If you disagree with me, discuss it with me.
If you don't care for it, move along.
If I offend, point it out (see above) and perhaps enter into the reply form via a flagging mechanism to make sure "we" can provide oversight. Transparency. Then .. Contrary to some considerations, humans remain fond of social structure. Hubski will not be different than everything that has gone before it. Perhaps you are shooting for an emergent phenomena -- would be interesting -- but very likely "we" will have "our" hands on the console? :) All that said, quite alternatively, I would think downvotes and all the exclusion filters that get applied may be actually OK but only served to the downvoter e.g. my view of hubski is not altered because some influential heavies have downvoted someone to the floor. They can have their filtered hubski and please let me make my own reading and social decisions.
An interesting point. In fact, the direction that Hubski is pointed in seems to reduce the value (if that's what it can be called) of a down-vote filter. That's why it has been on the cutting block before. A bit of punk rock is a good thing. Hubski will not be different than everything that has gone before it. Agreed. The upshot is that we have successes and failures to learn from (and not just the obvious ones). But as you know, Hubski has an inherited framework. This chipping pattern going on is both planned and evolving. That said, I think we can see a faint bit of the form taking shape. BTW, IMHO emergent phenomena are very interesting ones. And why spend such time and effort on something that isn't interesting?
Definitely. I got bitten by the bug in early 90's and was a good customer of AV (publisher of the Santa Fe Institute books :) > And why spend such time and effort on something that isn't interesting? Different kinds of interesting. The interesting thing is the conversations in the community. The interesting thing is the community engine. So here you are, mk, faced with the political reality that governing cliques face in real life: social stability to promote growth, or social adventurism to cure human foibles.
:/ Is there another choice? Perhaps to leave people debating which? Personally, it is the conversations that have most interested me. We've had some good ones, you and I, and it is the potential for those conversations that I find most interesting. That is something that is too difficult to come by, and that is a good measure IMHO. Thanks, btw.
It seems to me the main problem with all these devices is that the handling an edge-case tends to disproportionally affect the nature of the community. (The edge-case is trolls, correct?) It also seems to me that using heuristics and machine learning should be limited to communities that need to scale up dramatically. The human touch -- specially if it is transparent -- certainly can work for a smallish community that intends to grow responsibly. (And here you can parse responsibly in context of balancing issues such as censorship, quality of conversation, etc.) Anyway, you can still try experiments if you expose a UI for members to opt in on trying a new algorithm/look-n-feel. > Personally, it is the conversations that have most interested me. We've had some good ones, you and I, and it is the potential for those conversations that I find most interesting. That is something that is too difficult to come by, and that is a good measure IMHO. Thanks, btw. Thank you! (Sentiment is shared.)
I was pondering this problem. I think that the real problem is spam, -not trolls. Trolls interact at least, and while they bait, I believe that some people actually enjoy being baited just for the love of argument and the chance to sound off. This is not a high or ideal form of discourse, but by the nature of their comments, trolls will not get upvoted in general, so their comments will reside lower on the totem pole. What I am more concerned about is people clogging up the UI with spammy links. Not a problem now, but could be in the future. I think that nixing a downvote button, and having a 'spam' button would suffice. If it's a spammy link, and enough people flag it as spam, then it can get demoted out of view. I think psychologically, naming the button as a spam flagger will reduce the number of people that will 'spite flag' on purpose, and the negation of a post due to being flagged for spam too many times could even be undone by some number of upvotes. It seems like you'd have to fiddle with it a little to get it right, but it seems like it could work in theory. Good posts get upvoted and grab the most mindshare. Trolls receive no (or few) upvotes and receive less mindshare (mitigated only by their trollin skillz), and spam gets flagged out of existence.