13
votes
What is the point of votes?
So, votes are supposed to be used on quality content and comments that contribute to the conversation, right? I think the problem with this is, most of the content on Tildes is to that standard, and if it isn't, we can just tag/report it. Voting feels redundant to me. What does everyone else think?
Voting is also a way for people to interact without actually posting a comment or spamming the thread with noise. It also sounds like voting will also be one of the determining factors of "trust" whenever that system comes around.
A) voting will be, at least in the future, a way to make sure the front page/top posts are relevant to the largest audience of people just like any website strives to achieve and B) I definitely don't think "every" post on Tildes is of a certain standard personally. I see a lot of horrible articles from horrible websites get linked now and then and they typically don't get voted on and fall to the wayside as they should.
Just be so so so happy we don't have DOWN votes which A) do nothing to stop shit posts that already have a lot of steam behind them on reddit and B) are mostly used to stamp out new and original content on reddit that doesn't follow the predetermined flavor of the month on each subreddit. For now, simple votes are good. I do miss the forum days where threads simply stayed relevant by holding a discussion. Meaning it's worth talking about. But like the other comment says it's a way for people to engage without writing. There have been a handful of posts that I have voted on without commenting just because I think there is a good discussion occurring but I don't have anything to add because it's already been said and/or I'm not knowledgeable about the topic in question.
I do agree with lumbo7332, in that comment voting feeds into a 'rich get richer' phenomena wherein a visibly high vote count can hijack our rational mind's jurisprudence, and seduce us towards a seemingly aligned hive-mind mantra (one could argue: this is how thoughts/memes become mainstream).
That being said, I do see value in letting the 'cream rise to the top' and having all comments face the court of public opinion. While inflammatory comments can garner manufactured 'agree' votes, the user-generated tagging system, in conjunction with the 'Amish shun' of 0-nil votes, has so far been effective in keeping threads on topic, yet inclusive of diverse opinions. The outcome is that controversial thoughts won't be arbitrarily censored, and unhealthy thoughts do not get fostered either.
While I think there's merit to discussing alternate forms of Internet debate valuation, I think Tildes' lack of downvotes is actually what's preventing the system from being gamed to begin with. Perhaps I'm just not clever enough to see the pitfalls, but I'll let the free mental market decide how my own comment fares.
This could be solved by tweaking the sorting.
I think post votes definitely deserve a place here, but comment votes are just being used like agree buttons, just like on Reddit. I've seen it a lot. People aren't basing their vote off of how well the comment contributes to the conversation, they're using it to upvote things they agree with and abstaining on things they don't.
That would be a VERY difficult task to subvert. Humans are ALWAYS going to do that and if you don't give them a system to do so they will simply verbalize (type) it and turn the comments into a platform of affirmation.
I think because of that, I would rather have people agreeing with things just voting on them instead of typing comments like "I agree this comment should be 'higher up' and blah blah blah this comment is better than others" I remember like 5 years ago people on reddit would just say "THIS" as a comment even though they already upvoted the post. luckily that died as people downvote anybody who does that now. But I think clever systems, hopefully we can make more clever ones then simple vote ups, will always be better than no systems or just less of a system. Leaving humans to their devices is dangerous :D lol
To a certain degree, it has to be part of the equation. Putting in a lot of effort shouldn't be enough to bump you to the top, it's obvious that making a good argument / speaking some sort of truth should be part of how we consider voting (or any replacement method of sorting) when you imagine the case of a very long defense of something ridiculous and otherwise not rulebreaking (say, Moon Landing denial). No matter how much effort you put into that argument, you shouldn't get to stand on top. Your argument is a bad one, and you've contributed less than if you had made a good argument. And part of, but not all, of a good argument is the point itself.
Content matters, not just presentation. Wanting complete neutrality on displaying / rewarding comments means you want lower quality conversation in order to serve that principle, which imo would be a terrible sacrifice.
I think a real thing to look at is if the same opinion is expressed in a high effort, well argued way and in a low effort, quippy way, which ends up higher? On Reddit it's usually the quip, but I think so far Tildes has managed to prioritize the high effort ones. Maybe even a little too much sometimes...we're so hungry for meaty contributions after our time on Reddit...
Maybe a compromise could be hiding the votes. You can still vote, and the sorting is still working in the background, but there's no 'rich get richer'. I would actually like that better than no voting at all.
That is how I generally use them. Agree buttons. I do upvote high quality stuff even if I disagree sometimes, but what is wrong with having agree buttons? If something that contributes to the conversation IMO, doesn't it mean that, most of the time, I agree it?
Also, this is a topic that has been discussed before, quite a few times. I think joining in to those is better than making new posts about the same topics all the time.