3 ms·

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

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.

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.