9
votes
Is there an analogy to reddit's "karma" system here?
If so, what is it? (i.e. the more upvotes, the more you get). I was also thinking, maybe as an incentive for upvoting things, you gain karma/rep for each vote you do.
None right now, but trust/reputation earned through participation and taking appropriate actions in groups will be a fundamental part of the system for selecting moderators, amongst other things, e.g. potentially giving the most active users of said groups more vote weight there than casual or drive-by users, which should help negate brigading. See the Mechanics (Future) doc: https://docs.tildes.net/mechanics-future
No. Because any time you start counting points people 1) turn it into a game and 2) associate a lot of points with prestige. Neither of which Tildes wants to happen.
Sometimes you have to, also. E.g. on reddit some groups require some karma thresholds. It's a problem especially when you need to anonymously ask a question and want to use a throwaway. And it's incredibly easy to obtain upwards of 50 upvotes by merely making a stupid joke on one of the more popular subs, so it's also meaningless. It shouldn't be hard to bot-ify that in a hardly recognisable manner.
as spam prevention, which we'll have through the trust system
we'll most likely have a way to post anonymously without the need for throwaways
I'd rather have an incentive to correctly label comments & posts. Right now, the effort needed to label a comment is more than twice as intensive as voting for a comment. Upvoting is easy:
Labelling is comparatively difficult:
Sure, you can weight labels by some factor to increase their input into the scoring & ordering system; but if one of the aims of Tildes is high quality discussion, then it'd make sense to me to have this be as easy as possible.
Karma on reddit is literally meaningless internet points and I'd rather not see an indication of this on my profile here. Maybe we can reward users for correct labelling of comments & posts that meet a community quorum? By all means, if you need to statistically record total up votes as means of inferring trust, do so, but I'd rather not see that value.
Up-votes have always been a blurry means of distinguishing transient popularity from lasting value.
I'm thinking the top-level incentives or recognition rewards should always orient around content which is interesting, novel, useful, challenging (as opposed to gratuitously contentious or provocative), and other ways to cultivate valuable information and collaborative discussion.
Then there's additive contribution - labeling and tagging the content.
Cumulatively, these could be trust factors for community privileges. I'd always reward content effort over administrative effort, since it's valuable content which makes users willing to administer (e.g. Wikipedia).
I would suggest a scoring system viewable only to the user, not public. That creates an incentive and a guide to desired contribution, not a hierarchical ranking which disproportionately rewards first-adopters or prolific contributors of dreck.
These trust factors shouldn't necessarily accrue to any individual user permanently - you should be a continuous, active participant and contributor to maintain beneficial recognition. 90-day expiration, or logarithmic time-based decrease in accumulated trust points?
This is kind of important. When I learning software development as a teenager in the late 2000's, I asked a bunch of questions on Stack Overflow which became very popular. I now have a ridiculously inflated "reputation score" which gives me a huge amount of permissions on the site—yet I never interact with SO apart from reading these days.
Reviewing the Mechanics (Future) content in light of @lukeify's comment, I'd also like to propose a floor on trust decay. Life happens, people go and come back, and they shouldn't have to face the total loss of trust they earned previously.
Not only did I acquire a non-minor amount of reputation on Stack Exchange in my few months of active participation there (my profile says I'm in the top 13%...), but that reputation is still growing as new people discover my answers and vote for them.
In one way, I like that sense of permanence - that I didn't put those answers together only for them to be lost a few months later (unlike somewhere such as /r/AskHistorians on Reddit, where most of my answers are lost in the mists of time). In another way, I agree that it's a bit silly for me to be still acquiring reputation when I haven't used that site for a few years.
There isn't anything in practice yet, but the plan is for the creation of a trust system where more trusted users get some privileges (not unlike Stack Overflow). Votes (among other things) would probably count for that trust system