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.
The thing is, high karma on Reddit doesn’t mean someone has a history of thoughtful engagement. Just as often, if not more, it means someone whose well timed with zingers on popular posts.
And incentivising that kind of take-down behaviour actually creates toxic communities.
I agree with you that high karma doesn’t indicate anything besides popularity, but someone with negative karma is almost certainly either a troll or a political extremist of some sort. I do find it useful to know when I would be better off not engaging with people like that.
You can check their post history? Karma doesn’t tell you anything, really. Mine went up tenfold one day just because I replied to what ended up as the top post in a top thread in a much bigger sub than those I normally post in. Some people spend all their time in big subs making short, smart remarks that get a lot of karma, others spend their time in enemy territory battling people they disagree with. Some toxic people have a lot of karma because they hang out in toxic subs.
The problem to be solved is how to order threads. Old skool bulletin boards just bump the most recently replied one to the top. Which works well on an old skool bulletin board as long as it isn’t too large, but very badly on a big site where a few big active threads can drown out all the others.
I don’t know what the solution is. But the numbers don’t mean anything without checking the context. Karma is useful for ordering threads/comments, and giving users a bit of dopamine when they get some attention. But there (probably) are better ways to do it.
I don’t even know that karma/upvotes are good for ordering threads or comments. It just encourages gamification, group think, and snark.
I’d say get rid of down votes, replace upvotes with emoji reacts, and sort based on reacts + replies, but that’s probably just encouraging gamification, group think, and snark, too.
Reddit, like other centralized social networks that are trying to monetize us, prioritizes time on site and generic “engagement”. Those are what generate the most money for the company.
They’re not what’s best for us as users.
Maybe what we need to do is allow users to quickly and easily hide comment chains - not just collapse them, but dismiss them entirely - and allow for user-scriptable and shareable sorting algorithms. We drop down votes entirely, because they’re just used passive-aggressively anyway, make blocking users as easy as possible, with temp blocks and notification silences at the ready, and then forget about user reputation points entirely, because they’re as meaningless as Dragonball Z power levels.
Good stuff, thanks.
Or you could have a system where trolls and bad people are simply banned in stead of needing users to figure it out themselves
This is why it’s useful at the account level. It’s also useful at the post level in order to build a sorting algorithm which raises the most engaging/important/interesting submissions to the top. Within a community it is important to help define what that community is - irrelevant and low effort content is suppressed and relevant/high-effort gets boosted. Moderators can enforce this by just removing and pinning too, but that’s almost always too unilateral, and the voting system is generally better because it’s expected that then you get a representation of how people in that community feel about it. It’s a good system.
I can imagine some tweaks to help improve how karma is implemented:
-
Use Bayesan Inference to produce a ‘shit/shinola score’ for contributors instead simple up/down vote totals
-
Experiment with different recency biases for the score; you can trust that people will change over time
-
Generally figure out what you’ll be using karma for and make sure you have a way to measure how well it’s working
I’ve googled Bayesan Interference, however I don’t understand what you meant by it. Could you elaborate please :)
Here is a good general explanation of Bayesian inference.
I think @[email protected] is suggesting using such techniques to predict “troll” or “not troll” given the posting history/removed comments/etc. My personal thought is that whatever system replaces karma, it should be understandable to the typical user. I think its possible Bayesian inference could be used in developing the system, but the end system should be explainable without it.
Thanks for the link. To anyone that does’t know about Bayesian inference, do check it out!
Now I have an existencial crisis thanks to the video 😂 the funny part is that thats the same thing used to detect spam email…
-
Repetitive low-effort posts and comments were common on Reddit
They’re common on the internet and real life in general.
This!
/sThat it true… if they don’t “earn” anything for low effort comments, then they will diminish
They very often get hundreds, if not thousands, of upvotes, though.
There are few things Karma system helps with that come to mind.
For others:
- Reputation
- Activity
For you:
- That endorphin XP boost when you level up. Makes you more likely do engage after the first hit.
- Gives you an idea how your comment has been received by others.
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.
Some kind of implementation of what you said would solve Reddit’s problem of mods reposting and deleting content untill it “goes viral”.
The exciting thing about this space is that much of it is undefined. It is all about the protocols and the main features at the moment. The 2nd generation tools will be born out of what we discuss now and think about now.
How do you make sure a user is not trapped in his special interest bubble and still gets to see content that has everyone excited? How will we make use of the underlying data, on both posts and users to suggest and aggregate content.
I think there will be more than one solution eventually, different flavours of aggregators running on the same underlying data.
So much possibility. And we control it. If you don’t like the way your lemmy instance or kbin aggregates, choose another site or build your own. The data is there.
-
The first problem is people tend to follow the hive mind. If it’s downvoted, they will also downvote and vice versa. They also will believe a comment with lots of upvotes and won’t fact check.
-
The second problem is people will abuse a karma system. Bots can increase the reputation of an account to make them seem more trustworthy
-
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 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.
You sound like a normal person who doesn’t take shit personally – some people really, really do take negative feedback on social media the way that you might someone keying your car, and I worry about the repercussions of downvoting the 'wrong" person who might seek reprisal. An anonymous downvote button feels like an “oh, fuck off” button, a public one feels like “fuck YOU for real” to me.
Well said there’s probably more of a barrier without the anonymity which in itself can be also unhealthy for the whole system (less user engagement). Though now thinking about it maybe that’s not a bad thing. Less bandwagoning on downvotes etc.
But truely angering some unhinged lunatic by downvoting who will then dox you, harass you and possibly kill you doesn’t sound great. But that’s a danger you’re susceptible to just by existing on internet.
It’s a definitely an area to watch but I’m a huge believer that transparency makes a community better regardless of size. If you being brigaded or abused it’s visible to everyone and you can block those accounts if you wanted
The ultimate hope is that social media evolves for the better
On the one hand yes, but also, this makes it much less incentivizing to downvote instances of abuse, discrimination, far right extremism. A lot of those people are not okay mentally and hiighly committed to harassing anyone who disagrees with them, I constantly hear stories of a single disagreement leading to years of harassment on hundreds of alts.
-
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 am not sure I followed, sorry
Basically they only want autistic levels of Internet “debate” and don’t want people having low effort fun.
Good point, take my:
handshake, pat on the back, slightly too long hug point thingy.
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.
Number go up, makes brain happy
Number go down, makes brain sad ;(
Monkey sees negative numbers, neuron activation, monkey leaves Lemmy
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.
Yes, look up “Facebook demetricator”. It was brilliant. I’m glad I never used Facebook.
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
There is that aspect of karma of “if you’ve got negative karma, you’re probably intolerable” but I’m not sure how much that helps in practice vs just banning people. Karma can also filter out fresh accounts for high spam communities, ofc, that doesn’t work perfectly either…
Karma farming has always been one of the worst aspects of the other place. Repost bots will sustain them long after the humans are all gone.
Throwaways are still an issue with banning.
Some kind of participation based scoring would just bring us back to farming and alienates lurkers.
Account age is unreliable.
Hmm… I hate leaving the burden on mods but karma has too many negatives.
This wouldn’t work in the fediverse anyway, as it’d even easier to fake your user karma here (on an own instance).
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.
I would almost say a better system would obscure usernames completely. Only show the comment text, and allow voting accordingly.
No, we need people to have some accountability or everyone’s just gonna be intolerable.
Federation already makes that completely impossible.
I don’t agree with the lack of usernames of course. There’s no community when there is no way to associate posts with individuals.
It’s not impossible. Each user is still tied to an instance, they still have usernames, etc.
But an individual can be any user on any instance. Even one of their own creation.
The problem is Lemmy already can’t allow that. Every user is Multiple Man. If you ban or block me on one instance I can just come back from another instance. What’s more, I can just keep creating more and more instances to evade blocking or banning infinitely.
My point is simply that votes on comments should reflect merit on the actual comment, not because you recognize the posters username and dont like them so you downvote them regardless of what they say.
No system. The goal isn’t Reddit 2, it’s a federated link aggregator.
deleted by creator
Upvotes/downvotes are still a useful engagement metric, for instance what should appear in user feeds. Converting that engagement into long term karma encourages reposts and bad actors though so throw it out the window.
Honesty, I don’t think I really like upvotes and downvotes at all. My favorite system is Discourse where the only sort option is old -> new and you can provide reactions (heart, thumbs up, etc…) that don’t change the sort at all. This lets you follow the discussion as it happened & gauge engagement yourself.
Best would be to give it some reddit gold… er… somehow.
I love the poor crop of lemmy.world. shit just works yo.
This could work 😂 I’m giving you the wholesome award! 🦭
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.
best idea I have heard thus far
It provides other users with an at a glance idea of your reputation, without chasing a “high score”. Could always rank users based on up/down votes, as I said, but limit the range so that as long as you’ve been active for a few months and aren’t a douchebag, your score will be maxed out.
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.
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?
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
@[email protected]Re “physical interaction”… Are you old and/or geeky enough to know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.2nd time on this topic I’ve said it but then we’re just recreating slashdot’s old system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Making a controversial statement for attention is just as easy. What you are proposing would be a perfect environment for trolls.
Not a statement that makes people angry, because that would get ignored or downvoted. One that garners both positive and negative reactions in equal measure. That’s a lot harder to engineer; you need to look at both sides and walk the line between, pretty much getting to the crux of the issue. If the crowd can’t decide whether they agree or disagree, then to me that means it bears looking at more closely.
Ah, I see. That makes sense.
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
Tbh this is what turned me off the thunder app.
No, no, no, please no hidden algorithm. that’s as bad or worse than karma, especially with the incoming bot shitstorm.
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.
Absolutely. The real reason accounts accrue karma on reddit is to keep you engaged. People get addicted to big numbers. It’s just toxic. Upvote and downvote posts and comments but don’t keep a running tally on people’s accounts.
Do you guys think there could be a different system that could work?
Maybe something akin to Reddit’s award system as a way to thank people for being positive contributors? I think that could also be gamed but a way to say thank you rather than a status symbol meaningless number I think is a net positive.
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.
