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.
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 @jayrhacker@kbin.social 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…
-
Or you could have a system where trolls and bad people are simply banned in stead of needing users to figure it out themselves
Good point, take my:
handshake, pat on the back, slightly too long hug point thingy.
Number go up, makes brain happy
Number go down, makes brain sad ;(
Monkey sees negative numbers, neuron activation, monkey leaves Lemmy
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.
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.
Exactly this. You want to incentivize discussion, not the dopamine rush casino/arcade that just leads to low effort, low quality posts. If people want to be here for discussion, then they will either lurk and consume, or participate earnestly. Don’t put systems in place that reward the opposite.
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
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 like that.
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.
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…
This wouldn’t work in the fediverse anyway, as it’d even easier to fake your user karma here (on an own instance).
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.
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.
No, we need people to have some accountability or everyone’s just gonna be intolerable.
Accountability is important, even if we are just using usernames and avatars
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.
How will I upvote people for having a name like rimjobsteve or a username related to the context ala r/usernamechecksout! /J
Why, by visiting the new c/usernamechecksout, of course! :)
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
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.
What about the same system, but it shows both upvotes and downvotes?
I’d prefer that. 2600 up and 2500 down is really different than 105 up and 5 down
Tbf you can probably tell the actual numbers by looking at the % reddit shows in the corner, but that’s not very intuitive
You can do that for Reddit posts but can you also see it for comments? It wasn’t shown in my client app but perhaps it’s visible elsewhere.
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.
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.
Best would be to give it some reddit gold… er… somehow.
This could work 😂 I’m giving you the wholesome award! 🦭
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.
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
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:
- Generic Up/Downvote - Reddit
- Categorized Up/Downvote - Slashdot - This worked on a technical forum to keep technical knowledge near the top, while still allowing stupid/funny comments further down the page, plus it made ignoring stupid/funny threads easy
- Personalized Up/Downvote - Facebook/Twitter/etc - basically build a profile of users you agree/interact with, and then weight their interactions accordingly to predict what content you’ll like/hate.
- I believe Ticktok take this to the next level, because 90% of users don’t up/downvote, ticktok logs the passive act of continuing to watch content as a partial upvote making their algorithms train on the average users likes/dislikes faster.
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.
- Peer review of moderator decisions is something Slashdot did that went quite well. Once you’d been an active user with good “karma” for a while you would occasionally be asked to review other users votes, I think a similar thing could be done for moderation decisions
- Elected mods. For subs above a certain size, having moderation essentially boil down to whatever the guy who created the sub decides, is bad. I don’t know exactly how it would work to prevent abuse, but as subs grow, at some point it would be good if the community chose the mods.
- even short of full fledged democracy community approval of mod appointments would certainly reduce the amount of mod drama where it 1 bad head mod, will purge the other mods and replace them all with sock puppets.
- Users-led replacement of bad mods, similar to electing mods, it would be good for users to “recall” a bad mod.
- Transparency over mod actions, I understand that with the number of Nazis & other assorted trolls online reddit chose to let mods, moderate anonymously, but it really means you have no idea who is doing a good/bad job in many subreddits, some level of transparency for all but the worst content is key.
- Moving subs, as lemmy instances have some control over the content of the subs that reside on them, it would make sense for there to be some method for the users + mods of a sub to decide to move it to another instances. This not only prevents admin abuse, but also encourages competition between instances for technical administration & content administration.
- Splitting communities , sometimes subs grow “too big” and have different subcommunities that end up fighting for control of a sub, it would be good if there were a way of these communities splitting into 2 rather than fighting over the original name. not sure how it would work, but thinking about how r/trees & r/cannabis split or something similar. Maybe /r/canabis could become an combo of /r/canabisnews & /r/canabismemes, where users can just ubsub from the 1/2 of the content they don’t want.
- Letting users weight subs/filter subs how much of subs they see, sometimes I’ve unsubbed from a high-content sub, just because while i liked the content it was overpowering the rest of my feed, it would be nice to have users configure how much of a sub they see (especially if combined with Categorized Up/Downvote), rather than complaining about “bad moderation” I can just personally choose to see less of what I don’t want.
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.
Slashdot did so many things right. +5 Insightful.
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.
Embrace the Lemmy system. Resistance is futile. Fake internet points are futile.
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 users 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.
Thanks for the reading! That is very interesting concept that I’d love to see implemented here 👌🏻
