4 ms·

I think the operative word is "consciously". I think the author's wish is that we devote conscious thought, not merely emotional reaction, to whatever it is we'

by kayo_20211030 3y ago

I think the operative word is "consciously". I think the author's wish is that we devote conscious thought, not merely emotional reaction, to whatever it is we're consuming. Not just what makes me feel good or bad; but rather, whether it is IMO good, or bad, or neither. If it's neither, move on; don't respond, reply, upvote, downvote, or anything else. Just move along. Let it atrophy and don't come back.

Aeolun 3y ago
If people could do this conciously, we wouldn’t need this article.
- worrycue 3y ago
  I think the author is just asking us to vote more thoughtfully. Currently, especially on sites like Reddit, the upvote/downvote buttons are abused as agree/disagree buttons and are clicked with little thought. The recent troubles on Reddit have people talking about alternatives. An old site - one of the first voting based forums - was brought up, Slashdot. It has an interesting voting system. Only some people can vote - I forgot the requirements. Each post maxes out at 5 points. Often/almost always the post has a label next to it saying why it was upvoted - e.g. Informative, Insightful, Interesting, ... I can't remember the details of the system as I mostly lurked back then as a kid. Anyway, I think a shift to a more deliberate form of voting might be what the article is advocating.
  - thebudgie 3y ago
    Slashdot also has a metamoderation system where after you've had votes for a while you are asked to confirm if comments were "Funny, Insightful, Troll etc" which could then lead to people losing the ability to vote for a while for using the votes incorrectly.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > Only some people can vote - I forgot the requirements. One day you would get on the site, and have 5 votes to spend. If you didn't spend them, they would go away and it would take a little longer to get more next time. It was a really interesting system. People did act a bit more seriously when they had votes, and there was the metamoderation system for keeping them accountable. It was a little bit complex, but only long-term users would see it, and worked better than any other system I have seen on practice.

Aeolun 3y ago

If people could do this conciously, we wouldn’t need this article.

worrycue 3y ago
I think the author is just asking us to vote more thoughtfully. Currently, especially on sites like Reddit, the upvote/downvote buttons are abused as agree/disagree buttons and are clicked with little thought. The recent troubles on Reddit have people talking about alternatives. An old site - one of the first voting based forums - was brought up, Slashdot. It has an interesting voting system. Only some people can vote - I forgot the requirements. Each post maxes out at 5 points. Often/almost always the post has a label next to it saying why it was upvoted - e.g. Informative, Insightful, Interesting, ... I can't remember the details of the system as I mostly lurked back then as a kid. Anyway, I think a shift to a more deliberate form of voting might be what the article is advocating.
- thebudgie 3y ago
  Slashdot also has a metamoderation system where after you've had votes for a while you are asked to confirm if comments were "Funny, Insightful, Troll etc" which could then lead to people losing the ability to vote for a while for using the votes incorrectly.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > Only some people can vote - I forgot the requirements. One day you would get on the site, and have 5 votes to spend. If you didn't spend them, they would go away and it would take a little longer to get more next time. It was a really interesting system. People did act a bit more seriously when they had votes, and there was the metamoderation system for keeping them accountable. It was a little bit complex, but only long-term users would see it, and worked better than any other system I have seen on practice.