3 ms·

"For all we know"? They explicitly state [0] that upvotes and downvotes are fuzzed, it really isn't a matter of some weird machination. [0] http://www.reddit.c

by freebsd 14y ago

"For all we know"? They explicitly state [0] that upvotes and downvotes are fuzzed, it really isn't a matter of some weird machination. [0] http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_how_is_a_submission.27s_score_determined.3F http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_how_is_a_submission.27s_...

danso 14y ago
Yes...I don't think I was clear enough about what I meant, in a statistical sense. I know that upvotes/downvotes are added artificially. I'm saying, it's hard to gauge the real ratio of upvotes to downvotes with this fuzz. The FAQ you linked to gives this example: a submission with 5 upvotes and 3 downvotes may be tweaked to say 23 upvotes and 21 downvotes. So the net number of upvotes remains the same. But the ratio of approval, a statistic that is prominently listed for each submission, changes: 5 / (5+3) = 62.5% 23 / (21+23) = 52.5% I thought I had also read that, in earlier implementations of the fuzz, upvotes were either removed, or downvotes added, so that doing an all-time view of popular posts would not completely consist of new posts (because the reddit user base is much bigger than it was several years ago, so a relatively mediocre post could garner more upvotes than a very good older post).
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >I'm saying, it's hard to gauge the real ratio of upvotes to downvotes with this fuzz. This is the entire point. That said, I wish they'd just ban spammers and give everyone accurate metrics.
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    Are you suggesting they allow spammers? Every time I remove a spammer post I submit it to /r/ReportTheSpammers, and they get killed almost immediately. What else can they do outside of that? Not allow new users to vote and comments? The best they can do is make spammers be unclear on if they're having any effect or not, by obscuring votes, or by secretly banning them without them realizing. It's a tough problem to get right, especially without making the experience worse for everybody else. I think they've found a happy medium.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      >Are you suggesting they allow spammers? ... for crying out loud. >That said, I wish they'd just ban spammers and give everyone accurate metrics.
      - SquareWheel 14y ago
        They do ban spammers. You're implying they don't.
        Karunamon 14y ago
        I implied no such thing. I wish they'd use the banhammer AND not break vote counts. As long as spammers are banned, there's no reason to screw up a site feature for everyone else.

by freebsd 14y ago

danso 14y ago

Yes...I don't think I was clear enough about what I meant, in a statistical sense. I know that upvotes/downvotes are added artificially. I'm saying, it's hard to gauge the real ratio of upvotes to downvotes with this fuzz. The FAQ you linked to gives this example: a submission with 5 upvotes and 3 downvotes may be tweaked to say 23 upvotes and 21 downvotes. So the net number of upvotes remains the same. But the ratio of approval, a statistic that is prominently listed for each submission, changes: 5 / (5+3) = 62.5% 23 / (21+23) = 52.5% I thought I had also read that, in earlier implementations of the fuzz, upvotes were either removed, or downvotes added, so that doing an all-time view of popular posts would not completely consist of new posts (because the reddit user base is much bigger than it was several years ago, so a relatively mediocre post could garner more upvotes than a very good older post).

Karunamon 14y ago
>I'm saying, it's hard to gauge the real ratio of upvotes to downvotes with this fuzz. This is the entire point. That said, I wish they'd just ban spammers and give everyone accurate metrics.
- SquareWheel 14y ago
  Are you suggesting they allow spammers? Every time I remove a spammer post I submit it to /r/ReportTheSpammers, and they get killed almost immediately. What else can they do outside of that? Not allow new users to vote and comments? The best they can do is make spammers be unclear on if they're having any effect or not, by obscuring votes, or by secretly banning them without them realizing. It's a tough problem to get right, especially without making the experience worse for everybody else. I think they've found a happy medium.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >Are you suggesting they allow spammers? ... for crying out loud. >That said, I wish they'd just ban spammers and give everyone accurate metrics.
    - SquareWheel 14y ago
      They do ban spammers. You're implying they don't.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        I implied no such thing. I wish they'd use the banhammer AND not break vote counts. As long as spammers are banned, there's no reason to screw up a site feature for everyone else.