3 ms·

Your algorithm suggestion is interesting, but probably not sufficient. Although reddit trolls are one step up from internet spammers, the same principle applie

• 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?
    • whacked_new 19y ago
      Good points. But again, these real life tiers are invented systems and not intuitive. They're just created for efficiency in operation in a particular environment. For universities, some roles work. For companies, others. For internet citizens, I think since there is a whole new level of information transparency (or lack of), we can jump out of the traditional way of thinking about roles. The examples you give about discussion are all "real discussion." What I'm saying is that I believe the ideal discussion system would accomodate all these discussions. Poetry, sports, academic journals, etc. If not now, eventually it must. While sometimes it makes sense to nicheify, like separating a fashion-specific website from a tech-specific one, the material isn't always mutually exclusive, and so lots of information is lost. There should be channels for different discussions to connect to each other. Wikipedia is one example of how it can be done. I guess arbitrarily-tiered system is a bad phrase. I just mean no explicit tiers, like, you have a bit set for mod status, a bit set for troll status, etc. Everybody will interpret authority, or hierarchy, differently, so just leave it as-is, at least with subjectively assessed content, like puns, politically incorrect jokes... Of course objective measurements are useful for winnowing things like necessarily true statements and necessarily informative statements, but not everything. I think reddit has a pretty good model. So is Slashdot. They're both obvious improvements from BBS style discussions. But there's a lot more to explore, and this more should be where there is more flexibility. One example where this flexibility is lacking is in funny Slashdot comments. Some of the +5 Funny are great stuff, but I can't just, say, have a Slashdot Jokes section and only look at those (and add jokes to the jokes section). So there's seenonslash.com. But that's a reposting of slashdot comments; in effect, lots of information that could've been more effectively harnessed if the Slashdot system itself was more flexible. Just my thoughts, but in general I don't like institutions and hierarchies and I'm biased against them. Of course it's insane to abolish all demarcations, but why not allow responsibilities to be expanded or dimished in small increments according to performance? It might take x percent of y to impeach someone in real life, but a virtual system would allow you to, say, have a bit less power if the populace thinks you should have less. It'd be an interesting experiment if anything.