00 at Tumbularity.

revorad 16y ago

That's why i feel its best not to give any karma for submissions at all. karma only for comments.

hugh3 16y ago
That's a good idea, actually! Seeing a bunch of people discussing an article that you submitted should be sufficient reward in itself.
ptn 16y ago
I second this. It baffles me when I see an article with 100+ karma and 5 comments. How can something be so interesting and yet spawn so little discussion? It makes no sense.
- thekevan 16y ago
  Not at all. I can see many instances where an "upvote" is a stamp of approval--almost like applause. Discussion is not always necessary.
- barrkel 16y ago
  As pg says, those are usually very good articles. I'd say the first impetus to comment is to correct, the second to add relevant detail. When the article doesn't need either, it's good.
pg 16y ago
Actually a high ratio of comments to upvotes is a bad sign. That usually means there's some kind of religious argument going on.
- solipsist 16y ago
  There are two types of articles that belong here on HN. The first type includes articles that speak for themselves. Everyone learns from them, but fell little need to comment unless they have something small to chime in. This type should have a low ratio of comments to upvotes. However, the other type includes articles that provoke people and cause discussion. It doesn't just include contributing comments, but rather it contains debates and opposing opinions. These types of articles need a balance between a low and high ratio. However, the religious arguments you speak of are usually easy to find. These arguments are usually found in a deeply nested comment thread. Once you discard of fourth level comments and all the noise below, you should find that the ratio of comments is a pretty good signifier of the quality of the article.

eli 16y ago

If you don't think a story will get 2-5 up votes, then you probably shouldn't submit it. And I assure you that people who don't think about karma (I couldn't care less) will continue to not think about it.

DarkShikari 16y ago
If you don't think a story will get 2-5 up votes, then you probably shouldn't submit it. Unless a link is linkbait attention-whoring or breaking news, it's basically luck whether it gets that first upvote in its first few minutes to cause it to hit the front page. If you patrol "new" often, you'll see this constantly: tons of things in "new" are relevant articles, but still have no upvotes. This problem only gets worse as HN grows in size. Now, obviously, I have >4k karma and I shouldn't care at all about such a small karma cost. But the psychological effect exists regardless.
- eli 16y ago
  But, uh, so what? Does something bad happen if your karma goes negative? That might be an issue. Otherwise, I don't get why people care.
- dhimes 16y ago
  Adding to your comment, it could also encourage group-think: "I'll only submit what I know others find cool." Note: I'm saying this as someone who submits stuff I think is very cool but doesn't get voted up very often.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I'm pretty surprised by the amount of fundamental attribution error displayed in this thread. If each of us is so confident of our own abilities to rate articles impartially, be objective, etc., why are we putting so much thought into how to ensure that we can keep each other objective? If I believe that I can do it, why can't I believe that you can do it too?
    - 16y ago

keyist 16y ago

You want them to think "is this interesting and on-topic for HN?" My earlier proposal (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2242453 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2242453 ): deduct karma from submitter and _anyone who upvoted_ on submissions that were successfully flagged. That should get people to think the way you mention not only when submitting, but when upvoting as well. Improve the submissions and comments will naturally improve -- submissions that are one-sided/gossipy/demagogic tend to attract similar comments. Whereas submissions full of technical content are often rich with links to further reading, contrasting viewpoints with cited evidence, etc. (Disclaimer: observations in this paragraph may be subject to fundamental attribution error).

T-R 16y ago
I think there would need to be a little more to associate the action with the punishment. Since the point deduction would be pretty delayed from the voting, voters might not recognize which votes were poorly placed, and wouldn't learn to place better votes.