3 ms·
Oh I agree completely that it isn't a nice assumption; it is just a simplifying one (like the proverbial spherical cow) that's mostly wrong. But I don't think i
by twopoint718 18y ago
Oh I agree completely that it isn't a nice assumption; it is just a simplifying one (like the proverbial spherical cow) that's mostly wrong. But I don't think it is entirely wrong, and the ways that it is right may be useful, as an experiment.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word bad. But new users may not know the established traditions of a group, maybe they haven't even bothered to read the FAQ. The articles that got me thinking along these lines were: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html and http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2001/cs6470_fall/LTAND.html http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2001/cs6470_fall/LTAND.ht... . The gist is that an important group function is to defend itself against (new) users.
But I think that what it'll do is to make votes matter because they cost something. Mostly, I'm interested to see what the implications would be.
- calambrac 18y agoOkay, but why should votes cost more for a user with more karma? I would think the opposite should be true, that if karma is an indicator of a user's value to the site, someone with more karma should pay less to vote up a newer user.
- twopoint718 18y agoThe way that I'm thinking about it is this: that it is relatively unusual, from the standpoint of the community, for a high-karma user to upvote a low-karma user. Karma is a measure of the norms of the community, parceled out to users.