Saidit, what if we showed who voted on everything?

submitted by magnora7 from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

How would this voting diversity score work?

[–]Mnemonic 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I can only see it ratting out vote-spams or scheduled-vote-session, because some submits just get more traffic than usual and we pretty much remove spammers already because you don't need an algorithm for that to spot (Like that Australian lawyers firm :p ).

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

But it's not too good at ratting out MartinTimothy.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Were MartinTimothy's votes skewing anything significantly?

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The guy had like 200 sock accounts on reddit.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That you know about.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Causing content to show up on the front page that consistently gets exactly 4 votes but everybody who comments (other than MT socks) dislikes.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Curious.

I wonder if exactly 4 votes is all it takes these days.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you keep churning out spam several times daily, the novelty is enough to weight the algorithm to keep it on the front page.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

ProTip

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

magnora7 Use magic to fix this please.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

How many different people you vote for, divided by total number of votes, compared against the site's average (so 1 is the average). Most people would be slightly above 1, and the spammers would be lower down.

Although maybe the stat would only be visible to admins; anyone could compute it themselves if they wanted to. I'm not really sure how to stop people from gaming it whilst maintaining transparency.

[–]OldManCorley 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

How many different people you vote for, divided by total number of votes, compared against the site's average

Similar stuff have been tried, the way to circumvent it is to set an array of "related" subs (or manually select random posts) and have two out of three votes be driveby votes on random posts to fuzzy the "upvote diversity".

Its a tough challenge I still haven't seen a good solution to.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We could add a daily post vote limit.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fuck that.

I need endless votes.

I vote when it doesn't mean I voted for their idea.

For example, I voted for every single comment in the post.

Why?

To mark that I read it.

If anyone responds to my comments I'll be called back.

When there are any new comments I can easily spot and read them too.

ALSO

What do you do when you don't vote on a day because you barely visit or don't visit SaidIt, yet on another day you have all day on SaidIt but run out of votes?

QxR limits their votes/rewards. LAME.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's terrible! /u/magnora7 Please add a "read" mark to the feature requests list so JasonCarswell doesn't have to keep doing this.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree.

LOL. At first glance I thought my voting habit on long threads was a problem for you and you were trying to affect my votes, (as if you could), by tattling on me. Then I reread it. :P

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Ahh not bad. It does seem that everything can be gamed on anonymous platforms if someone really wants to put the effort into it.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

But the gaming allows manipulation. We don't want the site taken over by authoritarian manipulators.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Yeah, I'm saying I don't think it can be stopped altogether. I'm certainly willing to hear out potential solutions though.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Full transparency (except the aliases) should be the way.

This issue is shockingly overblown IMHO.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I'd like to hear your proposed solution. If we're all overthinking it, please let us know before the programming starts.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

100% transparency. There's no reason to hide a vote. That's some old fashioned American cock and bull stuff we even practice in Canada. Unless there are thugs threatening you to vote a certain way it should not matter who knows.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You of all people should know that it's not just thugs who can manipulate your vote (better) if it's known to them, and if you know it's known to them.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Huh?

I'm talking about affecting your choice - not manipulation of your choice/vote.