What other less-toxic system could work instead of karma?
Hey! Thanks to the whole Reddit mess, I’ve discovered the fediverse and its increidible wonders and I’m lovin’ it :D
I’ve seen another post about karma, and after reading the comments, I can see there is a strong opinion against it (which I do share). I’d love to hear your opinions, what other method/s would you guys implement? If any ofc
That real question is, what problem are we trying to solve? Then we can go from there.
In wondering about that myself. What is the problem?
Individual users having some sort of reputation is useful. I always thought it was handy on Reddit to be able to distinguish people I happened to disagree with from actual trolls. The latter always had pretty high negative karma scores, and it was good to know that there was no point in engaging with them.
There are few things Karma system helps with that come to mind.
For others:
For you:
Presumably there are other things as well, these just quickly came to me.
That is a good way to think about it. What is the need from the reader's perspective and from the poster's.
One would certainly read a post with low upvotes from a author with high reputation if you are interested in the specific magazine. I wonder if the reputation should not be topic bound and not just general. That would be useful from the reader's perspective.
I don't think these problems warrants a change in the current system. The transparency is a crucial feature. Seeing the number of downvotes serves as a great red flag to warn readers that a comment might not be true even if it has a larger number of upvotes.
This does take away the anonymous part of your social media voting experience, but the ability to manipulate the platform is greatly decreased. People that get riled up about disagreement will need to chill and you will need to block those individuals that can't.
I think this will allow the development of a more mature community by taking away some of the anonymity
The third problem is that the current system let's you see who is downvoting/upvoting. People take it personally when they are disagreed with and will retaliate since they can see those users and stalk their account
I actually really like this. I've been downvoted a bunch, my kbin karma sits at negative, but it's kinda neat to see that I haven't been downvoted by complete assholes (based on their history) -- makes me appreciate that we might just have different view about a thing (or I've acted like an asshole to no surprise). Nonverbal communication can be a powerful thing.
Do I think it's feasible to leave as it is if this whole thing explodes in popularity in a new magnitude while Reddit sinks? No I don't think so.
Yeah, the question strikes me as, "Reddit has this thing. A lot of people don't like that thing, but how could we still have it without people not liking it?"
I think we're good as is.
Good point, take my:
handshake, pat on the back, slightly too long hug point thingy.
Not a problem at all. I understand that we are ego-driven, but then again, the fediverse is a new working paradigm. We are here because we want to. Genuinely curious what you guys thought!
We want to discuss topics. This is a place to do that.
Simple need, simple solution.
You don't need an extra incentive to make people talk about things if people talking about things is the thing you want. You don't want to incentivize people who don't want to talk about things to be active somewhere you want people to talk about things because then those people will start doing the thing your'e incentivizing them for instead of talk about things.
I personally only want people who want to talk about things here, and don't want people who don't want to talk about things.
I'm against any kind of global user ranking.
It makes sense to rank content, but ranking users just begs abuse of the system. There's always those that will try to farm the system resulting in lower quality content. It's also an attack vector for bots.
I don't miss the "karma" aspect one bit here. Rate my post quality, not me. On the other hand, tools for ranking users privately could be helpful. In other words a personal ranking for your eyes only would be fine.
I agree. I personally found the system was far too addictive, in the Cookie Clicker kind of way of "bigger number = happy". I sometimes find myself missing it almost, only to remember that it's worthless.
It also means I can more freely share my actual opinions, without that reflecting on some sort of global score if people generally dislike said opinion.
i do like the RES feature of personal counts though
if someone on res had a [+10] next to their name, i'll know i personally respect their opinions, even if i don't remember their name. similarly, if they have a negative number, i'll know not to engage as they're probably a troll
What we have right now in Lemmy strikes the current balance IMO. Individual comments are upvoted/downvoted. But no cumulative score.
which is the right thing, judge the opinion not the person
Agreed 105%
I agree 90%, downvotes shouldn't have that much weight. That said, comments which are abusive or hateful probably should have long term consequences for the user, even if they are themselves not worthy of a ban. Maybe reputation can be a "strike" for number of reported comments.
To be clear, here I'm thinking of "dogwhistle" comments which individually are plausibly fine, but in aggregate indicate this person is up to no good.
On the other hand, kbin has a cumulative score, but currently implements it badly wrong. Your cumulative 'reputation' is calculated as "boosts - downvotes". So if you post a thread that gets 100 upvotes, 9 downvotes, 80 comments and 5 boosts, you are rewarded with '-4 reputation'. Nobody really uses boost, so it is very easy to rack up negative reputation.
Thankfully, I don't think 'reputation' actually does anything, but it is still kind of annoying to be 'punished' for posting.
I would almost say a better system would obscure usernames completely. Only show the comment text, and allow voting accordingly.
It’s a shame, but any sort of number-based system will most likely end up with the same problems as karma. Not having the numbers add up is a good start though, since upvotes and downvotes are only really useful as ‘in-the-moment’ indicators of good vs bad content.
Let’s keep it how it is, so that we don’t have another social credits system that doubles as a dopamine factory.
Another element is that total upvotes don't need to be shown on your profile. It can be on the comments/posts alone.
I much prefer how Lemmy approaches this; upvote and downvote count per comment, no tally of total points.
Way less people trying to Karma farm then and repost content for fake internet points that don’t mean anything.
What about the same system, but it shows both upvotes and downvotes?
Yeah imo the real problem with reddit was that
A: they started fudging the votes so they didn't really matter and they could shadowban accounts from even being able to upovte/downvote
B: stupid fucking awards could keep posts at the top even if they had like -2000
c: fascists were gaming the system with bots anyway to push their content.
No system. The goal isn't Reddit 2, it's a federated link aggregator.
fax
Unfortunately, anything you replace karma with will have the same problems that karma has. Any indicator of comment or user quality will be readily gamed by anyone with any skills whatsoever in automation.
Yes and no. Toxicity will always be around indeed... but we can definitely lessen its effect.
thing is... in the end, karma doesn't serve as that anyway (indicator of quality). It's so easy to karma farm by (re)posting content (sometimes even stolen) in multiple communities.
In NSFW communities, at least on Reddit, I see SO MANY posts that doesn't fit the community they were posted in, but being upvoted anyway because... well... it's nudity
Karma may not be an actual indicator of quality, but it is often used as such. That's the reason why all the bots exist in the first place and they are oddly enough* also the reason it's not a good indicator.
People look at top, People like to filter out the bottom.
Look at the alternatives. Page views? They'd be instantly botted. Engagement? Instantly botted. There's literally not any way to indicate that the crowd likes something or that something is of interest that can't be replicated in a hot second. Karma is the closest thing we have to a sorting filter that content creators are doing the right thing or an indicator to content consumers that something might stand out from the crowd.
I'm sitting here farming /r/interestingasfuck trying to make the /c/interestingasfuck viable and 2/3 of the highest ranked crap is garbage, The thing is, even 1/3 of it being real saves me from having to sort through thousands of page of crap to find decent stuff.
edit* missed a word
Web of trust. The biggest thing missing from most attempts to build social networks so far. A few sites did very weak versions, like Slashdot/s friend/foe/fan/freak rating system.
Let me subscribe, upvote, downvote, filter, etc specific content. Let me trust (or negative-trust) other users (think of it like "friend" or "block", in simple terms)
Then, and this is the key... let me apply filters based on the sub/up/down/filter/etc actions of the people I trust, and the people they trust, etc, with diminishing returns as it gets farther away and based on how much people trust each other.
Finally, when I see problematic content, let me see the chain of trust that exposed me to it. If I trust you and you trust a Nazi, I may or may not spend time trying to convince you to un-trust that person, but if you fail or refuse then I can un-trust you to get Nazi(s) out of my feed.
I think a thing like this will even be required in the near future. Because we can no longer trust that we are talking to real humans, therefore some trust system (including physical interaction perhaps?) will be needed to not get social networks drown in AI dystopia. I have bookmarked this comment which describes the krass scenario we might find ourselves in soon: https://lemmy.ml/comment/878882
@dedale@kbin.social
Re "physical interaction"... Are you old and/or geeky enough to know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party ?
It's a novel idea, I can certainly see the nice implications of it, but it also seems incredibly excessive. Would you really going around flagging every user you see on a trust system? Or even enough for the system to be moderately effective? And then expect many other users to do the same?
I honestly don't think I'd use it, blocking people is enough for me.
I maintained a substantial set of tags for problematic users of all types so I knew to avoid commenting or engaging with them. In an given community it's common for there to be a tiny percentage of prolific posters who are a real problem and tags with res is how I managed that. It absolutely can work and arguably twitter's block and mute functions do a similar thing as thevpy reduce a user's presentation considerably.
I found very interesting the concept of chain of trust :) What is the friend/foe/fan/freak?
Slashdot has a friend list and foe list. Fan and freak are the lists of people who name you as friend and foe respectively.
Karma does well in my opinion, however it should display the number of upvotes and downvotes, not just one number. Also adnn an option to sort by the number of downvotes.
And an option to sort by controversial would be nice.
Also add an option to sort by the number of downvotes.
More sorting options would be a nice addition. Although, being able to treat down-votes similarly to upvotes might encourage more bad behavior. I kind of want to see such a system tested.
Trolls would compete to be the worst.
Let them have their pathetic fun. We're never going to stop trolls, might as well let them get their dumb points while they're at it. It's not like they aren't typically obvious anyway.
I think we should stop seeing Lemmy as just a substitute for Reddit. Lemmy can be it's own thing, without having to do 'reddit-like' stuff.
Imo, I don't think the karma system is really necessary (it doesn't even make sense) and the upvote-downvote is good enough to filter quality posts.
That is indeed my fault. I came looking for something to end the craving and the void left by reddit. I should rethink my approach and understand that this could go beyond my ego
Absolutely nothing. Reducing people to a number and ranking their value based on that is inherently wrong.
Keep it simple, the current Lemmy system works fine. Spambots and particularly disruptive people should just be banned anyways, a gamification system would not solve any issue on that front.
While I still would like to see an alternative to Karma that's less problematic, I agree with the idea that gamification will not solve issues. If anything, it creates a "KPI/score" people want to desperately meet for the wrong reason.
But what about the dopamine hit from upvotes though...
Let's keep the upvotes to the post/comment only, do not show the overall of a user and don't take it into account in any algorithmic decision. Let community managers see the 'karma' of the user in their respective community maybe, but beyond that it's a feature that only had negative implications on Reddit
We should keep it as is. Having an account score just amplifies a big issue with sm. The content should be in focus, not the people posting. A relevant comment should be hightened because it itself is good. In the same way we shouldn't judge something because the user has a low karma, but because the content is bad.
The idea behind something keeping a score on a profile is good, but it doesn't work as intended in practice. People will farm in whatever way they need to get a moral highground. Not having such a scoring system will be a good way to reduce the incentive to copy/paste content from others.
You said this far better than I could. If there's no supply, the addicts stay away.
A relevant and good comment, even and especially if it opposes the opinion of the majority. Giving downvotes to signal disagreement, when posts are sorted by karma and very low karma posts are even hidden, leads to circle jerking and immediately kills every healthy debate and controversy in the bud. If I have a dissenting opinion, I want to argue, not be muzzled.
Subs should be able to force sort by controversial for comments and/or posts.
Any damn fool can come up with comments that are universally approved of, or universally hated. They aren't interesting.
The phrase 'trivially true' applies - "This crime was a bad thing, and the people responsible shouldn't have done it! I am very angry at them!" may be emotionally satisfying to say or to cheer on, but it doesn't add a damn thing to the conversation, any more than "hur hur suck it libruls" does.
There isn't a term for the inverse of ragebait, but there needs to be. All the le reddit moments - the tedious meme-chains, forced in-jokes, etc.
For subs where you want interesting discussion, you want to sort both to the bottom. It's the posts that divide opinions that are worth talking about, almost by definition. If a post has a thousand votes but the total is close to zero, well hey, that's probably worth seeing and engaging wth.
Let people vote with their heart, use upvotes/downvotes however the fuck they want to instead of constantly nagging and whining about it - and then use that to detect and de-prioritise mediocrity.
It wouldn't be appropriate for all subs, but for some places, I think it'd be a huge improvement.
Judging by the controversial comments on Reddit, I don't know if I want to engage with 50/50 up/downvotes for any significant amount of time. I think a 60/40 ratio might be a bit more palatable while still keeping it engaging. I'm not convinced an algorithm like this is the best course of action though.
Top 3 most upvoted comments always being unfunny puns was getting insufferable on Reddit. Everyone was trying to be a fucking comedian - that's what was popular and got upvotes.
The early Reddit you could have long, interesting arguments with people and you'd both be getting upvoted because you're both making interesting points.
It honestly feels like my brain is waking up from a digital coma since coming to Lemmy from Reddit. My own personality and opinions don't feel pointlessly supressed and sanitised.
I really like this solution. Instead of making things more complicated for users or trying to control their input, observe their natural behavior and then respond to it.
What about hidden karma?
Like there is still karma used internally to decide what posts to promote and how to weight votes, but the numbers are kept only internally so people don't get obsessed with that number next to their (and others') profile?
Or what if a user could see their own karma, but no one else's? If karma isn't publicly visible, then people may care less about it.
Tbh this is what turned me off the thunder app.
I think this would make people more obsessed. We would see the rise of SEO-like shenanigans where they would try to guess what makes the internal algorithm tick, complete with “karma experts” to advise you on how to optimize, etc. more of a shitshow that just having it plainly visible, I think…
Well, I was assuming we were talking about open-source software. So you wouldn't need karma experts to "guess what makes the internal algorithm tick". If it's open source, the algorithm is still public. You just wouldn't know how much karma each user has.
No, no, no, please no hidden algorithm. that's as bad or worse than karma, especially with the incoming bot shitstorm.
I didn't say hidden algorithm. I was assuming we were talking about open-source software and hence public algorithm.
It's just your karma points that would just be kept in the database without putting that number in your profile.
That changes nothing in terms of how the algorithm works. I didn't suggest changing anything on how many details are available on how the algorithm works.
given how instances have been popping up with massive amounts of bots recently and someone even managed to get on top posts from bot upvotes recently, right now this probably wouldn't be a good idea... Though I tried looking back for the post I'm referring to and can't find it. maybe it got dealt with, title was like "Protect. Moderate. Purge your server" or something? the guy botted upvotes to promote to instance owners how to protect themselves from bots
Embrace the Lemmy system. Resistance is futile. Fake internet points are futile.
(1) No Karma system at all
(2) Karma spread over several numbers rather that one; think of Github's user page for example, stats for everything in general on one's profile to reflect general activity
(3) Community award badges
Community awards would be great. It encourages quality content and can strike a balance between new and old users.
I do like the community badges. And honestly, I would be ok if "karma" was how many "gold" awards a user received, at least there would be some monetary rate limit there to prevent bots from gaming the karma system. Also Lemmy communities would benefit and it would help pay for server costs.
my take: up only, no down, per-post only, no account. if someone is repeatedly a problem mods can show them the door.
karma systems have been around forever allegedly to decrease mod/admin workload managing users by having them "self moderate" and that has NEVER been the actual effect - they've only ever been an engagement metric for advertising and it didn't matter positive or negative if people were angry downvoting they were still engaged. I've witnessed site after site add these systems and then the userbase turn into a toxic cesspool after. In almost 30 years I've only seen one roll back the change even partially. Their culture never fully recovered and its still dominated by people agitating to get attention and to one-up their perceived rivals.
Let reddit things die with reddit. Long live Lemmy.
I very much disagree with the "no downvote" opinion. It leads to homophobic, racist and generally bigoted comments getting much more displayed appreciation than they should (see: any YouTube comments interaction).
You can say it's the job of the moderation to take care of that kind of hateful content, but I prefer that content to be displayed as a rejected and challenged onpinion rather than not addressed or ignored. And for that, a quick downvote + sourced debate is better than an unending thread of wordsoup where even the most hateful argument only gets shown some love in the form of upvotes.
You can say it’s the job of the moderation to take care of that kind of hateful content,
I can and I do :) ..also its usually what will happen anyway, downvotes or not.
It leads to homophobic, racist and generally bigoted comments getting much more displayed appreciation than they should (see: any YouTube comments interaction).
youtube comments are a very special kind of cesspool. The things you describe should be removed by moderator, downvotes aren't enough to detur that. Those types of comments should be reported, the post removed, and the user kicked to the curb for saying them. No tolerance for that. No debate is going to change anyone's mind, its just giving them room to argue in bad faith to further spew their hate.
Anything not worth a ban, is very perfectly debatable without a negative number telling me who's opinion the unpopular one (or had more/less puppets to influence it, as sometimes is the case).
I'd also add a (funny/informative/opinion) vote button aswell. These spaces can become noise drowners where information can be drowned by repeated jokes that get upvoted to the top. Too many times I've seen conversations like "Does this mean I can do A or B? - Yes."
Itgets really exhausting. Having an easy filter to skip the noise would be great.
Beehaw runs without downvotes, and so far it's encouraging. I had a civil discussion with someone in what on Reddit would have been a downvote-fuelled flame war.
I have felt the same way on several lemmy instances now - that whole culture just isn't here so far. People speak what they are thinking and aren't randomly crapped on for it. if someone disagrees, they just say so and why. Its wonderful.
I agree that it might get toxic at one point, but I'd much rather see extra preventive measures to stop repost bots, karma farming and so on rather than removing points altogether. Maybe it also helps to see karma breakdown by community: say you see someone answering a technical question on a specialised community - it would be of little to no relevance there that they might have 10000 points on r/funny or r/aww - I'd much rather see their points on that specific community.
One feature I liked a lot from RES was the ability to tag users, which I used to flag users and remember who they are and what their general opinions are on issues. It made arguing more interesting since I didn't have to rerun over the same old conflicts with people who will never budge on certain issues.
Or on the more positive side flair people who are really helpful . And flag them once then start to see that whenever they post something helpful it's the same person. Funny thing is I would still never remember the username. Flair would just be like helpful person who said how to fix settings.
I don't think you can have anything in the same spirit that isn't toxic and doesn't encourage brigading by minority groups who want to cancel opinions they don't like. The whole concept is simply glorified ad hominem.
Personally i like to call em WIP. Worthless internet points. Just to be clear i cherish my WIP. I would never disrespect my WIP. That's just my name for it.
I like it as it is to be honest.
What if we had a community standing metric that flips only between "good" and "bad."
You get "bad standing" if the majority of your contributions in the last 6 months have a majority of downvotes than upvotes, but it resets after 6 months.
Everyone defaults to "good standing".
This serves the purpose of a metric to filter out trolls or bad-faith actors, whilst making "karma farming" pointless.
People commonly use the downvote button as a way to indicate that they disagree. I'm not in favor of punishing unpopular opinions when they're expressed in good faith.
But I also can't think of a system where "troll or bad content" can be separated from "I don't like what I read".
The more we push popular opinions the more of them will be shared, leading to communities becoming echo chambers and even good faith arguments against the common consensus will be lumped together with the worst of bad actors.
This is exactly what I dislike about Reddit.
But I also can’t think of a system where “troll or bad content” can be separated from “I don’t like what I read”.
Me neither. People would just push whatever button means "punish commenter". Slashdot tried for a while with multiple scores given per comment like "funny", "informative", etc. It didn't take off.
How about expanding the votes into multiple kinds of karma. Make it possible to place several votes: "on topic/off topic", "funny/boring", "shit post", "solution to the question", "agree/disagree", "political", "Interesting", "Spam", "Original Content", etc.
Communities could create whatever rating is suitable for their forum.
Sort of like tags, but votable.
It would basically reward everyone for what they do (being a level 7 funny shitposter is something) but at the same time making it possible for others to filter out anything they don't care about. So instead of clicking downvote because of disagreement or upvote because it's funny, there would be an outlet for that in its own vote.
I feel that would make it easier to find quality content whether you're looking for serious debate or the hottest memes.
We'd need better comment filtering on individual communities, and it could/would be abused, but overall it would be facilitate the possibility of having different kinds of conversations on the same topic.
Sometimes I want to read funny stuff in serious topics and sometimes there is serious stuff in funny threads, and sometimes people write clever stuff that I disagree with and so on. One vote is just not enough.
So go full circle and recreate slashdot? 5:Insightful
I have mixed feelings on this leaning towards "please no, not this"
No rating system can substitute for good moderators that pay attention and users that report when needed. everything else devolves into toxic behaviors.
What is Lsashdot?
Yes, I like that, there should be like 3 dots with a up/downvote logo on top of it and when you click it you would have the options to like: -downvote: off topic -Upvote: Intersesting -Upvote: Original content
And so on
I loved forums, and we didn't have anything, except for 'total posts' and 'total replies' for users. I like that.
I do like upvoting, but I think karma should be hidden. Maybe if you go to user profile and click a button to see the value. It should not show if you hover over the user in a discussion, like Reddit. This is too much incentive for Karma farming.
I don't like downvotes, and that's the reason I'm on lemmy.one - no downvotes here at all
Posts should just be upvoted and downvoted with no credit given to the person who posted. Same goes for comments. In my opinion, upvoting and downvoting should just help the user find the most relevant information. Content that people upvote is the most seen. Content that people downvote is the least seen. Posters and commenters stay on an equal footing with no points system.
Maybe we could still have karma, but display it as a ratio of good:bad karma or something? Active user and most of your interactions get upvoted, green dot. New user or not active for a while? Gray dot. Established user and all your content gets downvoted all the time, red dot.
Get banned from 50+ subreddits? Your color dot gets changed to a picture of u/spez.
I like the system as it is here at the moment. Up-/Downvotes per Post/Comment to show the popularity (and express (dis-)approval). But nothing to collect per account, so noone gets encouraged to post just for the karma.
I don't mind the karma system for users - it let me know at quick glance who to block. All of those mega users posted the most basic of content that just flooded my home page.
I could still do that by just browsing their post history, but it made it easier at a glance.
Yes, but having a trackable number is what incentivises many people to farm it
No reason to add a feature if it makes the problem worse
Karma and votes should stay but be hidden to other users. Karma is a good way to detect bots and trolls, but just admins and moderators should see it to act on them if needed. And up/down votes should be hidden too because of the hive mind phenomenon that it produces (Experienced on Reddit): often, the funny or sassy or apparently clever comment gets upvoted and sometimes, the comment with knowledge about the post gets downvoted because the first joke was funny. Many people may not have an opinion about the issue but upvote the funny guy and downvotes the real answer just following the hive. Hiding it, each person reading must decide by themselves if they upvote or downvote a comment.
Prizes and awards could maybe stay, not sure
Prizes and awards could maybe stay, not sure
They should be used to fund the servers.
In combination with invisible vote scores and no karma it would be a good way to highlight great content without feeding into dopamine addiction.
often, the funny or sassy or apparently clever comment gets upvoted and sometimes, the comment with knowledge about the post gets downvoted because the first joke was funny
This is why I like the option of having different vote categories with corresponding sort options. Sometimes I'm specifically looking for information, sometimes I'm just killing some time and don't mind the fun.
I would have optional, per magazine karma. Mods can decide if they want to enable it and what rules it should follow. Personally, i would max it at some low number, like 100; above that you are an upstanding member of society and that's it.
Here's a crazy idea. What if down voting a comment/post resulted in a weighted random float between 0-1 while upvoting resulted in a weighted random float between 1-2? If you virulently hate a comment or post, ignoring it is the surest way to bury in completely. Posts and comments that Garner attention become the most visible, but gaming the system for visibility could become difficult if the weighting algorithm was tuned appropriately.
that just has the same effect as not having downvotes at all, or worse yet, sorting by controversial by default
It would also make botting comments to the top slightly more efficient
Am I the only one who purged reddit accounts when it became too personal?
I did the same thing but it started to become impractical when quite literally all subs I regularly used added a minimum karma requirement. Even getting some low amount like 5 karma is hard if you can't post anywhere you care about.
Not really sure what you think is wrong with karma? most of reddit's problem IMO come down to bad moderation.
But for comment scoring, there are really just 3 methods I've seen:
You could probably combine Personalized & Categorized, but I've AFAIK not seen it done.
I think the problems with moderation are harder to solve, because you have both bad-faith moderators & good-faith but easily played moderators as problems, and you also want different dynamics as forums grow.
I think lemmy could really experiment with good moderation & meta-moderation and if the developers are interested anyway, be a far better forum as a result.
Anyway thank you for reading/not-reading my ted talk, but I suspect this will come up again so now I can copy/pasta it.
Periodic mod elections would be fucking dope tbh.
Slashdot did so many things right. +5 Insightful.
Score the posts, not the individuals. Attaching imaginary points to any kind of activity instantly turns it into a competition.
Instead, any scoring should focus on actual content, which is basically what the up/down vote is.
I like this, and I also remember forums where you knew that that type was good but weird, that one was nice but not very good etc etc. You had to build your "real" reputation because it was an enouy small space.
I hope Reddit will explode and create gazillions of normal sized subs...
Personally, I enjoy how 4chan does it. Posts are anonymous and seen in chronological order. There are no upvotes/downvotes and no karma or e-peen linked to accounts. Also, everything is temporary and gets deleted off the site completely eventually.
The pros are that you have to judge posts based on its content and nothing else, and can't look through someone's post history and stalk them across the site.
The cons are that you have to shift through tonnes of shitposts just to find decent content which will eventually get deleted. You can't find the top posts of all time, because they're gone. The system also makes it a great place for trolls. 4chan has so many of them that threads entirely made up of trolls trolling trolls is a thing.
If you're looking for a site that ranks the best content then a voting system is needed. If you're looking for discussion then a voting system and permanent accounts only get in the way.
Personally I think there shouldn't be anything like it at all , that stuff should only be visible to you and nobody else . Didn't stop reddit from becoming toxic cesspit . But once its implemented it's hard to remove w/o serious consequnces . Just look at youtube dislikes .
Worst thing about karma system, r/assistance has minimum karma requirement which I think is shitty to peops who need help
I think it is fine now. I don't really want karma totals or a wave of different colored reactions. Upvotes or downvote. I can't even do downvote and haven't missed it.
People like big numbers. Karma systems exist because they encourage posting and engagement. Stifling growth because Karma is toxic is bad for everyone in the long run. What matters is growth.
I'd just like.. users have a comment count
and a post count
simply.
some people like to make posts
some like to just comment (this is mostly me)
i can also live without it but.. if there absolutely have to be something..
i dont like "karma" on reddit
I had a twinge of regret the first time I realized that my Lemmy account didn't have a cumulative tally. Then I realized I didn't actually want. I am better off without the gamification of everything - especially social interaction. It doesn't really serve a purpose outside of gatekeeping, and if we put it in for the purpose of gatekeeping I think we'd all agree (at least those of us who where bot-modded back in reddit) that it's a poor substitute for human intervention in keeping bots and bad actors out.
I agree mate. I joined Lemmy today, and I really appreciate the fact that there is no karma here. Until today, I’ve never believed that it was possible to have a non-gamified social network. We are here because we want to and we enjoy
Karma should have a half-life, so it's not a forever thing. Have each karma point lose half of its value every three days. Makes it more transitory.
But what if the thread is old and someone came across it from google looking for information?
The thread doesn't get deleted - the user just loses the karma. So you post something helpful, it gets a ton of upvotes, and those votes expire over time. I come along, find your post via Google, and upvote you, that is a fresh upvote and counts, until it ultimately expires in six months, weeks, whatever, or gets a halflife as @meldroc@lemmy.world said.
The worst part about using reddit when I first signed up was having to deal with celebrity redditors with bajillions of karma sucking all the air out of any thread they visited. Thankfully, it seems like over time people calmed down a bit with that, or maybe I just started browing non-defaults with more tight-knit communities, but you still have dumb novelty accounts that kind of ruin the experience (if you've ever been got by /u/shittymorph, you know what I'm talking about).
Yeah, but without the karma system these memes would never have existed. That's not to say the karma system is good. Quite the opposite actually.
Call it "updoots" instead.
This!
I don't think having a rating system that could be farmed or abused is a good solution. There should be no incentive to generate content just for the publicity of the account. All the content ends up being reposts of low-effort things that are just more relatable, which, in all honesty, I find really lame.
Why not keep the scores hidden and just use them to order stuff?
Advogato reputations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato#Trust_metric
I really like this karma method, but I'm curious about what led the site to going down the tubes for a bit there. Was that in any way a byproduct of the karma system, or other issues entirely?
Major UI changes. It was so hates that a small group forked the code and started Soylent news.org
To be fair, the UI changes were rather bad.
Why did Slashdot go down the tubes? Nothing to do with moderation, just management screwups similar to the ones Reddit has had a few times. Slashdot was sort of a 1990's version of Reddit. It was sold a few different times and the new owners tended to try to impose unpopular changes. Those did usually get rolled back.
Re the moderation system itself, I suspect it went through a lot of iterations. Slashdot was die-hard about free speech so had tons of trolls and spammers, but made the karma system work well enough that you could keep away from the trolling unless you chose to browse at -1. I think -2 was added sometime later when -1 was seen as not low enough. Generally you could do ok by browsing at +3. They asked for mods to browse at -1 so that you could upvote stuff that was downvoted wrongly.
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Peer_moderation
It says they killed off anonymous posting in 2019, oh well. I had always thought that was a good feature despite the crap that got posted that way.
There were a bunch of reasons people left. Personally, I thought the slashdot site redesign really sucked. They ruined the comment section. It was harder to follow comments and it seemed the amount of comments shown varied at random. Sometimes you would only see high rated comments, other times it showed all, even the troll comments. It was weird. And the look of the design was weird. Oversized margins that forced more scrolling. There were a few other things I didn't like, but those were negligible.
There was also the sourceforge drama where slashdot buried negative articles about sourceforge, its sister company. Hard to trust a site much after.
Overall, its still usable. I still stop in once in a while to read tech news, but that's it. Those stop ins are getting less and less, too. HN is my main go to for tech stuff.
Every system that can be thought of (and has been suggested here) might sound great but when implemented at scale will no doubt prove to be open to abuse and require an army of mods to oversee. Otherwise every multi-million dollar social media company would have implemented it already.
Upvotes and downvotes and cumulative scores kind of do the job well enough that that’s what we keep ending up with.
That being said though, I would be interested in seeing a system where each downvote you make also counts against your own karma to discourage profligate use of the downvote to mean “I have a different opinion but can’t express it here”.
Surely by the same logic upvoting without providing a reason for it should also be decentivised - why should negative feedback require taking the time to explain "why", whilst positive feedback would not - logically either they both require a "why" or none does.
An uneven posture when it comes to receiving feedback only makes sense if one is emotionally impacted by "somebody disagreed with me and didn't told me why" and having such a socially fragile ego is really the problem of that person, not of everybody else.
More generally and as I pointed out in a long post which I made in the other Karma thread (which I will not repeat here), the removing (or punishing) downvotes is just a strategy to incentivise more content posting, no matter how mediocre, which in turn leads to a a lower signal to noise ratio (i.e. more mindles fluff less content) which is bad for everybody - no-work negative criticism (i.e. downvotes without the need to spend time making explanatory posts) are quite an effective way of providing feedback on the shoddiness of something without the artificial barrier against criticism which is to require spending time on an explanation - I mean, if 1 or 2 downvotes get to you, then you definitelly have emotional issues you need to explore with an expert in such things as a handful of anonymous "I don't like that" can be easilly dismissed as "there are a handful of people who disagree with what I wrote (so what?!)", whilst an unexpected 10 or 20+ downvotes are often a pretty good hint to think again about what your published.
It seems to me that it's incredibly selfish and self-centred to demand that everybody else takes the time to write an explanation when you write something they disagree with: other people's time is their own and they do not exist merelly to serve your ego just as you don't exist merelly to serve theirs.
Mind you, I do think it would be fair for there to be some way for people to disable viewing of downvotes on their account, as people with such "sensitivity" to negative feedback deserve to be able to participate in social media just like everybody else and since Lemmy keeps track of both negative and positive votes getting the interface to just show the positive stuff should be reasonably easy and it would protect the ego of those who need such protection.
I think the idea of sacrificing your own “good boi points” to downvote a post bring a new layer of complexity. For sure, the hive-mind effect would be attenuated if users had to sacrifice their own “points”, and, probably, the downvoting as a whole would be less used. What do you guys think about how the use of the downvote would change?
Oh I doubt anyone would implement that as a system, but it is interesting to speculate what it might change. Imagine all the downvote curmudgeons having to regularly post pictures of kittens to /c/aww in order to recharge their karma.
I rarely downvoted on Reddit because I’m pretty sure everyone (no matter how blasé they appear to be) gets more upset by a comment ending up at -1 than they would get pleased by it ending at +5. When I found that some instances here don’t even have the downvote button, I decided that I wasn’t going to use it here at all. If someone says something damaging to the conversation I’ll report it to the mods, if they say something factually incorrect I might correct them, but otherwise I will just move on.
The problem isn't the points, it's the people. Everything starts to suck beyond some critical mass.
Downvotes only so karma removed never comment, and completely random monthly account bannings so no one gets too comfortable.
The Russian roulette strategy for content aggregation.
Other methods of what?
If there has to be something then probably karma that is strictly for the past month of activities.
Personally, I don't think there needs to be any indication beyond how hidden the content is. Karma's goal is to push "good" content up and "bad" content down. Users don't need to see what's essentially a like/dislike counter for that to work, and I don't think it's conducive to civilized discussion. The fediverse makes votes publicly available information, but that doesn't stop kneejerk anger-downvoting, it just means people can retaliate easier, which feels good to do, but isn't healthy.