you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (42 children)

I'm gonna vote how I want not how someone tells me is proper.

Unless there are flags, I'll keep voting for everyone on a busy post - even if they are not insightful - because I need to mark them as read.

If you want to change my voting habits then feel free to code and add the features that will encourage better voting from me.

Also while you're at it, I'd love ranked voting, say from 0-10 for both insightful and fun.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Ranked voting is a slippery slope.

[–]Stoner 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

How?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Shills can disproportionately out vote ideas they are paid to suppress, while impartial voters who haven't been exposed to quality evidence are influenced by the shills.

Deviating from basic voting methods can be exploited by parties who have an interest in seeing the public uninformed.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

And what's stopping them now?

I'm not buying it.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

And what's stopping them now?

Nothing. That's why I've posted 2 PSAs in the last week, and will probably post more, despite being a guilty hypocrite.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I hope you're joking.

I don't think they're really helping.

MHO

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

39 people disagree. Though I see why you say that… I'll tone it down a bit.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't tone it down. Find the right ideas and the right tone.

I've realized a lot of folks just like to debate here. And so often it's a lot of vague subjective opinion crap.

Whatever it is, there's a market for it. Apparently 39 for it. How many against?

Regardless, you do you.

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

How about this: I'll post what I think is necessary, when I think is necessary, but I'll also get into insanely contrived arguments about whether it's necessary to post something which should limit what I post to only what's actually necessary.

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

I recsll an oldmanCorley being concerned about exactly this. I'm concerned as well. Most people remain anonymous fire a reason. I

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

And...?

What is the reason? And why does it matter or make any difference?

What is your point?

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

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.
The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

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

Your logic isn't sound.

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Okay. Solved.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.

I thought it was down votes that were the problem.

The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

That can be done now. It's not different.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

It's about quality not quantity. Everyone gets the same 1-10 vote. Everyone gets the opportunity to be passionate or not about all of them.

Yes, the scores will change. A lot. And you will get used to it - like coming from Reddit with no downvote.

And we might see, not just the most popular, but the best of the most popular rise to the top. Maybe.

Or maybe after we all get used to it, the numbers will be different but everything else will be essentially the same.

I really can't see it getting worse. But I can see it getting worse if more people come who aren't high quality - but that's not due to the voting.

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

That's not a proper question.

If I say, "How will adding additional voting NOT make the system more resilient?" - it's the same.

How is resiliency and voting related?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

Flawed logic from a flawed question.

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

absolutely correct. Especially in gangs.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Ya how?

If anything it would improve the quality of the votes and metrics. Admittedly there will still be subjective limits. A group of idiots will have idiotic voting. But folks on SaidIt are not closed minded illiterate Luddites.

And you'll know if you're just kinda funny or really funny.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The SaidIt voting structure is a rigorously tested format.
The current format is elegant in it's simplicity.

If it's not broken, then don't fix it.

Certain parties are seemingly obsessed with other people's voting habits, which is one more unsurprising coincidence to add to the list.

Changing the voting structure led to the on-going demise of Reddit. The SaidIt voting structure is sound, which is probably why there is pressure to change it.

People are here because the system works. Contraversial posts get attention because the system is working as intended.

The addition of a potentially confusing voting system will not produce an atmosphere for community growth.
I doubt that an individual exists on the planet who would recommend a forum to a friend, based on it's wide range of custom voting options, so they could customize their level of voting interest for each submission.
That's the worst kind of nonsense fluffery.
Can you imagine being asked why you voted a 6, instead of an 8? Who cares about that shit, unless your interested in tracking certain individuals interests, or opinions. This creates an entire new set of risks, that I've described in the past.
We don't want our votes tracked.

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely, and without unnecessary complications.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"The SaidIt voting structure is sound, which is probably why there is pressure to change it."

Now everyone read that again, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO THINK I HAVE OVERREACTED!

"which is probably why there is pressure to change it"

Which is why I resist such change.

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely, and without unnecessary complications.

Agreed.

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

That's flawed logic.

The sky is blue, which is probably why the grass is green.

There's no causality.

I want better voting options. And I want better voting statistics. Not because the structure is sound or because I want to break it or because I want to rig the system.

If a moderately semi-funny meme got a lot of votes and a profoundly excellent article got a lot of votes they may seem equal under the current system.

Under a better voting structure we would see that one was moderate and the other profound.

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

Do you envision the possibility of hierarchical categories of posts? If so, please stop.

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

I hear your opinion and will not obey.

Posts and comments are already hierarchical in a couple ways: Date, Votes, Insightful, Fun

There's already flair for a very limited form of labeling/categorizing.

We've actually discussed categories as a meta-level above Subs to help organize content.

There's even an initial colour-coded category scheme: https://infogalactic.com/info/SaidIt_Subs_Ending_2018

Among all the jibber jabber is great information. And if we can organize it for ourselves and others and the future then all the better.

No one is forcing you to be organized. Don't deny me the option to be.

Organization is good.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

IMDb is not broken with movie rankings 1-10

If we don't try we'll never know. If it sucks ass we can revert.

I agree with him that we could use better voting. I don't exactly align with how he's proposing it.

The second I arrived here 6 months ago I saw there was room for vast improvement to the over simplified Reddit model. If anything it's simplemindedness that has ruined Reddit. Ranked voting is not overly complicated.

potentially confusing voting system will not produce an atmosphere for community growth

Really? You have statistics, studies, evidence, and citations to prove this or is this just a malformed hunch?

Actually I keep recommending more advanced features like on the QxR forum. I even asked if we could port SaidIt to another forum that is still being developed by a wide community - Joomla, Drupal, TikiWiki, CopperMine, etc (the ones I know from 12 years ago - but I'm sure there are newer ones as good or better too).

That's my kind of fluff. Better statiistics.

I've never asked about peoples voting habbits. And I won't if/when we get ranked votes.

I'm not interested in any one person's votes. I'm interested in the hive mind results. Two posts that may get 20 votes now might have very different results with ranked votes. Then you could really separate the cream of the crop.

Sure there will be the few who think their stuff is 10/10 every time. Maybe it won't make a difference or maybe it will be a problem. Maybe it can be solved by turning off self votes or just ignoring them. Or force self-votes to be at 5/10 or maybe it's just the default. There are options and solutions.

We don't want our votes tracked.

"We"? Speak for yourself. And who said anything about that?

(I still don't see why not, but that's not what we're discussing.)

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely,

Yes. It should.

and without unnecessary complications.

Like roadblocks to progress fearful of complications without even seeing them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Edit:. IMDb is a movie rating group. They do not discuss issues that affect state power, or corporate power.
IMDb probably doesn't have a free-speech platform.

Movies are often propaganda devices, so there's probably not a lot of supressive activity.

What rating does the movie "vaxxed" have at IMDb?

We don't want our votes tracked.

"We"? Speak for yourself. And who said anything about that?

Only a handful of people logged in here use their real names. I would consider it reckless, but to each their own.
Many come here because there is no email requirement.

Why do you suppose that is?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Why would IMDB have or need or want a "free-speech platform"? Apples and oranges.

Votes are still votes and whether its simple or complex it can be politicized.

I don't see what the Vaxxed votes have to do with the price of tea in China.

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5562652/ 5.5 / 10 from 3,686 votes.

I bet some are sock puppets. I bet some are brainwashed sheeple. With all the honest votes I bet there are A LOT of 1 star votes who haven't even seen it.

I've seen censorship on the Amazon owned IMDb. I used to read a lot of stuff about the movies I watched. Now I don't watch movies much anymore and certainly don't read IMDb when I have more interesting stuff on SaidIt.

IMDb is full of aliases too.

I don't know what your point is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You had brought up the IMDb voting format and stated that it wasn't broken with it's ratings.

Your follow-up indicates that IMDb has shill vulnerabilities, and suggest that they are likely exploited.

Having acknowledged this; why would we want to expose SaidIt to these same voting vulnerabilities?

These vulnerabilities do not exist with the current system.

We need to remain advocates for maximally resilient submission, commenting, and voting structures.

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

SaidIt already has the same exact vulnerabilities, only different in the tallies.

Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

If anything getting better quality information about the voting process will expose infiltration.

If you see a bunch of 1/10 votes then you know it either sucked or a group is trying to game the system. Knowing that much at least then we can determine ways to solve that. Not knowing may allow unkown problems to fester.

We need to remain advocates for maximally resilient submission, commenting, voting structures, improving the site, and finding new and better ways to be transparent with information and statistics to better defend ourselves and provide quality experience and content.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

SaidIt already has the same exact vulnerabilities, only different in the tallies.

?

If you see a bunch of 1/10 votes then you know it either sucked or a group is trying to game the system. Knowing that much at least then we can determine ways to solve that. Not knowing may allow unkown problems to fester.

These are contradictory statements.

There are obvious differences.

[–]HeyImSancho 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

good post, and way to stand up!

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The features you want are incredibly hard to implement; not impossible, but difficult. We're all working on getting through the list.

Until then, vote how you think is proper, not how people tell you to. It's advice, not instruction, that I give.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry but your tone sucks. Your advice sounds like instruction and I'm guessing what you really want is motivation to be better. I don't think too many here are not trying to do their best. But I do think folks might like motivation to supplement their best.

If you're interested, you could draft up potential posts on the wiki and ask for feedback (or even allow others to work it over - like on Wikipedia) and after folks are done, you feel its done, or some time limit passes then post it. Maybe you'll get a stronger message out. Maybe not. Maybe it's a waste of time and energy. Or maybe its something that can be refined over time.

I'm super glad that you're helping the code.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sorry but your tone sucks.

Thanks! I see that now, rereading what I wrote. Too many people seem to shy away from saying stuff like "your tone sucks", but it's really important.

Maybe when I have more time, I'll see if I can help with the wiki.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't know if it needs help.

I'm suggesting you use it as a tool.

For example take a look at /s/SaidItSurveys/wiki/drafts These are for developing unrefined ideas openly. Some are more finished than others, some are already old news, some are still relevant.

Maybe you and your fan club can discuss and develop your PSA series like this, another way, or not at all. Up to you.

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

I still don't understand what that wiki is and what it's for, but I'll look into it. Thanks!

(This PSA thing isn't supposed to be a series, by the way. It shouldn't need to be.)

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

If it's not obvious then it's not as it should be.

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

I read the index and that cleared things up a bit.