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 →

[–]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.