4 ms·

I wonder if there may be a way to build the wall you describe in the general-public site. Pretend you could rate commenters, not publicly but privately--for you

I wonder if there may be a way to build the wall you describe in the general-public site. Pretend you could rate commenters, not publicly but privately--for your own private use. If you spot a particularly dumb comment on reddit, you could blacklist the commenter--privately, so that your action would affect only you. Similarly, when you notice a brilliant comment you will want to permanently highlight its author so that for you--and only you--the author has an advantage on your attention in the future. Commenters you perceive as intolerable would never have another shot at your attention while commenters you view as geniuses would forever get artificially modded up--but only to your eyes. The same algorithm could work for postings. If I want more Ron Paul, peace be upon Him, I can privately champion those authors who celebrate his news items. You may have had enough of the distinguished doctor-representative from Texas, so you could exercise your prerogative to ignore (or artificially down-mod, just for you) submitters whom you view are overly sympathetic to Him. Further thoughts on reddit's comment system... Problem: Logical fallacies largely go unchecked. Just today, someone replying to my comment pulled a tautology so I reflexively linked to the appropriate Wikipedia page. As mentioned, ad hominem is a more popular sin and the list goes on. What if, when I clicked on the "Report" link, I could select from several logical fallacies? In this way, if enough others agreed with me, we could get an official-looking stamp on the offending comment--corresponding to what the community felt was the logical fallacy (e.g., straw man, false analogy, non sequitur). Problem: Today, if I submit a comment and I down-mod all other comments I increase my comment's visibility. I want my comment to have visibility (that is why I wrote it) and I suspect other redditors may employ the cheat. So I face an ethical dilemma. We can talk about real-life karma, but why tease commenters to begin with? Solution: If you comment you can't vote in the thread. Problem: I imagine a lot of redditors, like me, sort by top->flat and I suspect most of the remaining redditors sort by top->nested. So if I comment, I significantly increase my visibility odds if I reply to the front-runner comment. To the extent I care that people will read what I write, I will tend to favor the popular comments--even if they are not as worthy of a response as those nearer the bottom.

Jd 19y ago
Your algorithm suggestion is interesting, but probably not sufficient. Although reddit trolls are one step up from internet spammers, the same principle applies. With sufficient quantity of trolls/spammers blocking each one individually becomes an incredibly time intensive task - enough to drive away all those who don't have tons of time on their hands. Pg speaks above about customs, but the problem with customers have to both (1) be educated about site customs (2) want to be educated about site customs. I think with any influx of 14 year olds of sufficient you will find both 1 & 2 problematic. Now, personally, I think there is a significant difference between a news aggregation site and a community site. In a community site persons actually develop relationships and relate to each other on this basis. I have no seen that happen much on reddit or here. One reason for this is the speed of discussion - most of the best online discussions I have been involved with have taken days or weeks to fully develop. In any news-blog-digg driven site the time frame is closer to 24 hrs. What I would favor is a multi-tiered system. For something like YC News there could be something like three tiers: (1) Old school hackers with experience in startups (2) Less experienced coders (3) Whoever wants to participate. Each conversation could be assigned a tier, and people of that tier and above tiers could participate. For example, a tier 3 discussion would accommodate people of tier 1,2 &3, a tier 2 discussion could accommodate tiers 1&2. In many ways this model is what we already do. We have low-tier sites like digg which we may check, we come to places like this for a free form discussion mostly among people of type 2, and type 1 discussions are mainly engaged in via email. So in some ways the only innovation I propose is that some of these type 1 discussions be viewable to the public, so we can see what cool lisp hackers talk about in private (and solicit them for advice). Response to other reddit comment comments: Fallacy - I don't think the fallacy thing will work simply because (as with the site customs described above) one has to be educated as to what any given fallacy means. Ethical dilemma - funny I never thought of doing that, although I think your solution would work. Popular comments - yes this is a big problem; I have noticed it.
- whacked_new 19y ago
  I tend to think online discussion systems will evolve to approximate real discussion. The online aspect is simply to allow easier information management, synchronization of more people (which would be physically impossible), and decrease of distance. Temporal issues aside, it makes pretty much sense, in that problems in real discussion easily predict problems in online discussion, and fixes to online discussion systems address problems in live discussion. It seems to me, however, that developers of discussion systems stop relating the online system to the real interaction and try to impose methods that make more programming sense, but less natural sense. Of course I'm probably not qualified to say this because I don't know how valid my theories are; we will see. Nevertheless, based on this perspective, I suspect the tiered system would not work, simply because we don't think in tiers in real life. Everything is graded in subjective degrees. One day your Lisp email list would evolve into a nonsensical banter (somebody starts posting after getting drunk). One day a couple geniuses post on digg and write a bestseller novel on the comment system within 24 hours. Perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. There are zero barriers in real life that let this happen; when it needs to happen, it will. But online, the system becomes the barrier. So instead of a multi-tier system, I believe the best system is bound to be an aribtrarily-tiered system. How might this work? Consider yomama on reddit, who posts yo mama jokes on every thread. Troll yes, but also a clown. If there is a clown thread, yomama gets the crown (sorry). Thing is, there are "tiers" in the sense that you only have upmod and downmod. And really, what do those mean? A tier of good, a tier of bad? Predefined categories will never be enough. If there are disagreeing voices, I'd love to hear.
  - Jd 19y ago
    I disagree that we don't think in tiers in real life. We do - except they are called roles or titles. For instance, the typical university has undergraduate students, graduate students, professors and administrators. One could simply say that there are four tiers. The reason that we don't think of it this way is most of these institutions have grown up organically over time, or at the very least we aren't aware of the original design decisions. Now I'm not arguing that we should necessarily replicate real-world institutions in online form, but one should at least recognize that real-world institutions (like universities) provide various measures which enforce content quality. As for approximating real discussion, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There are many different types of real discussion, from idle conversation about sports to academic journals about the poetry of W.B. Yeats. Although certain similar principles apply, the way in which you would model either of these would have to be different. I'm afraid I also don't understand what you mean by an arbitrarily-tiered system. Are you arguing in favor of the reddit model?

Jd 19y ago

Your algorithm suggestion is interesting, but probably not sufficient. Although reddit trolls are one step up from internet spammers, the same principle applies. With sufficient quantity of trolls/spammers blocking each one individually becomes an incredibly time intensive task - enough to drive away all those who don't have tons of time on their hands. Pg speaks above about customs, but the problem with customers have to both (1) be educated about site customs (2) want to be educated about site customs. I think with any influx of 14 year olds of sufficient you will find both 1 & 2 problematic. Now, personally, I think there is a significant difference between a news aggregation site and a community site. In a community site persons actually develop relationships and relate to each other on this basis. I have no seen that happen much on reddit or here. One reason for this is the speed of discussion - most of the best online discussions I have been involved with have taken days or weeks to fully develop. In any news-blog-digg driven site the time frame is closer to 24 hrs. What I would favor is a multi-tiered system. For something like YC News there could be something like three tiers: (1) Old school hackers with experience in startups (2) Less experienced coders (3) Whoever wants to participate. Each conversation could be assigned a tier, and people of that tier and above tiers could participate. For example, a tier 3 discussion would accommodate people of tier 1,2 &3, a tier 2 discussion could accommodate tiers 1&2. In many ways this model is what we already do. We have low-tier sites like digg which we may check, we come to places like this for a free form discussion mostly among people of type 2, and type 1 discussions are mainly engaged in via email. So in some ways the only innovation I propose is that some of these type 1 discussions be viewable to the public, so we can see what cool lisp hackers talk about in private (and solicit them for advice). Response to other reddit comment comments: Fallacy - I don't think the fallacy thing will work simply because (as with the site customs described above) one has to be educated as to what any given fallacy means. Ethical dilemma - funny I never thought of doing that, although I think your solution would work. Popular comments - yes this is a big problem; I have noticed it.

whacked_new 19y ago
I tend to think online discussion systems will evolve to approximate real discussion. The online aspect is simply to allow easier information management, synchronization of more people (which would be physically impossible), and decrease of distance. Temporal issues aside, it makes pretty much sense, in that problems in real discussion easily predict problems in online discussion, and fixes to online discussion systems address problems in live discussion. It seems to me, however, that developers of discussion systems stop relating the online system to the real interaction and try to impose methods that make more programming sense, but less natural sense. Of course I'm probably not qualified to say this because I don't know how valid my theories are; we will see. Nevertheless, based on this perspective, I suspect the tiered system would not work, simply because we don't think in tiers in real life. Everything is graded in subjective degrees. One day your Lisp email list would evolve into a nonsensical banter (somebody starts posting after getting drunk). One day a couple geniuses post on digg and write a bestseller novel on the comment system within 24 hours. Perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. There are zero barriers in real life that let this happen; when it needs to happen, it will. But online, the system becomes the barrier. So instead of a multi-tier system, I believe the best system is bound to be an aribtrarily-tiered system. How might this work? Consider yomama on reddit, who posts yo mama jokes on every thread. Troll yes, but also a clown. If there is a clown thread, yomama gets the crown (sorry). Thing is, there are "tiers" in the sense that you only have upmod and downmod. And really, what do those mean? A tier of good, a tier of bad? Predefined categories will never be enough. If there are disagreeing voices, I'd love to hear.
- Jd 19y ago
  I disagree that we don't think in tiers in real life. We do - except they are called roles or titles. For instance, the typical university has undergraduate students, graduate students, professors and administrators. One could simply say that there are four tiers. The reason that we don't think of it this way is most of these institutions have grown up organically over time, or at the very least we aren't aware of the original design decisions. Now I'm not arguing that we should necessarily replicate real-world institutions in online form, but one should at least recognize that real-world institutions (like universities) provide various measures which enforce content quality. As for approximating real discussion, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There are many different types of real discussion, from idle conversation about sports to academic journals about the poetry of W.B. Yeats. Although certain similar principles apply, the way in which you would model either of these would have to be different. I'm afraid I also don't understand what you mean by an arbitrarily-tiered system. Are you arguing in favor of the reddit model?