3 ms·

Some research (probably see Cialdini) shows significantly improved compliance when a question is asked that requires confirmation from the subject. So it would

by hxa7241 17y ago

Some research (probably see Cialdini) shows significantly improved compliance when a question is asked that requires confirmation from the subject. So it would better as: "Will you add a thoughtful comment?". How that can be best realised in a web context is something for further consideration . . .

amichail 17y ago
Here's something that is more likely to work: PG gets more voting power than anyone else. Moreover, his voting gives/takes away voting power to/from submitters/commenters, and their voting do likewise, and so on. In this way, ultimately PG determines the character of the site by spreading voting power directly and indirectly via his voting.
- Readmore 17y ago
  I don't know, that sounds like a Monarchy to me. If you wanted to go that way why not make a user's 'voting power' be based on their own karma / time on the site. This rewards users who have been around longer and have been 'peer reviewed' through their karma.
  - endtime 17y ago
    I'm not sure this is evolutionarily stable against an invasion of new users multiple times the size of the original population.
- NathanKP 17y ago
  That wouldn't necessarily work because the next person below PG would be likely to be more willing to upvote someone who wasn't as focused. They in turn would be willing to upvote someone else who was worse and so on. I think it makes more sense for voting power to be associated with karma level.
  - jjs 17y ago
    > I think it makes more sense for voting power to be associated with karma level. This could be gamed, or lead to runaway karma effects within a small, incestuous cabal. If I were pg, I would handle it similarly to amichail's suggestion, but instead of voting power going to submitters of articles that I like, I would have it go to voters of articles that I like. In other words, I would restate the problem as, "I can't be awake 24 hours to moderate every single submission, so instead, I'll assign invisible voting power based on how reliably a given voter's running and recent preferences match what I would want to see on the front page." I would add some random jitter to the algorithm, to mildly penalize people whose votes are too similar to my own. The bonus to consistently good submitters would not be better voting privileges, but better submitting privileges (better initial placement and/or slower decay). And I would silently give voters and submitters whose patterns negatively correlated with my preferences corresponding penalties, and use their poor taste as valuable data on what not to put on the front page.
- riffer 17y ago
  This would be like non-binary whitelists that have multiple levels. I like it.
dhimes 17y ago
I would love to see if this works. "Feel free to enhance the discussion" or "Feel free to add value to this thread" Any other ways to word it worth considering?

by hxa7241 17y ago

amichail 17y ago

Here's something that is more likely to work: PG gets more voting power than anyone else. Moreover, his voting gives/takes away voting power to/from submitters/commenters, and their voting do likewise, and so on. In this way, ultimately PG determines the character of the site by spreading voting power directly and indirectly via his voting.

Readmore 17y ago
I don't know, that sounds like a Monarchy to me. If you wanted to go that way why not make a user's 'voting power' be based on their own karma / time on the site. This rewards users who have been around longer and have been 'peer reviewed' through their karma.
- endtime 17y ago
  I'm not sure this is evolutionarily stable against an invasion of new users multiple times the size of the original population.
NathanKP 17y ago
That wouldn't necessarily work because the next person below PG would be likely to be more willing to upvote someone who wasn't as focused. They in turn would be willing to upvote someone else who was worse and so on. I think it makes more sense for voting power to be associated with karma level.
- jjs 17y ago
  > I think it makes more sense for voting power to be associated with karma level. This could be gamed, or lead to runaway karma effects within a small, incestuous cabal. If I were pg, I would handle it similarly to amichail's suggestion, but instead of voting power going to submitters of articles that I like, I would have it go to voters of articles that I like. In other words, I would restate the problem as, "I can't be awake 24 hours to moderate every single submission, so instead, I'll assign invisible voting power based on how reliably a given voter's running and recent preferences match what I would want to see on the front page." I would add some random jitter to the algorithm, to mildly penalize people whose votes are too similar to my own. The bonus to consistently good submitters would not be better voting privileges, but better submitting privileges (better initial placement and/or slower decay). And I would silently give voters and submitters whose patterns negatively correlated with my preferences corresponding penalties, and use their poor taste as valuable data on what not to put on the front page.
riffer 17y ago
This would be like non-binary whitelists that have multiple levels. I like it.

dhimes 17y ago

I would love to see if this works. "Feel free to enhance the discussion" or "Feel free to add value to this thread" Any other ways to word it worth considering?