Points system for maintaining the quality content on the site?
As this site is being started because of low-quality content overall on the other sites, it's necessary to do something to maintain that quality. Most sites start out good but don't age well, and the userbase too is responsible for that. Many sites offer points on the content that is shared, but there are no points for contributions towards the sites (?). I think it would be really great if the user gets some points say for reporting unrelated, unnecessary, troll, and other such posts or contents that don't maintain the quality. But those points are not awarded to the user immediately. The user will get points after enough reports about the content are reported and the content is made unavailable.
This point system can be separate from the content submission points that user gets, or it can be summed up all in one.
StackOverflow does this with Rep. It's a shit system with no redeeming qualities that serves to motivate people to close, report, ban and otherwise act like dicks in many ways - but is still better than all the others that have been tried for programming advice forums.
Tildes isn't a programming advice forum though, and I don't think we want that here. People should want to report things because they want the forum to be better, not to earn points.
|People should want to report things because they want the forum to be better, not to earn points
That's what I think too. but I thought there was no real motivator for doing that because there's no reward. Sure, there are many who actively hunt down the bad content and report and be a good sport but they are very few in numbers. After the platform gets too big, I think the numbers kinda get unbalanced and the content quality gets lowered. That's why I suggested reward system. but yeah, as some people said, it might encourage people to unnecessarily report things.
+1
I don't know if this in itself is a perfect implementation, but I am 100% for rewarding users for using the tools they are empowered with.
Empowering a userbase and properly incentivising them to use their powers is highly important.
While we're on the topic - Vote points needs a better name here. Votes, or just points, is not a particularly attractive name. Not like Karma, which is independently named and sought after by a chunk of the userbase (even if they say it's not). The incentive works and it matters.
Incentives are good. Rewards are good.
The only issue is to be careful about the possible unintended ways people will farm it. Incentives used in unintended ways can bring about unwanted behaviours.
I made a suggestion in another thread and I'll repost it here. Call the Vote button "~". Keeping with the common meaning of "~", clicking the button assigns an approximate number of votes/points between some range like 1-5. You don't "vote," you "tilde!"
This may be more "cute" than intuitive, but at least one person said they liked the idea so I thought I'd share it again.
On a side note, I'm 100% against any sort of vote/karma tally for users. I think it only encourages karma whoring.
I don't know if this was discussed where you brought this up before but it feels like the ~ is already getting pretty overloaded. Especially since the site is often abbreviated as a ~ and some times a single group is abbreviated the same way.
That's a fair point. Thanks for making it!
There is a trust system planned soon™. It would make sense for reports that have action taken on them to factor into that trust score.
@deadstark You can read more on the planned trust system here: https://docs.tildes.net/mechanics-future
awesome!
In my experience in other forums which use a system that rewards users who downvote content that is later removed (because of getting many downvotes) or who upvote content that later gets to the frontpage, I have the impression that it is very counterproductive and a guaranteed booster for karma whoring. People end up downvoting anything that they think will be contrary to the majority's opinion and upvoting clickbaity titles that will attract more upvotes, even if the content is erroneous or uninteresting.
Yeah, attaching rewards to the act of reporting other users creates a perverse incentive. The planned trust system seems to address the issues raised by OP without inviting bad faith behavior.
I think any kind of reward system is going to bring internet-point farmers. If ~ isn't for profit, it has no motivation to grow other than for the community. By not implementing a visible points system, people will post for discussion and value instead of status. Anyone here to look good will leave.
Hidden votes allow good content to rise to the top without the poster gaining from it.
You're onto something there @deadstark
The Reddit karma system which is very flawed in my opinion. If a rating system on the other hand, maybe out or 10 or a star-based system, would be pretty effective. A report based point system wouldn't really be a wise idea. Everyone wants internet points and will tend to abuse the system giving the admins a lot of reports and flags to clear.
I heard the site is going Open Source, so once that happens we can submit our own pull requests!
The issue with star ratings is that 90% of the userbase will end up using either 10 or 1. Literally every single service moves to an up or down vote (thumbs or something else) because of this issue with the way users misuse it.
Scaled ratings work well when people are using them properly but they are unfortunately not used properly on any site that grows.
Yeah there's not that many places outside of Movie/TV/Restaurant ratings that the star system really has all that much merit. I don't think that there should be anything that can be publicly or privately tracked when it comes to reputation/trust/whatever. If it's implemented that way it will almost no matter what deteriorate into point-whoring and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Even on review sites, people (that is, the general public) tend to vote mostly 1 or 5 (or 10, if the score goes that high) if they personally think the rating should be lower/higher, as a 1 star review is more effective at bringing a 4 star restaurant down to the 2 you think it should be than a 2 star review, and the same applies to rating 5 or 10 (or whatever the max is). Critical reviews certainly aren't as prone to this, but a site like this shouldn't have "professional" voters (which would probably end up being power users and introduce new problems).
I like the star based system. Average based instead of totals based will show quality over quantity.
I do have a concern though and it's a double edged sword. 1) people won't go into communities and say unpopular opinions. This may deter debates from occuring which is bad, but also 2) people won't go into communities and shit post which is good.
Ultimately I like it because it will act as a check to keep people civil. Don't be a dick or you'll get one star.
I'm not sure I understand. Would this be for posts or comments or users? Anyway, I think it's too much. It'll be very difficult to assess what gets a 3 and what gets a 7 or a 9. And opinions on how to interpret them will surely be very different. A more general vote seems to be simpler and easier to average. Also, if you're talking about reputation/trust, whatever the score or grading system, I think it will not be public.