4 ms·
There's a lot of good thinking here, but all of these suggestions share the same failing as integer scores: They still don't preclude bandwagoning. A polarizing
by mortenjorck 15y ago
There's a lot of good thinking here, but all of these suggestions share the same failing as integer scores: They still don't preclude bandwagoning. A polarizing and emotional rant with a five-star/bright-green/100%-bar rating is barely less susceptible to mob voting than a polarizing and emotional rant with 55 points.
That said, I don't think hiding scores is the only solution to this problem. I'd like to suggest an escape valve of sorts: If we accept that, from time to time, a bandwagon-bait comment will inevitably get voted up, we can consider a mechanism to deflate it. There is a simple way, to designate moderators who can demote these comments; then there is a more interesting way:
I hypothesize that there is an observable pattern to the votes over time of bait comments. It would be very interesting to see a comparison of highly-rated comments through a histogram: Is there a particular curve that insightful comments follow? Do bait comments have a signature spike at their tipping point? Can these be modeled in a straightforward way? The system could then be set up to slow, halt, or even reverse upvoting when a comment fits the model.
- benwr 15y agoIs mob voting an observed problem with the old way? I seem to recall PG mentioning[1] that overall top comment scores are now /higher/ than before, suggesting that upvoters didn't mob in the old system, but based their votes on the perceived value of the comment vs its current score. Thus, instead of the prevalence of vote mobbing, a more important question is: Do you think a score should be based on a ternary choice between {good comment, indifferent, bad comment} summed over a large (sometimes not-so-large) group of votes, or based on the average of the community's perception of the comment's value on a sliding scale? [1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271
- patrickk 15y agoI think it would be a good idea to display the scores after you vote. That way you would know that you are upvoting a comment for it's merits, and it's not a case of mob mentality.
- benwr 15y agoI think that would be more polarizing rather than less: You would have an incentive to vote one way or the other, even when you feel the comment deserves neither.
- wisty 15y agoSHOUTING is a good way to get karma under the new system. It's rare for people to downvote, so comments that scream LOOK AT ME will get lots of upvotes. Just as long as you don't overdo it, or say anything too controversial.
- rbanffy 15y ago> A polarizing and emotional rant with a five-star/bright-green/100%-bar rating is barely less susceptible to mob voting than a polarizing and emotional rant with 55 points. IIRC, the comments I made that got the highest scores were accidental emotional rants that, more than embody some clever original insight, were in agreement with a large number of people. Usually the well reasoned ones get around 5. To get above that, I'd really have to play for the crowd, something I am not inclined to do. I value this place.
- brfox 15y agoThen maybe a comment should get a single star if it gets a moderate share (5%) of the total points, or at least 5 pts, whichever is higher. Zero starts would be the default.